18 Sub-strategy 4 is including the speaker and hearer in a particular activity.
This sub-strategy is done by using an inclusive ‗we‘ form, when the speaker really
means ‗you‘ or ‗me‘. By using ‗we‘ form, the speaker wants the hearer to be involved in the activity and eventually become cooperators. The example is in the
utterance ―Let‘s get on with dinner, eh?‖ i.e. you.
Sub-strategy 5 is giving or asking for reasons. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that giving or asking for reason is a way of assuming cooperation between
the speaker and the hearer H wants S‘s desires. This sub-strategy shows that
help is needed as in a way of implying ‗I can help you‘ or ‗you can help me‘. The example is in utterance
―Why don‘t I help you with that suitcase?‖ Sub-strategy six is assuming or asserting reciprocity. This sub-strategy is
done by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations which are obtained between speaker and hearer Brown Levinson, 1987. It is an act when the
speaker and hearer create mutual advantages. The sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance
―I‘ll give you pizza if you win the competition.‖
3 Fulfilling Hearer’s Want
The third mechanism is fulfilling hearer‘s wants. It means that the speaker wants the
hearer‘s desire for hearer himself. The speaker can satisfy the hearer‘s positive face by making the hearer satisfy about positive face he wants. Hence,
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that satisfying hea rer‘s wants is done by the act
of gift-giving. The gift itself is not only in a form of tangible gift, but it also in the form of intangible gift, such as goods, sympathy, understanding, and cooperation
that is done among the speaker and the hearer. This sub-strategy is exemplified PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19 with the utterance
―I heard that your son won yesterday‘s singing competition. I am happy for you.‖
c. Negative Politeness
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that negative politeness is a redressible action addressed to the addressee‘s negative face. It is about the speaker‘s desires
to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. Negative politeness is more specific and focus rather than positive politeness which is free-
ranging. There are four sub-strategies in the mechanism of negative politeness strategy that are classified by Brown Levinson 1987.
1 Being Conventionally Indirect
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that conventional indirect forms can be seen by asking questions or asserting the felicity conditions underlying the act.
The conventional indirectness occurs when the speaker uses phrases or sentences that have contextually unambiguous meaning which are different from their literal
meanings. These sub-strategies can be performed when a speaker wants to bother a person for favors, for example,
―Can you shut the door?‖ In this way, the speaker‘s on record utterance is conveyed indirectly. Brown and Levinson 1987
add that ―conventional indirectness encodes the clash of wants and partially achieves them both‖ p. 132.
2 Avoid Presuming or Assuming
Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that avoiding presuming or assuming anything towards the
hearer‘s belief includes avoiding presumption about the hearer, his wants, and what is the relevant of his attention p. 144. The ability to
20 avoid performing a particular action regarding the hearer‘s belief is through the
use of hedges. For example, the use of ‗if‘ clause suspends the relevant felicity
condition, as in the uttera nce ―Close the door, if you can‖; the use of hedges
addressed to Grice‘s Maxim, as seen in the utterance ―I assume that junk food is not good for
health.‖, the hedge ‗assume‘ can suggest that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance; the use of hedge on the
relevance maxim to soften the imposition of topic changes, as in the utterance ―I‘m sorry to say this, but…‖ as cited in Holtgraves, 2002, p.45.
3 Avoid Coercion
A strategy to lessen coercion includes not only conventional indirectness, but also an act which conveys pessimism regarding the appropriateness of the act
that is performed by the speaker Brown Levinson, 1987. The use of subjunctive and tag questions, as in the utterance ―Would you open the door?‖, are
the output of this strategy. In addition, the other sub-strategies to lessen coercion include attempting to minimize the imposition, humbling themselves
downgrading a compliment, and giving deference using formal address terms.
