EEJ

English Education Journal

The Use of Politeness Strategies by Indonesian Vs Malaysian Debaters’

in WSDC 2018

Nurrahmah1, Dwi Rukmini2 , Issy Yuliasri3

Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Article Info Abstract

________________ ___________________________________________________________________
Article History: This study aimed to describe the types of politeness strategies realized in students'
Accepted debate competition and to analyze texts do the Indonesian Vs Malaysian student
debaters use politeness strategies in the debate competition. To achieve the aims,
Approved this study used politeness strategies analysis as the research design. The data got in
Published the form of transcription from the internet and remark. This study applied Brown
________________ and Levinson (1987)'s theory about politeness strategies and Celce-Murcia (2004)'s
Keywords: theory about communicative competence. The subjects in this study were 6
Politeness Strategies, students (2 teams) from Malaysian student debaters and Indonesian student
WSDC 2018, EFL debaters in World School Debating Championship (WSDC) 2018. Their debate
Learners, Learning competition were observed, transcribed and analyzed. There are four types of
activities, Positive politeness strategies realized by Indonesian and Malaysian student debaters. The
Values. findings showed as many as 686 (100%) occurrence of politeness strategies used
____________________ by the debaters. Sub-strategies of positive politeness is the largest rank used by
Indonesian debaters same negative politeness and Bald-on record than Malaysian
students. Malaysian used off-record strategy dominantly because Malaysian is
English as a first language but Indonesian as EFL learners. They used invite
conversational implicatures directly which is use to imply the meaning and use
Grice's maxim to formulate their opinion that lethal autonomous weapons systems
are dangerous. While Indonesian used the factual condition about the issues that
parts of rebuttal. They keep the hearer's positive face to safe opinions as the
opposition team used positive politeness clearly and makes the opponent's teams
agreed with their arguments. Teachers can be applied those politeness strategies in
EFL learner's teaching for building positive values.

