Politeness Strategy in Obama Interview

i
ABSTRACT

Muh. Shohibussirri, An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababans
I nterview 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 Levinsons politeness
strategy, supported by other theories such as Jonathan Culpepers impoliteness
strategy and Spencer-Oateys 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 hearers 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 NABABANS
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 Nababans
Interview with Barack Obama has been defended before the Letters and
Humanities Facultys 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 01
st
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
cant 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 Sadiyah M.Hum and Zahril
Anasy, M.Hum. With them, it is an ease to study English, Linguistics
vi

and Literature. In addition, The writers 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 writers memory of them will never fade away.
The utmost appreciation, gratitude and remark go to the writers 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
writers 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 talim 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 writers best sister, Alai Najib and her family, Mahrus El-Mawa,
Obiet, Iyaz and Asa, the writer cant 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 writers 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 writers 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 writers life. Next, the writers 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 writers 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 cant be
mentioned one by one here. The writer will never forget this brotherhood and
sisterhood. Next, The writers best gratitude goes to all his classmates: Eka Sari
Dewi, Meyta Sartika, Jamilah Zahra, Chabibah, Lia and all friends who cant 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 wouldnt 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
LEGALIZATIONiii
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. Nababans Utterances and His Politeness Strategy ............ 39
2. Obamas 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 cant 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 cant 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 doesnt 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 didnt 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 persons

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 Leech
8

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 Levinsons 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?
Nababans 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 isnt 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 Nababans question on his friends 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 arent 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 Obamas 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 22
nd
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
interlocutors 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 Nababans and
Obamas 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,
2
nd
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, 3
rd
ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006),
p. 119.
15
John Hall, Ciceros 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 Levinsons 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, 3
rd
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 isnt 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 hearers 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 persons 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
individuals 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 arent 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 Levinsons 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
individuals 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 Gunarwan
47
and kehormatan by Dr. Oka when translating
Leechs magnum opus.
48

41
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
45
George Yule (2006), loc. cit.
46
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 individuals
positive face is the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by
others. An individuals 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, dont 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 persons 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
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
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 hasnt 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
its possible. This makes the request less threatening to the other persons face.
Whenever a participant of communication says something that lessens the
possible threat to anothers 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
56
Coulmas (2000), op.cit. p. 378.
57
58
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) doesnt 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 Ss 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 Ss desire, or give it to S:
a) Compliment, expression of envy and admiration (S
shows that he likes Hs possession).
b) Expression of strong emotion to H (such as showing
hatred, anger and lust).
b. Acts indicate that speaker doesnt 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 Ss negative face. Those acts are:
a) Expressing thanks (S accepts a debt, humbles his own
face).
b) Acceptance of Hs thanks or Hs 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 Ss 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 Hs 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
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 didnt 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 hearers 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 isnt the
intention of the speaker to attack the face of the hearer.
66

63
64
Ibid. p. 358.
65
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 addressees 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, isnt it just ghastly the way it always seems to rain just
when youve 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 phones 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 youve 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 addressees 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) Isnt your new car a beautiful colour?
6. Avoid disagreement
As mentioned above that agreement of speaker to the addressees 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 havent 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) Dont 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 speakers knowledge and concern for hearers wants
By this strategy, the speaker expresses his understanding to the addressees
wants. For example:
a) I know you love roses but the florist didnt 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) Ill 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) Youll lend me your lawnmower for the weekend, I hope.
b) Look, Im sure you wont 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 dontt 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) Ill 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 isnt 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 couldnt 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 Snuggss bequest.
6. Apologize
One way to be polite is by making an apology to the hearer. It isnt 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, Ive probably come to the wrong person, but..
b) I hate to intrude, but..
c) I normally wouldnt 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 wouldnt 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 its cold in
here. Your utterance is a hint for the hearer to shut the window. lets leave the
theatre then can be changed into what a boring movie.
2. Give association clues
To borrow hearers swimming suit, you can say oh God, ive 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 hes 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 cant 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: Johns 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 dont want to do. Power is also seen as a possession. It means

70
Spencer-Oatey (2008), op.cit. p. 146.
71
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 doesnt. The doctor is in a position to determine
how a health problem should be dealt with and the patient isnt. It is right that the

