i

ABSTRACT

Muh. Shohibussirri, An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababan’s

Interview with Barack Obama. Thesis. Jakarta: English Letters Department,

Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University (UIN) Syarif

Hidayatullah, February 2011.

This research is on pragmatics politeness of an interview between Putra

Nababan and the United States President, Barack Obama. It is a qualitative

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

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

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

politeness strategies used by Nababan and Obama. The writer also analyzes the

relation between power level difference and the choice of strategy.

By applying the theories, the writer knows that the choices of strategies from

the participants are in some cases different with the notions given. In this

interview, Nababan as a participant with lower power level used more positive

politeness strategy. It is different with the notions given in the pragmatics as it is

expected that he should use more negative politeness strategy. Even, he performed

some impoliteness utterances. Obama as the higher level power participant used

negative politeness strategy and tried to treat Nababan as a close friend in some

occasions. He tried to be polite during the whole interview. He never spoke

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

found too that both participants used the strategies as the notions explained in

some of their utterances. Some of the notions and the applied strategies were

compatible each other. Here, they considered some factors, not just one sole thing,

in performing the strategies. Accordingly, some incompatibilities can be analyzed

through their considerations. Nababan and Obama put more consideration to their

intended goals, the type of activity, the rapport management and their emotional

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

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

military assistance.

In conclusion, politeness strategy is not a static matter in communication. It

is dependent on the speaker and hearer’s goals. Power is not the only factor

influenced a verbal communication although the power level difference of the

participants is very apparent.

ii

APPROVEMENT

AN ANALYSIS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN PUTRA NABABAN’S

INTERVIEW WITH BARACK OBAMA

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty

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

MUH. SHOHIBUSSIRRI

NIM: 107026001371

Approved by:

Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd

NIP. 19640710 199303 1 006

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF

HIDAYATULLAH

JAKARTA

2011

iii

LEGALIZATION

The thesis entitled “An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababan’s Interview with Barack Obama” has been defended before the Letters and Humanities Faculty’s Examination Committee on April 13, 2011. 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

5. Drs Romdani, M.Pd (Examiner II)

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my

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

Muh. Shohibussirri

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

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

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

Muhammad, PBUH. Peace and salutation may be upon our beloved prophet who

guide us to the right path by teaching us all kind of sciences and advising us to

learn hard anywhere.

Being student in State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah is more than

just a pride, it is an honour. Learning English, Linguistics and Literature with

experienced and friendly lecturers in English Letters Department is a prestigious

thing in this life. Therefore, the writer would like to express the sincere

appreciation, gratitude, and respect to:

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

Humanities.

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

Department and the Advisor.

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

Department.

4. Hilmi Akmal, M.Hum, Sholikhatus Sa’diyah M.Hum and Zahril

Anasy, M.Hum. With them, it is an ease to study English, Linguistics

vi

and Literature. In addition, The writer’s appreciation also goes to All

lecturers who sincerely (learned with and) taught the writer from the

beginning of first semester in this department until the last days of

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

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

H.M Najib and Thohiroh Muhammadun. They are the light in the dark and the

only motivator and reason in pursuing the dreams. This thesis and all of the

writer’s works are dedicated to both of them. Their guidance, advice, prays, and

supports are irreplaceable and unchangeable through the time. The writer will

always make them both happy and proud anytime and anywhere. The writer knew

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

impossible, but the writer will always try for that. A thousand of thanks and bows

will never ever equal to what both of they did, even, this simple composition

dedicated to both of them. Their spoken advice, just once, is far better than this

written thing.

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

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

stuffs they gave, did, and said. The writer will never be here, will never write this

thesis will never be graduated without their supports, assistances, and prays.

To the writer’s best brother, Khoirul Muqtafa, and his family: Husnul

Athiyyah and Haidan Ilkiya, the writer thanks very much for any supports,

motivations, and helps. They pay a lot of attention and give so much care to the

writer in pursuing his dreams including encouraging the writer to be a prolific

vii

writer. To Nurun Nisa, the writer’s beloved sister, special gratitude for all things

she has done for the writer. Thanks for the time, share and assistance. There were

many hard times faced the writer, fortunately, the writer found her. The writer

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

as the subject if he were not the interviewee. Last but not least, the writer ended

viii

his seventh semester days by winning a tough debate contest in UIN by citing his

statements in the final day of debate. Is it a coincidence or a fate? Nobody knows.

Thanks for all.

Ciputat, February, 2011

The Writer

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................ 8

x

A. The Concept of Politeness and Impoliteness ............................ 8

B. The Concept of Face, FTA-FSA, and the Strategies ................. 12

1. Face in Brown and Levinson Politeness Theory ............ 12

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

B. Suggestions ............................................................................... 64

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

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 Gino Eelen, A Critique of Politeness Theories (Manchester : St. Jerome Publishing, 2001, p. 12.

2

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

cause communication breakdown and misunderstanding.3

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

society like letting the others go forward first when walking through the door and

cleaning the mouth after dinner with serviette. But it means choices made in

language usage and in language expressions which show friendliness to the

hearers. A case of Margaret Thatcher campaign is a good example of politeness.

One day, she campaigned and wanted to show how close she was to the people.

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

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

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

“selling and clipping tickets”. But she didn’t choose it. Instead, she said “who are

all doing wonderful job”. It is the personal choice of her. She did it to show

friendliness and her close relationship to the people, especially to the clippie. She

wanted to be polite. This case shows how important to be friendly is in the social

interaction as we want to be treated by the people the way we treat them. To be

friendly and nice to the others or to save the people public self image is a concept

introduced by Brown and Levinson in their politeness theory.4

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

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

3 Heikki Nyyssonen, Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2009), p. 167. 4 John Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse: Resource Books for Student (London: Routledge,

2002), pp. 44-45.

3

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

4

expression, Nababan will be more careful to utter anything. Obama can interrupt

the conversation caused by his authority and Nababan will follow what the

President wants to for the sake of gaining information and news. It is the

prediction using the concept of pragmatics. Are the ways mentioned above the

ways of the real interview done by them?

Nababan’s gratitude in the beginning of this interview is as guessed. When he

called Obama “Mr. President”, it is so. Anything goes as predicted. But, the

interview isn’t just that simple.

In this interview, Obama as the one in higher power level began his utterances

with “please” many times. In the beginning, he let Nababan sit down saying

“please sit down”. When confirmed about his postpone on visiting Indonesia,

Obama said “Please let them know”. Obama said “please” in other statements

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

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

saying “please” is an expression shows politeness. The speaker here is the

President with higher authority rank. So, Obama made expressions politely by

using “please” to Nababan, the interviewer with lower level of power.

However, Nababan in some occasions interrupt Obama when on the floor.

Even, Nababan asked explicitly to answer the question on military assistance

directly while Obama was trying to respond it indirectly. All of above mentioned

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

This interview is very interesting to research. It is caused by Nababan as the

media representation agent and Obama as the government leader chose different

5

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

communicating with Putra Nababan?

6

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

Muhammad Farkhan, Proposal Penelitian Bahasa dan Sastra (Jakarta: Cella, 2007), p. 2.

7

2. Data Analysis

The collected data is analyzed using the politeness theory of Brown and

Levinson. It is also supported by the theory from Jonathan Culpeper, Geoffrey

Leech, Jenny Thomas and Helen Spencer-Oatey.

The process of analysis is in some steps, i.e.: (a) the writer looks for the video

of interview between Putra Nababan and Barack Obama and its script (b) The

writer watches the video and looks at its script (c) the writer uses the mentioned

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

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

the strategy of politeness.

3. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis in this research is the interview between Putra Nababan

and Barack Husein Obama.

4. The Instrument of Research

The instrument of the research is the writer himself. The writer analyzes

the interview using the mentioned theories of politeness.

5. Place and Time

This research starts on December 2010, at the department of English

Letters, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta and will be ended on

February 2011.

8

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. The Concept of Politeness and Impoliteness

The politeness term is so confusing. It also causes much misunderstanding.

According to Thomas, the only reason is that people have discussed five separate

sets of phenomena (deference, register, a real-world goal, a surface level

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

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

of gratitude and apology.12

In common use, the term is associated with well-

mannered behavior and social attributes such as good upbringing and formal

etiquette.13

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

relationship with others.14

Most socially competent individuals acquire what so-

called a practical sense of politeness from experience.15

In ordinary, daily contexts

of use, members of speech communities are capable of immediate and intuitive

assessments of what constitutes polite versus rude, tactful versus offensive

11

Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (Edinburgh: Longman,

1995), p. 149. 12

Helen Spencer-Oatey, Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory,

2nd

ed. (Cornwall: Continuum, 2008), p. 2. 13

Naomi Geyer, Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese (London: Continuum,

2008), p. 1. 14

George Yule, the Study of Language, 3rd

ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006),

p. 119. 15

John Hall, Cicero’s Letters and Linguistic Politeness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),

p. 5.

