An Analysis of politeness strategy in putra nabaabn's interview with barack obama

i

Muh. Shohibussirri, An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababan’s Interview with Barack Obama. Thesis. Jakarta: English Letters Department, Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah, February 2011.

This research is on pragmatics politeness of an interview between Putra Nababan and the United States President, Barack Obama. It is a qualitative

research. The theory used in this study is Brown and Levinson’s politeness

strategy, supported by other theories such as Jonathan Culpeper’s impoliteness

strategy and Spencer-Oatey’s rapport management. The writer researches the

politeness strategies used by Nababan and Obama. The writer also analyzes the relation between power level difference and the choice of strategy.

By applying the theories, the writer knows that the choices of strategies from the participants are in some cases different with the notions given. In this interview, Nababan as a participant with lower power level used more positive politeness strategy. It is different with the notions given in the pragmatics as it is expected that he should use more negative politeness strategy. Even, he performed some impoliteness utterances. Obama as the higher level power participant used negative politeness strategy and tried to treat Nababan as a close friend in some occasions. He tried to be polite during the whole interview. He never spoke

impolitely. It also didn’t suitable with the notions given by pragmaticians. It was

found too that both participants used the strategies as the notions explained in some of their utterances. Some of the notions and the applied strategies were compatible each other. Here, they considered some factors, not just one sole thing, in performing the strategies. Accordingly, some incompatibilities can be analyzed through their considerations. Nababan and Obama put more consideration to their intended goals, the type of activity, the rapport management and their emotional

closenes. Therefore, the power difference didn’t influence the interview much.

But, it did influence little in this interview such as in political questions regarding military assistance.

In conclusion, politeness strategy is not a static matter in communication. It is dependent on the speaker and hearer’s goals. Power is not the only factor influenced a verbal communication although the power level difference of the participants is very apparent.

ii

INTERVIEW WITH BARACK OBAMA

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One (S1)

MUH. SHOHIBUSSIRRI NIM: 107026001371

Approved by:

Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd NIP. 19640710 199303 1 006

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF

HIDAYATULLAH

JAKARTA

2011

iii

The thesis e titled A A al sis of Polite ess “trateg i Putra Na a a ’s I ter ie ith Bara k O a a has ee defe ded efore the Letters a d Hu a ities Fa ult ’s E a i atio Co ittee o April , . The thesis has already been accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of strata one.

Jakarta, April 13, 2011

The Examination Committee

Signature Date

1. Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd (Chair Person) 19640710 199303 1 006

2. Elve Oktafiyani, M.Hum (Secretary) 19781003 200112 2 002

3. Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd (Advisor) 19640710 199303 1 006

4. Dr. H. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd (Examiner I) 19650919 200003 1 002

iv

knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Jakarta, February 01st 2011

v

All praises to Allah, the Almighty, the one who gives us everything we

can’t count, praise to Him for this life, this soul and for guiding us through

Muhammad, PBUH. Peace and salutation may be upon our beloved prophet who guide us to the right path by teaching us all kind of sciences and advising us to learn hard anywhere.

Being student in State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah is more than just a pride, it is an honour. Learning English, Linguistics and Literature with experienced and friendly lecturers in English Letters Department is a prestigious thing in this life. Therefore, the writer would like to express the sincere appreciation, gratitude, and respect to:

1. Dr. H. Wahid Hasyim M.Ag. The Dean of Faculty of Adab and

Humanities.

2. Drs. Asep Saefuddin M.Pd as the current Head of English Letters

Department and the Advisor.

3. Elve Oktafiyani, M.Hum, as the Secretary of English Letters

Department.

4. Hilmi Akmal, M.Hum, Sholikhatus Sa’diyah M.Hum and Zahril Anasy, M.Hum. With them, it is an ease to study English, Linguistics

vi

seventh semester. The writer’s memory of them will never fade away.

The utmost appreciation, gratitude and remark go to the writer’s parent,

H.M Najib and Thohiroh Muhammadun. They are the light in the dark and the only motivator and reason in pursuing the dreams. This thesis and all of the writer’s works are dedicated to both of them. Their guidance, advice, prays, and supports are irreplaceable and unchangeable through the time. The writer will always make them both happy and proud anytime and anywhere. The writer knew

that trying to emulate their passion of “ta’lim wa taallum” and way of life is

impossible, but the writer will always try for that. A thousand of thanks and bows will never ever equal to what both of they did, even, this simple composition dedicated to both of them. Their spoken advice, just once, is far better than this written thing.

To the writer’s best sister, Ala’i Najib and her family, Mahrus El-Mawa,

Obiet, Iyaz and Asa, the writer can’t say anything except thanks for uncounted

stuffs they gave, did, and said. The writer will never be here, will never write this thesis will never be graduated without their supports, assistances, and prays.

To the writer’s best brother, Khoirul Muqtafa, and his family: Husnul Athiyyah and Haidan Ilkiya, the writer thanks very much for any supports, motivations, and helps. They pay a lot of attention and give so much care to the writer in pursuing his dreams including encouraging the writer to be a prolific

vii

spends a lot of times with her, sharing and discussing anything, from A to Z. The achievement of her in academic and non-academic matters inspired the writer a lot. She is one of the best partners in the writer’s life. Next, the writer’s thanks goes to his siblings: Liwa Uddin and his family, Islahul Umam, Abul Fadli and Dhorifah. The distance means nothing because of their care and attention. They are the family who encourage the writer to be the best in education. Thanks for the prayers and supports.

The writer’s appreciation goes to his community mates, best friends in PMII Komfaka: Kak Mpoy, Kak Hani, Cak Billy, Qmonk, Cahya, Ara, Jabbar,

Egi, Taufik, Darwis, Pisces, Syahrul, Thoha and other friends who can’t be

mentioned one by one here. The writer will never forget this brotherhood and

sisterhood. Next, The writer’s best gratitude goes to all his classmates: Eka Sari

Dewi, Meyta Sartika, Jamilah Zahra, Chabibah, Lia and all friends who can’t be

listed in this paper. The writer will always remember all of them. This is a kind of everlasting relationship.

Finally, Thanks to Barack Obama. The writer met him in the University of Indonesia when he began to write this thesis. His eloquent way of speech and his remarks inspired the writer a lot. His interview with Nababan became the subject

of this research due to the figure of him. The writer wouldn’t take this interview

viii

Ciputat, February, 2011

ix

ABSTRACT ... i

APPROVEMENT ... ii

LEGALIZATION………iii

DECLARATION ... iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background of the Study ... 1

B. Focus of the Study ... 5

C. Research Questions ... 5

D. Objectives of the Study ... 6

E. Significances of the Study ... 6

F. Research Methodology ... 6

1. Method ... 6

2. Data Analysis ... 7

3. Unit of Analysis ... 7

4. The Instrument of Research …. ... 7

5. Place and Time……… ... 7

x

2. FTA (Face Threatening act) & FSA (Face saving Act) . 15

3. The Strategies for Doing FTAs ... 18

C. Power and the Choice of Strategy ... 31

CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS ... 37

A. Data Description... 37

B. Data Analysis ... 39

1. Nababan’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy ... 39

2. Obama’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy ... 48

3. Power Difference and the Choice of Strategy ... 53

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. ... 61

A. Conclusions. ... 61

1

A. Background

Human as a social creature interacts each other with some specific rules. There are rules related to horizontal religious practices, rules to vote the tribe leader, rules to give respects to the old people and many others rules. Communication

through language can’t be separated from the rules too. As a consequence, we

have to follow the rules in using language. Some of us avoid speaking the taboo words by using euphemism and some others use indirect speech act if they ask their friends to do something. It is all caused by what so-called rule. Human beings live with rules created by their culture. They will be identified as a member of particular society if they apply the specific rules. The concept of politeness is one of the above discussed rules existed in all societies.