© 2018 Universitas Negeri Semarang

E-mail: nurrahmahridwan@gmail.com
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ
INTRODUCTION
One area of considerable interest that the
different between utterance both informal and the
formal is that of politeness strategies. If someone tries
to be polite more than having to express their thoughts,
they will drop some of their statements in order not to
hurt feelings. Sometimes, people who look be
respectabily, are not always honest and vice versa.
Often, polite people can use it as a way to hide their
dishonest ways.
According to Glaser (2009), the speaker
communicative competence deals with pragmatics. For
example the awareness of how we modify interaction
when addressing different types of listeners. When you
ask someone to do appointment for you, you will not
say directly “I need for meeting with you tomorrow,
please?”, but usually if you want to do this politely for
different adresse. For example: “Good afternoon Sir.
Sorry for bothering you, I'm Nurrahmah” used for
politely asking someone to do appointment for you,
especially to our proofreader: “Good afternoon Sir,
sorry for bothering you, I'm Nurrahmah. I would like
to inform you that I have submitted my articles. Mem
Puji have confirmed it and suggested to me to contact
you. Therefore, I am expecting the information
regarding to the manuscript guidance. Thank you."
This is one of the examples of pragmatics in point of
politeness that speech acts called as knowledge of
pragmatics. As stated by Acheoah, John Emike &
Ibileye, Gbenga (2016, p: 1) that the focus of
pragmatic theories from classical to contemporary
times includes speech acts, contexts, shared knowledge
and meaning (implicatures and presuppositions). Other
lexical differences will be that in formal language we
find many politeness expression (please, thank you,
you’re welcome, etc.), often absent from informal
language (Enggins, 2004, p. 101).
According to Al-Mahrooqi and Tabakow
(2015, p. 418), debate has a general meaning as
argument or discussion about specific issues that evoke
differences of opinion, calling to mind intense verbal
exchanges in political contests. However, to increase
the spirit of implementation curriculum 2013, there is a
National School Debate Championship (NSDC)
administred by the Directorate General of Primary and
Secondary Education, Ministry of Education and
Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. It aims to prepare
students who will attend in the next competition. If the
students successfully participate in that event and who
is the winner they will attend to international level that
is World School Debating Championship (WSDC). To
achieve communicative competence, this event
provides a container to develop the potential of
students, analytical thinking, creativity, solving the
problem with their ideas.
Furthermore, the, challenges faced by debaters
may happen when implementing debate activities since
not many students confidently for express their rebuttal
and compliments. For instance, there is Unismuh
Debater Club (UDC) of s Muhammadiyah Makassar
University. Based on my preliminary research by
interviewing one lecturer and one student there, many
students face difficulties when speaking English
appropriately in debate for comprehension speaker’s
means about issues
Politeness strategies are the means to preserve
at least the semblance of harmony and cohesion
(Lakoff, 1990, p. 34). The lack of pragmatic
competence may lead to problem for the EFL learners
who have speech act performance so that
communication breakdown may occur. These
strategies are expected to support students express their
ideas, arguments, judgments and disagreement
naturally in order to achieve communicative
competence.
Moreover, several previous studies have
become background to support this study, such as the
use of politeness strategies applied in election debate
politeness used in the Qur’an and the representation of
women in the Holy Qur’an (Al Momani, K., Migdadi,
F., & Rabab’a, E., 2018), in a gendered political debate
(Fracchiolla, B. (2011); in debate show (Ali, R. M. S.,
& Tareq, N., 2018), in reality talk show (Ruansyah, R.,
& Rukmini, D., 2018). While, the use of politeness
strategies in English Language Teaching (ELT) these
are teachers’ politeness as a predictor of students' self-
esteem and academic performance (Uzair-ul-Hassan,
M., & Farooq, S., 2017) and for motivating students to
learn English (Elisdawati, Y., Husein, R., & Setia, E.,
2018), built positive values in students (Aulia N., K.,
