T1 112010088 Full text

POLITENESS STRATEGY AND POWER IN AN
ORGANIZATION: ORDERS/REQUESTS FROM THE
SUPERIOR TO THE SUBORDINATE

Titania Tabita Oktriana
Abstract
This study is about the use of politeness strategy in an organization in the
context of giving orders and making requests from the superior to the subordinate.
Different ages between the superior and the subordinate will be the focus case of
this study, which is when the superior is younger than the subordinate. Because
the superior has organizational power and the subordinates have social power. In
Indonesia itself, age difference is important in the society, because social norms in
Indonesia regulates the society to always respect the elder people.
This study aims to analyze whether there is politeness strategy used by the
superior or not and the type of politeness if there is any. The study had been done
in a religious organization, PHMJ GPIB Tamansari Salatiga. By recording three
weekly meetings, it is found out that the superior (head chief) used politeness
strategies while giving orders or asking requests to the subordinates. The indicator
is adapted from Brown and Levinson (1987) to indicate the politeness strategy
used by the superior. The strategy used by the superior is positive politeness and it
is assumed that the superior want to have a good interpersonal relationship with

the subordinates. Then, the result proved that the superior tend to pay attention
more to the society power rather than keep her organization power.
Key words: Politeness strategy, Order/request, Superior, Subordinate, Power

INTRODUCTION
Anderson (2010) says that a community is a place where people share
interests, networks, and relationships. People have their own community; one of
them is workplace/organization community. To have a good relation in the
community the key is by using a good language (Dannefer & Poushinsky, 2006).

1

On the other hand, Morand (1996) states there are also many differences among
them such as the gender, age, social, economic, and educational status, etc. To
cope with the problem of the power differences, people use politeness strategies to
communicate whether or not consciously (Morand, 1996). Morand (2000) also
states that those differences makes someone has higher power than the other
people from the society. According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 10), power is
„the ability of one person to impose their will on another‟ whereas according to
Holmes (1995), the power dimension refers to the ability of the participants to

influence one another‟s circumstances. Therefore, one person may be said to have
power over another to the degree that he or she is able to control the behavior of
the other (Kurniawan, 2009). Ide (1982) adds that there are three social rules of
politeness which are commonly applicable in Asian countries; (1) Be polite to a
person with a higher social status, (2) Be polite to a person with power, (3) Be
polite to an older person. Moreover, Salifu (2010), Sukarno (2010), and Mahmud
(2013) also state that in most of the Asian countries age has a strong role in the
communication between two people. Further, Mahmud (2013) adds that in
Indonesia itself, one of the factors influencing power differences is the age
differences, conversations between people of different ages frequently show
different level of politeness.
Mizutani and Mizutani (1987) affirm that differences in age will influence
the formality of speakers and hence the degree of politeness. Besides that, they
also say that in an organization there is a leadership hierarchy, which may be
different from the society. Morand (2000) says that leadership in an organization

2

appears because of the selected positions are based on the organization rules,
different from the society where Salifu (2010) states that in Asian countries

leadership of and responsibility for any group goes naturally to the oldest person.
There are some studies on the relationship between politeness strategy and
power. Morand (2000) examines whether there is a relationship between power
and politeness strategy using forty males and forty four females in an MBA
program in USA. He found that power impacts the politeness strategies used by
superior and subordinates in an organization. Subordinates use politeness
strategies to communicate to the superior to avoid FTA (Face Threatening Act).
Morand (2000: 237) explains “an FTA occurs when one person has occasion to
threaten the face of another. Such conflictual events are common and often
unavoidable, including acts of contradicting, criticizing, disagreeing, interruption,
imposing, borrowing, asking a favour, requesting information, embarrassing,
bumping into, and so forth.”
Besides that, Kurniawan (2009) found that power, age differences and
imposition (establishment) determine the strategy of applying politeness within an
interaction with people. He says that the greater the distance and the imposition,
the lesser intimation between the participants are. Kurniawan (2009) also stated in
his study one thing that might make a difference between the application of theory
of politeness in Indonesia and in western societies is that Indonesian society has
been accustomed to be helpful and social to each other. So when one needs help
he/she will be normally willing to help without any feelings of being threatened.

3

Mahmud‟s (2013) study in Bugis society found that the choice of being
polite for Bugis people is influenced by differences in social status, age, gender,
familiarity, and situation. There are two areas in Bugis society, rural and urban
areas. In both areas of the study, there is a different practice of being polite
influenced by those above factors. In rural areas, social status differences become
the most important factor whereas in urban areas, gender differences can become
a higher priority in encoding their politeness.
There are two sources of power, from society and from authority of
organizations. The problems might appear if there is one person who holds society
power and one person who hold organization power live in the same organization.
Kurniawan (2009) gives an illustration when a superior speaks to his subordinates.
Although he is still younger than his people he may speak to them who are older
than him with rather impolite way might be like someone talks to his close friend.
It means that he will use several ways of communication to make him and his
people have friendly relationship. Kurniawan (2009) concluded that Brown and
Levinson‟s theory of politeness tend to estimate face threatening act. In the sense
that Brown & Levinson are too afraid of being refused by someone else and their

theory could not be guaranteed to be applicable in other nations or other societies.
Because of that, this study will discuss if there is any politeness used in the
situation where the superior communicate to the subordinate who has power from
the society and if there is any, the type of politeness strategy used by the superior
in the context.