The concept is scientifically studied in pragmatics and sociolinguistics. According to Brown and Levinson, this concept is universal and equal in all speech communities in the world. Members of a society have the same ways to

show politeness to the hearers conceptualized as face.1 Shoshana Blum-Kulka, as

quoted by Eelen, says that the concept is relative, different one another, and

dependent on the culture.2 Therefore, we can’t judge the polite or impolite use of

1

Penelope Brown and Stephen C Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 61-62. 2

language just by one cultural perspective. In inter-cultural communication, it will

cause communication breakdown and misunderstanding.3

In pragmatics, politeness doesn’t mean some social rules practiced in the

society like letting the others go forward first when walking through the door and cleaning the mouth after dinner with serviette. But it means choices made in language usage and in language expressions which show friendliness to the hearers. A case of Margaret Thatcher campaign is a good example of politeness. One day, she campaigned and wanted to show how close she was to the people.

She was standing near a bus saying “I am beginning to feel like a clippie….who

are all doing wonderful job”. It is the phrases chosen intentionally by her to show

her intention. She actually could modify the word “clippie” by phrase such

“selling and clipping tickets”. But she didn’t choose it. Instead, she said “who are all doing wonderful job”. It is the personal choice of her. She did it to show friendliness and her close relationship to the people, especially to the clippie. She wanted to be polite. This case shows how important to be friendly is in the social interaction as we want to be treated by the people the way we treat them. To be friendly and nice to the others or to save the people public self image is a concept

introduced by Brown and Levinson in their politeness theory.4

When people are in verbal interaction, they must understand and recognize

what so-called “face”. It is a concept of Brown and Levinson defined as a person’s

3

Heikki Nyyssonen, Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 167.

4

John Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse: Resource Books for Student (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 44-45.

public self image.5 In using language to communicate, people hope to keep their own self image and their talking partner. This is the basis of face concept.6 The other linguist, Leech, uses different concept to talk about politeness. He proposed

the concept of maxims.7 Both the Brown and Levinson theory and Leech concept

explain the reason in choosing the language expression. Scale is used by Leech8

and sociological variables by Brown and Levinson.9

The object of the research is an interview between Putra Nababan and the United States President, Barack Husein Obama. This is an exclusive interview for the Indonesian media represented by the RCTI journalist with the President in the White House. As an experienced journalist, Nababan is aware of whom he interviewed. He will communicate with the language usage and expressions designed and planned before interviewing. On the other hand, Obama as the President will utter anything without considering any language rules. Obama has the authority to do so.

In this kind of verbal interaction, we can predict how the interview between

them goes using Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. Based on this

perspective, people with higher level of power have more freedom to express anything without strict language rules to people possessing the lower rank of power. Linguistically, there is no need to be polite for the higher. Consequently, Nababan will be polite in using language, while Obama will use the ordinary style of language variety and control the interview. Obama is free to choose any kind of

5

Brown and Levinson (1992), loc. cit.

6

Herbert H. Clark, Using Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 293. 7

Geoffrey Leech, Principles of Pragmatics, (London: Longman, 1983), pp. 79-90. 8

Ibid. pp. 123-126. 9

expression, Nababan will be more careful to utter anything. Obama can interrupt the conversation caused by his authority and Nababan will follow what the President wants to for the sake of gaining information and news. It is the prediction using the concept of pragmatics. Are the ways mentioned above the ways of the real interview done by them?

Nababan’s gratitude in the beginning of this interview is as guessed. When he called Obama “Mr. President”, it is so. Anything goes as predicted. But, the interview isn’t just that simple.

In this interview, Obama as the one in higher power level began his utterances with “please” many times. In the beginning, he let Nababan sit down saying “please sit down”. When confirmed about his postpone on visiting Indonesia, Obama said “Please let them know”. Obama said “please” in other statements

too. Answering Nababan’s question on his friend’s hand breaking incident when

cycling, Obama uttered “please tell him”. Based on both perspectives above,

saying “please” is an expression shows politeness. The speaker here is the President with higher authority rank. So, Obama made expressions politely by using “please” to Nababan, the interviewer with lower level of power.

However, Nababan in some occasions interrupt Obama when on the floor. Even, Nababan asked explicitly to answer the question on military assistance directly while Obama was trying to respond it indirectly. All of above mentioned

ways aren’t compatible with Brown and Levinson concept of politeness.

This interview is very interesting to research. It is caused by Nababan as the media representation agent and Obama as the government leader chose different

ways of speaking, expressing and implementing the politeness rules. The expected politeness strategy is different from the fact in the interview.

The hypothesis proposed is Obama’s emotional closeness to Indonesia. His childhood spent in Menteng Dalam made Indonesia as the integral part of him, as he said in his speech in university of Indonesia some moments ago, not as the other. Therefore, power difference means nothing in relation to the language usage and choice of expression. Nababan, therefore, was considered as a close friend who should be treated intimately. The truth of this hypothesis will be proven in this research.

B. Focus of the Study

This research is limited only in pragmatics analysis of politeness concept. The object of research is the interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Husein

Obama in the White House, March 22nd 2010.

C. Research Question

According to the background of the study, the writer formulates the questions of the research as:

1. What kinds of politeness strategy were chosen by Putra Nababan in

interviewing Barack Obama?

2. What kinds of politeness strategy were used by Barack Obama when

3. How dominant is the power difference influence in implementing politeness strategy in the interview?

D. Objectives of the Study These research objectives are:

1. To know the politeness strategies used when people from different

power level communicate.

2. To know how dominant the influence of power difference is in

interlocutor’s choice of politeness strategy.

E. Significances of the Study

The writer hopes that this research will be:

1. Benefit to theoretical development of politeness concept in pragmatics.

2. Useful to the society in choosing the strategy of communication when

they speak to people with different level power from various cultures.

F. Research Methodology

1. Method

The data in this research is utterances from the interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Obama. Therefore, the qualitative method is used. A research with qualitative method is a research relied on verbal and non numerical

data as the basis of analysis and of solving the problem appears.10

10

2. Data Analysis

The collected data is analyzed using the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson. It is also supported by the theory from Jonathan Culpeper, Geoffrey Leech, Jenny Thomas and Helen Spencer-Oatey.

The process of analysis is in some steps, i.e.: (a) the writer looks for the video of interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Obama and its script (b) The writer watches the video and looks at its script (c) the writer uses the mentioned

politeness theories in analyzing the utterances to know the Nababan’s and

Obama’s strategies of politeness and the power difference influence in choosing the strategy of politeness.

3. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis in this research is the interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Husein Obama.

4. The Instrument of Research

The instrument of the research is the writer himself. The writer analyzes the interview using the mentioned theories of politeness.

5. Place and Time

This research starts on December 2010, at the department of English Letters, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta and will be ended on February 2011.

8

A. The Concept of Politeness and Impoliteness

The politeness term is so confusing. It also causes much misunderstanding. According to Thomas, the only reason is that people have discussed five separate sets of phenomena (deference, register, a real-world goal, a surface level

phenomenon and an illocutionary phenomenon) under the heading of politeness.11

It is interpreted in everyday life as the use of deferential language and expression

of gratitude and apology.12 In common use, the term is associated with

well-mannered behavior and social attributes such as good upbringing and formal

etiquette.13 Generally, it is related to tactfulness, nice and warm welcome in

relationship with others.14 Most socially competent individuals acquire what

so-called a practical sense of politeness from experience.15 In ordinary, daily contexts

of use, members of speech communities are capable of immediate and intuitive assessments of what constitutes polite versus rude, tactful versus offensive

11

Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (Edinburgh: Longman, 1995), p. 149.

12

Helen Spencer-Oatey, Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd ed. (Cornwall: Continuum, 2008), p. 2.

13

Naomi Geyer, Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese (London: Continuum, 2008), p. 1.

14

George Yule, the Study of Language, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 119.