2017). Thus, there is also used analysis in English
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ
Book that the comparison of politeness components
between New Headway Intermediate Student’s (Ibnus,
N., & Mujiyanto, Y., 2018).
Based on the explanation above, I combine the
use of politeness strategies with debate as possibilities
that has paedagogical implication to contribute to EFL
Learners. Its focus of the study because most previous
studies investigate debate activities focusing on the use
of politeness straetgies. My statement is supported by
Celce-Murcia (1995) who clarifies that various
components of communicative competence are
interrelated. It indicates that politeness staretegies is a
part of strategic competence and debate is a part of
discourse competence, thus both are interrelated and
necessary to contributed fro EFL learners.
Researcher wants to evaluate the participants’
pragmatic knowledge by their performed. Those
strategies are needed to help them speak English
strategically and efficiently in debate activities that to
support students express their ideas, arguments,
judgments and disagreement naturally in order to
achieve communicative competence. Through debate
competitions (WSDC, 2018), that the purposes of
WSDC are to improve students‘ English ability orally,
improve the students‘ ability to think critically and
analytically, develop the students‘ ability to express
opinions logically and systematically, and strengthen
the students‘ character through understanding national
and international problems as well as alternative
solutions (WSDC,2018). This can help the Indonesian
versus Malaysian as debaters to decrease their
harmony and to enhance their efficiency language
usage so make arguments meaningfully to deliver
interpersonal meanings.
Therefore, this study aims to identify types of
politeness strategies used by student debaters and how
do the Indonesian Vs Malaysian student debaters using
politeness strategies in World Students Debating
Championship 2018.
Through the investigation, I hope this study
can give pedagogical implications for both teachers
and students that to speak respectly. We need to speak
appropriately we need discours and to speak cover
harmony structurally we need to understand the
concepts of politeness. The combination of mastering
strategic and discourse competences can help whoever
second/foreign language learners achieve
communicative competence.
METHODS
This study focused on to the spoken text. We
tried to analyze the use of polietenss strategies used by
Indonesian Vs Malaysian student debaters to achieve
communicative competence. Therefore, the data were
analyzed qualitatively. In order analyze the debate
employed by the student debaters, we used politeness
startegies as research design in this study. Furthermore,
we applied politeness strategies theory proposed by
Brown and Levinson (1987).
In the present study, the subjects were 6 students
(2 teams) from different schools participating in World
Students Debating Championship 2018. Six debate
exhibitions from the competition had been observed,
transcribed and analyzed. Meanwhile, the objects that
became the focus of the study were the debaters’ types
of politeness strategies realized and do Malaysian and
Indonesian student debaters use politeness strategies.
Thus, there were five steps to analyze the data, namely
transcribing within the spoken text (see in Appendix
4.1), reading, categorizing, analyzing and triangulation.
It numbers of utterances realized by debaters in the
form of politeness strategies which is such as topic and
for taking reviewed the events towards topic in the text
(see in Appendix 4.2). We used investigator
triangulation to make sure that the data were valid and
accurate.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this part, we presented the result of the use
politeness strategies by Malaysian and Indonesia
student in in World Students Debating Championship
2018. The politeness strategies found in the data as
many as 686 (100%) times occurances of the
utterances by debaters that devided into two groups.
The Malaysian as proposition team and Indonesian as
opposition team. As the writer classified above, which
is realized by proposition team as many as 295 (43%)
times occurances that the utterances contains types of
politeness strategies. While, it realized by opposition
team as many as 391 (57%) that contains politeness
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ
strategies types that many sub-strategies in the whole
of data.
Based on table 4.2, there were found three