4

This study aims to find the application of politeness theory in the situation
where a superior in organization has subordinates who hold society power by
being older. Mizutani and Mizutani (1987), Sukarno (2010), and Mahmud (2013)
had stated that that age has a strong role in the communication between two
people and influencing the power. The other aim is to find out about which
politeness strategy is used in that situation. The significance of this research is to
give a new dimension of the application of politeness theory in the situation which
is contradictory. This study also can give advice to the superior who experiences
the kind of situation, so that they will know which politeness strategy can be used
and how to use the politeness theory and strategy in the kind of situation.
The study conducted in one of organization in which there is a situation
where the superior who has a higher position in the organization, but the superior

is younger than the subordinates. In a typical Indonesian context, this means the
superior has power in the organization, but on the other hand, the other
subordinates also have power from the society. In this study, the kind of
communication which will be observed is making requests or giving orders. The
main reason why the topic is choosen is because, as Kurniawan (2009) says, in
requesting someone else to do something people most likely use a certain strategy
to request someone else to do something. They tend to use indirect language. So,
it will be easy to see the strategy used by the superior when communicating to the
subordinates, especally in Indonesian context.

5

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Power
Farhat (2013) in his study in Arab society states that it is not the social
differences of a person that makes one powerful or powerless, but those
differences make people impolite or polite. For example in a conversation
between the one who is powerless to the one who is powerful, the powerless will
speak more politely, otherwise when the powerful speak to the powerless person,
the will speak less politely. Moreover, in eastern Asia countries, there are the

norms of society and culture that decide, determine and govern the concept of
power and therefore that of politeness. There are the norms of society and culture
that make one either powerful or powerless. These are various factors in a
particular community, society and culture, the social status, honor, respect,
cultural, education, age, and religious norms etc which determine who is powerful
and who is powerless. Kurniawan (2009) says that the age differences make
someone powerful or powerless. Power which occurs because of that situation is
power from the society.
On the other hand, Morand (2000), also Holmes & Stubbe (2003) state that
organization has an organizational hierarchy. It shows the function of each
member in an organization from the subordinates to the superior. Superior
members have higher organizational status than subordinate members, so superior
members have organizational power.

6

Politeness Strategy
The model of politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson
(1987) revolves around the concept of face (Goffman, 1967), which the people try
to establish as their own public self-image. According to Brown and Levinson

(1987), politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearer's "face".
Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and the effort to
maintain that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Violation on the
hearer‟s self-esteem and respectability is called Face Threatening Acts (FTA).
One usually tries to avoid embarrassing another person, or making him/her feel
uncomfortable.
Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with
these FTA's. There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and
Levinson (1987) that sum up human "politeness" behavior with the example: Bald
on Record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off-Record-indirect
strategy. As an example retrieved from www.mona.uwi.edu which tries to explain
about politeness strategy by Brown & Levinson (1987), when there is a situation
if you saw a cup of pens on your teacher's desk and you wanted to use one.
1.

If you answered "Ooh, I want to use one of those!", you used what is called
the Bald On-Record strategy, Brown & Levinson (1987) explain that it
provides no effort to minimize threats to your teachers' "face".

2.

If you answered "Is it O.K. if I use one of those pens?", you used the Positive
Politeness strategy. Base on Brown & Levinson‟s (1987) theory this strategy
7

used to indicate that you recognize that your teacher has a desire to be
respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly.
3.

If you answered "I'm sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to ask you if I
could use one of those pens?", you used the Negative Politeness strategy,
which similar to the Positive Politeness in that you recognize that they want
to be respected however; you also assume that you are in some way imposing
on them (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Some other examples would be to say, "I
don't want to bother you but." or "I was wondering if."

4.

If you answered "Hmm, I sure could use a blue pen right now.” you used OffRecord indirect strategies. Base on Brown & Levinson‟s (1987) theory the
main purpose is to take some of the presence off of you. You are trying not to

directly impose by asking for a pen. Instead you would rather it be offered to
you once the teacher realizes you need one, and you are looking to find one.
Diagram 1.1 Flowcharts of Politeness Strategies and Tactics Ordered Against
Estimated Threat to Face by Morand (1996). Adapted from Brown
and Levinson 1987
Greater

More
1. withouth redressive
action, baldly
On Record

Speaker‟s
estimation of threat
to face

Do the FTA

2. Positive Politeness
With redressive action

Politeness
4. Off Record

3. Negative Politeness

5. Don‟t Do the FTA

Lesser

Less

8

The Diagram 1.1 explains how a speaker‟s estimation of threat to face in
choosing the politeness strategy. Morand (1996) explain the greater estimation of
threat of face, speaker will use more politeness strategy and if the lesser
estimation of threat of face, speaker will use less politeness strategy. There are
some strategies that relate to giving order based on Brown & Levinson (1987):
1.

Bald on record
This strategy does nothing to minimize threats to the listener's “face”. Morand
(1996) gives an example: “I want you to replace me to go to the meeting”.
The superior just directly ask for the order or request without use any tactic.

2.

