See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344421080

Politeness Strategy Used by Judges and Contestants in Indonesian Idol

Audition 2018

Preprint · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 140

1 author:

Pande Gede Artha Pratama

Ganesha University of Education
9 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pande Gede Artha Pratama on 30 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Politeness Strategy Used By Judges and Contestants in
Indonesian Idol Audition 2018

Pande Gede Artha Pratama

Postgraduates Program, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha

Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to describe and explain the findings about politeness strategy used
by judges and contestants in Indonesian Idol Audition 2018. It was implemented to support that
language is not only simply a means of communicating information about something, but also a
very important means of establishing and maintaining relationship with other people. In order to
maintain their relationships, people use different styles and type to communicate according to their
situation and intentions. The method used in this study was descriptive qualitative method to
analyze the data. The data were the utterance which contains expression (words, phrases, and
sentences) which uttered by judges and participants in Indonesian Idol Audition 2018. The
utterances were transcribed, classified into politeness strategy propped by Brown and Levinson,
and then analyzed. The results showed that each judges and contestant implemented politeness
strategy. In the beginning, they preferred to use politeness strategy to create closer distance.
However, when the judges did their judgment, they used negative and direct way.

Keyword: politeness strategy, negative and positive politeness, Indonesian Idol

1. Introduction
Language has an important role in our daily life, it can be said that language is
related to function in society and cultural values. Holmes (2011) stated that language
reflects the context in which it used. People adapt their talk to suit their audiences and
talk differently to children, customers and colleagues. People also use language
differently in formal and casual contexts and the purpose if talk will also affect its form.
Moreover, Language is not only simply a means of communicating information about
something, but also a very important means of establishing and maintaining relationship
with other people. In order to maintain their relationships, people use different styles and
type to communicate according to their situation and intentions.
Holmes (2001) also stated that language provide a variety of ways of saying the
same thing – addressing and greetings others, describing things, paying compliments,
asking someone to do something, etc. Sometimes people are using hidden way in
uttering their thought, sometimes they speak directly about their thinking whether in polite
ways or not. People usually know for sure about what they mean when they say
someone’s behavior as polite. Their usual way of describing it is by providing examples of
behavior, which think polite.
In this paper, politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson was used to
analyze politeness strategy used in Indonesian Idol 2018 Audition. Indonesian Idol 2018

1
Audition became a popular trending topic in some social media. Many people gave their
own comments and critics to Indonesian Idol contestants show. Some of them were
funny, and some of them were serious. Politeness strategy is applied in any situation
depend on the context. In Indonesian Idol 2018 Audition, there were so many interactions
and communication between the judges and judges, also judges and contestants.
Through their interaction, the politeness strategy could be seen whether it was applied or
not in the audition situation, between the judges and contestants.
Conducting a small investigation in politeness strategy was interesting because
through language used we could see how someone's personality is, and in speaking
theoretically it should be polite and do not offend the other person so that the desired
message could be conveyed. Besides, by conducting this small investigation to the
strategy used by the subject, implicatures arise could be discussed.

2. Politeness
Being polite is a complicated business in any language. It is difficult to learn because it
involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and cultural values of
the community (Holmes, 2001). Generally, politeness involves taking account of the
feelings of others. A Polite person makes others feel comfortable (Holmes, 2001). It is
supported by some theories which were said that politeness is the actions taken by
competent speakers in a community in order to attend to possible social or interpersonal
disturbance (Mayerhoff, 2006). In other hands, Watt (2003) in Adel (2016) defined
politeness as the ability to please others through external actions. Moreover, Foley (1997)
in Adel (2016) referred to politeness as “a battery of social skills whose goal is to ensure
that everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction”. It can be said that politeness in the
way of acting to makes others feel comfortable.
In everyday interaction, people exchange various politeness strategies among them to
maintain effective communication. The important point in every interaction can be
recognized through the kinds and numbers of politeness strategies being used by
speakers and hearers to enable them establish an appropriate interpersonal relationship.

3. Parameters of Politeness
The concept of politeness is crucial in any communication, but particularly in cross
cultural communication. In conducting the communication, taking culture will into a
consideration. It is also conducted in the terms of norms which is varying from culture to
culture (Valkova, 2004). There are parameters of politeness which can be used to
indicate the politeness, such as:
a. Status
Status is a collection of rights and duties, hierarchy and position in a system of roles.
Usually, the higher status will get more politeness service from the lower status.