9

behavior. All the concepts and the definitions of politeness above are based on the

daily usage which is different from the scientific politeness.

Therefore, Richard Watts introduced the dual concept of first and second

order of politeness. The first politeness relates to the lay notion of politeness,

common-sense, and the daily understanding of what constitutes polite and

impolite behavior. The second politeness relates to politeness as a scientific and

theoretical construct.16

It is politeness in the second sense that will be used in this

research.

Politeness is a concept studied in pragmatics and sociolinguistics in the

Anglo-Saxon linguistics tradition.17

Even, this concept is a subject of social

theory.18

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

notion of politeness has become a central topic of inquiry across diverse

disciplines (pragmatics, sociolinguistics, social psychology, anthropology and

language acquisition).19

But, it is only politeness in the pragmatics view that will

be applied in this research.

Politeness is an aspect of pragmatics.20

It is a pragmatic phenomenon

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

intended social meaning.21

Pragmatically, politeness is interpreted as a strategy (or

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

16

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

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

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

Naomi Geyer (2008), loc. cit. 20

Saeko Fukushima, Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese, 3rd

ed.

(Bern:Peter Lang European Academic Publishers, 2003), p. 21. 21

John Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse: Resource Books for Student (London: Routledge,

2002), pp. 51-52.

10

maintaining harmonious relations.22

Just as the definitions of pragmatics vary, so

too do the definitions of politeness in linguistics. There are many definitions given

by linguists.

According to Arndt & Jenny, as quoted by Eelen, politeness is “a matter of

using the right words in the right contexts as determined by conventional rules of

appropriateness.”23

In the opinion of Sachiko Ide, politeness isn’t only about the

way the speaker strategically chooses to treat the hearer, but it is also an

inalienable part of the language through which socio-structural concordance is

achieved.24

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

interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the

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

Therefore, politeness is an integral part to the people in the daily communication.

Every discussion about politeness will inevitably return to the theoretical

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

Politeness can be approached from four various perspectives, viewing it as a

means to reduce friction in interaction, as a device for conflict avoidance, as a

solidarity-building practice, as a behavior that express positive concern for others

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

Pragmatics approaches to politeness is limited under four headings: the

conversational-maxim view, the conversational contract view, the pragmatic

22

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

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

Ibid. p. 12. 25

Ibid. p. 2. 26

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

Ibid. p. 4.

11

scales view and the face management view.28

Based on all perspective, politeness

on pragmatics will make the communication between the interlocutors go well.

Among the above approaches, the face management view proposed by

Brown and Levinson has been the most influential paradigm and the most

comprehensive.29

The theory revolves around the notion of a concept called

face.30

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

face which are both claimed to be universal features.31

The basic concepts of

politeness in this view are:

1. Politeness means minimizing the interlocutor face from threatening

acts (FTA) through some specific strategies.32

2. People use politeness when they are taking another person’s feeling

into consideration. People speak or put things in such a way to

minimize the potential threat in the interaction. 33

3. Linguistic politeness is generated in communication by the

individual’s concern with face. Politeness derives from the face-needs

of people involved in a social encounter. It is this basic feature of

interaction that generates polite language.34

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

intended to maintain mutual face and to achieve smooth

communication, taking into account human relationships.35

28

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

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

Ibid. p. 4. 31

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

Bernadette Vine, Getting Things Done at Work: the Discourse of Power in Workplace

Interaction (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004), p. 35. 33

Jo Roberts, “Face Threatening Acts and Politeness Theory: Contrasting Speeches from

Supervisory Conferences,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, vol. 7 (Alexandria: ASCD,

1992), p. 288. 34

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

Saeko Fukushima (2003), op.cit. p. 27.

12

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

Bousfield and Locher (2008), op.cit. p. 1.

13

theory is the concept of face.41

Consequently, if we want to talk about politeness

using this theory, we have to analyze the face of speaker and hearer. Face at first

is a concept in sociology proposed by Goffman. The concept is then brought to

pragmatics by Brown and Levinson.42

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

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

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

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

face.”44

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

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

According to Jenny Thomas, the concept of face is best understood as every

individual’s feeling of self-worth or self-image within politeness theory. This

image can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through verbal interaction with

others.46

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

language by Asim Gunarwan47

and “kehormatan” by Dr. Oka when translating

Leech’s magnum opus.48

41

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

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

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

Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior (New Jersey: Transaction

Publisher, 2005), p. 5. 44

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

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 46

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

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

p. 12. 48

Geoffrey Leech, Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Penerjemah Dr. M.D.D. Oka, M.A (Jakarta:

Penerbit Universitas Indonesia, 1993), p. 202.

14

There are two kinds of face in this theory, positive and negative. The word

“negative” associated to face is just a term, as the opposite of positive. There is no

bad implication in using the word “negative” attributed to face. 49

An individual’s

positive face is the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by

others. An individual’s negative face is the desire not to be impeded or put upon,

to have freedom to act as he / she chooses.50

Meyerhoff simply explains these two

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

on me” for the negative. 51

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

maintain or protect face.52

It can also be defined as showing awareness and

consideration for another person’s face.53

Politeness intended to keep the positive

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

negative politeness.54

Finally, the face is non separable concept to talk about politeness. To judge

this utterance is a kind of positive politeness and that expression is the negative

one, we have to use the concept of face. It is caused by a simple notion : when

people communicate, they want to show and keep their self image, or face.

49

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 50

Jenny Thomas (1995), loc. cit. 51

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

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

p. 378. 53

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 54

Asim Gunarwan (2007), op.cit. p. 13.

15

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

Naturally, there are some inconvenient and uncomfortable utterances for

others in communication. By utterances, a speaker can hurt, disappoint or ridicule

a hearer. Those then threaten the self-image of interlocutor. Brown and Levinson

use the term FTA or face threatening act to describe the utterances.55

Even, it is

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

For example, if a speaker uses the direct speech act to ask a hearer to do

something (give me that paper!), the speaker are behaving as if he has more social

power than the hearer. If the speaker in the reality hasn’t the power, then the

speaker are performing an FTA. An indirect speech act (could you pass me that

paper?), removes the assumption of social power. The speaker is only asking if

it’s possible. This makes the request less threatening to the other person’s face.

Whenever a participant of communication says something that lessens the

possible threat to another’s face, it is a face saving act (FSA).57

There are many options that can be used by the interlocutor when

communicating. The interlocutor can use any expression he or she wishes to. In

accordance to the concept of face, five possible ways can be chosen. Those ways

are:58

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

(c) performing an FTA with negative politeness (d) performing an FTA with

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

55

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

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

George Yule (2006), loc. cit. 58

Brown and Levinson (1992), op.cit. p. 60.

16

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

Ibid. pp. 65-69.

17

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.

f) Unwilling promises and offers.

18

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

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

doing a prior FTA).

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

constrained to denigrate the object of H’s prior

compliment, thus damaging his own face).

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

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

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

e) Confession and admission of guilt or responsibility.

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

3. The strategies for doing FTAs

If someone chooses to do an FTA, specific strategy (or superstrategy in

Thomas’ term)60

is needed to maintain or to save the face of hearer. In this theory,

there are four general strategies to perform FTAs.61

Because the politeness in this

theory is related to face management, the strategy chosen by the speaker or hearer

to perform FTA linguistically shows the politeness.

As explained above, Brown and Levinson state explicitly that there are

two kinds of politeness; positive and negative. Thomas Jenny then says that there

is off record politeness in their theory.62

Culpeper adds it by stating that bald on

60

Jenny Thomas (1995), loc. cit. 61

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

Jenny Thomas (1995), op.cit. p. 173.

19

record is a kind of politeness in some circumstances.63

Even, according to him,

Brown and Levinson imply that there is a so-called withhold politeness in the

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

Therefore, by combining all perspectives, it can be concluded that there are five

kinds of politeness in Brown and Levinson theory.

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

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

“Hey, blondie, what are you studying, then? French and Italian? Join the club!”.

Here, the male empoyed three positive politeness strategies ; use in-group identity

markers (blondie), express interest in H (asking her what she is studying), and

claim common ground (join the club!).65

the male then show positive politeness.

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

a. The strategies to show bald on record politeness

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

circumstances. For example when face concerns are suspended in an emergency,

when the threat to the hearer’s face is very small (e.g. come in / do sit down) or

when the speaker is much more powerful than the hearer (e.g. stop complaining

said by a parent to a child). In all cases, little face is at stake and it isn’t the

intention of the speaker to attack the face of the hearer.”66

63

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

Ibid. p. 358. 65

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

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), loc. cit.

20

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

Brown and Levinson (1992), op.cit. pp. 101-129.

