MAXIMS VIOLATION OF POLITENESS PRINCIPLE IN THE DIALOGUE OF INDONESIA’S CANDIDATES DEBATE.
MAXIMS VIOLATION OF POLITENESS PRINCIPLE IN THE DIALOGUE
OF INDONESIA’S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE
A THESIS
By
SRI HARTINI
Registration Number: 8136112079
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial
Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Hartini, Sri. Registration Number 8136112079. Maxims Violation of Politeness Principle
in the Dialogue of Indonesia’s Candidates Debate. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics
Study Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan. 2016.
This thesis deals with Maxims Violation of Politeness Principle in Indonesia’s Candidates
Debate. The objectives of the study are to describe the types of maxims violation, to
elaborate the linguistic realization, and reasons of participants violated maxims of politeness
principle. The approach in this study are based on Politeness theory by Geoffrey Leech
(1983); tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. The method of this
research employed qualitative design. The subjects or the data source are taken from
utterances of Presidential Candidates in Dialogue of Indonesia’s Presidential debate . All
written data are the transcriptions of recorded observation and interview. The data are taken
from you tube. The finding prove that four types of Maxims violation are applied by the
President candidates. The writer analyzes that there are 4 maxims are occurred, namely
Agreement maxim( 4 %), Approbation maxim(4 %), Modesty maxim(4 %), and Generosity
maxim(15%). The most dominant violated maxim is Generosity ( 15%) out of the total
numbers of maxims violation found in the dialogue. The reason are the participants tried to
obtain the benefit from the hearer by delivering the questions expecting to cost the hearer.
Key Words: Politeness Principle, Politeness Maxim, tact maxim, generosity maxim,
approbation maxim, modesty maxim, agreement maxim , sympathy maxim, debate.
ABSTRAK
Hartini, Sri. NIM 8136112079. Maxims Violation of Politeness Principle in the Dialogue
of Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates Debate. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik
Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016
Penelitian ini mengkaji Pelanggaran maksim dari prinsip kesopanan yang digunakan oleh
calon presiden. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis
pelanggaran maksim, menggabungkan realisasinya di dalam bahasa, dan alasan peserta
melakukan pelanggaran maksim dari prinsip kesopanan. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam
penelitian ini didasarkan pada teori Kesopanan oleh Geoffrey Leech (1983); tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan desain
kualitatif. Subyek atau sumber data diambil dari tuturan dari calon presiden di dalam dialog
debate presiden Indonesia. Semua data yang tercatat adalah hasil transkripsi dari pengamatan
yang direkam, catatan lapangan dan wawancara. Data yang diambil berasal dari you tube.
Hasil penelitian membuktikan bahwa ada 4 jenis pelanggaran maksim yang dilakukan oleh
calon presiden.Penulis menganalisa ada 4 maksim yang terjadi, yaitu, maksim persetujuan (4
%), maksim persetujuan(4 %), maksim kesopanan (4%), maksim kemurahan hati (15 %).
Yang paling dominan dalam pelanggaran maksim adalah maksim persetujuan (15%0 dari
seluruh jumlah pelanggaran maksim yang ditemukan didalam dialog. Alasan nya adalah
peserta mencoba untuk memperoleh keuntungan dari pendengar dengan menyampaikan
pertanyaan yang diharapkan untuk dihargai pendengar.
Kata kunci: prinsip kesopanan, pelanggaran maksim, maksim kebijaksanaan, maksim
kemurahan hati, maksim persetujuan , maksim kesederhananan, maksim persetujuan ,
simpati maksim, dan debat.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Above all, on the earth, the writer would like to start by thanking to the
Almighty God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit, the most gracious and the most
merciful for blessing her to write this thesis. This study is concerned with Maxims
Violation of Politeness Principle in the Dialogue of Indonesia’s Presidential
Candidates Debate. This study is submitted to Post Graduate School of State
University of Medan in partial fulfillment of the final academic requirements to
obtain the degree of Magister of Humaniora from English Applied Linguistics.
In writing this thesis, the writer faced a lot of difficulty, trouble and
without any help from the following people, it was impossible for her to finish
this thesis. Therefore, the writer would like to thank all the people mentioned
below.
The writer expresses her gratitude to Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A. Ph.d as
her first adviser for her valuable guidance, criticism, consultations and supports
and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., as her second adviser for his valuable
corrections and advices in finishing this thesis.
She also expresses her gratitude to Post Graduate school, Head and
Secretary of English applied linguistics Study Program of State University of
Medan, all lecturers who have equipped her during the times of lecturing and
finishing this thesis.
Special thanks are expressed to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning M. Pd, Prof. Dr.