15 _{John Hall, Cicero’s Letters and Linguistic Politeness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),} p. 5.

behavior. All the concepts and the definitions of politeness above are based on the daily usage which is different from the scientific politeness.

Therefore, Richard Watts introduced the dual concept of first and second order of politeness. The first politeness relates to the lay notion of politeness, common-sense, and the daily understanding of what constitutes polite and impolite behavior. The second politeness relates to politeness as a scientific and

theoretical construct.16 It is politeness in the second sense that will be used in this

research.

Politeness is a concept studied in pragmatics and sociolinguistics in the

Anglo-Saxon linguistics tradition.17 Even, this concept is a subject of social

theory.18 Since the appearance of Brown and Levinson’s theory, the scholarly

notion of politeness has become a central topic of inquiry across diverse disciplines (pragmatics, sociolinguistics, social psychology, anthropology and

language acquisition).19 But, it is only politeness in the pragmatics view that will

be applied in this research.

Politeness is an aspect of pragmatics.20 It is a pragmatic phenomenon

which lies not in the form and the words themselves, but in its function and its

intended social meaning.21 Pragmatically, politeness is interpreted as a strategy (or

some) used by a speaker to achieve a variety of goals, such as promoting or

16

Richard J Watts, Politeness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 9-15. 17

Gino Eelen, a Critique of Politeness Theories (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001), p. 1. 18

Richard J Watts (2003), op.cit. p. 10. 19

Naomi Geyer (2008), loc. cit.

20

Saeko Fukushima, Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese, 3rd ed. (Bern:Peter Lang European Academic Publishers, 2003), p. 21.

21

John Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse: Resource Books for Student (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 51-52.

maintaining harmonious relations.22 Just as the definitions of pragmatics vary, so too do the definitions of politeness in linguistics. There are many definitions given by linguists.

According to Arndt & Jenny, as quoted by Eelen, politeness is “a matter of using the right words in the right contexts as determined by conventional rules of

appropriateness.”23 In the opinion of Sachiko Ide, politeness isn’t only about the

way the speaker strategically chooses to treat the hearer, but it is also an inalienable part of the language through which socio-structural concordance is

achieved.24 Quoted by Eelen, Robin Lakoff defines politeness as “a system of

interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the

potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange.”25

Therefore, politeness is an integral part to the people in the daily communication. Every discussion about politeness will inevitably return to the theoretical

framework and to the basic concepts defining the field of politeness studies.26

Politeness can be approached from four various perspectives, viewing it as a means to reduce friction in interaction, as a device for conflict avoidance, as a solidarity-building practice, as a behavior that express positive concern for others

or as a rational behavior aiming to reduce a threat to an speaker or hearer’s face.27

Pragmatics approaches to politeness is limited under four headings: the conversational-maxim view, the conversational contract view, the pragmatic

22

Jenny Thomas (1995), op.cit. pp. 157-158. 23

Gino Eelen (2001), op.cit. p. 15. 24

Ibid. p. 12. 25

Ibid. p. 2. 26

Naomi Geyer (2008), op.cit. p. 11. 27

scales view and the face management view.28 Based on all perspective, politeness on pragmatics will make the communication between the interlocutors go well.

Among the above approaches, the face management view proposed by Brown and Levinson has been the most influential paradigm and the most

comprehensive.29 The theory revolves around the notion of a concept called

face.30 According to Eelen, the central themes of the theory are rationality and

face which are both claimed to be universal features.31The basic concepts of

politeness in this view are:

1. Politeness means minimizing the interlocutor face from threatening

acts (FTA) through some specific strategies.32

2. People use politeness when they are taking another person’s feeling into consideration. People speak or put things in such a way to

minimize the potential threat in the interaction. 33

3. Linguistic politeness is generated in communication by the

individual’s concern with face. Politeness derives from the face-needs of people involved in a social encounter. It is this basic feature of

interaction that generates polite language.34

4. Politeness is the use and the application of communication strategies

intended to maintain mutual face and to achieve smooth

communication, taking into account human relationships.35

28

Jenny Thomas (1995), op.cit. p. 158. 29

Naomi Geyer (2008), op.cit. p. 16. 30

Ibid. p. 4. 31

Gino Eelen (2001), op.cit. pp. 2-3. 32

Bernadette Vine, Getting Things Done at Work: the Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004), p. 35.

33 _{Jo Roberts, “Face Threatening Acts and Politeness Theory: Contrasting Speeches from} Supervisory Conferences,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, vol. 7 (Alexandria: ASCD, 1992), p. 288.

34

John Hall (2009), op.cit. pp. 5-6. 35

Impoliteness is the opposite and the parasite of politeness.36 It is defined as the act or utterance that is face aggravating and attacking in particular context in a conversation. 37 It is also the use of strategies that are designed to create social

disruption. The strategies are oriented towards attacking face.38 In the expression

level, it is one of following types: 39 (1) Snubbing (2) Using inappropriate identity

markers (3) Seeking disagreement (4) Using taboo words, swear or use abusive and profane language (5) Be uninterested, unconcerned and unsympathetic (6) Disassociating from others (7) Threatening or frightening (8) Scorn (9) Explicitly associating the other with negative aspect (10) Criticizing hearer (11) Hindering or blocking such as by deny turn and interrupt.

The researches on impoliteness are less in amount than on politeness.40 This is

why books on impoliteness are rarely found and the theories aren’t as much as on

politeness.

B. The Concept of Face, FTA-FSA, and the Strategies

1. Face in Brown and Levinson Politeness Theory

Politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson is written in their magnum

opus entitled Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. The theory is by

merit of Erving Goffman, a very well-known sociologist, for whom the book of

Brown and Levinson is dedicated. Central to Brown and Levinson’s politeness

36 _{Jonathan Culpeper, “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness,”}

Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 25 (Oxford: Elsevier, 1996), p. 355.

37

Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher (ed.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (Berlin: Mouton, 2008), p. 3.

38

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op.cit. p. 350. 39

Derek Bousfield, Impoliteness in Interaction (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008), pp. 101-127.

40

theory is the concept of face.41 Consequently, if we want to talk about politeness using this theory, we have to analyze the face of speaker and hearer. Face at first is a concept in sociology proposed by Goffman. The concept is then brought to

pragmatics by Brown and Levinson.42

Goffman defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims

for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.”43

Brown and Levinson defines it “the public self-image that every member wants to

claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: negative face and positive face.”44

In pragmatics, George Yule defines the concept of face as a social and

emotional sense owned by anyone and hoped to be recognized by the others.45

According to Jenny Thomas, the concept of face is best understood as every individual’s feeling of self-worth or self-image within politeness theory. This image can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through verbal interaction with

others.46 Seeking for its equivalence, it is translated as “muka” in Indonesian

language by Asim Gunarwan47 and “kehormatan” by Dr. Oka when translating

Leech’s magnum opus.48

41

Jenny Thomas (1995), op.cit. p. 168. 42

Penelope Brown and Stephen C Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 61. 43

Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior (New Jersey: Transaction Publisher, 2005), p. 5.

44

Brown and Levinson (1992), op.cit. p. 61. 45

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 46

Jenny Thomas (1995), op.cit. p. 169. 47

Asim Gunarwan, Pragmatik: Teori dan Kajian Nusantara (Jakarta: Unika Atma Jaya, 2007), p. 12.

48

Geoffrey Leech, Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Penerjemah Dr. M.D.D. Oka, M.A (Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia, 1993), p. 202.

