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 do n’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
Ibid. pp. 356-358.
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
Bernadette Vine 2004, op.cit. p. 5.
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 does
n’t. The doctor is in a position to determine how a health problem should be dealt with and the patient is
n’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
Geoffrey Leech, Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman, 1983, p. 123-126.
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
Ibid. pp. 31-40.
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
CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS
A. Data Description
The interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Obama was in the White House on March 22
nd
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
Is it true that you used to tease your female Request