21

3. Intensify interest to hearer

This strategy is by involving the addressee in the conversation. The speaker

shows that he will be glad if the addressee takes part in the communication. For

example:

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

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

scattered all over.

4. Use in-group identity markers

The next strategy is by using specific variety of language called markers.

Address form, dialects, jargon, slang and elliptical form are markers used in the

communication. In English, the address forms usually used are mac, mate, buddy,

pal, honey, dear, duckie, luv, babe, mom, blondie, brother, sister, cutie,

sweetheart, guys and fellas. Mentioning the brand of a product is considered using

slang. For example:

a) Come here, honey.

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

c) Lend us two bucks then, wouldja mac?

d) Mind if I smoke?

e) How about a drink?

5. Seek agreement

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

strategy is usually used in two ways. First, it is by seeking the safe way by some

specific expression. Second, it is by repetition. For example:

22

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:

a) Don’t you want some dinner now?

23

b) A: Oh this cut hurts awfully, Mum.

B: Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know.

8. Joke

In some contexts, making a joke in conversation is a way to be polite to the

addressee. For example:

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

9. Show speaker’s knowledge and concern for hearer’s wants

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

wants. For example:

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

brought your geraniums instead.

10. Offer and promise

Speaker can be considered polite if he offers or promises something to the

hearer. For example:

a) I’ll drop by sometime next week.

11. Be optimistic

By expressing what the wants with optimistic voices, a speaker applies the

strategy of positive politeness. For example:

a) You’ll lend me your lawnmower for the weekend, I hope.

b) Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I borrow your typewriter.

12. Include both speaker and hearer in the activity

If the speaker is in a room with the addressee and wants to do something, he

may invite the hearer to participate without considering the responses that will be

24

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:

a) I feel sorry for your brother.

25

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.68

Those 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

Ibid. pp. 129-210.

26

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..

d) Please forgive me if…

27

7. Impersonalize speaker and hearer

Impersonalizing means making the person with whom we communicate

unmentioned. We can use the word “it” or by not mentioning him. For example:

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

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

8. State the FTA as a general rule

Rather than mentioning the addressee directly, we can generalize the

expression when we ask him to follow what we say. For example:

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

(from “you will please refrain from…).

b) International regulations require that the fuselage be sprayed

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

international regulations).

9. Nominalize

According to this theory, by nominalizing the expression -make it on the form

of nominal phrase, not on verbal or clause form- the interlocutor shows the

negative politeness. For example:

a) Your good performance on the examinations impressed us

favourably (Compared to : you performed well on the

examinations and we were favourably impressed).

28

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

Ibid. pp. 213-227.

29

4. Understate

Understatement are one way of generating implicatures by saying less than is

required. It is then considered off-record politeness. For example:

a) What do you think of Harry?

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

5. Overstate

If you give information more than what is needed, you are using this fifth

strategy called overstatement. For example: i tried to call a hundred times, but

there was never any answer (it means conveying an apology for not getting in

touch).

6. Use tautologies

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

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

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

7. Use contradictions

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

It is a way to be polite. For example:

a) Are you upset about that?

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

8. Be ironic

You can say the opposite of what you meant when speaking to someone, and

it is a kind of strategy. For example: “John’s a real genius” (after john has just

done twenty stupid things in a row).

30

9. Use metaphor

To say that your friend is slimy, you can use “Harry is a real fish”. It is a kind

of metaphor that used to show off record politeness.

10. Use rhetorical questions

It is a kind of question that leave its answer hanging in the air. For example:

“what can i say?” ( to say nothing, it is so bad).

11. Be ambiguous

When you say something ambiguously, it means you try to be polite. For

example: “John is a pretty smooth cookie” ( an insult).

12. Be vague

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

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

13. Overgeneralize

The next strategy is by not mentioning the hearer name or adressing him

directly. For example: “Mature people sometimes help do the dishes” ( to ask help

for your adult friend).

14. Displace H

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

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

secretary, pass me the stapler, please”. The professor then pass it to you and the

secretary does nothing.

31

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

Ibid. pp. 356-358.

32

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.

33

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

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

The relation between power and the politeness in conversation can be

manifested in these notions:

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

expected to be more polite, while more powerful speakers are allowed

to be less polite.80

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

indirectness and more negative politeness features than those with

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

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

she is able to reduce the ability of the less powerful participant to

retaliate with impoliteness through the denial of speaking right. He /

she can also threaten more severe retaliation if the less powerful

participant be impolite.82

The utterances will be less polite if the S and

H have a little difference of power.83

In a hospital, a doctor has more power than the patient. The doctor knows

about medicine and the patient doesn’t. The doctor is in a position to determine

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

79

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

Bernadette Vine (2004), loc. cit. 81

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

Jonathan Culpeper (1996), loc. cit. 83

Rahardi Kunjana, Pragmatik : Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia (Jakarta: Penerbit

Erlangga, 2006), p. 66.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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 22nd

2010. The data is in the form of utterances. Below

are the utterances from both participants and the performed FTAs.

No Participant Utterance FTA

1. Putra

Nababan

Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?.....This is quite good

i think, banyak latihan? Do you have practiced

with...?

Request

(personal

information)

Are you still on the plan? Request

We can find you becak if you come on in summer! Promise,

Reminding

I think they have been preparing for you, even

your SD Asisi, SD Menteng they all preparing, I

dont know how they gonna take it

Reminding,

Bringing bad

news

There is still prevailing scepticism that you will be

unable to act on your stance

Bringing bad

news

what life lesson do you take from your experience

in Indonesia that help make you the person you are

today?

Compliment

You tickled him from the back! Accusation

Is this include the military assistance? Interruption

Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore

like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and

Gareng is your favorite?.......And Gareng and

Petruk?.... Do you really memorize Pancasila?...

You don’t?... That’s i have to confirm. Is it true

that you like nasi goreng and Bakso?...... You

listen that?

Request

You mention about people to people, many

Indonesians have high expectation that US under

your leadership succesful implementing that the

two state solutions to the Israel-Palestinian

conflict, is this realistic expectation?

Raising

divisive

topic

Is it true that you used to tease your female Request

38

classmates to get their attention?

Sampai Jumpa di Jakarta Reminding

You have maybe your favorite sentence that you

remember, that you know?

Nasi goreng?

So, you are telling the Indonesian people through

me that you are not coming on this Tuesday but

instead you are going this summer?

You bring family?

Request

Aside from financial intelligent assistance that US

giving, what kind of cooperation that US would

give to rise out the root of terrorism in Indonesia?

The last one, is it true you wrote a poem stating

that your dream is to become a President?

Request

Do you remember breaking someone’s arm? Raising

Dangerous

Topic

You tickled the guy? Request

2. Barack

Obama

I mean, the truth is i have so many good memories

of Indonesia and it is such a special place to keep

in my mind

Bringing bad

news

i think it makes more senses to me to delay the trip

until summer, until sometime in June

Bringing bad

news

Please let them know, i gonna let them know

through you, i dont want to dissapoint any body

Order

It is comprehensive, so, in my conversation with

President Yudhoyono and our team we want to

create comprehensive partnership that include

political and security issues, include economic and

technological issues, …obviously Indonesia is a

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

(then interrupted by Nababan)…The assurance of

military assistance? Obviously, there has been

some controversies in terms of military assistance

in the past, but since the advant of democracy in

Indonesia that we’ve seen,

Bringing bad

news

Well, i think we have to acknowledge those past

human right abuses existence and so we can go

forward without looking back out some...and

understanding that enormous problem, not just for

America but also for Indonesian people

Bringing bad

news

Well, i think there is combination of things, i think

that there are a lot of countries that have poverty

but don’t have terrorism

Disagreement

Please tell him that i apologize for that, i felt so

bad, i remember, feeling terrible

Order

39

Nababan and Obama made utterances in the form of questions and

statements. Through their words, the writer analyzes the strategies employed. It is

not only Brown and Levinson theory that used, but also the supporting theories

from Jonathan Culpeper, Thomas Jenny and George Yule. Then, the writer

analyzes the difference of power level influence in their communication using

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

Leech’s scale.

B. Data Analysis

1. Nababan’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy

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

Indonesian mass medias at that time. RCTI as one of the popular Indonesian

television wanted to get the full news of Obama, not only his departure from

America, but also the commentaries of American people on their President, his

childhood and Indonesia. Through Nababan, RCTI got a rare chance to interview

the President in the White House, and it was broadcasted. This broadcasted

interview was viewed by many Indonesian people and it got a lot of comments.

Nababan began the interview by greeting and some small talks.