Positive Politeness
Positive Politeness is the strategy that consider to the addressee positive face,
seems like the addressee have desire to be respected. The linguistic
realizations of Positive Politeness are showed of the normal linguistic
behavior between the superior and subordinates. The strategy (St.) use by
superior (Su.) to the subordinates (So.) will be:
St. 1 Assert or presuppose Su‟s knowledge of and concern for So‟s wants
Assert or imply knowledge of So‟s wants and willingness to fit one‟s own
wants in with them.
Example: “Okay, I know you want me to be good in my work, so shouldn‟t I
do my job now.” (instead of helping the So.)
St.2 Offer and promise
Example: “I‟ll try to get it next week!”

9

St. 3 Be optimistic
Su. assume that So. will accept Su.‟s wants, opinions, or suggestions by Su‟s
statement.
Example: “You‟ll lend me your apartment-key for the weekend, won‟t you.”
St. 4 Include both Su. and So. in the activity
Example: “Let‟s meet at the office later”
St. 5 Give (or ask) reasons
Example: “Why don‟t we do this tomorrow or the next two days?”
St.6 Assume or assert reciprocity
Su. wants So. to do something that has been done by Su. before
(reciprocality), or to do something that should‟ve been done by So.
Example: “Yesterday I„ve presented the topc, so today it‟s your turn!”
St. 7 Give gifts to So. (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Su. tries to satisfy So.‟s positive face by fulfilling some of the So‟s wants
which indicate that Su. want something from So.
Example: “You have done a very good job, so you have to do the next
project.”

3.

Negative Politeness
Negative politeness is startegy that pays more attention to the hearer negative
face and tries to avoid the imposition of the hearer. This strategy is mostly
used to make a request seem less conflicting. The strategies that might occur
are:

10

St. 1: Be conventionally indirect
Opposing tensions: desire to give So. an “out“ by being indirect, and the
desire to go on record.
Example: “You couldn´t possibly tell me the time, please?“
St. 2: Be pessimistic
Gives redress to So´s negative face by explicitly expressing doubt that the
conditions for the appropriateness of Su´s speech act is obtained.
Example: “I don´t imagine there´d be any chance of...“
St. 3: Minimize the imposition
“I just want to ask if I can borrow a single sheet of paper.”
St. 4: Give deference
Two different possibilities to realize the deference:
1.) Su. humbles and abases himself
2.) Su. raises So. (Su. treats So like a superior by having a different type of
named calling)
Example: “Yes, sir, I thought perhaps you wouldn´t mind and...“
St. 5: Apologize
By apologizing, Su. shows that Su. does not want to do FTA to the So.
Because the statement maybe make So. feels uncomfotable.
Example: “Please forgive me if...“
St. 6: Impersonalize Su. and So.
Phrase the FTA as if the agent were other than Su and the addressee were
other than So
11

Example: “I was kind of interested in knowing if...”
St. 7: Normalize
The more you normalize an expression, the more you dissociate from it.
Example: “Your good performance on the presentation impressed us
favourably.“

4.

Off-record (indirect)
Give hints

: It's a bit cold in here.

Be vague

: Perhaps someone should open the window.

Be sarcastic, or joking

: Yeah, it‟s really hot here.

Power and Politeness Strategy
As Robin Lakoff (1989) argue that politeness and power are closely
related. Power is a significant component of Brown and Levinson‟s (1978, 1987)
theory of politeness. When proposing the model of politeness, Brown and
Levinston (1987) use three determinants which impact the level of politeness. One
of those three is power. They assume that every individual is rational agent. So, if
they meet and communicate with different kinds of power, they will adapt. They
will use different politeness strategy to avoid the FTA. Brown and Levinson
(1987) stated that “power as a crucial component predicts that the greater the
power hierarchy distance, the more strategies will be used by the less powerful
member, particularly with regard to „impositions‟ (which are often requests)”.

12

The „request‟ as a speech act is particularly relevant to politeness, especially
power in institutional contexts. As Brown and Levinson (1987) maintain, requests
are likely to threaten the face of both speaker and hearer, and it is not merely
coincidental that they are the focus of much cross-cultural research on politeness
(Blum-Kulka et al, 1989 and Fukishima, 2000)
Morand‟s (2000) study focuses on the variable of power as it specifically
applies to superior - subordinate interaction in formal organizations. As described
above, in politeness theory power is included in one of the determinant, so it will
be well-suited for analyzing just how superiors' and subordinates' relative power is
embedded in speech acts.
“While superiors are not restricted from using politeness, it is suggested
that subordinates use greater amounts of politeness. The logic as to why low
power member of organization might take greater care in addressing the person
(and thus the face) of superiors is fairly self-evident. Subordinates are careful not
to offend or infringe on those upon whom they are dependent; power relations by
definition imply dependency” (Dahl, 1957).
Age Differences
Brown and Levinson (1987) states age differences become one of the
factors that affect politeness between a speaker and a hearer. Especially in Asian
countries, Salifu (2010), Farhat (2013), and Ide (1982) proved by their study that
age differences have an important role in deciding the politeness in society. Salifu
(2010) had done a study in Dagbanli, Ghana, Farhat (2013) in Arab society and
Ide (1982) in Japanese society. Moreover, there are some study in Indonesia that
13

also found that age differences influence politeness, first is done by Mahmud
(2013) in Bugis society and Sukarno (2010) in Javanese context.
In Indonesia, which is an Asian country, politeness is one of the key
factors in the value system, so that it will create effective communication in the
society. Tran (2010) states politeness is expressed through respectful attitudes
depending on who the hearer is, and how close the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer is. In other words, a polite conversation is one that takes
into account such factors as age, social positions and social contexts. Sukarno
(2010) adds as eastern country, Indonesian norms teach to respect to another
people especially the elderly by calling them with certain address terms. For
example; for elder person Javanese use mas (brother), mbak (sister), pak (man), or
bu (woman). The address terms indicate that one is speaking to a person of the
same, higher or lower social status, and age.