4 Communicate a Speaker’s Wants to Not Impinge on Hearer
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that communicating the speaker‘s wants
to not impinge on the other can be accomplished by providing an apology which indicates reluctance, as in utterance ―I don‘t want to disturb you, but could you
lend me a hand?‖; admitting the impingement, as in utterance ―I know you are busy, but could you come to me please?‖; or by asking for forgiveness, for
instance ―I wish you‘ll forgive me.‖ Meanwhile, there is another sub-strategy to PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21 borderline the addressee hearer from the act that will be delivered by the speaker
linguistically. The sub-strategy is impersonalizing the speaker and hearer. For example, the use of pronoun ‗I‘ in ―It‘s wrong‖ rather than ―I tell you it‘s wrong‖;
and pronoun ‗you‘ as in ―Close the door‖ rather than ―You close the door‖; and the use of
passive rather than active instructions as in ―It is expected that students will follow the lesson‖ rather than ―I expect you to follow the lesson.‖
5 Go on Record of Incurring Debt
The last sub-strategy by Brown and Levinson 1987 is going on record of incurring debt or by disclaiming any indebtedness on the part of the hearer. An
example of this sub-strategy is the utterance ―I‘d be happy for your help‖ and ―I
could easily do it for you.‖
d. Off Record
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that an off record utterance is actually an indirect use of language. People who use the off record strategy will produce
utterance that is either more general or essentially different from what others mean. It means that the utterance which is stated by someone contain less
information so that the hearer have to interpret them in order to understand the real meaning. Thus, it is clear that the meaning of the utterance is not directly
stated by the speakers since the utterance is categorized as an indirect utterance. It is supported by Holtgraves 2002, who states that off record strategy is an
indirect communication. There are two mechanisms that are proposed by Brown and Levinson in the off record strategy, namely inviting conversational
implicature and being vague or ambiguous.
22
1 Inviting Conversational Implicatures
If the speaker wants to do an FTA and chooses to do it indirectly, the speaker must give the hearer some clues. Besides, the speaker hopes that the
hearer can interpret what the speaker really means to say. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that the basic way to do the FTA is by inviting the conversational
implicatures so that the speaker can assume an interpretation that makes the clues understandable. This mechanism is divided into ten sub-strategies that will be
explained in the following paragraphs. Sub-strategy 1 is by giving hints. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that
this sub-strategy is done by the speaker who says something that is not explicitly relevant. The speaker invites the hearer to find an interpretation of the possible
relevance. An example for this sub-strategy is in the utterance ―This soup‘s a bit
bland‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 215. From the utterance, the speaker gives hints to the hearer to pass the salt.
Sub-strategy 2 is by giving association clues. This sub-strategy is done by the speaker who gives a related kind of implicature triggered by relevance
violations. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that ―it is provided by mentioning
something associated with the act required of a hearer by mutual knowledge irrespective of their interactional experiences
‖ p. 215. This sub-strategy is exemplified by the utterance
―Are you going to market tomorrow? There‘s a market tomorrow, I suppose
‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 216. From the utterance, the speaker conveys a request to the hearer to give a ride there.
23 Sub-strategy 3 is presupposing prior event. The example of the strategy is
in the utterance ―I washed the car
again
today.‖ The use of
again
is done by the speaker to force the hearer to find the relevance of the presupposed prior event
Brown Levinson, 1987. Sub-strategy 4 is by understating what the speaker actually wants to say.
Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that this is an act of saying something less than what is required. The example is in the utterance
―That dress is quite nice‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 218, when the speaker actually means that he does
not particularly like it for understated criticism implicating, or the speaker actually likes it very much for understated compliment implicating.
Sub-strategy 5 is overstating. This sub-strategy is done by the speaker who exaggerates or chooses a point on scale which is higher than what is required
Brown Levinson, 1987. It is the opposite of the previous sub-strategy which is understating. The example of the sub-strategy is in the utterance
―There were a million people in the Co-
op tonight‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 219. Sub-strategy 6 is using tautologies. It is done by the speaker who
encourages the hearer to search for an informative interpretation of the non- informative utterance. As stated by Brown and Levinson 1987, the example is
the utterance ―If I won‘t give it, I won‘t,‖ c.i. I mean it.
Sub-strategy 7 is using contradiction. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that this sub-strategy is the act of stating two things that contradict to each other.
In this case, the speaker cannot tell the truth and encourage the hearer to look for PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