Sumarsih M. Pd. And Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum as her reviewers and
examiners, for the valuable input to improve this thesis.
A special gratitude delivered to her beloved parents and her beloved sister
and brothers. Drs. P. sihombing, M.P.d., (+) and Mrs. R. Simarmata, my husband
Tigor Silalahi, also my beloved brothers and sister for their sincere prayers, love
and supports in moral and material during her academic year in completing her
study. The almighty God always bless them.
Then, thanks to her friends in LTBI 2013 especially Nurianti, Kak Yenni,
Kak Laura,and Nurmilah who had opened their palm hands encouraging her to
finishing the thesis. Finally, she would like to thanks to her classmates and anyone
who give support in finishing this thesis.
The writer realizes that every work has the weaknesses, hence, she hopes
the good critics and suggestions for the perfection of this thesis. In addition,
hopefully, her thesis is useful for the readers.
Medan, April 2016
The writer
Sri Hartini
Registration Number : 8136112079
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………....
i
ABSTRAK……………………………………………………………………… ......
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………. ....
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................
v
LIST OF TABLE………………………………………………………………. ...... vii
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………….. . viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................
1
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................
1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ..............................................................................
6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ............................................................................
6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ....................................................................................
7
1.5 The Significance of the Study ……………… .................................................
7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................................
8
2.1 Pragmatics ......................................................................................................
8
2.2 Politeness ....................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Maxim ............................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Politeness Principle ........................................................................................ 13
2.4.1 Politeness Maxim ................................................................................... 14
2.5 Grice’s Maxims and Leech’s Maxims…………………………………….. .. 26
2.5.1 Grice Maxims.......................................................................................... 26
2.5.2
Leech Maxims …………………………………………………..... ... 28
2.6 Debate ............................................................................................................. 29
2.6.1 U.S Presidential Debate ……………………………………………. .... 31
2.6.2 Indonesia Presidential Debate…………………………….. .................. 32
2.6.3 International Good Debate ……………………………...................... .. 32
2. 7 Relevant Studies....................................................................................... 33
2.8 Conceptual Framework …………………………………………….. ... 35
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 36
3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................. 36
3.2 The Source of Data ........................................................................................ 36
3.3 The Technique of Data Collection .................................................................. 37
3.4 The Technique of Data Analysis .................................................................... 38
3.5 Trustworthiness of the Study ........................................................................ 39
3.5.1 Credibility ............................................................................................ 40
3.5.2 Transferability ....................................................................................... 40
3.5.3 Dependability ....................................................................................... 41
3.5.4 Conformability ..................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER I DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION .................. 42
4.1Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 42
4.1.1
Maxims Violation of Politeness ........................................... 44
4.1.1.1Violation of Tact Maxim ........................................... 45
4.1.1.2 Violation of Generosity Maxim ................................ 45
4.1.1.3 Violation of Approbation Maxim ........................... 54
4.1.1.4 Violation of Modesty Maxim ................................... 56
4.1.1.5 Violation of Agreement Maxim ................................ 59
4.1.1.6 Violation of Sympathy Maxim ................................ 61
4.2
Findings ............................................................................................... 63
4.3
Discussion
........................................................................................ 64
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ....................................... 67
A. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 67
B. Suggestions .................................................................................................... 68
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 69
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 72
LIST OF TABLE
Pages
Table. 1Types of Violated Maxims ....................................................................... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
pages
Figure 1. The percentage of types of violated maxims .......................................... 62
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix I. Data Condensastion ( utterances) June 9 2014 ………………... 72
th
Appendix II. Data condensastion (Transforming data) June 15th 2014…………
83
Appendix III. Data Condensation( utterances) July 2nd 2014……………….
89
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
By and large, communication is a purposeful activity of exchanging
information and meaning across space and time using various technical or natural
means, whichever is available or preferred (Craig, 1999: 10). Communication makes
information can easily be delivered from the speaker to listener. Communication
requires a sender, a message, a medium and a recipient, although the receiver does
not have to be present or aware of the sender's intent to communicate at the time of
communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and
space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of
communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the
receiver understands the sender's message.
In the communication, politeness is the important aspect in human life, to
make good communication between addressor and addressee. A politeness strategy
uses more respect for other people or their selves. In the communication we can not
convey utterance using politeness strategy, that case may hurt the addressee.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 60), the politeness strategy is used by
addressee to avoid face threatening act toward addressee’s face. According to Brown
and Levinson (187: 60) is FTA (Face Threatening Act). If speakers say something
that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is
described as a face threatening act (Yule. 1996: 61).