THE STUDY
Context of the Study
The context of this study was in one of the organization in Salatiga which
is the organization sexton in Gereja Protestan Indonesia bagian Barat Tamansari
Salatiga (GPIB Tamansari Salatiga). In this organization there is a situation where
the superior has organization power and the subordinate has society power (there
are age differences that the superior who is younger than the subordinates). The
main focus is to determine whether politeness strategies are applied and if so,
14

what is the politeness strategy used by the superior in the organization in giving
order or asking request to the subordinates who has power from the society
(older).
Method of Research
This study is a case study which aims to examine and describe the
politeness strategy used by a superior in giving orders to or making requests to the
subordinates who hold society power. This research is threfore a descriptive
research because it attempts to describe, explain and interpret conditions of the
present. The purpose of a descriptive research is to examine a phenomenon that is
occurring at a specific place(s) and time (Shields & Rangarajan, 2013). This study
is qualitative it based on descriptive data such as spoken or written and the
participant behavior (see Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).
Participants
The population is one of the religious organizations in Salatiga which is
the organization sexton in Gereja Protestan Indonesia bagian Barat Tamansari
Salatiga (GPIB Tamansari Salatiga). GPIB Tamansari is a church located at Jalan
Jendral Sudirman No. 1, Salatiga, Central Java - Indonesia. This church has
approximately five hundred people as the congregation. To manage the entire
activities done by the congregation of the church, there is an organization named
PHMJ (Pengurus Harian Majelis Jemaat). This organization, which is appointed
by congregration, has 11 members, but because there is one person (5th Chief)
who had never come to the meeting attended, so it was decided to include just 10

15

members for this study. The superior (The head Chief) of PHMJ who hold the
organization power and the subordinates, nine persons (The member) who hold
the power from the society. Morand (2000) says that the superior is chosen
because he/she have power in the organization and Farhat (2013) adds that the
subordinates who has power from the society are the subordinates who are elder.
Table 1. List of the Administration of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari Salatiga

No.

1

2

3

Initial

Ms

No

Th

Sex
Type

F

M

M

Age

40

59

43

Education
Last
Reviewed

Bachelor

Position in
Organization

Led a Session and Meeting,
Supervise the program, Be
General Chief responsible of the internal
and external matter

Bachelor

Master

1st Chief

Supervise the decision of the
session and meeting related
to health services

2nd Chief

Supervise the decision of the
session and meeting related
to the church, community,
and religion.

4

M

M

60

Senior High

3rd Chief

5

Mj

M

58

Senior High

4th Chief

Senior High

General
Secretary

6

7

Mk

Mr

M

F

58

50

Organization's
Responsibility

Bachelor

1st Secretary

16

Supervise the decision of the
session and meeting related
to human resources
development and categorical
service.
Supervise the decision of the
session and meeting related
to economical development
of the church and the church
enterprises/corporation
Responsible for the entire
internal and external
activities, church documents,
and church administration.
Make the minutes of the
meeting, accompany 1st &
2nd chief, archiving
document

8

9

10

Er

E

Em

F

F

F

55

51

59

Bachelor

2nd Secretary

General
Treasury

Bachelor

Senior High

1st Treasury

Accompany 3rd & 4th chief,
and take care of the business
trip things
Responsible for the treasury
stuff, make and supervise the
budgeting, make the
financial reports.
Overseeing the budget
realization, oversee and
develop church
administration, oversee the
church inventory with the
4th chief.

As has been shown from the Table 1, this organization fulfills the requirement of
organization needed for this study. This organization has a superior (head chief)
who is younger than the subordinates.
Instrument & Data Collection
The data used in this research is primary data which come from the
recording of three staff meetings during February - March 2014. As it was said by
Shields and Rangarajan (2013), descriptive research uses to see a concept in a
phenomenon, so this research needs primary data which will be analyzed, so that
there will not be a bias on the data.
The data collecting method is recording of the staff meeting which
contains orders or requests by the superior to the subordinates. Before gathering
the data, the participant forms spread out to be filled in by the PHMJ members to
know the members‟ name, age, education last reviewed, sex type, potition in the
organization and their job description. Observation also had been done during the

17

participant‟s profile collection. Then, the data are gathered on February 4th,
February 18th, and March 14th, 2014 and had been transcribed the recording as
the data obtained.
Data Analysis
To indicate which strategy is used by the superior to give orders or ask
requests to the subordinate, some indicators were adapted from Brown &
Levinson (1987). In this study, several strategies (St.) were chosen base on the
background theory on page 8.
1. Bald on record
2. Positive Politeness
St. 1 Assert or presuppose Su‟s knowledge of and concern for So‟s wants
St.2 Offer and promise
St. 3 Be optimistic
St. 4 Include both Su. and So. in the activity
St. 5 Give (or ask) reasons
St. 6 Assume or assert reciprocity
St. 7 Give gifts to So. (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation
3. Negative Politeness
St. 1: Be conventionally indirect
St. 2: Be pessimistic
St. 3: Minimize the imposition
St. 4: Give deference
St. 5: Apologize
18

St. 6: Impersonalize Su. and So.
St. 7: Normalize
4. Off-record (indirect)
After indicating the politeness strategy used by the superior, then analizing the
strategy that occur the most and discuss it briefly.

FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
This study is aimed at finding and explaining the use of politeness strategy
in an organization, namely PHMJ GPIB (Pengurus Harian Majelis Jemaat Gereja
Protestan Indonesia bagian Barat). The situation is when the superior (Su) who
has an organizational power is younger than the subordinates (So), who hold
power in society. This study also discuss which politeness strategy is used by the
superior. In attempt to answer this research aim, the paper will discuss about first,
the politeness strategy used by the superior (head chief) of PHMJ GPIB
Tamansari Salatiga and the second is types of strategy the superior used and the
reason for using them.
Politeness Strategy Used by the Superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari Salatiga
Basically, the superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari used all of the politeness
strategy proposes by Brown & Levinson (1987) which are Bald On Record,
Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness and Off Record proposes, but the

19

intensity of use for each strategy varies. The result shows that the superior used
positive politeness more than the other strategies.
Table 2. Politeness Strategy Used by the Superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari in
Giving Orders to the Subordinates
No
1
2
3
4

Politeness Strategy
Bald On Record
Positive Politeness
Negative Politeness
Off Record
TOTAL

Total
15
30
6
2
53

Percentage
(%)
28,3
56,6
11,3
3,8
100

Table 2 shows that the superior (head chief) commonly uses Positive Politeness,
as much as 56.6 percents from all of the politeness strategies that occured in the
gained data. The next most found strategy is Bald On Record, as much as 28.3
percents followed by Negative Politeness, 11.3 percents. The strategy which is
rarely used is Off Record, only 3.8 percents. The next discussion will be about the
use of positive politeness, because based on the result, it is more dominant.
Related to the use of positive politeness, it also shows in Diagram 1.1
(flowchart of politeness strategies and tactics ordered against estimated threat to
face) which explain that positive politeness have higher level of politeness than
the other strategies. It means that the superior pays a lot attention to her estimation
of threat to face. This also shows that the superior is being considerate over the
power from the society possessed by the subordinates rather than keeping her
organization power. This corresponds with the findings from Ide (1982), Mahmud
(2013), Mizutani (1987), Salifu (2010), and Sukarno (2010), who state that age
20

has an important role to influence politeness in an organization. Possitive
politeness used by the superior of PHMJ Tamansari will be discussed more in the
next sub topic to analyze the reason based on the previous studies and theories.
Positive Politeness by the Superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari Salatiga
As has been showed in the Table 2 that Positive Politeness is used more
than the other strategies (Bald on record, negative politeness, and off record), this
chapter will discuss about the possible reasons of positive politeness used by the
superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari. Yuka (2009) stated that when the superior
uses positive politeness, it means that the superior recognize that all of the
subordinates have a face to be respected. It also confirms that the superior is
trying to have a friendly relationship and expresses group reciprocity (Yuka,
2009). She also states that, if speaker uses positive politeness rather than the other
strategy, it shows that the speaker tries to form a good interpersonal relationship
with the hearer. This is corresponding with the situation of the organization where
this study is held, where the superior has occupied this position only for two
years. Based on the information from one of the congregation there, the former
superior before was much older than she is, and the subordinates at that time were
younger than she is. So, it would be easier for her to give orders or make requests
to the subordinate. The present situation is different, where the superior is younger
than the subordinates. By employing positive politeness, the superior wants to be
closer with the subordinates and, at the same time, maintains her authority
(power) as the head chief.

21

Table 3. Positive Politeness Used by the Superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari in
Giving Order to the Subordinates
Positive Politeness

Total

1 Assert or presuppose Su‟s knowledge
of and concern for So‟s wants

0

Percentage
(%)
0

2 Offer and promise
3 Be optimistic
Include both Su. and So. in the
4 activity
5 Give (or ask) reasons
6 Assume or assert reciprocity
Give gifts to So. (goods, sympathy,
7
understanding, cooperation)
TOTAL

2
14

6,7
46,7

6

20

7
1

23,3
3,3

0

0

30

100

Table 3 shows that the superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari uses the Be Optimistic
strategy more than the other kinds of positive politeness, which is as much as 46.7
percents. Optimistic strategy mostly use to minimize the face threat (Brown and
Levinson, 1987). From the data gathered, Optimistic used to make an agreement
done by the speaker which the hearer expect to agree with it too.
Example:
In the meeting situation, Su. (Head Chief) had done reporting about the
congregration, then asked for the other information from So.
(1) Itu saja dari saya, informasi seputar jemaat. Selanjutnya, Pak Th,
mungkin? (That's all from me, the information about our congregation.
Next, Mr. Th, maybe?) (PHMJ meeting on February 18th, 2014)