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

asked Obama:

“Yes, you know Mr. President, i have been here for almost 48 hours and i

felt the tense, the atmosphere of politics, national politics in America, i

just wondering are you, i learnt that you postponed the trip to Indonesia

for three days and we know that to Indonesia, you are leaving Sunday

40

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

plan?” (p. 68)

Requesting personal information is a kind of face-threatening act (FTA). Hence,

Nababan threatened the positive and negative face of Obama by “are you still on

the plan?”. Nababan performed FTA. But Nababan used a specific strategy before

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

President”. It is a kind of deference by mentioning tittle and name in addressing

the hearer. Here, Nababan employed negative politeness strategy. Second,

Nababan told Obama that he felt what Obama felt as the President: the political

tense of United States at that time. It was not only Obama and the Congress that

felt it, Nababan did too. In Brown and Levinson theory, it is called assertion of

common ground by giving empathy. It is a strategy used to show positive

politeness. Here, Nababan used negative and positive politeness strategy to

perform FTA.

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

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

Obama. Getting the prompt answer from Obama that the visit was postponed,

Nababan then got a story of Obama childhood in Indonesia. Nababan listened it

and then said:

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

It was not a question, but a promise using the first conditional sentence pattern.

Nababan promised Obama to find him becak when going to Indonesia. Promise is

a kind of FTA. By making a promise, Nababan threatened the face of Obama.

Here, he also threatened by reminding. Nababan reminded Obama that although

41

he had postponed the visit to Indonesia at this time, he have to come sometime in

June, in summer. Nababan threatened Obama’s face twice. Fortunately, Nababan

expressed those in the intonation of joke, by smiling and laughing. Showing a

joke, in this theory, is a kind of strategy to show positive politeness.

In another occasion, Nababan reminded Obama again about the visit that

just postponed. But at this time he used different strategy. He opted to employ off

record politeness strategy.

“I think they have been preparing for you, even your SD Asisi, SD

Menteng they all preparing, i dont know how they gonna take it” (p. 71)

Nababan reminded Obama about his planned visit through the preparation that

just done by the students of SD Menteng. Here, Nababan also performed another

FTA. He gave a bad news to Obama. It was about the dissapointment of SD Asisi

students that had prepared many things to welcome Obama and he put it off.

Giving bad news to the hearer is a kind of FTA. The strategy used here by

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

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

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

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

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

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

dissapoint any body. The only reason that we delay, we decided to delay,

is because the most important domestic priority were in the US is going to

be voted on this weekend or early next week and i have to be here.

Unfortunately, i dont have control over the legislature schedule, i am not

the prime minister...” (p. 71)

42

The RCTI journalist used different strategy in giving other bad news to the

US President in this interview. Nababan told Obama that there was scepticism

prevailed for people in relation to the US policies to the Muslim world. The

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

campaign funding agent or purely by his own stance?”

“Mr. President, there is still prevailing scepticism that you will be unable

to act on your stance to rise out the muslim world, how do you respond to

this?” (p. 73)

Here, Nababan used the negative politeness strategy by mentioning Obama’s tittle

as address form. Nababan showed deference before giving bad news and

questioned.

In this short interview, Nababan thought that Obama was an excellent

person who became a leader of super power country. He complimented Obama.

“My last question Mr. President, what life lesson do you take from your

experience in Indonesia that help make you the person you are today?”

(p.76)

Nababan through off record politeness strategy praised Obama by saying “make

you the person you are today”. It was an implied compliment. Nababan would not

ask Obama any life lesson he got from Indonesia if Obama was not an excellent

person. It was not a life lesson which would be asked if Obama was not a to-be-

emulated figure, or he was just an ordinary one. Nababan questioned Obama

because Obama had the quality of a succesful person. In this utterance, Nababan

was not only performing FTA by giving compliment, but he also asked about

personal information that threatened both positive and negative face of the

President. In doing this, Nababan employed two strategies simultaneously. First,

43

by showing deference. Second, by minimizing imposition which is shown by the

phrase “my last question”. It is true that this was not the last questions for Obama,

but there were many following questions aftermath. The two strategies used by

Nababan are to show negative politeness.

In this widely broadcasted interview, Nababan asked many personal

information of Obama.

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

because you are so famous in the country, it is just gonna be quick and be

quick answer. Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore like

Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and Gareng is your

favorite?.......And Gareng and Petruk?.... Do you really memorize

Pancasila?... You dont?... That’s i have to confirm. Is it true that you like

nasi goreng and Bakso?...... You listen that?” (p. 76-77)

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

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

Nababan minimized the imposition by stating that these questions going to be

quick, and not in detailed ways. He also used in-group identity markers by

expressing the food terms that mostly only known by the people of Indonesia.

Nababan also applied the strategy of joke to show positive politeness when

requesting the other personal information of Obama.

“Is it true that you used to tease your female classmates to get their

attention?” (p. 77)

Nababan asked the Obama naughtiness when in Indonesia: teasing his female

classmate. By the intonation, Nababan questioned it in a relaxed way, as if it was

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

know at first. Then, he said he denied it.

44

Before leaving the White House, Nababan reminded Obama that he still

have to visit Indonesia next time. Nababan threatened the face of Obama through

the statement below.

“Sampai Jumpa di Jakarta !” (p. 78)

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

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

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

used to mitigate the FTA effect, but also used to indicate that the speaker wants to

come closer to hearer. It is called social accelerator. In this interview, Nababan

employed this technique. He did not performed FTA, but he used the positive

politeness strategy. Nababan wants to be closer to the interviewee.

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

Mr. President?”

“Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?”

“This is quite good i think banyak latihan?Do you have practiced

with...?” (p. 67-68)

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

in-group identity marker strategy. He also discussed the common things that only

mostly only known by Indonesian.

In some utterances, Nababan used ellipsis strategy to perform FTA.

Requesting personal information many times, he employed this strategy

recurrently. It meant Nababan wanted to show positive politeness through this

technique.

“You have maybe your favorite sentence that you remember, that you

know?” (p. 68)

“Nasi goreng?” (p. 69)

45

“So, you are telling the Indonesian people through me that you are not

coming on this Tuesday but instead you are going this summer?”

“You bring family?” (p. 70)

Nababan, in another chance, asked other Obama’s personal information, but by

employing diffferent strategy. He asserted his knowledge about Obama’s opinion

on the cause of terrorism before asking. Nababan was also optimistic that the US

would give assistance to Indonesian government, although he knew that Obama

postponed the visit and gave nothing yet. Then, he minimized the imposition by

telling that this was the last question, no more questions would be given to

Obama.

“Since you mention about terrorism, that issue of terrorism is also facing

Indonesia and you believe that the root of terrorism is poverty and

injustice. Aside from financial intelligent assistance that US giving, what

kind of cooperation that US would give to rise out the root of terrorism in

Indonesia?” (p. 74)

“The last one, is it true you wrote a poem stating that your dream is to

become a President?” (p. 78)

In the first utterance, Nababan showed positive politeness strategy. He, in the

latter, employed a technique to show negative politeness strategy.

In this interview, Nababan also performed FTA without strategy. He

threatened Obama’s face without using techniques in Brown and Levinson theory.

Jonathan Culpeper who elaborates more on their theory assumes that, in relation

to the face concept, there can be impoliteness in analyzing communication by face

concept.

Talking about the politics, the view of a person in the political conflict is a

a dangerously emotional topic. It is threatened the face of hearer.

46

“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?” (p. 74)

Here, Nababan asked a sensitive question. It was true that many people hope

Obama could solve the long conflict between Israel and Palestine. So, what

Obama said here, his response, would be highlighted to the mass media around

Indonesia, even the world. It would be discussed anywhere. Obama was pressured

to give his view on this conflict with widely-known information that Jewish

funding agent supported Obama in his campaign of election. Next, Obama was

given a sensitive question once more. Nababan asked him about the possibility of

military assistance from US government to Indonesia. Obama implied his answer.

Caused by off record response from Obama, Nababan interrupted when Obama

was on the floor.

“Is this include the military assistance?” (p. 72)

Obama’s long response regarding the comprehensive partnership between the two

countries meant Obama off-record strategy. Obama didn’t want to talk about this

matter. He didn’t visit Indonesia yet, and he had no formal meeting with President

Yudhoyono. Nababan made non-cooperative action by interrupting, without any

strategy involved.

Nababan also raised a dangerously emotional topic, which is an FTA,

when asking Obama about his breaking arm incident.

“Do you remember breaking someone’s arm?” (p. 78)

47

Nababan asked about the memory of Obama on his childhood incident, the

sensitive one, without applying any strategy. Obama said that it was by accident

and he wanted to tell Nababan more. But, Nababan interrupted the Obama’s talk.

“You tickled the guy?” (p. 78)

Obama tried to continue his talk although interrupted by Nababan. Obama

explained the incident based on his personal view. Obama ended his turn by

asking Nababan the condition of the broken-arm friend. But Nababan didn’t

respond to the question, rather he wanted Obama to admit that he tickled the guy

before the bike falling.