People are not always polite or truthful in a conversation. Every conversation
may contain the purpose of the speakers. These purposes can be good or bad from
both of the speaker and listener. According to Peccei (1999: 27), violation is quiet in
the sense that is certain at the time of the utterance that the speaker has deliberately
lied, supplied insufficient information or been ambiguous, irrelevant or hard to
understand (Anneke H 2008: 63). Cook (1989: 31-32) stated that there are five
purposes that can be achieved by violated maxims, namely: to create hyperbole and
irony, to change the topic, to keep secret and to create humor.
According to Ide (1989: 223), violation in politeness aims to save face. It is
something emotionally invested, can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be
constantly attended to in interaction (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 66). Face’, the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two
related aspects:
(a) Negative face: the basic claims to the territories, personal preserves, rights to nondistraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
(b) Positive face: the positive, consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially
including the desire for this self – to be appreciated and approved of) claimed by
interactants.
In other words, it indicates the speaker’s intention as s/he wants to be in a given
situation. While Grice (1975) stated that violation takes place when speakers
intentionally refrain to apply maxims in their conversation to cause misunderstanding
on their participants’ part or to achieve some other purposes in the interaction.
A debate is a brainstorm activity between two or more, each is trying to
influence people to accept the proposal which is submitted (Simon, 2005: 3). Or
debate can be interpreted also as a specific theme disagreement between the
supporters and the buffers through formal organized dialogue (Depdiknas, 2001: 2).
While Andrew (1996: 82) stated debate is a method of interactive and
representational argument. It is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams
or individuals. More broadly, and more importantly, it is an essential tool for
developing and maintaining democracy and open societies. More than a mere verbal
or performance skill, it embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for
divergent points of view and rigorous self-examination. Debate is, above all, a way
for those who hold opposing views to discuss controversial issues without descending
to insult, emotional appeals or personal bias. A key trademark of debate is that it
rarely ends in agreement, but rather allows for a robust analysis of the question at
hand.
The researcher is interested in conducting a study to find out as expressed in
the dialogue of the debate, particularly in presidential debate. We slightly do not see
any politeness principle in any debate; however, it still works in it. She chooses to
analyze since last general election, Indonesians chose their president by making
presidential debate for the first time held by the government.
Dialogue is a conversation in which people think together in relationship
(William, 2008: 19). Thinking together implies that person no longer take his or her
own position as final. He/she relaxes his or her grip on certainty and listens to be the
possibilities that result simply from being in a relationship with others. Dialogue
addresses problem farther upstream than conventional approaches. It attempts to
bring about change at the source of our thoughts and feelings, rather than at the level
of result our ways of thinking produce.
When the researcher watched the “Indonesian Presidential Debate”, she paid
attention to the conversation that happened in there. The conversation in the debate is
similar with the real conversation since it needs good pronunciation, articulation and
voicing to make an interaction among the characters. While the participants
communicate in debate, they use utterances to express what in their mind toward the
listener. Utterance produced by the speaker is not the function to explain in the
speaker’s mind but also means to show the relationship between them as we can see it
in speech act.
The preliminary data taken from written utterances of Indonesia’s Presidential
Candidates Debate, section four, namely the participants give question and answer
each other. The section of question-answer should have describe how someone
respond the question or statement, does s/he speak politely or violate the politeness
principle to achieve her/his purpose, as the example below:
Prabowo
: Jokowi yang saya hormati, saya agak kaget.Dalamkampanye di
Indramayu tanggal 17 Juni.Bapak mengatakan bahwa petani tidak perlu
koperasi.Padahal kita mengetahui bahwa koperasi adalah soko guru bagi
ekonomi bangsa Indonesia. Apa maksud pertayaan ini? Kenapa bapak
katakan petani tidak perlu koperasi.Yakalau kami dengan tegas
mengatakan koperasi vital bagi kehidupan petani-petani dan
nelayankita.Jadi mohon dijelaskan kenapa sampai bapak mengambil
sikap yang seperti itu, menganggap bahwa koperasi itu tidak perlu bagi
petani-petanikita. Terimakasih.
(Mr. Jokowi whom I respect, I am quite surprised. In the campaign in
Indramayu, June 17th. You said that farmers do not need Koperasi. Yet
we know that the Koperasi is the pillar for the economy of Indonesia.
What is the purpose of this question? Why do you say that farmers
should not need Koperasi. Yes, if we firmly say that Koperasi is vital to
the lives of farmers and our fishermen. So please explain why you take a
stand like that, consider that the Koperasi was not necessary for our
farmers. Thank you)
Moderator : Baik, dipersilahkan pak Jokowi – Jk untuk menjawab, waktunya dua
menit, dipersilahkan.