debaters from Indonesian and three debaters from
Malaysian as candidates. The writer uses a symbol P;
P1, P2, P3 as opposition team from Malaysian and O;
O1, O2, O3 from Indonesian as opposition team. It
makes clear to classify and it is easy for readers to
know the content of the table.
Furthermore, the utterances of debaters from
the recording which is transformed by writer in
form a transcript. Then, with regard to the
schematic structure analysis, it is shown in the table
above. The theme of debate is “This house opposes
the development of lethal autonomous weapons”
(eprints.iain-surakarta.ac.id). Its text contains their
knowledge about the accountability of weapons
systems, perception presents of lethal autonomous
weapons decrease accountability, there are many
pre-existing tensions between nations, ideas about
debaters' knowledge thats the forum on territorial
disputes in the form of human rights violations say
good a contrasting values, be policy makers face the
consideration for right human life through forum
debate championship, it will be lost in the event of
soldiers being central war.
Moreover, table 4.2 presents those strategies are
realized by Debaters’ in World Students Debating
Championship 2018 that the occourance of politeness
strategies. The table shows as many as 686 (100%)
found event of politeness strategies in the utterances
performed by the debaters. The positive politeness
strategy has the most found event among the four
strategies. It indicates that the sub-strategy of positive
politeness prefer employing by debaters. While, the
other strategies for making harmony in their utterances,
it was described by the following table and chart
above.
As it is seen, it performed by O3 as many as 200
(8%) politeness strategies that contains sub-strategies
of positive politeness exhausted as many as 110 (1%)
events by the debaters and sub-strategies of off-record
strategy which is exhausted as many as 29 (1%) events.
Meanwhile, sub-strategies of negative politeness which
is exhausted as many as 37 (1%) events. While, sub-
strategies of bald-on record strategy is the least
strategy exhausted by the debaters which is occur in as
many as 24 (1%) events out of 200. Further, as it is
figured in the table, O3 is the most speaker use sub-
strategies of politeness strategies than the others. It
means O3 as a speaker to conclude the debate from the
topic that hvee been discussed. As the previous
clarification that sub-strategies of positive politeness is
the most exhausted by the debaters, the events of its
sub-strategies also have the largest level. Conveying
that S & H are cooperators that is the sub-strategy of
positive politeness is in the first stage with exhausted
as many as 86 (78%) events out of 110 sub-total the
events found and the second stage, the sub-strategies of
positive politeness is still claim common ground
occurs as many as 23 (21%) events out of in the part
occurrences still, fulfilling Hearers' desires is the last
stage of sub-strategies in the text exhausted only 1
(1%) events in whole of occurances.
As the next level performed by O1 as many as
116 (13%) politeness strategies which contains sub-
strategies of positive politeness is exhausted in as
many as 95 (1%) events out by speaker used
dominantly. It is hold by sub-strategies of bald-on
record strategy which is exhausted in as many as 11
(1%) events and sub-strategies of off-record which is
exhausted in as many as 7 (1%) events. While, sub-
strategies of negative politeness strategy is the least
stage strategy exhausted by the debaters which is
occurs as many as 3 (1%) events out of as many as 116
(13%). Futher, as it is represented in the table, O3 is
the second speaker use politeness strategies because
the speaker as opening topics debate in opposition
team.
As we can see in the table that sub-strategies of
positive politeness is the dominantly exhaunted by the
debater, the events out in the sub-strategies of positive
politeness also have the largest level. Conveying that S
& H are co-operators that the sub-strategies of positive
politeness is in the first stage with used up as many as
87 (92%) events out of 95 (1%) sub-total the events
found and the second stage that the sub-strategies of
positive politeness still claim common ground occurs
as many as 8 (8%) events out of in the part
occurrences, Inviting Conversational Implicature is 86
(%) same as using imperative form is as many as
(55%) 6 events occurances but different percentages.
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ

While, fulfilling Hearers' desires is the no deals with
the sub-strategies of the positive politeness strategy
hold in. It showed, Warning as same as Not
presuming/assuming is same occurances.
Futhermore, the third speaker use many times
ocurance of politeness strategies realized by P2 as
many as 103 (15%) in whole part of her. It followed by
the fourth speaker that is P3 realized as many as 98
(15%) times ocurance. Performed by P1’s speaker use
politeness strategies as many as 94 (16%) as the first
speaker when debate takes place and the last speakers’
O2 use of politeness strategies as many as 75 (20%) in
the whole of data.
Then, P3 as the second used some many positive
politeness which occur 56 (1%) that contains the sub-
strategies in politeness strategies are Conveying that S
& H in activity, which lots of occurrances 46 (82%)
times. While, Being conventionally indirect is the least
proportion in occurrences by speaker which appears 1
(8%) times out of 98 (15) sub-total occurrences from
the whole data 4.2.
This the differenciate of using politeness
strategies realized by students' debaters that realized
in the debate (see in Appendix 3) as described in the
following table below:
In the table above, the differenciate of
The Politeness Strategies Found in the Debate
Students’ Debaters Malaysian Indonesian
(P1,P2,P3) (O1,O2,O3)
Types of Politeness Times % Times % how the students to delivery opinions of using
Positive Politeness 161 54% 255 65%
Negative Politeness 43 14.5% 52 13%
Indonesian as EFL learners. Similarly, Negative
politeness and Bald-on record used by Indonesian
debaters but Malaysian used off-record types of
politeness strategies dominantly because Malaysian is
English as a first language. It deals off-record directly
using Inviting Conversational Implicature that they use
it to imply the meaning and use Grice’s maxim to
formulate their opinion that lethal autonomous
weapons systems is dangerous. It delivered by P1 in
the first argument (see in appendix 3) said that “P : The
fact that world the held that’s not given the right to
make it more hence”. While, Indonesian used the
factual condition about the issues that parts of rebbutal.
They keep hearer’s positive face that to safe opinions
as opposition team used positive politeness directly
and makes opponent’s teams agreed with their
arguments.
Futhermore, the purposes of WSDC is to
increase the competitiveness of students through the
media of scientific debate; improve oral English skills,
construct their thought in to breakdown any problems
and creating healthy competition among cross-
ethnical debaters for Indonesian students especially
and for all debaters from some countries who attended
in the events for understanding across-cultural from
some students as debaters; improve students’ ability to
think critically and analytically. So, the students have
competence in debating from national to international
level; develop students’ ability to express their
opinions in a logical and unambiguous. The
strengthen characters of cross-ethnical debaters
through understanding the concepts of cross-cultural
politeness strategies in debate competition and
knowledgeable about national and international issues
and how their minimizing conflict issues and
alternative solutions for solving problems.