“You tickled him from the back” (p. 78)

Obama avoided saying yes or no. He explained the incident as he remembered.

Getting no required answer, Nababan then told Obama

“I think he is okay” (p. 78)

From those utterances, Nababan performed not only above mentioned FTA. He

also performed some others. First, he requested personal information. Second, he

disagreed with Obama on the real story about the incident. Third, he accused that

Obama tickled the guy. Fourth, he is non-cooperative by interrupting Obama

when on the floor.

Based on Jonathan Culpeper theory which derived from Brown and

Levinson politeness theory, there can be impoliteness intrinsically. What Nababan

did, by performing FTAs without employing strategies, was a kind of

impoliteness, aggravating the face of Obama in some ways.

48

2. Obama’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy

Everybody has negative and positive face in a verbal interaction. They put

their face at stake when communicating. Through conversation, they can maintain

and enhance their face. Their face can be threatened too. Even, they can lose their

face. So, some strategies are needed.

Obama as the President of United States of America is very powerful. His

power rank is higher than the people of US and Indonesia. His visit to other

countries was awaited, including to Indonesia. When postponing his visit to

Indonesia, Obama was interviewed by Indonesian journalist named Nababan.

Through this interesting interview, Obama put his face at stake.

“Baik-baik, terima kasih”

“Masih bisa sedikit, sudah lupa banyak tapi” (p. 67)

These two responses were given by Obama when Nababan asked him using

Bahasa Indonesia. Obama had a chance to reply it using English, but he preferred

to answer the question in the same language used. There was no FTA here, but

Obama applied the strategy of in-group identity marker which is positive

politeness strategy. Obama wanted to be closer to Nababan as the Indonesian.

Next, Nababan asked him about his favourite sentence in Indonesian Language.

When giving bad news, that he had none of Indonesian favorite sentence, he said:

“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. My sister is half-indonesian, you

know many brothers of my step father have come to visit here in US, so i

really enjoy maintaining that connection.” (p. 68)

Obama replied in off-record strategy. He didn’t say that he had no Indonesian

favourite sentence. He avoided answering that in direct way. Rather, he praised

49

Indonesia. He was happy to be related to the Nababan’s country. Obama showed

positive politeness strategy by using the fiftenth strategy: giving sympathy to

hearer. Obama applied multiple strategies in giving another bad news to the

Indonesian journalist. In telling his postpone of visit to Indonesia, Obama

explained it in a very long and detailed utterance. He said:

“You know…We just contacted the Indonesian government because we are

in the middle of huge health care debate in US, and it is about come to

vote, we have been debating this for years, many those votes were

delayed,...i think it makes more senses to me to delay the trip until

summer, until sometime in June…buying some bakso, some sate….but i

wanna reassure all the people of Indonesia that it is something i am very

much looking for to...When i move to Indonesia, it was in 1967…My

understanding is growing everywhere and it represents the increidible

progress has been made not only economically but also in Indonesia being

a model of democracy, such a populous nation, a diverse nation have been

able to bring together democratic forces and Indonesia gonna be power

house internationally. I got to know your President and i think he is a fine

leader.” (p. 69)

Obama gave reason to Nababan why the visit has officially delayed. Then, Obama

intensified interest to Nababan by the phrase “you know”. He made some jokes

when talking about Bakso, Sate, Becak and Sarinah, and at the same time using

in-group identity marker. He exaggerated his utterance by saying “increidible

progress”. Obama gave his understanding and sympathy to Indonesia by praising

the President Yudhoyono and the work they both have done together. Obama

realized that his postpone is truly a bad news, therefore, he used many strategies

to show positive politeness. The bad news related not only the government and

Indonesian mass media who will get an interesting news if not delayed, but it also

related to the students of SD Menteng.

“Please let them know, i gonna let them know through you, i dont want to

dissapoint any body. The only reason that we delay, we decided to delay,

50

is because the most important domestic priority were in the US is going to

be voted on this weekend or early next week and i have to be here.

Unfortunately, i dont have control over the legislature schedule, i am not

the prime minister who can call....anytime i want. Conggress to decide, but

i have to be here when they make that vote.” (p. 71)

Obama ordered Nababan to inform them that he didn’t want to dissapoint anybody

by this delayed visit. In performing this FTA, request, Obama used the what-so

called mitigating device. George Yule proposed this term. Obama used bald-on

record strategy and using “please”. Obama also told Nababan to inform them the

reason of postpone. By giving the reason, Obama performed positive politeness

strategy.

It was an interview, so there were many questions from Nababan. But,

regarding sensitive information, it is an ordinary technique in the politics to

respond in off-record way. Obama asked by Nababan about the military assistance

that may be would be included in comprehensive partnership between Indonesia

and the USA.

“It is comprehensive, so, in my conversation with President Yudhoyono

and our team we want to create comprehensive partnership that include

political and security issues, include economic and technological issues,

…obviously indonesia is a major force in southeast asia....(still on the

floor) (then interrupted by nababan)…The assurance of military

assistance? Obviously, there has been some controversies in terms of

military assistance in the past, but since the advant of democracy in

Indonesia that we’ve seen, the TNI made significance progress separating

itself from the police, focusing more on broad external security issues as

both as internal security issues and so we both began more interaction

and i hope it is we can continue to and advance......” (p. 71-72)

Obama, although interrupted for a moment by Nababan, answered the question of

military assistance by off-record strategy. It was political stuff and it was

sensitive. Obama didn’t want to talk about this case. It can also be interpreted that

51

Obama won’t tell him about this. It is a kind of FTA because if Obama answered

by negation, it could give a bad news. If Obama didn’t answer, it was a non-

cooperation activity. Here, Obama also employed another strategy. He gave

sympathy to Indonesia by attributing the country as a major force in South East

Asia. Obama wanted to be closer to Nababan. He used this strategy as social

accelerator. Nababan continued the interview by asking the satisfaction of Obama

in Indonesian military reform and in the resolution of past human right abuses.

Obama answered:

“Well, i think we have to acknowledge those past human right abuses

existence and so we can go forward without looking back out some...and

understanding that enormous problem, not just for America but also for

Indonesian people. We have seen significance progress and so what we

wanna do is to continue, improve our consultation and through this force

into more positive direction because we want Indonesia being a close

partner for many years to come, and we want a prosperous and secure

Indonesia and that is the interest of US as well as the interest of Indonesia

and the entire Asia-Pasific community”(p. 72-73)

Obama didn’t tell Nababan explicitly what his opinion was. Obama performed

FTA if he said that he dissatisfied. It meant, Obama gave a bad news. If Obama

remained silent, it would mean that he was non-cooperative. Obama just gave

acknowldgment. He was giving his sympathy, and not responding in a direct way

to the Nababan’s question. He thought that Indonesia has significance progress,

but, in what matter? Obama never explained it in detail in this interview. Here,

although implied what he felt on the reform and the resolution, Obama showed his

sympathy.

52

Nababan gave another political question to Obama. It was about terrorism

and the Muslim world. Nababan also claimed that, in Obama’s view, terrorism

was caused by poverty and injustice. Obama responded:

“Well, i think there is combination of things, i think that there are a lot of

countries that have poverty but don’t have terrorism. There is no doubt

that if you have a lot of young people, particularly young man who are

unemployed they are more vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist

organization, but i also think that there are ideological roots to terrorism

where people distorded islam and one of the things that i always valued so

much about Indonesia when i was growing up was people with devoted

muslim, but they also tolerant to other cultures and i think that’s the future

of Islam that is being able to modernize, become wealthier, become

succesful.” (p. 74)

Through this statement, Obama disagreed with Nababan’s claim that poverty and

injustice were the cause of terrorism. Obama disapproved this. It was not his

opinion. This was a kind of FTA. Here, Obama gave the reason and the sympathy

to the Nababan’s country. Obama employed the positive politeness strategy.

In another chance, Obama gave sympathy to Indonesia through Nababan

and made jokes, although there was no FTA performed by him. He showed his

positive politeness through this strategy.

“You know that experience was so important to me in so many ways,

obviously just my interaction with the Indonesian people just have great

love and affection for the indonesian people. I think that they are hard-

working, they are love the family and communities and they are very calm

which i think help me now in a very tense job…Indonesia is such a big

country and such a diverse country with so many different people and it

reminded me that we have to have a broad view of the world and

recognize in a connected world and that’s very important. So i really

looking for to getting back and really looking for to letting my children see

what a wonderful country Indonesia is.” (p. 75-76)

“Bakso i love, Nasi Goreng i love, you know i like street food, i like the

street matters, i still remember the sound of people as they walked by

“Sate!”, “Bakso!” (p. 76)

53

Obama praised the character of Indonesian and he thought that it was something

helped him in his presidency duties. Obama joked and laughed when he said

“Sate” and “Bakso”.