(Well, Mr. Jokowi-Jk, you are welcome to answer in two minutes, please)
Jokowi
: Terima kasih pak Prabowo. Mungkin bapak salah baca atau salah
dengar.Saya kira semua orang tahu bahwa yang namanya koperasi itulah
soko guru ekonomi kita.Semua orang tahu.Jadi tidak mungkin seorang
Jokowi mengatakan seperti itu.
(Thank you Mr.Prabowo. Perhaps you misread or misheard. I think
everyone knows that Koperasi that is the pillar of our economy.
Everybody knows. So it is not possible to say such a Jokowi himself)
To analyze the utterances above, the researcher selected the question of
Prabowo “Kenapa bapak katakan petani tidak perlu koperasi” (Why do you say
that farmers should not need Koperasi) and the response of Jokowi “Mungkin
bapak salah baca atau salah dengar. Saya kira semua orang tahu bahwa yang namanya
koperasi itulah soko guru ekonomi kita. Semua orang tahu. Jadi tidak mungkin
seorang Jokowi mengatakan seperti itu” (Perhaps you misread or misheard. I think
everyone knows that Koperasi that is the pillar of our economy. Everybody knows.
So it is not possible to say such a Jokowi himself). Finding out the purpose of the
Prabowo’s question is firstly done so we can understand why Jokowi answers so. It
is an evident that Prabowo wants to maximize the cost to the hearer and minimize the
benefit to the hearer. He discredits Jokowi by asking why Jokowi stated farmers do
not need Koperasi instead koperasi has been the pillar of Indonesia’s economy as is it
stated in Indonesia’s law. He obviously violates tact maxim.
After reviewing relevant study by Sandra (2001) about Date Night movie, the
researcher found the similarities of kinds of processing analyzing the data namely
selecting, focusing, summarizing, coding, sorting the irrelevant data or even cluster of
themes.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background above, the following questions were forwarded as
the research problems:
1. What are the types of maxims violation occured in the context of politeness
are used by the Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates Debate?
2. How are the violations realized?
3. Why did the participants violate maxims of politeness principle in Indonesia’s
Presidential Candidates Debate ?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation of the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1. to describe the types of maxims violation are occurred in Indonesia’s
Presidential Candidates Debate.
2. to elaborate the linguistic realization.
3.
to reason for the participants why they violated maxims of the politeness
principle in Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates Debate.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This study applies the concept theories of the politeness principle proposed by
Geoffrey Leech (1983). This analysis is pointed to investigate the politeness principle
realized in “Presidential Candidates”, namely subjective/objective explicit and
subjective/objective implicit.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study are expected to offer theoretical and practical
significance.
a. Theoretically
Findings of the study can add up theories of pragmatics particularly those related
to the use of the language outside English. In addition to it, finding of the study
can a reference for further study.
b. Practically
1. The finding can be useful for lecturer to enrich the scientific
knowledge on pragmatics study, especially in the area of politeness.
2. For the student of English department who are interested in politeness
and it has significance as an effort to study discourse analysis through
pragmatic approach.
3. Other researchers to conduct other research on politeness maxim in
doing similar research in future which the finding can give benefit
progress in linguistic field.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
1. Based on the data analysis, research findings, and discussion, there are some
important conclusions are put forward for those who are responsible in using
violation of politeness principle in debate. The important conclusions are made
based on the theory of politeness principle, namely (1) tact maxim, (2) generosity
maxim, (3) approbation maxim, (4) modesty maxim, (5) agreement maxim, and (6)
sympathy maxim.
2. It is known that not all maxims in politeness principle violated by the speaker.
Tact maxim and sympathy maxim were not violated by the speakers, while
violation in generosity maxim was found 7, approbation maxim was found 2,
modesty maxim was found 2, and agreement maxim was found 2.
3. From each kinds of the most dominant violated maxim of politeness principle that
used is generosity maxim which generosity maxim is a way to maintain the
speaker to obtain posisition of circumstance from the hearers by getting benefit of
information or fact without costing himself so that the hearer’s opinion or
argument can be retained in order to win the debate. It means that the most
dominant violated maxim – generosity maxim –is the great action to accomplish
the debate well and to win the audience’s attention.
5.2 Suggestions
1.
In this study can be found that the speaker always placed himself in good
circumstance by violating some maxims in politeness principle.
2. This lesson is advantageous because it can show how the participants of the debate
maintain to win by violating maxims of politeness principle.
3. Based on the the lessons of the pragmatic, this violation of politeness principle can
greatly assist the students to understand why people violate politeness principle.