Bald-on Record 32 11% 40 10% The Use of Politeness Strategies by Malaysian

Students Debaters
Off-Record 59 20% 44 11%
The example of sub-strategies of positive
Total 595 7% 391 9.7% politeness employed by the student debaters see in the
politeness strategies by students debater. Types of dialogue within extract, below:
Positive Politeness used by Indonesian students is Extract 1:
largest rank than Malaysian students because
P1 :The bardon fact these preposition seek
to prove presentation based, its simple.
It’s thats a lethal autonomous weapon
system make [wa] wars.
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ

In the extract 4, by saying the utterance “while

you're not into a state of fear within society” that it is
other way of polite pessimism can also be expressed in
In the extract 1 that the situation happen the negative usage like “I'm gonna move on to an
speaker makes hearer focus on its topic. Speaker gives argument”. This strategy explains being pessimistics
assume about the topic and factor faced by lethal that gives stress to hearer’. It seems negative face by
autonomous weapon systems. The first explanation to speaker’s express doubt explicitly. It means the
open the idea in that debate so the speaker delivering appropriateness of the conditions by the speaker’s
argument or assumes for make clearly the topics speech act obtain that used subjunctive. It seems also
through the utterances “...a lethal autonomous weapon to be relate on the satisfied by speakers’ want to by the
system make [wa] wars”. hearers.
Extract 2: The last commonly find out in WSDC 2018 is
P1: I am going to do this. Through two bald-on record strategy. Because of they are did not
From extract
points 2 above,inpreposition
presented my speech. team open the know each other very well and have gap among
debate being optimistic and for delivering the students which effected by their environment, such as
arguments confidently. The person’s positive face who different culture or countries. For examples, politeness
have good impression of the topics given by the strategies employed by the student debaters see in the
speaker's wants to the hearer that it emphasize whom dialogue within extract, below:
Positive politeness concerns directly.. By saying “I am Extract 5
going to do this” refers to positive face by the speaker
P1 :You should think, this encompasses all
for further improve the quality, value, or extent of her weapons systems in the military so [for
few arguments. In this extract
example], happens,
through by saying “You should
for example.
The example of sub-strategies of off-record think....” that is a suggestion from the preposition team
employed by the student debaters see in the dialogue to opposition team. It followed by recomendation it is
within extract, below: recommendation used up by Malaysian student debate
Extract 3: (P1) to Indonesian debaters' to keep understanding the
direction of the topic. This is reflected from the speaker
P1 : I’ve three means stress to these topics. First of all, I
because they get angry facing the fact is caused by
want to show you, why lethal autonomus weapons
lethal autonomous weapons systems in the military.
to be mercyles? Secondly, I’m going to talking
Extract 6:
about changing how self-learning move on.
In the extract 3, the situation explains about the
Thirdly, I’m going to talk about possiblity and the P1: It means the opposite their decreases.
Malaysian team gives association clues Indonesian The utterance
Learn! Why it’sabove,
hard to this case and
indentify explains
rare check and peace of the catching.
team for deeply understanding. It seems by saying Preposition teampunishment
from Malaysian
works? students gives
“I’ve three means stress to these topics” which means warning to opposition team that perception by build
to keep hearer perception suitable with the same in the warning threatening by saying “It means the
line from the Malaysian. It still minimizing the opposite their decreases”. Then she gives the word
imposition through gives clue for Malaysian and “Learn!” as strengthen his argument that must be
Indonesian debaters' same focused on few direction attention by using imperative form as showing
perceptions as speaker mentioned. criticsm.
So, this strategy suitable applied in close
friends and families. In this case, Indonesian versus
The example of sub-strategies of negative Malaysian almost all the debater used a little this sub-
politeness employed by the student debaters see in the strategies becuase it is formal activity as academic
dialogue within extract, below: debate. Using sub-strategies of bald-on record that
Extract 4: caused by the students gap among others because
P2 : I'm gonna move on to an argument while these utterances in this strategy delivers directly,
you're not into a state of fear within society
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ

clearly and unambiguously performed. In the extract 1 From extract 9 above, in the italic word that is
and 2 contains the example utterance of sub-strategy showing disagreement strategy because the speaker
of bald-on record employed by the debaters. critics to hearer to fix the arragement and it continuing
for giving a reason to solve the problems. The second
The Use of Politeness Strategies by Indonesian Malaysian’s debater shows her refusal the arguments
Students Debaters about the systems happen. Therefore, she uses the
utterance “No mechanism so on and so forth and these
The example, the sub-strategies in positive other parts.…” as her response her disagreement
politeness employed by the Indonesian team see in the towards Preposition teams’ position argument.
dialogue within extract, below: Extract 10:
Extract 7:
O2: Finally, I talk about having, why is of hacking
O1 : Let’s go to the first argument on white increases? To this know about of happen offline
the utilization of human soldiers creates vice versa over the harder to hard. Immortalization
the house dangerous of weapons ofInmilitary technology
the extract based another
10 above weaponsexample
a now. for
Speaker is an offer or promise that hearer wants showing disagreement. The Malaysian debaters’states
and will help him to obtain them such as an optimistic about the fact in the field of war caused by the use of
expression of FTAs seems to work by minimizing the military technology based weapons. It clearly from his
size of the face threat by giving expressions likes for a utterance “To this know about of happen offline vice
section. From extract 7 above, the opposition team versa over the harder to hard”. The speaker use this
open the debate being optimistic and for delivering the strategy to be honest without attempt to soften the face
arguments confidently. It is concerned with the threatening act because his explains with the factual
person’s positive face that emphasizes the Preposition occurs.
team's wants is called positive politeness. By saying Extract 11:
““Let’s go to the first argument!” refers to a positive
O3 : Let me tell you that the both of us will be
face by the speaker for further improve the quality,
merciless and again operate wars, three
value, or extent of her few arguments. Speaker offers
respond nations.
some arguments to the hearer to safe topics.
Extract 8: In this extract happens speaker’s assuming by
O3 : Those [two] two ICJ which is literally saying “Let me tell you that the both of us will be
In the extract
control by United14 that happens explain about merciless and again operate wars,”. In this case, the
States.
notice sub-strategy in positive politeness. In this case, speaker using that utterance focused on hearers’ to
this information suggests that Opposition team should minimize the inflicting negative face for attempting to
be pay attention in the aspects of hearer’s positioning soften preposition team by delivering the factual
including obvious changes and anything at all which conditions that within in the clause “three respond
appears for instance even though Preposition team nations”. So, it called not assuming by the speaker as
would want Opposition team to notice and authorize of sub-strategy in negative politeness.
it. For make sure, to hearer notice in this debate they The example of sub-strategies of bald-on record
are for understanding well. employed by the student debaters see in the dialogue
The example of sub-strategies in negative within extract, below:
politeness employed by the student debaters see in the Extract 12
dialogue within extract, below:
O3 : You know that society doesn't necessarily
Extract 9: favor amm.. what does this show to you!
O2 : Ladies and gentleman. No In this extract, the speaker is giving requesting
mechanism so on and so forth and to the opposition team for looking the reality. The
these other parts because technically word “you know” in here that expectancy and
you can still fix the system well. requesting by the speaker. It has ilustrated, Preposition
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ
team engaged for giving charity and for caring
humanity through sharing peace that as opposition
team did not agreed with the Malaysian wants not
fighting during a war. As the one of the sub-strategies
in bald-on record strategy. By saying this “You know
that society doesn't necessarily favor amm,,, what does
this show to you!” is clearly utterance about bald-on
record strategy.
Extract 13:
O3 : To become as merciless that's what
they want you to do!
The extract above, this case explains
Preposition team from Malaysian students is same
used imperative form exactly. The speaker is giving
deference the opposition team for caring humanity.
The word “,,,,you to do!” In here, giving advise
arguments in one of bald-on politeness strategy. It
means a person or nation engaged in fighting during a
war. By saying this “you to do!” is clearly utterance
about bald-on record.
The bald-on record above, this case explains
Preposition team from Malaysian students tries to
warning Opposition team’s perception by build the
warning threatening by saying “It means the opposite
their decreases”. Then she gives the word “Learn!”
as strengthen his argument that must be attention by
using imperative form as showing criticsm.
Extract 14:
O3 : The away!
The bald-on record above, this case explains
Preposition team from Malaysian students tries to
warning Opposition team’s perception by build the
warning threatening by saying “It means the opposite
their decreases”. Then she gives the word “Learn!” as
strengthen his argument that must be attention by using
imperative form as showing criticsm.
The example of sub-strategies in off-record
politeness employed by the student debaters see in the
dialogue within extract, below:
Extract 15:
O3 : we give you three reasons
From extract 15 above that the Opposition team Implicature, with 95 times out of occurrences data.
gives clues as sub-strategies in off-record to clarify the Then, the sub-strategy of Bald-on-record are Using
arguments and the imposition of disagreement. It has
continuing for giving a reason to solve the problems.
Thus, in debate is very important that give clues for
delivering the reason about the topics. Beside, the
Opposition’s debater shows her points the arguments
about the systems happened. Therefore, she uses the
utterance “we give you three reasons…” as her
stimulus minimize the disagreement towards
Preposition teams’ in positioning argument.