22

In the meeting, PHMJ discussed about a staff (Pak Yanto) who didn‟t do his job
well and planed to warn him. Then Su gave her opinion to So.
(2) kasi tau Pak Yanto, kalo ini sudah ada yang mau ganti, gitu kan (let Mr.
Yanto know that we have had people who want to fill his position, right?)
(PHMJ meeting on February 18th, 2014)
In the meeting, PHMJ discussed about an accident happened in front of the church
on Sunday. This case involved one of the congregation and there was a victim.
The victim had been taken to the hospital, but the family of the victim took the
victim home. PHMJ tried to make a letter of agreement.
(3) dan saya kira lebih cepat lebih baik, iya kan? Apa lagi ini dia sudah di
rumah... (and I think it will be better if we do it soon, right? Moreover she
has been taken home...) (PHMJ meeting on March 14th, 2014)
From the Example (1), the superior used the word “maybe” just to emphasize that
she ask Mr. Th to give his report. She did it implicitly by questioning and she
assumed that Mr. Th would accept her request and gave his report to her. In
Example (2) and (3), the head chief gave her order by questioning which aimed at
reconfirming her idea to the other members, and she was sure that the other
member would accept it. The main point in using optimistic strategy is by
questioning the hearer, but the questions is just for confirming the listener and ask
if they have the same idea and accept to do the order. This strategy is used in this
situation to have positive face of the hearer, so that they feel respected by the
speaker.
The next positive politeness strategy used by the superior in giving orders
to the subordinates is Give (Ask) Reason. This strategy is one of the strategies that
might appear in the situation of giving orders or making requests.
23

Example:
Still about the accident on Sunday, So asked one represenative of PHMJ to take
over the case.
(4) “oh iya, kan yang mengurus ini dari awal pak Mardi.” (“Of course,
because Mr. Mardi have been in charge of this problem from the
beginning”) (PHMJ meeting on March 14th, 2014)
The Example (4) is an example of give (ask) reason strategy used by the superior
of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari. The Table 3 shows that this strategy is used as much
as 23.3 percent. In this situation, the superior used this strategy to explain the
reason of her order, so that it will save the member‟s positive face and to avoid
FTA.
In the meeting, PHMJ discussed about evaluation done by BPPJ (exchequer and
audit departement). Su gave her opinion about it.
(5) nah itu tadi, karena kita sudah bikin kan, BPPJ minta lagi yg lain gitu.
Nah harusnya kita tanya BPPJ itu maunya yang kaya apa. (That's what I
said, because we have made it, BPPJ asked for the other data, like this. We
should ask to the BPPJ about what they really want) (PHMJ meeting on
February 18th, 2014)
And the Example (5) is the example of Include both Su. And So in the activity
strategy which is used by the superior as much as 20 percent. This strategy is used
to make the superior‟s order is not only intended for the subordinate, but also for
the superior too. The order sounds like both superior and subordinate will do the
order together, although the subordinates have the responsibility to do it.

24

Offer and Promise and also Assume or Assert Reciprocity are other kinds
of positive politeness used by the superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari in making
orders/requests to the subordinates.
Example:
Because there was more important thing to discussed, Su tried to delay the
discussion and talked about the important first.
(6) iya, MuPel (Musyawarah Pelayanan) itu. Itu nanti kita bicarakan lagi (So,
about MuPel (Delibration Ministry). That will be discussed again later.)
(PHMJ meeting on March 14th, 2014)
In the meeting, PHMJ discussed about the accident and the victim who had been
taken home by he family. PHMJ discussed about what to do next.
(7) .....Harusnya gini, kalo bapak bawa, urusan bapak dan keluarga. Kalo di
sini kita masih bisa ngobrol, harusnya gitu kemarin. (That should be like
this, if you take her home, it's your own responsibility. If she is here, we
still can talk about it, which should've been like that.) (PHMJ meeting on
March 14th, 2014)
Example (6) is for offer and promise strategy, and Example (7) is for assume or
assert reciprocity strategy. These two strategies were rarely used by the head chief
of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari. Example (6) showed that the superior made a promise
to the subordinates to discuss a certain topic “later”. And Example (7) showed that
the superior wanted her subordinates to do something like what she said, but the
fact the subordinate already done the opposite way. Offer and Promise also
Assume or Assert Reciprocity appeared rarely because of the situation which
rarely happened in the meeting. The offer and promise strategy appeared when the

25

superior wanted to postpone the discussion because of there were more important
things needed to be discussed first. For assume or assert reciprocity strategy
appeared because of the situation when the superior wanted to give different way
as the thing that the subordinate supposed to do. Both strategies rarely appeared in
the situation observed because there was not much situation (let the superior
promising and doing something reciprocity to the subordinates) that support the
superior to use those strategies.
For the Give gifts to So. (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
and Assert or presuppose Su’s knowledge of and concern for So’s wants
strategies, both are not used by the superior of PHMJ GPIB Tamansari Salatiga. It
might be because those strategies have a little possibility to appear in an
organization situation. In giving orders or asking requests the superior never pay
attention to give gift and concern for her subordinate wants. Because those
strategies focus more on the hearer‟s face advantage, and as the superior, she has
the authority to give orders or asking requests, so she did not need to use those
strategies.