Before the end of conversation, Obama asked Nababan to tell his

childhood friend that he apologized for his mistake. Obama performed FTA,

order, by bald-on record strategy, and using mitigating device, “please”.

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

terrible.” (p. 78)

In the end of conversation, Obama used in-group identity marker before

Nababan left the White House.

“Terima kasih banyak, selamat jalan !” (p. 78)

Obama ended this interview by showing positive politeness strategy.

3. Power Difference and The Choice of Strategy

As explained in the theoritical framework, the difference of power level

between speaker and hearer related to the chosen strategy. Here, in this interview,

Obama had more power than Nababan. It was caused by the occupancy, Obama as

the President, and Nababan as journalist. It was also caused by the venue. The

interview was inside the White House where Obama lived. According the theory,

the interview between Obama and Nababan, by considering the difference of

power level factor, should be as follows:

a. Less powerful speaker, Nababan, is expected to be polite, while

more powerful speaker, Obama, is allowed to be impolite.

54

b. Speaker with lower status and less dominant role, Nababan,

should use more indirectness and more negative politeness

features than participant with higher status, Obama. Bald on

record can be used by speaker with power, Obama.

c. A powerful participant, Obama, has more freedom to be

impolite, because he is able to reduce the ability of the less

powerful participant, Nababan, by not giving any information

needed.

The notions above will be compared to the real strategies applied by the

two participants in this interview. Here is the table listing Nababan’s and Obama’s

politeness strategies and The FTAs performed.

Participant FTA Politeness Strategy

Nababan Requesting (personal)

information

Negative (show deference,

minimize imposition)

Positive (give empathy,

exaggerate, in-group marker,

joke, ellipsis, assert his

knowledge, be optimistic)

Promise Positive (Joke)

Reminding Off Record, Negative

(minimize imposition),

Positive (in-group marker)

Bringing bad news Negative (show deference),

Off Record

Compliment Negative (show deference,

minimize imposition)

No FTA Positive (In-group identity

marker)

Talking about emotional

or divisive topic

None

Request information None

Interrupting None

Disagreement and None

55

Accusation

Obama No FTA

Positive (in-group marker,

give sympathy, jokes)

Bringing bad news Positive (intensify interest to

H, Joke, in-group marker,

exaggerate, give sympathy)

Disagreement Positive (give reason,

sympathy)

Order Bald on record plus

mitigating device

From the above table, we can conclude that:

A. Nababan performed FTA more than Obama did.

B. Nababan used more positive politeness strategies than negative politeness

strategies. Obama was polite in all of his utterances by positive and bald

on record strategies.

C. Nababan performed some FTAs without strategy, while Obama never did

FTA without applying any strategy. Here, Nababan performed some

impoliteness acts, while Obama didn’t. The impoliteness acts did by

Nababan are, based Jonathan Culpeper theory, making the others felt

uncomfortable and turn-taking violations. It is true that Obama performed

bald on record here, but it is still considered polite act, because Obama is

in the higher power rank.

In this interview, the power difference did influence the participants’

strategies. Due to the power of Obama, the RCTI journalist spoke politely in

some utterances. Nababan used negative politeness in asking sensitive

question. Nababan tried to be indirect in expressing statement by off record

56

strategy. On the other hand, Obama asked help of Nababan in a very relaxed

way by bald on record strategy. All those were compatible with the notions.

However, from the above table, it was known that the incompatibilities of the

notions happened more. Nababan’s FTA without involving any strategy was a

clear example. Nababan’s positive politeness strategies were also good

evidence. Therefore, by this explanation, we knew that the conversation

between Obama and Nababan wasn’t only controlled by difference power

level factor.

According to Spencer-Oatey theory, there are many things determined

strategy choices in a conversation. It is not only power but also other

important factors. It includes the intended goals, types of activity being held

and what rapport orientation that speaker or hearer wanted.

Using Spencer-Oatey perspective, the incompatibilities to the notions

above can be analyzed deeper. It was not influenced by the power diference

between them. There were some other factors influencing Nababan and

Obama to use those strategies. They preferred to pay more consideration to

those others. First, it was the intended goals of the two participants. Nababan

wanted to get something: much information in limited time. It was an

obligation as a journalist to get news to be reported. He tried to get as much as

information in a less than forty minute interview. Therefore, the power

difference between them wasn’t given the priority. Nababan didn’t want

Obama to answer in a very long and clueless statement. He wanted Obama to

speak in a straight way. It made sense that Nababan asked Obama to answer

57

question in a direct way about military assistance and about his incident with

his childhood mate. By that strategy, he was trapped in wrong way

linguistically. But his goals were achieved at least.

Next, Nababan performed more positive politeness and spoke some

impolite utterances in this interview. It wasn’t caused by carelessness. It was

by design as above. In the beginning, Nababan used Indonesian language to

greet and open the interview. Knowing that Obama still remembered some

expressions in Bahasa Indonesia, Nababan asked Obama more questions

using the language. Obama seemed comfortable. Obama enjoyed this

interview and tried to talk a lot about his childhood in Indonesia. Obama

response made Nababan kept applying this strategy. Nababan got much

information from this strategy. Due to Obama’s way of speech in giving

information, which was so relaxed and excited, Nababan performed more

positive politeness strategy. Nababan talked as if he were a friend of Obama.

Obama talked in a detailed way about Indonesian and his personal life. He was

proud to be associated with Indonesia. He wanted to keep this relation as

stated explicitly by him that he enjoyed maintaining this connection. Obama

paid attention on how to keep this relationship: between him and Indonesian

people. Therefore, in this interview, he joked, smiled, and laughed a lot. He

talked common things about Indonesia at that time and praised Indonesia. This

goal of Obama couldn’t be achieved if Obama used his higher power status by

speaking to Nababan in rough, rude and impolite ways although it was

accepted pragmatically.

58

By applying Spencer-Oatey theory, the incompatibilities can be analyzed

again differently. Nababan and Obama considered the kind of activity, which

is an interview, as the important factor. It is usual to ask as much as possible

in an interview. An interviewer can ask anything ranging from private

information to personal view of some hot issues like terrorism. Nababan and

Obama realized this. Obama never warned Nababan not to ask political issues

and military assistance. Nababan as journalist acted professionally by asking

the needed information, whatever sensitive it was.

The last analysis using this theory is by what-so called rapport orientation.

When a speaker and a hearer talked each other, they wanted to show

solidarity, sympathy or even hatred via their utterances. It is called rapport.

Here, Nababan considered Obama as a part of Indonesia. Obama felt that he

was happy to be associated to Indonesia. They tried to talk smoothly. Obama

wanted to make Nababan relaxed and comfortable in this interview. So, he let

Nababan to ask in his own style. Nababan wanted his presence in the White

House made Obama joyful. He preferred to told Obama the interesting stories

of Indonesia in order to reduce Obama’s dissapointment of postponing the

visit. They tried to strengthen the harmonius relation between them. It is one

of rapport orientation in Spencer-Oatey theory.

By using Leech’s scales and the Brown’s sociological variables, the

approach that can be used is the factor of social distance. Obama’s childhood

in Indonesia made the social distance between him and Nababan getting

closer. Obama felt that Indonesia is a part of him, as stated in this interview

59

through his statement that he enjoyed much to be related to Indonesia.

Therefore, Nababan was considered by him as his good friend, even as an

intimate brother due to his status as Indonesian. The power factor was less

considerable in this interview. For Obama, it wasn’t appropriate in this

situation, in which Obama was awaited by the people of Indonesia to come

and he postponed it, to show his power. He made Nababan as a medium to tell

the Indonesian people that he was upset and disappointed to decide this.

Nababan isn’t a political agent that can give any advantages or disadvantages

to his status as the President. Consequently, he used more positive politeness

strategy by joking, praising and talking a lot about Nababan’s homeland. The

interview between Obama and the political agent, Indonesian President for

example, will absolutely be different although both Nababan and Yudhoyono

has the same citizenship, has the same social distance level to Obama. If

Yudhoyono talked to Obama, it wouldn’t be an interview, but a bilateral

meeting talk between two parties. It is a different type of activity from what

did by Nababan and Obama.

Therefore, the perspective of Leech and Brown and Levinson must be

combined with Spencer-Oatey approach. It is no only the social distance of

Obama and Nababan that determine the interview, but it is also by the

intended goals, type of activity between the two and the rapport orientation.

Hence, by the three approaches, the writer concluded that this interview

was influenced by the power difference in few utterances. The difference of

power isn’t the single factor influencing the strategy of politeness. The other

60

important factors are the interlocutor’s goals, the social distance, the rapport

orientation and the type of activity. Those four factors are considered more by

Nababan and Obama here rather than their power level difference. As long as

power isn’t put by the participants of communication as the most important

factor, it won’t influence much. It will not be the dominant factor. It will only

be an ordinary factor influencing the choice of strategy, along with the other

considerations of speaker and hearer.