There are two kinds of face in this theory, positive and negative. The word “negative” associated to face is just a term, as the opposite of positive. There is no bad implication in using the word “negative” attributed to face. 49 An individual’s positive face is the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by others. An individual’s negative face is the desire not to be impeded or put upon,

to have freedom to act as he / she chooses.50 Meyerhoff simply explains these two

concepts by examples; “love me, love my dog” for the positive face, “don’t tread

on me” for the negative. 51

It can be concluded that politeness then defined as activity serving to enhance,

maintain or protect face.52 It can also be defined as showing awareness and

consideration for another person’s face.53

Politeness intended to keep the positive face called positive politeness. Politeness used to keep the negative face called

negative politeness.54

Finally, the face is non separable concept to talk about politeness. To judge this utterance is a kind of positive politeness and that expression is the negative one, we have to use the concept of face. It is caused by a simple notion : when people communicate, they want to show and keep their self image, or face.

49

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 50

Jenny Thomas (1995), loc. cit. 51

Miriam Meyerhoff, Introducing Sociolinguistics (New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 85. 52

Florian Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), p. 378.

53

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 54

2. FTA (Face Threatening Act) and FSA (Face Saving Act)

Naturally, there are some inconvenient and uncomfortable utterances for others in communication. By utterances, a speaker can hurt, disappoint or ridicule a hearer. Those then threaten the self-image of interlocutor. Brown and Levinson

use the term FTA or face threatening act to describe the utterances.55 Even, it is

assumed that all linguistic action involves FTA of some kind.56

For example, if a speaker uses the direct speech act to ask a hearer to do something (give me that paper!), the speaker are behaving as if he has more social power than the hearer. If the speaker in the reality hasn’t the power, then the speaker are performing an FTA. An indirect speech act (could you pass me that paper?), removes the assumption of social power. The speaker is only asking if it’s possible. This makes the request less threatening to the other person’s face. Whenever a participant of communication says something that lessens the possible threat to another’s face, it is a face saving act (FSA).57

There are many options that can be used by the interlocutor when communicating. The interlocutor can use any expression he or she wishes to. In accordance to the concept of face, five possible ways can be chosen. Those ways

are:58 (a) do not perform FTA (b) performing an FTA using off-record politeness

(c) performing an FTA with negative politeness (d) performing an FTA with positive politeness (e) performing an FTA with bald-on-record strategy.

55

Brown and Levinson (1992), op.cit. p. 65. 56

Coulmas (2000), op.cit. p. 378. 57

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 58

There are many kinds of FTAs based on Brown and Levinson politeness

theory.59 It can be classified as follows:

a. Acts indicate that the speaker (S) doesn’t intend to avoid impeding

freedom of action of hearer or addressee (H). Those acts threaten the negative face of H. Those acts are:

a.1 Acts predicate some future act of H. Therefore, the speaker puts some pressure on H to do act. Those acts are: (a) Order and request (b) Suggestion and advice (c) Reminding (d) Threats, warnings and dares.

a.2 Acts predicate some positive future act of S toward H. Therefore, the speaker puts some pressure on H to accept or reject them. Those acts are: (a) Offers (b) Promises.

a.3 Acts predicate some S’s desire toward H or his goods.

Therefore, it gives H reason to think that he may have to take action to protect the object of S’s desire, or give it to S:

a) Compliment, expression of envy and admiration (S

shows that he likes H’s possession).

b) Expression of strong emotion to H (such as showing

hatred, anger and lust).

b. Acts indicate that speaker doesn’t care about the feelings and wants of

hearer. Those acts threaten the positive face of hearer. Those are:

59

a) Expression of disapproval, accusation, criticism, complaints, contempt, and insults.

b) Contradictions and challenges.

c) Expressions showing out of control emotions.

d) Irreverence and taboo topics, including acts that are

inappropriate in the context of conversation.

e) Bringing bad news about hearer and good news

(boasting) about the speaker.

f) Talking about emotional or divisive topics (such as the

problems of politics, issues of race, and religion conflicts.

g) Non-cooperation in conversation (such as interruption).

h) Using address terms and other status marked

identification of hearer in initial encounters.

c. Acts offend S’s negative face. Those acts are:

a) Expressing thanks (S accepts a debt, humbles his own

face).

b) Acceptance of H’s thanks or H’s apology.

c) Excuse.

d) Acceptance of offers (the reason is that S feels

constrained to accept a debt).

e) Responses to faux pas of hearer.

d. Acts directly damage S’s positive face. Those acts are:

a) Apologies (the reason is that S indicates his regret in

doing a prior FTA).

b) Acceptance of a compliment ( the reason is that S feels

constrained to denigrate the object of H’s prior

compliment, thus damaging his own face).

c) Stumbling or falling down (it is the physical sign of

FTA. Most of FTAs are in the form of utterances).

d) Self humiliation, acting stupid, and self contradicting.

e) Confession and admission of guilt or responsibility.

f) Emotion leakage and non control of laughter or tears.

3. The strategies for doing FTAs

If someone chooses to do an FTA, specific strategy (or superstrategy in Thomas’ term)60 is needed to maintain or to save the face of hearer. In this theory,

there are four general strategies to perform FTAs.61 Because the politeness in this

theory is related to face management, the strategy chosen by the speaker or hearer to perform FTA linguistically shows the politeness.

As explained above, Brown and Levinson state explicitly that there are two kinds of politeness; positive and negative. Thomas Jenny then says that there

is off record politeness in their theory.62 Culpeper adds it by stating that bald on

60

Jenny Thomas (1995), loc. cit. 61

Brown and Levinson (1992), loc. cit. 62

record is a kind of politeness in some circumstances.63 Even, according to him, Brown and Levinson imply that there is a so-called withhold politeness in the

theory, which defined as politeness strategy where it would be expected.64

Therefore, by combining all perspectives, it can be concluded that there are five kinds of politeness in Brown and Levinson theory.

For example, a male first year student calling to female first year student

whom he didn’t know in their college bar during the language festival day with

“Hey, blondie, what are you studying, then? French and Italian? Join the club!”. Here, the male empoyed three positive politeness strategies ; use in-group identity markers (blondie), express interest in H (asking her what she is studying), and

claim common ground (join the club!).65 the male then show positive politeness.

Here are the list of strategies to show those kinds of politeness :

a. The strategies to show bald on record politeness

Culpeper states that “Bald on record is a politeness strategy in fairly specific

circumstances. For example when face concerns are suspended in an emergency, when the threat to the hearer’s face is very small (e.g. come in / do sit down) or when the speaker is much more powerful than the hearer (e.g. stop complaining said by a parent to a child). In all cases, little face is at stake and it isn’t the intention of the speaker to attack the face of the hearer.”66

63

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op.cit. p. 356. 64

Ibid. p. 358. 65

Jenny Thomas (1995), op.cit. p. 172. 66

b. The strategies to show positive politeness

There are fifteen strategies used to show positive politeness based on the

theory. 67 The strategies are listed as follow:

1. _{Notice and attend to hearer (his interests, wants, needs and goods)}

The speaker pays attention to the condition of the addressee and makes

specific expression. The condition of hearer here can be the addressee’s interest to

something, his physical appearance change or his possessions. For example:

a) What a beautiful vase this is! Where did it come from?

b) Goodness, you cut your hair! By the way, I came to borrow some

flour.

2. _{Exaggerate (interest, approval and sympathy with hearer)}

To exaggerate expression in conversation is a sign of enthusiasm shown by the interlocutor. The way of exaggeration is by giving different intonation, tone and other prosodic features. Speaker also can use the intensifying modifier. For example:

a) What a fantastic garden you have!

b) Yes, isn’t it just ghastly the way it always seems to rain just when you’ve hung your laundry out!

c) How absolutely extraordinary!

67

3. _{Intensify interest to hearer}

This strategy is by involving the addressee in the conversation. The speaker shows that he will be glad if the addressee takes part in the communication. For example:

a) I come down the stairs, and what do you think I see?----a huge

mess all over the place, the phone’s off the hook and clothes are

scattered all over.