79
80
Bernadette Vine (2004), loc. cit.
81
Cutting (2002), op.cit. p. 53.
82
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
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
Levinsons 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 22
nd
2010. The data is in the form of utterances. Below
are the utterances from both participants and the performed FTAs.
No Participant Utterance FTA
1. Putra
Nababan
Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?.....This is quite good
i think, banyak latihan? Do you have practiced
with...?
Request
(personal
information)
Are you still on the plan? Request
We can find you becak if you come on in summer! Promise,
Reminding
I think they have been preparing for you, even
your SD Asisi, SD Menteng they all preparing, I
dont know how they gonna take it
Reminding,
Bringing bad
news
There is still prevailing scepticism that you will be
unable to act on your stance
Bringing bad
news
what life lesson do you take from your experience
in Indonesia that help make you the person you are
today?
Compliment
You tickled him from the back! Accusation
Is this include the military assistance? Interruption
Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore
like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and
Gareng is your favorite?.......And Gareng and
Petruk?.... Do you really memorize Pancasila?...
You dont?... Thats 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 someones 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 weve 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 dont 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 Browns sociological variables and
Leechs scale.

B. Data Analysis
1. Nababans Utterances and His Politeness Strategy
It was clear that Obamas 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 RCTIs goal through Nababan to get the assurance of
Obamas 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 Obamas 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 dont 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 Obamas 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?... Thats 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 didnt
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 isnt 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 Obamas personal information, but by
employing diffferent strategy. He asserted his knowledge about Obamas 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 Obamas 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)
Obamas long response regarding the comprehensive partnership between the two
countries meant Obama off-record strategy. Obama didnt want to talk about this
matter. He didnt 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 someones 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 Obamas 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 didnt
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. Obamas 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 didnt 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 Nababans 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 knowWe 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 Junebuying 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 1967My
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 didnt 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 weve 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 didnt want to talk about this case. It can also be interpreted that
51

Obama wont tell him about this. It is a kind of FTA because if Obama answered
by negation, it could give a bad news. If Obama didnt 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 didnt 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 Nababans 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 Obamas 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 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 thats the future
of Islam that is being able to modernize, become wealthier, become
succesful. (p. 74)

Through this statement, Obama disagreed with Nababans 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 Nababans 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 jobIndonesia 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 thats 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 Nababans and Obamas
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 didnt. 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. Nababans FTA without involving any strategy was a
clear example. Nababans positive politeness strategies were also good
evidence. Therefore, by this explanation, we knew that the conversation
between Obama and Nababan wasnt 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 wasnt given the priority. Nababan didnt 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 wasnt 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 Obamas 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 couldnt 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 Obamas 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 Leechs scales and the Browns sociological variables, the
approach that can be used is the factor of social distance. Obamas 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 wasnt 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 isnt 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 Nababans 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 wouldnt 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 isnt the single factor influencing the strategy of politeness. The other
60

important factors are the interlocutors 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 isnt put by the participants of communication as the most important
factor, it wont 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 persons 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 addressees 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, Leechs scale and Spencer-Oateys 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 isnt
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.). I mpoliteness in Language: Studies
on its I nterplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton, 2008.

Bousfield, Derek. I mpoliteness 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, J ournal 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
J apanese, 3
rd
ed. Bern: Peter Lang European Academic Publishers, 2003.

Geyer, Naomi. Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in J apanese.
London: Continuum, 2008.

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

Hall, John. Ciceros 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, 2
nd
ed. Oxford:
Elsevier, 2009.

Meyerhoff, Miriam. I ntroducing 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
I ndonesia. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga, 2006.

Roberts, Jo. Face Threatening Acts and Politeness Theory: Contrasting Speeches
from Supervisory Conferences, J ournal of Curriculum and Supervision,
vol. 7. Alexandria: ASCD, 1992.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and
Politeness Theory, 2
nd
ed. Cornwall: Continuum, 2008.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An I ntroduction to Pragmatics.
Edinburgh: Longman, 1995.

Vine, Bernadette. Getting Things Done at Work: the Discourse of Power in
Workplace I nteraction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
2004.

Watts, Richard J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Yule, George. The Study of Language, 3
rd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.

67

APPENDICE
Putra Nababans Interview with Barack Obama
(in the White House, March 22
nd
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 : Thats 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 id 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 weve 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 thats 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 thats 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 : Thats rumor, thats not true.
Nababan : Thats 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 : thats i dont know, thats i deny.
78

Nababan : Do you remember breaking someones 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 : Thats 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.

Politeness Strategy in Obama Interview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politeness Strategy in Obama Interview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politeness Strategy in Obama Interview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

You might also like