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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 (Bern:Peter Lang European Academic Publishers, 2003), p. 21.
21
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
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
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 (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
Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior (New Jersey: Transaction Publisher, 2005), p. 5.
Asim Gunarwan, Pragmatik: Teori dan Kajian Nusantara (Jakarta: Unika Atma Jaya, 2007), p. 12.
48
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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?
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 understanding that enormous problem, not just for America but also for Indonesian people
Bringing bad news
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:
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.