4. _{Use in-group identity markers}

The next strategy is by using specific variety of language called markers. Address form, dialects, jargon, slang and elliptical form are markers used in the communication. In English, the address forms usually used are mac, mate, buddy, pal, honey, dear, duckie, luv, babe, mom, blondie, brother, sister, cutie, sweetheart, guys and fellas. Mentioning the brand of a product is considered using slang. For example:

a) Come here, honey.

b) I came to borrow some Allinsons if you’ve got any.

c) Lend us two bucks then, wouldja mac?

d) Mind if I smoke?

e) How about a drink?

5. _{Seek agreement}

Agreeing with the addressee’s statement is a sign of positive politeness. This

strategy is usually used in two ways. First, it is by seeking the safe way by some specific expression. Second, it is by repetition. For example:

a) A: I had a flat tyre on the way home. B: Oh God, a flat tyre!

b) (A neighbor is coming home by driving a new car causing

pollution) Isn’t your new car a beautiful colour?

6. _{Avoid disagreement}

As mentioned above that agreement of speaker to the addressee’s utterance is

a strategy, avoiding disagreement to something very principal and intolerable which expressed directly is also the way to show positive politeness. There are four ways can be used here. First, it is by false agreement. Second, speaker can express pseudo-agreement. Third, it is by unclear opinion using hedge. Fourth, speaker can make white lies, lying for the sake of goodness. For example:

a) A: And they haven’t heard a word, huh?

B: Not a word. Not at all. Except Mrs Holmes maybe.

b) Yes I do like your new hat ! (Its design and color are very bad).

c) I really sort of think…

7. _{Show common ground}

Common ground is something which speaker and the addressee have in common. It can be something they like, they know or they want. In communication, preferring to express and talk with common ground is an important way to show politeness. Guessing the common ground from the gesture of participant, asking it and stating it directly are the ways to know the common ground between two interlocutors. For example:

b) A: Oh this cut hurts awfully, Mum. B: Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know.

8. _Joke

In some contexts, making a joke in conversation is a way to be polite to the addressee. For example:

a) How about lending me this old heap of junk?

9. _{Show speaker}’s _knowledge and concern for hearer’s wants

By this strategy, the speaker expresses his understanding to the addressee’s

wants. For example:

a) I know you love roses but the florist didn’t have any more, so I

brought your geraniums instead.

10. _{Offer and promise}

Speaker can be considered polite if he offers or promises something to the hearer. For example:

a) I’ll drop by sometime next week.

11. Be optimistic

By expressing what the wants with optimistic voices, a speaker applies the strategy of positive politeness. For example:

a) You’ll lend me your lawnmower for the weekend, I hope. b) Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I borrow your typewriter.

12. Include both speaker and hearer in the activity

If the speaker is in a room with the addressee and wants to do something, he may invite the hearer to participate without considering the responses that will be

given. By inviting, the speaker uses a specific way to show the politeness. For example:

a) Lets have a cookie, then.

b) Give us a break.

13. Tell or ask for reason

If we ask the others to join us in doing something, we can ask the reason, by

using the word “why” in the beginning of talk. It is one of many ways to show the

positive politeness. For example:

a) Why not lend me your cottage for the weekend?

b) Why don’tt we go to the seashore!

14. Assume reciprocity

In communication, the speaker sometimes wants the hearer to do something advantageous to him. It will be considered polite if the speaker tells the hearer what he will do to the hearer as the gift. It is called reciprocity. For example:

a) I’ll do X for you if you do Y for me.

b) I did x for you last week, so you do Y for me this week.

15. Give gifts to hearer in the form of goods, sympathy, understanding and

cooperation in conversation.

The last strategy to show positive politeness is by giving the hearer sympathy, any kind of presents and cooperating in doing or talking something. For example:

c. The strategies to show negative politeness

There are ten strategies used to show negative politeness according to

Phenelope Brown and Stephen C Levinson theory.68Those strategies are:

1. Be indirect

Expressing an FTA indirectly is the first strategy to show negative politeness. For example:

a) Can you please pass the salt?

2. Using question and hedge

Rather than using statement or imperative, we can be polite by formulating our expression in the question. To show politeness in statement, we can use

hedge. Hedge can be “sort of, regular, true, rather, pretty and quite”. The point is

we use particle, word or phrase modifying the level of predicate or noun phrase. The modification will make the level of utterances is only partial, true in some aspects, or more true and complete than what predicted before. For example:

a) This paper isn’t technically social anthropology.

b) A swing is sort of a toy.

3. Be pessimistic

In positive politeness strategy, we should express something optimistically. Here, in negative politeness, we should be pessimistic whether the hearer wants to do what we ask or not. For example:

a) You couldn’t possibly lend me your lawnmower, could you?

68

4. Minimize the imposition

When we ask the hearer to do something, or give his/her possession, it means we are imposing him/her through language, as if we gave him/her a weighing burden to follow our utterances. This situation is considered hard to the addressee. Therefore, we should use this strategy to be polite. For example:

a) I just want to ask you if you could lend me a single sheet of

paper.

b) I just dropped by for a minute to ask if you….

5. Give deference

Through the medium of language, we can be deferent to the hearer. We can show our respect to the addressee by our expression. For example:

a) We look forward very much to dining with you.

b) The library wishes to extend its thanks for your careful selection

of books from your uncle Dr Snuggs’s bequest.

6. Apologize

One way to be polite is by making an apology to the hearer. It isn’t only the

word apology and all its derivative forms that can be used, but we can also express it by the word “forgive”, “sorry”, and by any other verbs implicitly. For example:

a) Look, I’ve probably come to the wrong person, but..

b) I hate to intrude, but..

c) I normally wouldn’t ask you this, but..

7. Impersonalize speaker and hearer

Impersonalizing means making the person with whom we communicate unmentioned. We can use the word “it” or by not mentioning him. For example:

a) It is so (from “I tell you that it is so”).

b) Do this for me (from “I ask you to do this for me”).

8. State the FTA as a general rule

Rather than mentioning the addressee directly, we can generalize the expression when we ask him to follow what we say. For example:

a) Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train

(from “you will please refrain from…).

b) International regulations require that the fuselage be sprayed

with DDT (from “I am going to spray you with DDT to follow

international regulations).

9. Nominalize

According to this theory, by nominalizing the expression -make it on the form of nominal phrase, not on verbal or clause form- the interlocutor shows the negative politeness. For example:

a) Your good performance on the examinations impressed us

favourably (Compared to : you performed well on the examinations and we were favourably impressed).

10. Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting hearer

Here, the speaker request or offer something on record. If the request is done, the speaker should feel as if he received a debt from the hearer. When the hearer asks something, the speaker does it as not indebting the addressee. For example:

a) I could easily do it for you.

b) It wouldn’t be any trouble, I have to go right by there anyway.

d. The strategies to show off-record politeness

There are fifteen strategies to show off-record politeness in Brown-Levinson theory.69 It is listed as follows:

1. Give hints

When you want your friend to shut the windows, you can say “it’s cold in here”. Your utterance is a hint for the hearer to shut the window. “let’s leave the theatre” then can be changed into “what a boring movie”.

2. Give association clues

To borrow hearer’s swimming suit, you can say “oh God, i’ve got a headache

again”. It is when you and the hearer have the association of headache with borrowing swiming suit.

3. Presuppose

To criticize your lazy roommate, you can say “i clean our room again today”.

By using the word “again”, it means you are the one who clean the room

previously, and now you want your friend to clean it.

69

4. Understate

Understatement are one way of generating implicatures by saying less than is required. It is then considered off-record politeness. For example:

a) What do you think of Harry?

b) Nothing wrong with him (this means : i dont think he’s very good).

5. Overstate

If you give information more than what is needed, you are using this fifth strategy called overstatement. For example: i tried to call a hundred times, but there was never any answer (it means conveying an apology for not getting in touch).

6. Use tautologies

Tautology means uttering patent and necessary truth. For example: “your

clothes belong where your clothes belong, my clothes belong where my clothes

belong. Look upstairs!” (it is a criticism).

7. Use contradictions

By stating two things that contradict each other, you can’t be telling the truth.