61

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusions

Politeness as a linguistic phenomenon is theoretically formulated by many

linguists such as Leech, Lakoff and Fraser. In this sense, it is different with the

perception of politeness from the people in their daily life. Therefore, there are

two kinds of politeness, as argued by Watts. The first is politeness as the lay

notion, and the second is politeness as the theoretical framework of linguist. The

concept of politeness is studied not only in pragmatics but also in sociolinguistics

and other disciplines. Thomas Jenny states that politeness is a pragmatic

phenomenon as long as it is viewed as a strategy (or some strategies) applied by

the speaker and hearer in any kinds of verbal communication to accomplish their

goals.

One of the popular and widely studied theories of politeness is the theory

of politeness proposed by Phenelope Brown and Stephen Levinson. Their central

idea is what-so called face. Face is a person’s public self image that put at stake in

a conversation. Face can be maintained, enhanced and even threatened in the

verbal interaction. Consequently, the interlocutor of communication must be

aware of his / her own face and the addressee’s face. Based on the theory, some

utterances intrinsically threaten the face. It is called FTA. There are some

strategies which can be used to perform some acts that threaten the face. Through

62

the application of the strategies, politeness can be shown. By using some specific

strategies, the speaker and hearer can show their positive, negative, off-record and

bald on record politeness.

In this research, the writer analyzes the interview between Putra Nababan

and Barack Obama using the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson. In

analyzing this interview, the writer at first decides which utterance is an FTA and

which is not. Then, the writer seeks for strategy used by participant performing

FTA. Finally, the writer matches between the strategy and the kind of politeness

shown. If there is an FTA, but no strategy is found, the writer uses the theory of

impoliteness proposed by Jonathan Culpeper. The writer also analyzes the relation

between power and the choice of strategy. Here, the writer compares many

perspectives: sociological variables, Leech’s scale and Spencer-Oatey’s rapport

management to understand the relationship.

Nababan used more positive politeness strategies. As a journalist, he tried

to be polite. In some occasions, he performed some FTAs without applying

strategies. It is considered as impoliteness based on Culpeper theory. Impoliteness

from the person with lower level of power is incompatible with the notions given

by the theories. On the other hand, Obama was polite in this interview. He used

less negative politeness and more positive politeness. He didn’t show any kind of

impoliteness. Obama always used specific strategy when he performed FTAs. It is

also an incompatibility with the notion given in the theoretical framework as the

more powerful speaker used negative politeness and didn’t perform impoliteness.

63

The writer used the factors influencing the choice of strategy proposed by

Leech and Spencer-Oatey to know the reason of the incompatibility and analyze

the influence of power to the choice of strategy. Nababan paid more consideration

to the type of communication than to the politeness concept. He knew that this

interview is time-limited, and he must get as much as information to be reported.

Therefore, he wanted Obama to answer the question in a direct way. Nababan

knew that the social closeness of Obama to the Indonesian people will make the

interview so comfortable. Accordingly, it is fine to interrupt to show enthusiasm.

Nababan preferred to be “a close friend” of him. On the other hand, Obama as the

President of United States wanted to share his childhood story in Indonesia with

Nababan. He didn’t have any political interest from the RCTI journalist. Obama

showed his enthusiasm, sympathy, happiness and joy in this interview. Obama

talked in a smooth and relaxed way. Obama wanted all people of Indonesia to

know him well as he spent his childhood in Menteng. Therefore, Obama used

more positive politeness strategy. He used negative and off-record politeness

rarely, just in sensitive cases like in military assistance and retelling his childhood

incident.

Power influenced the choice of the strategy from both participants. But it was

not the only thing involved in this interview. In some occasions, Obama made his

statemens in a straight way because he was more powerful. Nababan tried to be

polite due to his lower rank of power. But, there are also more important aspects

to be considered. In this interview, Nababan and Obama agreed to pay more

consideration to the intended goals, type of activity, rapport orientation and their

64

social closeness. As a consequence, the interview between the two people caused

many incompatibilities to the notions of the theory. But it went well. Power

difference is not the only aspect considered. It is on the hand of participants to

emphasize which aspects should be paid more. As long as the power isn’t

considered as the main factor of the strategy choice by the interlocutor, it will not

influence much.

B. Suggestions

The writer suggests to the students interested in researching the politeness

strategy in an interview or any kind of verbal communication to use a longer

object of research. It is also suggested to choose the verbal interaction where the

participants are in a public sphere, so it can be watched directly by people without

any edited and deleted scenes as in this interview.

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bousfield, Derek and Locher, Miriam (ed.). Impoliteness in Language: Studies

on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton, 2008.

Bousfield, Derek. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Company, 2008.

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

Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1992.

Clark, Herbert H. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2008.

Culpeper, Jonathan. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness,” Journal of

Pragmatics, vol. 25. Oxford: Elsevier, 1996.

Cutting, John. Pragmatics and Discourse: Resource Books for Student. London:

Routledge, 2002.

Coulmas, Florian (ed.). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers , 2000.

Eelen, Gino. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome

Publishing, 2001.

Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. New York: Longman, 1995.

Farkhan, Muhammad. Proposal Penelitian Bahasa dan Sastra. Jakarta: Cella,

2007.

Fukushima, Saeko. Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and

Japanese, 3rd

ed. Bern: Peter Lang European Academic Publishers, 2003.

Geyer, Naomi. Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese.

London: Continuum, 2008.

Gunarwan, Asim. Pragmatik: Teori dan Kajian Nusantara. Jakarta : Unika Atma

Jaya, 2007.

Hall, John. Cicero’s Letters and Linguistic Politeness. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2009.

Leech, Geoffrey. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983.

66

____________. Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Penerjemah Dr. M.D.D. Oka, M.A.

Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia, 1993.

May, Jacob L (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 2nd

ed. Oxford:

Elsevier, 2009.

Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Mills, Sara. Michel Foucault. London: Routledge, 2005.

Nyyssonen, Heikki. Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2009.

Rahardi, Dr. R. Kunjana M. Hum. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa

Indonesia. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga, 2006.

Roberts, Jo. “Face Threatening Acts and Politeness Theory: Contrasting Speeches

from Supervisory Conferences,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,

vol. 7. Alexandria: ASCD, 1992.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and

Politeness Theory, 2nd

ed. Cornwall: Continuum, 2008.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.

Edinburgh: Longman, 1995.

Vine, Bernadette. Getting Things Done at Work: the Discourse of Power in

Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,

2004.

Watts, Richard J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Yule, George. The Study of Language, 3rd

ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2006.

67

APPENDICE

Putra Nababan’s Interview with Barack Obama

(in the White House, March 22nd

2010)

Obama : Please sit down ! So i am sure this is the first interview ever done

by Indonesian television in the White House, it must be, right?

Nababan : Yes, it is the first time interview you from a journalist.

Obama : Absolutely yes, yes.

Nababan : Quite very good in Indonesian, still remember?

Obama : Masih bisa omong sedikit.

Nababan : Sedikit, masih practising?

Obama : No, no, not practising, it is just...you know, i used to be fluent,

so...but i dont get a chance to practice.

Nababan : That’s what i want to hear.

Nababan : Mr President, thank you for visiting RCTI TV for this interview,

Apa Kabar Mr. President?

Obama : Baik-baik, Terima kasih.

Nababan : Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?

Obama : Masih bisa sedikit, sudah lupa banyak tapi.

68

Nababan : This is quite good i think, banyak latihan? Do you have practiced

with...?

Obama : You know, i dont have a chance to practice, one of the interesting

thing is i think Indonesians love their country so much, They

usually go back, in so, there is no huge immigrant Indonesian

population in US, so i dont meet Indonesian which also means i

dont have good Indonesian restaurants in the US.

Nababan : You have maybe your favorite sentence that you remember, that

you know?

Obama : I mean, the truth is that i have so many good memories of

Indonesia and it is such a special place to keep in my mind. You

know my sister is half-Indonesian, you know many brothers of my

step father have come to visit here in US, so i really enjoy

maintaining that connection.

Nababan : Yes, you know Mr. President, i have been here for almost 48

hours and i felt the tense the atmosphere of politics, national

politics in America, i just wondering are you, i learnt that you

postponed the trip to Indonesia for three days and we know that to

Indonesia you are leaving Sunday morning and we will expecting

you on Thursday, are you still on the plan?

69

Obama : You know, we have made the decision. We just contacted the

Indonesian government because we are in the middle of huge

health care debate here in US, and it is about come to vote, we

have been debating this for years, many of those votes were

delayed, we contacted to the Indonesian and in consultation

government we are agreed that i think it makes more senses to me

to delay the trip until summer until sometime in June so that i am

not rush because my hope was that i was gonna be spend a few

days in Indonesia not just bilateral meeting but also buying some

Bakso, Some sate...