CONCLUSION
This study is aimed at exploring politeness strategies used by the superior
who has organization power in giving orders or making requests to the
subordinates who has power from society. In this case, the subordinates are older
than the superior. The result of this study finds that from the three staff meeting

26

recordings, the head chief of the organization commonly used positive politeness
strategies to give order or ask request to her subordinate. This result shows that
there is an indication that the superior wants to have closer relationship with her
subordinate, but still keeps her authority as the superior.
It corresponds with Yuka (2009) who states that speaker use positive
politeness to have interpersonal relationship with the hearer. it also corresponds
with the Diagram 1.1 about the flowchart of politeness strategies and tactics
ordered against estimated threat to face by Morand (1996), which shows that bald
on record and positive politeness have higher level of politeness and the result of
this study shows that the speaker pay attention to speaker estimation of threat to
face. Then, it also proves that the superior who has older subordinates pay more
attention to the power from the society that the subordinates have rather than
his/her power from the organization. Moreover, this study proves that age
influences politeness. The study also found that from all of the positive politeness,
the superior used be optimistic strategy more than the other strategies. Be
optimistic strategy used to minimize the face threat of the hearer (Brown &
Levinson, 1987).
The implication of this study is when younger superior faces the situation
where their subordinates are older, he/she can use positive politeness to minimize
the FTA. Moreover, positive politeness can be use to build good interpersonal
relationship. By doing this strategy, it will be non face threatening to ask a request
or give an order to a subordinate.

27

This study is limited to only looking at one way communication. It means
that the study only focuses on the communication from the superior to the
subordinate in one organization. Also this study is a case study, so it can not be
generalized. Therefore, for the further study it can be done to two way
communication, from the superior to the subordinate and inversely, and then look
for other organizations which has younger superior, older subordinate and same
age or younger subordinate as the comparator. It can be done in more than one
organization and longer period to have wider result.

28

Acknowledgement
Praise the Lord because this thesis can be completed on time. Moreover,
this thesis can‟t be done without the support from many special people around me.
The first and foremost, I would like to thank to my savior, Jesus Christ, thank you
for Your bless so that I can finished my study and this thesis well. I would also
express my special thank to my beloved parents. My mom, Sri Endah Natalyati
and my dad, Sutriyarso (†) who always support me and accompany me.
The second absolutely goes to my supervisor Christian Rudianto, S.Pd.,M.
App. Ling. and my second reader, Dr. Elisabet Titik Murtisari, S.Pd.,
MTransStud. Thank you for your help, support, advice and criticism. I would also
like to thank other English Department lecturers, and staff. Thank you, especially
to the dean Victoria Usadya Palupi and my advisor Suzanna Maria L. A. F.
Another special thank, to my hunie, Dimas Pradipta. Thank you for your
patience, to help, understanding, and for always “listening” to my squawk,
fretfulness, and annoyance.
For my beloved friends, where I can laugh, cry, share problems with, just
for you, Dewok, Kentung, Sho, Adit, Nindy, Zale, Mba Iph, Kamil, Nana, Upil
Ronny. Thank you for TENNERS, great to have known you guys. GBU.

29

REFERENCES
Anderson, P. (2010, October 1). Characteristics of community. Retrieved October
2013,

from

pSa

web

site:

http://www.psawa.com/Characteristics_of_a_community.html
Blum-Kulka, S. H. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, P. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral science, 2(3), 201-215.
Dannefer, D. W., & Poushinsky, N. (2006). Language and community. Journal of
Communication Vol. 27 No. 3, 122–126.
Farhat, E. O. (2013). Gender, power, politeness and women in the Arab society.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language &
Translation Studies Vol. 1 No. 1, 50-60.
Fukishima, S. (2000). Requests and culture: Politeness in British English and
Japanese. Berne: Peter Lang.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New
York: Anchor Books.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London:
Pearson.
Ide, S. (1982). Formal forms discrenment: Two neglected aspects of universals of
linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2/3), 223-248.

30

Kurniawan, Y. (2009). Discussion on the nation of politness in cross cultural
context. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.
Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse.
Multilingua 8 (2/3), 101–129.
Mahmud, M. (2013). The roles of social status, age, gender, familiarity, and
situation in being polite for Bugis society. Canadian Center of Science and
Education Vol. 9 No. 5, 58-72.
Mizutani, O., & Mizutani, N. (1987). How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The
Japan Times, Ltd.
Morand, D. A. (1996). Dominance, deference,

and egalitarianism in

organizational interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of power and
politeness. Organization Science Vol. 7 No. 5, 544-556.
Morand, D. A. (2000). Language and power: Empirical analysis of linguistic
strategies used in superior-subordinate communication. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 235-248.
Salifu, N. A. (2010). Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of
address in Dagbanli. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 19(4), 274–292.
Shields, P. M., & Rangarajan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods:
integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. New Forums
Press, 109-158.
Sukarno. (2010). The reflection of the Javanese cultural concepts in the politeness
of Javanese. K@ta Vol. 12, No. 1, 59-71.
Tran, V. M. Y. (2010). Vietnamese expression of politeness. Griffith Working
Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 3, 1 (2010), 12-21
Yuka, A. (2009). Positive politeness strategies in oral communication - textbook.
The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics Vol. 52
No. 1, 59-70.
31