Violation in politeness principle does not mean being impolite in speaking but to
confirm the ide or opinion, to delivery fact and to achieve the purpose of
interaction particularly in debate.
OF INDONESIA’S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE
A THESIS
By
SRI HARTINI
Registration Number: 8136112079
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial
Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Hartini, Sri. Registration Number 8136112079. Maxims Violation of Politeness Principle
in the Dialogue of Indonesia’s Candidates Debate. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics
Study Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan. 2016.
This thesis deals with Maxims Violation of Politeness Principle in Indonesia’s Candidates
Debate. The objectives of the study are to describe the types of maxims violation, to
elaborate the linguistic realization, and reasons of participants violated maxims of politeness
principle. The approach in this study are based on Politeness theory by Geoffrey Leech
(1983); tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. The method of this
research employed qualitative design. The subjects or the data source are taken from
utterances of Presidential Candidates in Dialogue of Indonesia’s Presidential debate . All
written data are the transcriptions of recorded observation and interview. The data are taken
from you tube. The finding prove that four types of Maxims violation are applied by the
President candidates. The writer analyzes that there are 4 maxims are occurred, namely
Agreement maxim( 4 %), Approbation maxim(4 %), Modesty maxim(4 %), and Generosity
maxim(15%). The most dominant violated maxim is Generosity ( 15%) out of the total
numbers of maxims violation found in the dialogue. The reason are the participants tried to
obtain the benefit from the hearer by delivering the questions expecting to cost the hearer.
Key Words: Politeness Principle, Politeness Maxim, tact maxim, generosity maxim,
approbation maxim, modesty maxim, agreement maxim , sympathy maxim, debate.
ABSTRAK
Hartini, Sri. NIM 8136112079. Maxims Violation of Politeness Principle in the Dialogue
of Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates Debate. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik
Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016
Penelitian ini mengkaji Pelanggaran maksim dari prinsip kesopanan yang digunakan oleh
calon presiden. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis
pelanggaran maksim, menggabungkan realisasinya di dalam bahasa, dan alasan peserta
melakukan pelanggaran maksim dari prinsip kesopanan. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam
penelitian ini didasarkan pada teori Kesopanan oleh Geoffrey Leech (1983); tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan desain
kualitatif. Subyek atau sumber data diambil dari tuturan dari calon presiden di dalam dialog
debate presiden Indonesia. Semua data yang tercatat adalah hasil transkripsi dari pengamatan
yang direkam, catatan lapangan dan wawancara. Data yang diambil berasal dari you tube.
Hasil penelitian membuktikan bahwa ada 4 jenis pelanggaran maksim yang dilakukan oleh
calon presiden.Penulis menganalisa ada 4 maksim yang terjadi, yaitu, maksim persetujuan (4
%), maksim persetujuan(4 %), maksim kesopanan (4%), maksim kemurahan hati (15 %).
Yang paling dominan dalam pelanggaran maksim adalah maksim persetujuan (15%0 dari
seluruh jumlah pelanggaran maksim yang ditemukan didalam dialog. Alasan nya adalah
peserta mencoba untuk memperoleh keuntungan dari pendengar dengan menyampaikan
pertanyaan yang diharapkan untuk dihargai pendengar.
Kata kunci: prinsip kesopanan, pelanggaran maksim, maksim kebijaksanaan, maksim
kemurahan hati, maksim persetujuan , maksim kesederhananan, maksim persetujuan ,
simpati maksim, dan debat.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Above all, on the earth, the writer would like to start by thanking to the
Almighty God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit, the most gracious and the most
merciful for blessing her to write this thesis. This study is concerned with Maxims
Violation of Politeness Principle in the Dialogue of Indonesia’s Presidential
Candidates Debate. This study is submitted to Post Graduate School of State
University of Medan in partial fulfillment of the final academic requirements to
obtain the degree of Magister of Humaniora from English Applied Linguistics.
In writing this thesis, the writer faced a lot of difficulty, trouble and
without any help from the following people, it was impossible for her to finish
this thesis. Therefore, the writer would like to thank all the people mentioned
below.
The writer expresses her gratitude to Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A. Ph.d as
her first adviser for her valuable guidance, criticism, consultations and supports
and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., as her second adviser for his valuable
corrections and advices in finishing this thesis.
She also expresses her gratitude to Post Graduate school, Head and
Secretary of English applied linguistics Study Program of State University of
Medan, all lecturers who have equipped her during the times of lecturing and
finishing this thesis.
Special thanks are expressed to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning M. Pd, Prof. Dr.
Sumarsih M. Pd. And Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum as her reviewers and
examiners, for the valuable input to improve this thesis.