The differentiate of politeness strategies used by
student debaters. Types of positive politeness used by
Indonesian students is the largest rank than Malaysian
students because Indonesian as EFL learners.
Similarly, Negative politeness and Bald-on record used
by Indonesian debaters but Malaysian used off-record
types of politeness strategies dominantly because
Malaysian are English as a first language. It deals off-
record directly using Inviting Conversational
Implicatures that they use it to imply the meaning and
use of Grice’s maxim to formulate their opinion that
lethal autonomous weapons systems are dangerous. It
delivered by P1 in the first argument (see in appendix
3) said that “P: The fact that world the held that are not
given the right to make it more hence”. While
Indonesian used the factual condition about the issues
that parts of rebuttal. They keep the hearer’s positive
face that to safe opinions as the opposition team used
positive politeness directly and makes the opponent’s
teams agreed with their arguments.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and discussion, the
results of the research can be concluded as follows:
The discussions above showed that the debaters
used variety of politeness strategies that four types
realized by Indonesian and Malaysian students
debaters in World School Debating Championship
(WSDC) 2018. From the data, these are positive
politeness, negative politeness, as it is illustrated in
the previous explanation that the positive politeness is
the most applied by the debaters, the occurrences of
its sub-strategies also have the largest rank. There is
the sub-strategy of off-record, Inviting Conversational
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ
Imperative Form, which occurs is the most proportion
in Bald-on Record has 20 times. Politeness is one of
concerns in ELT to improve interactive language
classroom as reflected by Indonesian versus
Malaysian performed. It shows that the debaters prefer
employing positive politeness strategy while the other
strategies for making harmony in their utterances.
Thus, the researcher suggests the students of
linguistics to figure out these factors and functions in
order to achieve much better understanding in the
realizations of those politeness strategies. The
researcher expects that other researchers will conduct a
further study focusing politeness strategies which are
applied by different participants, genders and positions.
As a teacher, this study also gives a
supplementary suggestion when they have interaction
with the students and for preparing lesson plan to
English language teaching. Especially to familiarize
their children to be polite as early possible since
performing politeness that minimally, for applying a
matter of four words as powers word are please, sorry,
excuse, and thank you makes hearer's positive face to
safe harmony.
On the other hand, as a linguist for the further
researcher to get any information that can be used
questionnaires and interviews for completing the data
to search for deep information. If as the researcher to
collect the data for getting much information about the
object of research must join directly because this data
comes from youTube that data limited to search about
what is the factors make differently to produce those
strategies by debater. 
REFERENCES
Acheoah, John Emike & Ibileye, Gbenga (2016).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Pragma- Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. Introduction to Systemic
crafting Theory. American Research Journal of
English and Literature(ARJEL). ISSN
(online)-2378-9026 (2)13.
Uzair-ul-Hassan, M., & Farooq, S. (2017). Teachers'
Al-Mahrooqi, R. I., & Tabakow, M. L. (2015).
Effectiveness of Debate in ESL/EFL-Context
Courses in the Arabian Gulf: A Comparison of
Two Recent Student-Centered Studies in
Oman and in Dubai, UAE. In Second 21st
Century Academic Forum at Harvard (Vol. 5, 
No. 1). Retrieved from http://www.21caf.org/u
ploads/1/3/5/2/13527682/33_hrd-730-tabakow
_ed2_fmt_logo.pdf
Al Momani, K., Migdadi, F., & Rabab’a, E. (2018).
Politeness strategies and the representation of
women in the Holy Qur’an. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 15(3), 409-435. DOI: https://doi.or
g/10.1515/ip-2018-0012
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995).
Communicative competence: A pedagogically
motivated model with content specifications.
Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2), 5-35
Creswell, J. W. (2012. Educational Research:
Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research, (4th ed).
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Celce-Murcia (2007). Rethinking the Role of
Communicative Competence in Language
Teaching. E. Alcón Soler and M.P. Safont Jordà
(eds.), Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning, 41–57.
Glaser, K. (2009). Acquiring Pragmatic Competence in
a foreign languagemastering preferred speech
acts. Chemnitz University of Technology.
Fracchiolla, B. (2011). Politeness as a strategy of attack
in a gendered political debate—The Royal–
Sarkozy debate. Journal of
pragmatics, 43(10), 2480-2488. DOI:10.1016/j.p
ragma.2011.02.006.
Ruansyah, R., & Rukmini, D. (2018). The Host’s
Politeness Strategies in Ellen Degeneres Reality
Talk Show. English Education Journal, 8(1), 96-
106. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v8i1.22161.
Functional Linguistic 2nd Ed.
New York: Continuum.
Politeness as a Predictor of Students' Self-Esteem
and Academic Performance. Bulletin of
Education and Research, 39(1), 229-243.
Retrieved from http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/
32.
 Nurrahmah, Dwi Rukmini , Issy Yuliasri/ EEJ

Elisdawati, Y., Husein, R., & Setia, E. (2018).

Teachers’ Politeness Strategies in Motivating
Students to Learn English. KnE Social
Sciences, 3(4), 964-975. DOI
10.18502/kss.v3i4.2004

Aulia N., K. (2017). Politeness Strategies in EFL

Classroom: Building Positive Values in Students.
Advances in Social Science, Education and
Humanities
Research (ASSEHR), volume 109. DOI: http://c
reativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Ibnus, N., & Mujiyanto, Y. (2018). The Comparison of

Politeness Components between New Headway
Intermediate Student’s Book and Bahasa Inggris
SMA/MA/SMK/MAK Kelas X. English
Education Journal, 8(1), 76-86.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v8i
1.22157

Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: the politics of

language in our lives. Basic Book.