32

APPENDIXES
Table A. Superior‟s Orders/Requests in PHMJ GPIB Tamansari meeting on February 4th, 2014
No
1

2

Politeness
Strategy

Order/Request Statement
Ya, mari kita mulai rapat kita pada malam hari ini, silahkan ibu
Er untuk menyampaikan laporannya (Okay, Let's start our
meeting today. Mrs. Er, please deliver the report)
Eeemm tunggu sebentar... itu untuk mengurus masalah itu,
pegawai itu, minggu ini tidak bisa, soalnya Ima cuti, minggu
depan juga cuti. Jd di buat maret aja itu. (Eemm wait, to take
care of that problem, about the employee, I can't make it this
week, Ima is on leave right now and also next week. So, let's
make it on March.)

Reason

Bald on Record

This strategy does nothing to minimize threats
to the listener's “face”

Positive politeness
- Be optimistic

Because, the leader here made a decision and
she assumed that all of the member would
accept it.

3

coba itu diingatkan, karena Sebenarnya kita kan sudah punya
kesepakatan kalau belum dirapatkan ga bisa cari-cari dana, jadi Positive politeness
The leader use the word "we" to make order,
mereka perlu kita kasi tau itu, kemarin banyak yang tanya itu.
- Include Su and So
which mean she include herself in.
(Please remind me, because actually we have had a deal that if it
in the activity
haven't discussed yet on the meeting, they couldn't do funding, so
we have to let them know. I got a lot question about that.)

4

Itu nanti dikonfirmasi dulu aja, kita hanya menyediakan tempat
atau menyiapkan yang lainnya juga. (Just confirm it first, we
just provide the place or we have to prepare another too.)

32

Bald on Record

This strategy does nothing to minimize threats
to the listener's “face”

5

6

7

8

9

Ini kita diminta untuk mengiklankan? Ya sudah kalau begitu
nanti itu di copy saja, lalu ditempelkan di papan pengumuman,
keterangan lengkap bisa ditanyakan ke kantor gereja, begitu?
(Do they ask us to advertise it? Okay just make a copy of it then
stick it on the announcement board, you can get the complete
information in the office, am I right?
Maaf, ini untuk kegiatan yang mana? (Sorry, this is for which
activity?)
iya, dalam program itu ada ulang tahun Tamansari. Kita ga
pernah bikin ya. Itu tanggal 15. Itu kita mau buat acara apa ya?
(Yes, in the program there is Tamansari birthday. We never have
done this. It's on 15th. What kind of program will we make?)
.......karena jemaat kan belum semua punya jd maksud saya ini
nanti bisa dibagi dan dicatat siapa-siapa yang untuk proses
pembayaran. (because not all of the congregation have had it,
so I mean that later it can be distributed and then listed who they
are due to the payment.)
mungkin perlu diberitahukan bahwa kita mengundang jemaat,
begitu?...... (Maybe we need to inform them that we invite the
entire congregation, doesn't we?)

33

Negative politeness The leader gave order but kind of unsure with
- Be pessimistic
it, so she ask for feedback.

Negative politeness The leader use the word "sorry" before she ask
- Apologize
a request.

Off Record - Be
vague

Actually the leader ask the member to make an
activity in that day, but the way she ask is by
asking for the member opinion about what kind
of activity they would make.

Positive Politeness
- Give reason

What it's mean by the leader here is, she want
the member to spread out the book to the
congregation and list them for the payment
process. She gave the reason first before asked
the member to do it.

Negative politeness The leader seems unsure about what she
- be pessimistic
wanted to ask.

10

11

12
13

14

bagaimana jika kita mengundang Koor, dari pelkat2 itu ya..
semua pelkat.. mungkin nanti jadi bagus ya, soalnya ini kan
ulang tahun tamansari kan. (How about if we invite the choir,
from the categorial services.. Maybe it will be good, because it
is Tamansari Birthday, right?)
oh iya, kita juga bisa mngundang bu Nora dan pak Zhakaria, bu
Sri juga untuk menjelaskan buku sejarah GPIB ini ya untuk
tanggal 15 . dan surat untuk pelkat2 itu bsk sudah bisa mulai
di edarkan ya .. (Oh right, we can invite Mrs. Nora, Mr. Zakaria,
and Mrs. Sri to explain GPIB history book on 15th, and the
letter for categorial services can be spread out start from
tomorrow..)
jam 5 aja ya, seperti biasa. Kita sidang tanggal brp? 13 ya?
Hari, rabu ? (how about at 5 p.m., as ussual. When we have the
session? Is it on 13th? What day, Wednesday?)
di buat prasmanan aja itu, buat 150 aja (We make the buffet, for
150 people.)
oh jadi maksudnya gini kalo pribadi gak papa lho ya, tapi kalo
gereja jangan. Karena kalo sebagai gereja kan harusnya
berkoordinasi juga gitu to? (So, what I mean is, it is okay if it is
personal, but if it is as a church, no. Because if it is as a church,
we should coorndinate first, am I right?)

34

Positive Politeness
- Give reason

The leader give reason about why they have to
invite the c