Nababan : Nasi goreng?

Obama : Nasi goreng, going to Jogja, going to Bali. It is not supposed just

being in Jakarta the entire time and right now the schedule is just

getting so compressed that in consultation with the Indonesian

government we thought that i’d be best postpone but i wanna

reassure all the people of Indonesia that it is something i am very

much looking for to...not only because my personal connection

with Indonesia which is very strong and i love the Indonesian

people but also because indonesia has become such an important

country. When i move to Indonesia, it was in 1967 and increidible

economic progress that has been made in Indonesia, the way that

Jakarta has changed, you know when i was there you still have

Becak everywhere, slow moving, placid.

70

Nababan : We can find you becak if you come on in summer!

Obama : But, you know the only hotel was hotel Indonesia, and Sarinah

was where a folk to shopping. My understanding is growing

everywhere and it represents the increidible progress has been

made not only economically but also in Indonesia being a model of

democracy, such a populous nation, a diverse nation have been

able to bring together democratic forces and Indonesia gonna be

power house internationally. I got to know your president and i

think he is a fine leader, working with him we have been able made

G 20, the premier economic international forum where it used to be

G 8 and it represents the progress that Indonesia making into the

first tear of economics and politics in the world forces.

Nababan : So, you are telling the Indonesian people through me that you are

not coming on this Tuesday but instead you are going this

summer?

Obama : We decided, we contacted the Indonesian government to let them

know that we thought rather than in rush in trip, it will be better for

us to do it in more leisurely times, so that we can have opportunity

to travel to bring my family and my hope is that my...so that i

can....

Nababan : You bring family?

71

Obama : I hope so.

Nababan : In your book also, you felt that you should bring the 1st lady and

your daughter to Prambanan and to Bali.

Obama : Borobudur, to Bali and we take them to my older home if we got

to my own house, Menteng Dalam.

Nababan : 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.

Obama : Please let them know, i gonna let them know through you, i dont

want to dissapoint any body. The only reason that we delay, we

decided to delay, is because the most important domestic priority

here in the US is going to be voted on this weekend or early next

week and i have to be here. Unfortunately, i dont have control over

the legislature schedule, i am not the prime minister who can

call....anytime i want, conggress to decide, but i have to be here

when they make that vote.

Nababan : We are hearing that about comprehensive partnership framework

that you are working on to finalise during your visit to Indonesia,

this is enhance partnership including increasing military

assistance?

Obama : It is comprehensive, so, In my conversation with president

Yudhoyono and our team we want to create comprehensive

72

partnership that include political and security issues, include

economic and technological issues, but also include how can we

strengthen the people to people contacts and bonds between our

two countries, and so everything from working together on energy

project that deal with climate change but also deal with economic

development, how can we enhance trait , how we can work more

effectively on the security issues that we share not just counter-

terrorism, but obviously indonesia is a major force in southeast

asia....(still on the floor)…

Nababan : Is this include the military assistance?

Obama : .....The assurance of military assistance? Obviously, there has

been some controversies in terms of military assistance in the past

but since the advant of democracy in Indonesia that we’ve seen, the

TNI made significance progress separating itself from the police,

focusing more on broad external security issues as both as internal

security issues and so we both began more interaction and i hope it

is we can continue to and advance.......

Nababan : Is that a signal that you admit administration is satisfied the

military reforms and the resolution of the past human right abuses

in Indonesia?

Obama : Well, i think we have to acknowledge those past human right

abuses existence and so we can go forward without looking back

73

out some...and understanding that enormous problem, not just for

America but also for Indonesian people. We have seen significance

progress and so what we wanna do is to continue, improve our

consultation and through this force into more positive direction

because we want Indonesia being a close partner for many years to

come, and we want a prosperous and secure Indonesia and that is

the interest of US as well as the interest of Indonesia and the entire

Asia-pasific community.

Nababan : Mr. President, there is still prevailing scepticism that you will be

unable to act on your stance to rise out the Muslim world, how do

you respond to this?

Obama : Well, actually we made an enormous progress, obviously i made

my Cairo speech last year in a stance, clear message that US is a

friend and partner with the muslim world that we obviously have a

determination to defeat terrorism wherever it exists, and we want

to partner with countries to deal with that issue. But we dont want

terrorism to define our relationship to the muslim nations around

the world, we want to build on cooperation on trade, on economic

development, on science and technology, on culture and so what

we done is to obey issues that i outline in Cairo speech with my

progress. I meant one of the sources break the attention is with the

Iraq war, this summer we expect to have ended the combat

operation inside of Iraq and we will withdraw our troops by next

74

year. We talk about the need to reach out and put forward, for

example in Pakistan where (we) setting up enterpreneurship and

worship center, and in Saudi Arabia, during Hajj, we want to make

sure the H1N1 virus dont effect people during hajj, we are assign a

muslim envoy to attend the organization like the OIC and to figure

out how we can work on how is the issues, how we can get more

young people and student exchanges so the whole ranges of issues

we need to work on, we will continue to work on.

Nababan : Since you mention about terrorism, that issue of terrorism is also

facing Indonesia and you believe that the root of terrorism is

poverty and injustice. Aside from financial intelligent assistance

that US is giving, what kind of cooperation that US would give to

rise out the root of terrorism in Indonesia?

Obama : Well, i think there is combination of things, i think that there are a

lot of countries that have poverty but dont have terrorism. There is

no doubt that if you have a lot of young people, particularly young

man who are unemployed they are more vulnerable to recruitment

by terrorist organization, but i also think that there are ideological

roots to terrorism where people distorded Islam and one of the

things that i always valued so much about Indonesia when i was

growing up was people with devoted muslim but they also tolerant

to other cultures and i think that’s the future of Islam that is being

able to modernize, become wealthier, become succesful. I meant in

75

the history of Islam it was that added its height it was pro science,

pro technology, it has more advanced than many parts in the world

but what we do wanna do partner with Indonesia on economic

developing issues generally. Obviously the crisis in 90s had

provided effect in Indonesia, it has not built back up and rises to do

very well and we think we can be a very good partner not only in

providing assistance for development but also trade and in trade

relationship is one that i think can be very very important.

Nababan : You mention about people to people, many Indonesians have high

expectation that US under your leadership succesful implementing

the two state solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, is this

realistic expectation?

Obama : Well, it is gonna be very hard, obviously the issues went for sixty

years, through Democratic and Republic administration, through

different conflict, but i employing to work as hard as i can while i

am president to make sure that we arrive two state solutions, while

Israel is secure as side by side by prosperous and succesful

Palestinian nation and everybody on the region understand this is

the right thing to do, the questions is how we break down the

barrier of trust, barrier of distrust, that exists between these

countries.

76

Nababan : My last question Mr. President, what life lesson do you take from

your experience in Indonesia that help make you the person you

are today?

Obama : You know that experience was so important to me in so many

ways, obviously just my interaction with the Indonesian people just

have great love and affection for he indonesian people. I think that

they are hard-working, they are love the family and communities

and they are very calm which i think help me now in a very tense

job. I think that living in Indonesia also remind me how big the

world is. Indonesia is such a big country and such a diverse

country with so many different people and it reminded me that we

have to have a broad view of the world and recognize in a

connected world and that’s very important. So i really looking for

to getting back and really looking for to letting my children see

what a wonderful country Indonesia is.

Nababan : To confirm that some stories that you know when around in the

country because you are so famous in the country, it is just gonna

be quick and be quick answer. Was one of your reading in

Indonesian folklore like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and

Gareng is your favorite?

77

Obama : You know i used to love Mahabbarata, used to love Ramayana,

used to love Wayang and i still do..I still you know inspired by the

stories of Hanoman, you know...

Nababan : And Gareng and Petruk?

Obama : Absolutely.

Nababan : Do you really memorize Pancasila?

Obama : No...

Nababan : You dont?

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

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

Bakso?

Obama : Bakso i love, Nasi Goreng i love, you know i like street food, i

like the street matters, i still remember the sound of people as they

walked by “Sate!”, “Bakso!”

Nababan : You listen that?

Obama : O yes, i miss it

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

attention?

Obama : that’s i dont know, that’s i deny.

78

Nababan : Do you remember breaking someone’s arm?

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

Nababan : You tickled the guy?

Obama : We were riding a bike together and he felt, it was great, i was

very traumatized, is he okay?

Nababan : You tickled him from the back !

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

Nababan : I think he is okay.

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

remember, feeling terrible.

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

to become a president?

Obama : That’s not true, i think i remember reading one of my teacher

saying that i was planning to be president when i was six, you

know when i was six, i wanna, i think to be a fireman. Alright.

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

Obama : Terima kasih banyak, selamat jalan.

Nababan : Sampai jumpa di Jakarta.