It is a way to be polite. For example:

a) Are you upset about that?

b) Well, yes and no (conveying a complaint or a criticism)

8. Be ironic

You can say the opposite of what you meant when speaking to someone, and it is a kind of strategy. For example: “John’s a real genius” (after john has just done twenty stupid things in a row).

9. Use metaphor

To say that your friend is slimy, you can use “Harry is a real fish”. It is a kind of metaphor that used to show off record politeness.

10.Use rhetorical questions

It is a kind of question that leave its answer hanging in the air. For example: “what can i say?” ( to say nothing, it is so bad).

11.Be ambiguous

When you say something ambiguously, it means you try to be polite. For example: “John is a pretty smooth cookie” ( an insult).

12.Be vague

The twelfth strategy is by expressing something vaguely. For example :”i am

going down to the road for a bit” (euphemism for to the local pub).

13.Overgeneralize

The next strategy is by not mentioning the hearer name or adressing him directly. For example: “Mature people sometimes help do the dishes” ( to ask help for your adult friend).

14.Displace H

This strategy can be exampled in a case where you ask the secretary to pass

the stapler, but a professor is much nearer to the stapler you ask for. You say “the

secretary, pass me the stapler, please”. The professor then pass it to you and the secretary does nothing.

15.Be incomplete by using ellipsis

Elliptical utterances are legitimated by various conversational contexts. A student can ask permission to leave the classroom from his teacher by “oh sir, a

headache....” Here, the speaker intentionally expresses his statement incompletely.

It is considered as politeness strategy when the speaker is aware of using the ellipsis. When it is caused by lack of grammar ability, it is absolutely not included in off record politeness strategies.

By inverting the politeness paradigm of Brown and Levinson, Spencer-Oatey argues that Culpeper independently develops a framework specifically addressing

impolite behavior.70 Culpeper states that “each of politeness strategies has its

opposite impoliteness strategies. They are opposite in terms of orientation to face. Instead of enhancing or supporting face, impoliteness strategies are a means of attacking face.”71

There are five kinds of impoliteness with their own specific strategies.72 It is: (1) Bald on record impoliteness (2) Positive impoliteness (3) Negative impoliteness (4) Sarcasm / mock politeness (5) Withhold politeness.

C. Power and The Choice of Strategy

Power is conceptualised as the powerful agents’ capacity to realise their will over the will of powerless people, and the agents’ ability to force them to do

things which they don’t want to do. Power is also seen as a possession. It means

70

Spencer-Oatey (2008), op.cit. p. 146. 71

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), loc. cit. 72

something which is held onto by those in power and which those who are

powerless try to wrest from their control.73

According to Michel Foucault, as quoted by Mills, power must be analysed as something which circulates, or as something which only functions in the form of chain. Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organization. So, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application. Based on Foucault, power defined as something which is performed. It is something like a strategy. Power ought to be seen as a verb rather than a noun. It is a thing that

does something, rather than something which is held onto.74

Norman Fairclough believes that there is a connection between language use

and power.75 “We live in a linguistic epoch”, he said.76 His statement shows how

important the language in this era is. He thinks that language has become the primary medium of social control and power. Then, he states that there is widespread underestimation of the significance of language in the production, maintenance and change of power. He assumes that language contributes to the

domination of some people by others.77

Politeness is a very relevant issue when considering power.78 Culpeper states

“The fact that impoliteness is more likely to occur in situations where there is an

imbalance of power is reflected in its relatively frequent appearance in courtroom

73

Sara Mills, Michel Foucault (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 34-35 74

Ibid. p. 35. 75

Norman Fairclough, Language and Power (London: Longman, 1989), p. 1. 76

Ibid. p. 3. 77

Ibid. p. 1. 78

discourse. The witness has limited capacity to negotiate face wants, whereas the

barrister has almost unlimited capacity to threaten and aggravate the face.”79

The relation between power and the politeness in conversation can be manifested in these notions:

a) Linguistically, in the politeness theory, less powerful speakers are

expected to be more polite, while more powerful speakers are allowed to be less polite.80

b) It is people with lower status and less dominant role who use more

indirectness and more negative politeness features than those with

higher status. Bald on record are used by people with power.81

c) A powerful participant has more freedom to be impolite, because he /

she is able to reduce the ability of the less powerful participant to retaliate with impoliteness through the denial of speaking right. He / she can also threaten more severe retaliation if the less powerful

participant be impolite.82 The utterances will be less polite if the S and

H have a little difference of power.83

In a hospital, a doctor has more power than the patient. The doctor knows about medicine and the patient doesn’t. The doctor is in a position to determine

how a health problem should be dealt with and the patient isn’t. It is right that the

79

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op.cit. p. 354. 80

Bernadette Vine (2004), loc. cit.

81

Cutting (2002), op.cit. p. 53. 82

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), loc. cit.

83

Rahardi Kunjana, Pragmatik : Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia (Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga, 2006), p. 66.

doctor should make the decisions and control the course of the consultation and of

the treatment, and that patient should comply and cooperate.84

In a classroom, a lecturer is superior in power to the student . The police is more powerful than a doctor breaking the law in the street. In another occasion,

the police has no strong power in the hospital when sick.85 Therefore, in a

classroom, the student will be polite if they speak to the lecturer. The police will talk in ordinary way, or even less polite, in the street to the law breaking driver and rider.

Brown and Levinson explain that there are some factors influencing the choice of strategy called sociological variables. On the other hand, Leech uses the scale of pragmatics in his theory. Spencer-Oatey proposes rapport management strategy.

In sociological variables, there are three factors influencing the strategy, as

stated explicitly by Brown and Levinson.86 The factors are the social distance of

speaker and hearer, the relative power of speaker and hearer, the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture. Based on this perspective, power of speaker and hearer is an important element in the communication process which will influence the conversation.

According to Leech, there are five scales used to measure the politeness of

speaker or hearer in verbal behavior.87 It is as follows :

84

Norman Fairclough (1989), op.cit. p. 2. 85

Kunjana Rahardi (2006), op.cit. p. 69. 86

Brown and Levinson (1992), op.cit. p. 74. 87

1. Cost-Benefit scale: it represents the cost or benefit of an act to Speaker (S) / Hearer (H).

2. Optionality scale: it indicates the degree of choice permitted to S /

H by a specific act.

3. Indirectness scale: it indicates the amount of inferencing required

of the hearer in order to establish the intended speaker meaning.

4. Authority scale: it represents the status of power relationship

between S and H.

5. Social distance scale: it indicates the degree of familiarity between

S and H.

Although what Leech proposed above is more complex than Brown and Levinson’s variables, the two have something in common in relation to the power. It is approved in their theory that power or authority has a role in communication between S and H. The power will influence the S and H in some ways.

The more elaborative and more complex explanation regarding this issue is what Helen Spencer-Oatey conceptualizes. She proposes rapport management. It is related to face management, but it is broader. It examines the way that language

is used to show politeness, to manage the sociality rights and interactional goals.88

There are many factors influencing the choice of strategy. It is as follows:89

1. Rapport orientation (to strengthen harmonious relation between the

interlocutor, to protect or maintain it, to neglect the concern / interest in it, or to impair).

88

Spencer-Oatey (2008), op.cit. p. 12. 89

2. Contextual variables (participants and their relations which is related to power and distance, message content or cost-benefit considerations, interactional roles, activity type, overall assessments of context).

3. Pragmatics principles and conventions.

In conclusion, the three perspectives of the influencing factors above complete each other and will be combined in analyzing the relation between power and politeness.

37

A. Data Description

The interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Obama was in the

White House on March 22nd 2010. The data is in the form of utterances. Below

are the utterances from both participants and the performed FTAs.

No Participant Utterance FTA

1. Putra

Nababan

Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?...This is quite good i think, banyak latihan? Do you have practiced with...?