2
 Example: If the S is lower in social status that the hearer, then the utterance has to
be polite.
b. Role
Role refers to the less institutionalized position one assumes in some interaction.
Example: Relation between host and guest, captain and team.
c. Power
This term is about the ability to impose one’s will on others. Sometimes high status
and high power do not coincide.
Example: In Britain, Japan, Thailand special terms of address and other markers of
polite language use signal the monarch’s high status and power.
d. Age
The relative ages of the speaker and the hearer determine how politeness is
expressed.
Example: A younger person may not address an older person by his/her name, even
if the younger person is of higher status.
e. Gender
Sex or gender differences exist in all cultures with respect to polite language.
Example: in general, women’s speech is supposed to be more polite. Moreover, sex
difference takes precedence over intimacy in male-female interaction.
f. Social Distance
Social distance is a factor affecting politeness and also linked to intimacy.
Example: the more intimate the participants are, the less social distance between
them. The more intimate, the less polite they are to each other.
g. Intimacy
Intimacy is divided into 2 terms, such as: Intimacy of participants (relationship
between the participants) and intimacy of setting (boss and employee at barbeque
party).
h. Kinship
The relationship between participants determines what linguistic features are used.
Example:
i. Group Membership
In some societies, group membership is important in determining what politeness
strategies are used.
Example: certain honorifics used with out-group members only; other for in-group.

4. Addressing Terms
The most obvious point where social factors influence language is in the selection of
address terms. Addressing someone before starting conversation is generally conducted
by people. Calling someone’s name is the most common way of addressing. The way of

3
addressing someone depends on the particular situation. In addressing someone,
Wardaugh (2000) stated that the person must consider about the classification of
addressing terms, such as; addressing using name, addressing of closing relationship,
intimate term, addressing of kinship term, addressing of respectful term, even addressing
of mockeries. Addressing terms can be a word, phrase, name, or title (or some
combination of these). A term of address may be friendly, unfriendly, or neutral,
respectful, disrespectful, or comradely.
There are numbers of consideration, which is used in addressing terms when people
call someone. People often have different names for someone when they are addressing
them directly, as opposed when they are referring to them in different context. Social
class, age, sex, profession, marital status, politeness and other related aspect are the
basic rules of addressing system.
Having deep understanding about address rules of certain language is not an easy
thing. Wardaugh (1993:253) confirms that the actual rules of address in a society are as
complex as the society itself. Someone may address the same person in different ways
due to social context. The speaker usually uses addressing terms to call each other
during the conversation and also uses different style in addressing someone. Wardaugh
(2000:267) states that one consequence is that choosing the right terms of address to
use. He also describe that people may address or names another by title (T), by first
name (FN), by last name (LN), by nickname, and even by some combination of these
forms.

5. Politeness Theory by Brown and Levinson

One of the major approaches to politeness is put forward Penelope Brown and
Stephen C. Levinson. It represents a framework for linking the major dimensions of social
interaction with the ways in which people talk with one other. This model consists of three
basic notions: face, face threatening acts and politeness strategy. Politeness theory
explains how and why individuals try to protect or save face especially when
embarrassing or shameful situations arise. It clarifies how we manage our own and
others’ identities through interaction, in particular through the use of politeness strategies.
The way people talk in communicative situations, can be explained by the fact that
everyone has face-wants and the others also have similar wants. Thus, whenever people
are performing communicative acts that may threaten a partner face-want, they will use
linguistic strategies that attempt to respect these wants (Elhadj, 2011).
They assume that every individual has two types of face or want: negative face and
positive face. Negative face refers to the self-image of each person rationally want to be
appreciated and does not want self-respect being attacked and freedom to take all
actions. Meanwhile, positive face refers self-image of each person rationally desire to
what he does as a result of what he did (Brownand Levinson as citied at Meyerhoff, 2006)

4
6. Strategies for Doing Face Threatened Acts (FTA)
Speakers always select a specific strategy according to the context of making a
distinction between acts that threaten negative face and positive face. In everyday
conversation, when people are with a group of friends, they can say “Give me a cup of
tea!” However, when surrounded by a group of adults in a formal setting, they must say,
“Could you please bring me a cup of tea, if you don’t mind” In different social situation, it
is necessary to adjust our choice of words to fit the occasion. If we reverse the utterances
above, it would seem impolite and unacceptable (Elhadj, 2011)
In an interaction, speakers will choose from a set of five strategies to avoid or
mitigate FTAs, described by Brown and Levinson that sum up human “politeness”
behavior: FTA-Off record, Bald on record, Negative politeness Positive politeness and the
ultimate strategy “Do not do the FTA”.
a) FTA off record, i.e., indirectly as a hint. We utter no word but give hints. For
example, when we need to borrow a pen, we just search rather obviously through our
pocket and then rummage in our bag. Even if we need to say something we do not
actually have to ask for anything. We might just simply say, “Uh, I can’t find my pen. I
forgot my pen”.
b) Baldly, On-record without redressive action, involve doing it in the most direct,
clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (for example: for a request, saying ‘Do
something!”). Using this strategy, it is likely to shock the persons to be addressed,
embarrass them or make them feel a bit uncomfortable. However, this type of
strategy is commonly found with people who know each other very well, and are very
comfortable in their environment, such as close friends and among family members,
for example in circumstance where:
1. S and H both tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be
suspended in the interests of urgency or efficiency.
2. Where the danger to H’s face is very small, as in offers, requests, suggestions
that are clearly in H’s interest and do not require great sacrifices of S (i.e.,
‘Come in’ or ‘Do sit down’); and
3. Where S is vastly superior in power H, or can enlist audience support to destroy
H’s face without losing his own.
c) Positive politeness strategy is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive
self-image that he claims for himself. It emphasizes solidarity with the hearer. It
usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and
solid interest in the hearer’s need to be respected (minimize the FTA). This leads the
speaker to appeal to a common goal and even friendship through expressions such
as, “How about letting me use your pen?” According to Brown and Levinson (1987)
as stated in Elhadj (2011) and Adel (2016) , these positive strategies include
following:

5
 (1) Notice, attend to H (his (9) Assert or presuppose S's
interests, wants, needs, goods) knowledge of concern for H's
(2) Exaggerate (interest, approval, wants.
sympathy with H) (10) Offer, promise
(3) Intensify interest to H (11) Be optimistic
(4) Use in group identity markers (12) Include both S and H in the
(5) Seek agreement activity
(6) Avoid disagreement (13) Give (or ask for) reasons
(7) Presuppose/raise/assert (14) Assume or assert reciprocity
common ground (15) Give gifts to H (goods,
(8) Joke sympathy, understanding,
cooperation)

These strategies make the hearer feel appreciated by the speaker, and this can
express solidarity and familiarity between individuals.

d) Negative politeness strategy is to increase the social distance between

interlocutors. It is essentially avoidance-based, it dictates that the speaker respects
the address’s negative face and will not interfere with his or her freedom of action.
The main focus for using this strategy is to assume that you may be imposing on the
hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these automatically assume that
there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation. However,
in most English-speaking context is more commonly performed via a negative
politeness strategy. The most typical form used is a question containing a modal verb
such as in, “Could you lend me a pen?". Negative politeness is typically expresses
via questions, even questions that seem to ask for permission to ask question (e.g.
May I ask you if you have an extra pen that I could borrow?).
Brown and Levinson (1987:132) as stated in Elhadj (2011) and Adel (2016)
identify these strategies as follows:
(1) Be conventionally indirect (7) Impersonalize S and H
(2) Question, hedge (8) State the FTA as a general rule
(3) Be pessimistic (9) Nominalize
(4) Minimize the imposition, R (10) Go on record as incurring a
(5) Give deference debt, or as not indebting H
(6) Apologize

e) Don’t do the FTA

Brown and Levinson’s fifth strategy is “Don’t do the FTA.” In this strategy, nothing is
said because the risk of face loss is extremely great. It is to remain silent and not doing
the act. But the researchers did not provide any discussion concerning this strategy.
Brown and Levinson (1987) regard silence as the ultimate expression of politeness,
although they offer no discussion of it. Furthermore, Sifianou in Elhadj (2011) makes an

6
important point concerning this fifth strategy, saying that it is inadequate to exclude and
separate this one from the other super strategies, but it is very important to insert facts of
silence under the other strategies because according to her silence can realize positive,
negative and off-record politeness in order to avoid imposition.

7. Methods
The research method used in this study was descriptive qualitative method to analyze
the data. The data were the utterance which contains expression (words, phrases, and
sentences) which uttered by judges and participants in Indonesian Idol Audition 2018.
The utterances were collected from 4 most watched video recording published in
youtube. To collect the data, documentation method was used. The following were the
steps conducted in collecting data:
a. Watching 4 videos
b. Transcribing all utterances uttered in the videos
c. Reducing the data that appropriate to the topic.
d. Classifying the data which were including in the variation of addressing and
politeness utterances.
In analyzing the data, the following were the steps conducted:
a. Classifying the data into kinds of politeness strategy
b. Describing the politeness pattern
c. Making the conclusion and suggestion based on data analysis.
The main data were from the Indonesian Idol Audition 2018. Here, it was chosen 4 most
watched video in Indonesian Idol. Indonesian Idol: Will You Be The Next, is a talent
search event adopted from Pop Idol (UK) with sponsorship from Fremantle Media in
collaboration with RCTI. This event is an idol search in the field of drag votes. Indonesian
Idol has become the biggest official event in Indonesia. In this study, the utterances were
from the contestant named: Trio Pangabean, Rudy, Ghea Indrawari and Cindy
Ramadhina. Besides, the judges being studied were: Armand Maulana, Maia estianty,
Judika and Ari Lasso.
8. Results and Findings
From the data analysis, it was found that from 4 contestants in the video, greeted the
judges and addressed the judges by using different ways.
Name of Contestant Way to greet the Judges
Trio Pangabean - “Horas” (Medan greeting)
Rudy - How are you Kak Judika
- how are you Bunda Maia?
- How are you Bapak Ari Lasso
- I am fine. How are you Kang Armand?
Ghea Indrawari - Halo Kang Arman, Om Ari, Bunda Maia, Kak Judika
Cindy Ramadhina - ‘Assalamualaikum’ (Muslim’s greeting)
Table1. Way the participants greeting the Judges