A special gratitude delivered to her beloved parents and her beloved sister
and brothers. Drs. P. sihombing, M.P.d., (+) and Mrs. R. Simarmata, my husband
Tigor Silalahi, also my beloved brothers and sister for their sincere prayers, love
and supports in moral and material during her academic year in completing her
study. The almighty God always bless them.
Then, thanks to her friends in LTBI 2013 especially Nurianti, Kak Yenni,
Kak Laura,and Nurmilah who had opened their palm hands encouraging her to
finishing the thesis. Finally, she would like to thanks to her classmates and anyone
who give support in finishing this thesis.
The writer realizes that every work has the weaknesses, hence, she hopes
the good critics and suggestions for the perfection of this thesis. In addition,
hopefully, her thesis is useful for the readers.
Medan, April 2016
The writer
Sri Hartini
Registration Number : 8136112079
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………....
i
ABSTRAK……………………………………………………………………… ......
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………. ....
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................
v
LIST OF TABLE………………………………………………………………. ...... vii
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………….. . viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................
1
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................
1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ..............................................................................
6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ............................................................................
6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ....................................................................................
7
1.5 The Significance of the Study ……………… .................................................
7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................................
8
2.1 Pragmatics ......................................................................................................
8
2.2 Politeness ....................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Maxim ............................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Politeness Principle ........................................................................................ 13
2.4.1 Politeness Maxim ................................................................................... 14
2.5 Grice’s Maxims and Leech’s Maxims…………………………………….. .. 26
2.5.1 Grice Maxims.......................................................................................... 26
2.5.2
Leech Maxims …………………………………………………..... ... 28
2.6 Debate ............................................................................................................. 29
2.6.1 U.S Presidential Debate ……………………………………………. .... 31
2.6.2 Indonesia Presidential Debate…………………………….. .................. 32
2.6.3 International Good Debate ……………………………...................... .. 32
2. 7 Relevant Studies....................................................................................... 33
2.8 Conceptual Framework …………………………………………….. ... 35
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 36
3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................. 36
3.2 The Source of Data ........................................................................................ 36
3.3 The Technique of Data Collection .................................................................. 37
3.4 The Technique of Data Analysis .................................................................... 38
3.5 Trustworthiness of the Study ........................................................................ 39
3.5.1 Credibility ............................................................................................ 40
3.5.2 Transferability ....................................................................................... 40
3.5.3 Dependability ....................................................................................... 41
3.5.4 Conformability ..................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER I DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION .................. 42
4.1Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 42
4.1.1
Maxims Violation of Politeness ........................................... 44
4.1.1.1Violation of Tact Maxim ........................................... 45
4.1.1.2 Violation of Generosity Maxim ................................ 45
4.1.1.3 Violation of Approbation Maxim ........................... 54
4.1.1.4 Violation of Modesty Maxim ................................... 56
4.1.1.5 Violation of Agreement Maxim ................................ 59
4.1.1.6 Violation of Sympathy Maxim ................................ 61
4.2
Findings ............................................................................................... 63
4.3
Discussion
........................................................................................ 64
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ....................................... 67
A. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 67
B. Suggestions .................................................................................................... 68
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 69
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 72
LIST OF TABLE
Pages
Table. 1Types of Violated Maxims ....................................................................... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
pages
Figure 1. The percentage of types of violated maxims .......................................... 62
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix I. Data Condensastion ( utterances) June 9 2014 ………………... 72
th
Appendix II. Data condensastion (Transforming data) June 15th 2014…………
83
Appendix III. Data Condensation( utterances) July 2nd 2014……………….
89
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
By and large, communication is a purposeful activity of exchanging
information and meaning across space and time using various technical or natural
means, whichever is available or preferred (Craig, 1999: 10). Communication makes
information can easily be delivered from the speaker to listener. Communication
requires a sender, a message, a medium and a recipient, although the receiver does
not have to be present or aware of the sender's intent to communicate at the time of
communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and
space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of
communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the
receiver understands the sender's message.
In the communication, politeness is the important aspect in human life, to
make good communication between addressor and addressee. A politeness strategy
uses more respect for other people or their selves. In the communication we can not
convey utterance using politeness strategy, that case may hurt the addressee.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 60), the politeness strategy is used by
addressee to avoid face threatening act toward addressee’s face. According to Brown
and Levinson (187: 60) is FTA (Face Threatening Act). If speakers say something
that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is
described as a face threatening act (Yule. 1996: 61).