Request (personal information)

Are you still on the plan? Request

We can find you becak if you come on in summer! Promise, Reminding I think they have been preparing for you, even

your SD Asisi, SD Menteng they all preparing, I

dont know how they gonna take it

Reminding, Bringing bad news

There is still prevailing scepticism that you will be unable to act on your stance

Bringing bad news

what life lesson do you take from your experience in Indonesia that help make you the person you are today?

Compliment

You tickled him from the back! Accusation

Is this include the military assistance? Interruption

Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and Gareng is your favorite?...And Gareng and Petruk?.... Do you really memorize Pancasila?... You don’t?... That’s i have to confirm. Is it true that you like nasi goreng and Bakso?... You listen that?

Request

You mention about people to people, many Indonesians have high expectation that US under your leadership succesful implementing that the two state solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, is this realistic expectation?

Raising divisive topic

classmates to get their attention?

Sampai Jumpa di Jakarta Reminding

You have maybe your favorite sentence that you remember, that you know?

Nasi goreng?

So, you are telling the Indonesian people through me that you are not coming on this Tuesday but instead you are going this summer?

You bring family?

Request

Aside from financial intelligent assistance that US giving, what kind of cooperation that US would give to rise out the root of terrorism in Indonesia? The last one, is it true you wrote a poem stating that your dream is to become a President?

Request

Do you remember breaking someone’s arm? Raising Dangerous Topic

You tickled the guy? Request

2. Barack

Obama

I mean, the truth is i have so many good memories of Indonesia and it is such a special place to keep in my mind

Bringing bad news

i think it makes more senses to me to delay the trip until summer, until sometime in June

Bringing bad news

Please let them know, i gonna let them know through you, i dont want to dissapoint any body

Order It is comprehensive, so, in my conversation with

President Yudhoyono and our team we want to create comprehensive partnership that include political and security issues, include economic and

technological issues, …obviously Indonesia is a

major force in southeast asia....(still on the floor)

(then interrupted by Nababan)…The assurance of

military assistance? Obviously, there has been some controversies in terms of military assistance in the past, but since the advant of democracy in Indonesia that we’ve seen,

Bringing bad news

Well, i think we have to acknowledge those past human right abuses existence and so we can go forward without looking back out some...and understanding that enormous problem, not just for America but also for Indonesian people

Bringing bad news

Well, i think there is combination of things, i think that there are a lot of countries that have poverty

but don’t have terrorism

Disagreement

Please tell him that i apologize for that, i felt so bad, i remember, feeling terrible

Nababan and Obama made utterances in the form of questions and statements. Through their words, the writer analyzes the strategies employed. It is not only Brown and Levinson theory that used, but also the supporting theories from Jonathan Culpeper, Thomas Jenny and George Yule. Then, the writer analyzes the difference of power level influence in their communication using

Spencer-Oatey perspective, combined with the Brown’s sociological variables and

Leech’s scale.

B. Data Analysis

1. Nababan’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy

It was clear that Obama’s visit to Indonesia became the headline of

Indonesian mass medias at that time. RCTI as one of the popular Indonesian television wanted to get the full news of Obama, not only his departure from America, but also the commentaries of American people on their President, his childhood and Indonesia. Through Nababan, RCTI got a rare chance to interview the President in the White House, and it was broadcasted. This broadcasted interview was viewed by many Indonesian people and it got a lot of comments. Nababan began the interview by greeting and some small talks.

After the greeting and some small talks in the White House, Nababan asked Obama:

“Yes, you know Mr. President, i have been here for almost 48 hours and i felt the tense, the atmosphere of politics, national politics in America, i just wondering are you, i learnt that you postponed the trip to Indonesia for three days and we know that to Indonesia, you are leaving Sunday

morning and we will expecting you on thursday, are you still on the

plan?” (p. 68)

Requesting personal information is a kind of face-threatening act (FTA). Hence, Nababan threatened the positive and negative face of Obama by “are you still on the plan?”. Nababan performed FTA. But Nababan used a specific strategy before

requesting. First, Nababan showed deference to Obama by calling him “Mr.

President”. It is a kind of deference by mentioning tittle and name in addressing the hearer. Here, Nababan employed negative politeness strategy. Second, Nababan told Obama that he felt what Obama felt as the President: the political tense of United States at that time. It was not only Obama and the Congress that felt it, Nababan did too. In Brown and Levinson theory, it is called assertion of common ground by giving empathy. It is a strategy used to show positive politeness. Here, Nababan used negative and positive politeness strategy to perform FTA.

It was one of the RCTI’s goal through Nababan to get the assurance of

Obama’s visit to Indonesia. Therefore, Nababan asked the matter directly to

Obama. Getting the prompt answer from Obama that the visit was postponed, Nababan then got a story of Obama childhood in Indonesia. Nababan listened it and then said:

“We can find you becak if you come on in summer!" (p. 70)

It was not a question, but a promise using the first conditional sentence pattern. Nababan promised Obama to find him becak when going to Indonesia. Promise is a kind of FTA. By making a promise, Nababan threatened the face of Obama. Here, he also threatened by reminding. Nababan reminded Obama that although

he had postponed the visit to Indonesia at this time, he have to come sometime in June, in summer. Nababan threatened Obama’s face twice. Fortunately, Nababan expressed those in the intonation of joke, by smiling and laughing. Showing a joke, in this theory, is a kind of strategy to show positive politeness.

In another occasion, Nababan reminded Obama again about the visit that just postponed. But at this time he used different strategy. He opted to employ off record politeness strategy.

“I think they have been preparing for you, even your SD Asisi, SD Menteng they all preparing, i dont know how they gonna take it” (p. 71)

Nababan reminded Obama about his planned visit through the preparation that just done by the students of SD Menteng. Here, Nababan also performed another FTA. He gave a bad news to Obama. It was about the dissapointment of SD Asisi students that had prepared many things to welcome Obama and he put it off. Giving bad news to the hearer is a kind of FTA. The strategy used here by

Nababan is off record. He didn’t say that the students would absolutely

dissapointed hearing this news. But he said “i dont know how they gonna take it”.

Obama knew what implied by Nababan statement. Accordingly, he told Nababan

that actually he didn’t want to dissapoint anybody by postponing the visit. Obama

then asked Nababan to inform the reason to the people of Indonesia.

“Please let them know, i gonna let them know through you, i don’t want to

dissapoint any body. The only reason that we delay, we decided to delay, is because the most important domestic priority were in the US is going to be voted on this weekend or early next week and i have to be here. Unfortunately, i dont have control over the legislature schedule, i am not

The RCTI journalist used different strategy in giving other bad news to the US President in this interview. Nababan told Obama that there was scepticism prevailed for people in relation to the US policies to the Muslim world. The

people hesitated and questioned “will the policies be influenced by his Jewish

campaign funding agent or purely by his own stance?”

“Mr. President, there is still prevailing scepticism that you will be unable to act on your stance to rise out the muslim world, how do you respond to

this?” (p. 73)

Here, Nababan used the negative politeness strategy by mentioning Obama’s tittle as address form. Nababan showed deference before giving bad news and questioned.

In this short interview, Nababan thought that Obama was an excellent person who became a leader of super power country. He complimented Obama.

“My last question Mr. President, what life lesson do you take from your experience in Indonesia that help make you the person you are today?” (p.76)

Nababan through off record politeness strategy praised Obama by saying “make you the person you are today”. It was an implied compliment. Nababan would not ask Obama any life lesson he got from Indonesia if Obama was not an excellent person. It was not a life lesson which would be asked if Obama was not a to-be-emulated figure, or he was just an ordinary one. Nababan questioned Obama because Obama had the quality of a succesful person. In this utterance, Nababan was not only performing FTA by giving compliment, but he also asked about personal information that threatened both positive and negative face of the President. In doing this, Nababan employed two strategies simultaneously. First,

by showing deference. Second, by minimizing imposition which is shown by the phrase “my last question”. It is true that this was not the last questions for Obama, but there were many following questions aftermath. The two strategies used by Nababan are to show negative politeness.