People are not always polite or truthful in a conversation. Every conversation
may contain the purpose of the speakers. These purposes can be good or bad from
both of the speaker and listener. According to Peccei (1999: 27), violation is quiet in
the sense that is certain at the time of the utterance that the speaker has deliberately
lied, supplied insufficient information or been ambiguous, irrelevant or hard to
understand (Anneke H 2008: 63). Cook (1989: 31-32) stated that there are five
purposes that can be achieved by violated maxims, namely: to create hyperbole and
irony, to change the topic, to keep secret and to create humor.
According to Ide (1989: 223), violation in politeness aims to save face. It is
something emotionally invested, can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be
constantly attended to in interaction (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 66). Face’, the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two
related aspects:
(a) Negative face: the basic claims to the territories, personal preserves, rights to nondistraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
(b) Positive face: the positive, consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially
including the desire for this self – to be appreciated and approved of) claimed by
interactants.
In other words, it indicates the speaker’s intention as s/he wants to be in a given
situation. While Grice (1975) stated that violation takes place when speakers
intentionally refrain to apply maxims in their conversation to cause misunderstanding
on their participants’ part or to achieve some other purposes in the interaction.
A debate is a brainstorm activity between two or more, each is trying to
influence people to accept the proposal which is submitted (Simon, 2005: 3). Or
debate can be interpreted also as a specific theme disagreement between the
supporters and the buffers through formal organized dialogue (Depdiknas, 2001: 2).
While Andrew (1996: 82) stated debate is a method of interactive and
representational argument. It is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams
or individuals. More broadly, and more importantly, it is an essential tool for
developing and maintaining democracy and open societies. More than a mere verbal
or performance skill, it embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for
divergent points of view and rigorous self-examination. Debate is, above all, a way
for those who hold opposing views to discuss controversial issues without descending
to insult, emotional appeals or personal bias. A key trademark of debate is that it
rarely ends in agreement, but rather allows for a robust analysis of the question at
hand.
The researcher is interested in conducting a study to find out as expressed in
the dialogue of the debate, particularly in presidential debate. We slightly do not see
any politeness principle in any debate; however, it still works in it. She chooses to
analyze since last general election, Indonesians chose their president by making
presidential debate for the first time held by the government.
Dialogue is a conversation in which people think together in relationship
(William, 2008: 19). Thinking together implies that person no longer take his or her
own position as final. He/she relaxes his or her grip on certainty and listens to be the
possibilities that result simply from being in a relationship with others. Dialogue
addresses problem farther upstream than conventional approaches. It attempts to
bring about change at the source of our thoughts and feelings, rather than at the level
of result our ways of thinking produce.
When the researcher watched the “Indonesian Presidential Debate”, she paid
attention to the conversation that happened in there. The conversation in the debate is
similar with the real conversation since it needs good pronunciation, articulation and
voicing to make an interaction among the characters. While the participants
communicate in debate, they use utterances to express what in their mind toward the
listener. Utterance produced by the speaker is not the function to explain in the
speaker’s mind but also means to show the relationship between them as we can see it
in speech act.
The preliminary data taken from written utterances of Indonesia’s Presidential
Candidates Debate, section four, namely the participants give question and answer
each other. The section of question-answer should have describe how someone
respond the question or statement, does s/he speak politely or violate the politeness
principle to achieve her/his purpose, as the example below:
Prabowo
: Jokowi yang saya hormati, saya agak kaget.Dalamkampanye di
Indramayu tanggal 17 Juni.Bapak mengatakan bahwa petani tidak perlu
koperasi.Padahal kita mengetahui bahwa koperasi adalah soko guru bagi
ekonomi bangsa Indonesia. Apa maksud pertayaan ini? Kenapa bapak
katakan petani tidak perlu koperasi.Yakalau kami dengan tegas
mengatakan koperasi vital bagi kehidupan petani-petani dan
nelayankita.Jadi mohon dijelaskan kenapa sampai bapak mengambil
sikap yang seperti itu, menganggap bahwa koperasi itu tidak perlu bagi
petani-petanikita. Terimakasih.
(Mr. Jokowi whom I respect, I am quite surprised. In the campaign in
Indramayu, June 17th. You said that farmers do not need Koperasi. Yet
we know that the Koperasi is the pillar for the economy of Indonesia.
What is the purpose of this question? Why do you say that farmers
should not need Koperasi. Yes, if we firmly say that Koperasi is vital to
the lives of farmers and our fishermen. So please explain why you take a
stand like that, consider that the Koperasi was not necessary for our
farmers. Thank you)
Moderator : Baik, dipersilahkan pak Jokowi – Jk untuk menjawab, waktunya dua
menit, dipersilahkan.
(Well, Mr. Jokowi-Jk, you are welcome to answer in two minutes, please)
Jokowi
: Terima kasih pak Prabowo. Mungkin bapak salah baca atau salah
dengar.Saya kira semua orang tahu bahwa yang namanya koperasi itulah
soko guru ekonomi kita.Semua orang tahu.Jadi tidak mungkin seorang
Jokowi mengatakan seperti itu.
(Thank you Mr.Prabowo. Perhaps you misread or misheard. I think
everyone knows that Koperasi that is the pillar of our economy.
Everybody knows. So it is not possible to say such a Jokowi himself)
To analyze the utterances above, the researcher selected the question of
Prabowo “Kenapa bapak katakan petani tidak perlu koperasi” (Why do you say
that farmers should not need Koperasi) and the response of Jokowi “Mungkin
bapak salah baca atau salah dengar. Saya kira semua orang tahu bahwa yang namanya
koperasi itulah soko guru ekonomi kita. Semua orang tahu. Jadi tidak mungkin
seorang Jokowi mengatakan seperti itu” (Perhaps you misread or misheard. I think
everyone knows that Koperasi that is the pillar of our economy. Everybody knows.
So it is not possible to say such a Jokowi himself). Finding out the purpose of the
Prabowo’s question is firstly done so we can understand why Jokowi answers so. It
is an evident that Prabowo wants to maximize the cost to the hearer and minimize the
benefit to the hearer. He discredits Jokowi by asking why Jokowi stated farmers do
not need Koperasi instead koperasi has been the pillar of Indonesia’s economy as is it
stated in Indonesia’s law. He obviously violates tact maxim.
After reviewing relevant study by Sandra (2001) about Date Night movie, the
researcher found the similarities of kinds of processing analyzing the data namely
selecting, focusing, summarizing, coding, sorting the irrelevant data or even cluster of
themes.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background above, the following questions were forwarded as
the research problems:
1. What are the types of maxims violation occured in the context of politeness
are used by the Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates Debate?
2. How are the violations realized?
3. Why did the participants violate maxims of politeness principle in Indonesia’s
Presidential Candidates Debate ?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation of the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1. to describe the types of maxims violation are occurred in Indonesia’s
Presidential Candidates Debate.
2. to elaborate the linguistic realization.
3.
to reason for the participants why they violated maxims of the politeness
principle in Indonesia’s Presidential Candidates Debate.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This study applies the concept theories of the politeness principle proposed by
Geoffrey Leech (1983). This analysis is pointed to investigate the politeness principle
realized in “Presidential Candidates”, namely subjective/objective explicit and
subjective/objective implicit.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study are expected to offer theoretical and practical
significance.
a. Theoretically
Findings of the study can add up theories of pragmatics particularly those related
to the use of the language outside English. In addition to it, finding of the study
can a reference for further study.
b. Practically
1. The finding can be useful for lecturer to enrich the scientific
knowledge on pragmatics study, especially in the area of politeness.
2. For the student of English department who are interested in politeness
and it has significance as an effort to study discourse analysis through
pragmatic approach.
3. Other researchers to conduct other research on politeness maxim in
doing similar research in future which the finding can give benefit
progress in linguistic field.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
1. Based on the data analysis, research findings, and discussion, there are some
important conclusions are put forward for those who are responsible in using
violation of politeness principle in debate. The important conclusions are made
based on the theory of politeness principle, namely (1) tact maxim, (2) generosity
maxim, (3) approbation maxim, (4) modesty maxim, (5) agreement maxim, and (6)
sympathy maxim.
2. It is known that not all maxims in politeness principle violated by the speaker.
Tact maxim and sympathy maxim were not violated by the speakers, while
violation in generosity maxim was found 7, approbation maxim was found 2,
modesty maxim was found 2, and agreement maxim was found 2.
3. From each kinds of the most dominant violated maxim of politeness principle that
used is generosity maxim which generosity maxim is a way to maintain the
speaker to obtain posisition of circumstance from the hearers by getting benefit of
information or fact without costing himself so that the hearer’s opinion or
argument can be retained in order to win the debate. It means that the most
dominant violated maxim – generosity maxim –is the great action to accomplish
the debate well and to win the audience’s attention.
5.2 Suggestions
1.
In this study can be found that the speaker always placed himself in good
circumstance by violating some maxims in politeness principle.
2. This lesson is advantageous because it can show how the participants of the debate
maintain to win by violating maxims of politeness principle.
3. Based on the the lessons of the pragmatic, this violation of politeness principle can
greatly assist the students to understand why people violate politeness principle.
Violation in politeness principle does not mean being impolite in speaking but to
confirm the ide or opinion, to delivery fact and to achieve the purpose of
interaction particularly in debate.