In this widely broadcasted interview, Nababan asked many personal information of Obama.

“To confirm that some stories that you know when around in the country

because you are so famous in the country, it is just gonna be quick and be quick answer. Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and Gareng is your favorite?...And Gareng and Petruk?.... Do you really memorize

Pancasila?... You dont?... That’s i have to confirm. Is it true that you like nasi goreng and Bakso?... You listen that?” (p. 76-77)

Nababan used many different strategy to perform this FTA. He exaggerated the

status of Obama in Indonesia by using intensifying modifier : “so famous”. Then,

Nababan minimized the imposition by stating that these questions going to be quick, and not in detailed ways. He also used in-group identity markers by expressing the food terms that mostly only known by the people of Indonesia.

Nababan also applied the strategy of joke to show positive politeness when requesting the other personal information of Obama.

“Is it true that you used to tease your female classmates to get their attention?” (p. 77)

Nababan asked the Obama naughtiness when in Indonesia: teasing his female classmate. By the intonation, Nababan questioned it in a relaxed way, as if it was

a real funny thing, not a mistake. Obama responded it two times. He said he didn’t

Before leaving the White House, Nababan reminded Obama that he still have to visit Indonesia next time. Nababan threatened the face of Obama through the statement below.

“Sampai Jumpa di Jakarta !” (p. 78)

Nababan used the off record politeness strategy and at the same time he employed

the in-group identity marker strategy, which is using Bahasa Indonesia.

As stated by Brown and Levinson, positive politeness strategy isn’t only

used to mitigate the FTA effect, but also used to indicate that the speaker wants to come closer to hearer. It is called social accelerator. In this interview, Nababan employed this technique. He did not performed FTA, but he used the positive politeness strategy. Nababan wants to be closer to the interviewee.

“Mr. President, thank you for visiting RCTI TV for interview, Apa kabar Mr. President?”

“Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?”

“This is quite good i think banyak latihan?Do you have practiced with...?” (p. 67-68)

Here, by using Bahasa Indonesia, rather than formal English usage, Nababan used

in-group identity marker strategy. He also discussed the common things that only mostly only known by Indonesian.

In some utterances, Nababan used ellipsis strategy to perform FTA. Requesting personal information many times, he employed this strategy recurrently. It meant Nababan wanted to show positive politeness through this technique.

“You have maybe your favorite sentence that you remember, that you know?” (p. 68)

out some...and understanding that enormous problem, not just for America but also for Indonesian people. We have seen significance progress and so what we wanna do is to continue, improve our consultation and through this force into more positive direction because we want Indonesia being a close partner for many years to come, and we want a prosperous and secure Indonesia and that is the interest of US as well as the interest of Indonesia and the entire Asia-pasific community.

Nababan : Mr. President, there is still prevailing scepticism that you will be unable to act on your stance to rise out the Muslim world, how do you respond to this?

Obama : Well, actually we made an enormous progress, obviously i made my Cairo speech last year in a stance, clear message that US is a friend and partner with the muslim world that we obviously have a determination to defeat terrorism wherever it exists, and we want to partner with countries to deal with that issue. But we dont want terrorism to define our relationship to the muslim nations around the world, we want to build on cooperation on trade, on economic development, on science and technology, on culture and so what we done is to obey issues that i outline in Cairo speech with my progress. I meant one of the sources break the attention is with the Iraq war, this summer we expect to have ended the combat operation inside of Iraq and we will withdraw our troops by next

year. We talk about the need to reach out and put forward, for example in Pakistan where (we) setting up enterpreneurship and worship center, and in Saudi Arabia, during Hajj, we want to make sure the H1N1 virus dont effect people during hajj, we are assign a muslim envoy to attend the organization like the OIC and to figure out how we can work on how is the issues, how we can get more young people and student exchanges so the whole ranges of issues we need to work on, we will continue to work on.

Nababan : Since you mention about terrorism, that issue of terrorism is also facing Indonesia and you believe that the root of terrorism is poverty and injustice. Aside from financial intelligent assistance that US is giving, what kind of cooperation that US would give to rise out the root of terrorism in Indonesia?

Obama : Well, i think there is combination of things, i think that there are a lot of countries that have poverty but dont have terrorism. There is no doubt that if you have a lot of young people, particularly young man who are unemployed they are more vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist organization, but i also think that there are ideological roots to terrorism where people distorded Islam and one of the things that i always valued so much about Indonesia when i was growing up was people with devoted muslim but they also tolerant to other cultures and i think that’s the future of Islam that is being able to modernize, become wealthier, become succesful. I meant in

the history of Islam it was that added its height it was pro science, pro technology, it has more advanced than many parts in the world but what we do wanna do partner with Indonesia on economic developing issues generally. Obviously the crisis in 90s had provided effect in Indonesia, it has not built back up and rises to do very well and we think we can be a very good partner not only in providing assistance for development but also trade and in trade relationship is one that i think can be very very important.

Nababan : You mention about people to people, many Indonesians have high expectation that US under your leadership succesful implementing the two state solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, is this realistic expectation?

Obama : Well, it is gonna be very hard, obviously the issues went for sixty years, through Democratic and Republic administration, through different conflict, but i employing to work as hard as i can while i am president to make sure that we arrive two state solutions, while Israel is secure as side by side by prosperous and succesful Palestinian nation and everybody on the region understand this is the right thing to do, the questions is how we break down the barrier of trust, barrier of distrust, that exists between these countries.

Nababan : My last question Mr. President, what life lesson do you take from your experience in Indonesia that help make you the person you are today?

Obama : You know that experience was so important to me in so many ways, obviously just my interaction with the Indonesian people just have great love and affection for he indonesian people. I think that they are hard-working, they are love the family and communities and they are very calm which i think help me now in a very tense job. I think that living in Indonesia also remind me how big the world is. Indonesia is such a big country and such a diverse country with so many different people and it reminded me that we have to have a broad view of the world and recognize in a connected world and that’s very important. So i really looking for to getting back and really looking for to letting my children see what a wonderful country Indonesia is.

Nababan : To confirm that some stories that you know when around in the country because you are so famous in the country, it is just gonna be quick and be quick answer. Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and Gareng is your favorite?

Obama : You know i used to love Mahabbarata, used to love Ramayana, used to love Wayang and i still do..I still you know inspired by the stories of Hanoman, you know...

Nababan : And Gareng and Petruk?

Obama : Absolutely.

Nababan : Do you really memorize Pancasila?

Obama : No...

Nababan : You dont?

Obama : That’s rumor, that’s not true.

Nababan : That’s i have to confirm. Is it true that you like Nasi Goreng and Bakso?

Obama : Bakso i love, Nasi Goreng i love, you know i like street food, i like the street matters, i still remember the sound of people as they walked by “Sate!”, “Bakso!”

Nababan : You listen that?

Obama : O yes, i miss it

Nababan : Is it true that you used to tease your female classmates to get their attention?

Nababan : Do you remember breaking someone’s arm?

Obama : Yes i do actually, when i was...by accident

Nababan : You tickled the guy?

Obama : We were riding a bike together and he felt, it was great, i was very traumatized, is he okay?

Nababan : You tickled him from the back !

Obama : And then we felt on the bike, and i do remember that.

Nababan : I think he is okay.

Obama : Is he okay? Please tell him that i apologize for that, i felt so bad, i remember, feeling terrible.

Nababan : The last one, is it true you wrote a poem stating that your dream is to become a president?

Obama : That’s not true, i think i remember reading one of my teacher saying that i was planning to be president when i was six, you know when i was six, i wanna, i think to be a fireman. Alright.

Nababan : Okay, Thank you very much Mr. President.

Obama : Terima kasih banyak, selamat jalan.