7
 The most obvious point where social factors influence language is in the selection of
greeting terms. Greeting someone before starting conversation is generally conducted by
people. The way of greeting someone depends on the particular situation. From the table
above, it was found that Trio Pangabean used word ‘Horas’ to greet the judges. This word
is a special greeting word from Medan, Sumatera. He just tried to show that he comes
from Medan, and hopefully could be closer to the judges.
In other hand, Rudy used English common way in greeting someone such as: saying
“Hello” and asking “How are you?”. Based on the conversation, Rudy stated that he likes
using English as an International English, so that he used English for the conversation to
the judges. Ghea Indrawari, she used word “Halo” to greet the judges. Meanwhile, Cindy
Ramadhina used “Assalamualaikum” to greet the judges. This word is Muslim’s common
greeting.
In their conversation, the contestant used different terms to address the judges. It
could be seen from the table 2.
Name Way to address the Judges
Trio Pangabean - Bang (Elder Brother)
- Bunda (Mrs)
Rudy - Kak Judika
- Bunda Maia
- Bapak Ari Lasso
- Kang Armand?
The use of ‘Kang’ (Elder brother), ‘Bapak’ (Sir), ‘Bunda’
(Mommy), ‘Kak’ (Elder brother)
Ghea Indrawari - Kang Arman
- Om Ari
- Bunda Maia
- Kak Judika
The use of ‘Kang’ (Elder brother), ‘Om’ (Uncle), ‘Bunda’
(Mommy), ‘Kak’ (Elder brother)
Cindy Ramadhina - In the conversation she never used addressing terms in
addressing the judges
Table2. Way the participants addressing the Judges

Addressing terms in conversation was generally conducted by people. Calling

someone’s name is the most common way of addressing. In this case, the status
between the judges and the contestants were different. Judges had higher status than the
contestant. Thus, term of address was expected to be polite. From the table above, it was
found the Trio Pangabean used word ‘Bang’ to address the male judges and ‘Bunda’ for
the female judges. Meanwhile, Rudy and Ghea had different way to address the judges.
Rudy and Ghea had same address form to address ‘Kang Arman’, ‘Bunda Maia’,and ‘Kak
Judika’ but Ari Lasso was addressed ‘Om Ari’ by Ghea and ‘Bapak Ari Lasso’ by Rudy.
However, Cindy Ramadhina did not use any addressing form in the conversation. The
difference used by Ghea Indrawari got some compliments from Ari Lasso, it was showed

8
by his statement ‘kenapa manggil aku om?(Why did you address me uncle’?)and ‘kamu
tahu gak itu membuat saya terpukul’ (did you know it hurts me?).
Seeing this case, it could be said that addressing someone affects the how the
conversation flew between speaker and hearer. A term of address may be friendly,
unfriendly, or neutral, respectful, disrespectful, or comradely. As a speaker, they should
be wise to choose the appropriate addressing terms.
Moreover, another analysis was conducted to the utterances. As said before,
after transcribing all utterances uttered in the videos, the data were reduced and
classified into kinds of politeness strategy proposed by Brown and Levinson. This table
showed the Face Threatened Act strategy used by the judges and contestant of the
Audition of Indonesian Idol 2018.

No FTA strategy Judges Contestant

1 Off-record 6 3
2 Baldly 10 5
3 Positive Politeness 18 6
4 Negative Politeness 8 8
Total Sentences 42 22
Table3. FTA’s strategy used by Judges and Contestant in Audition of Indonesian Idol 2018

a) FTA off record is indirectly as a hint. When speakers need to say something they do
not actually have to ask for anything. In the conversation between judges and
contestant it was found that judges uttered 8 FTA off record strategy. They tried to
ask the contestants to do something indirectly. For example:
1. ‘Harus pakai kacamata ya?’ (Should you wear sunglasses?)
2. ‘Lagi seneng pakai bahasa inggris ya?’ (Are you happy to speak English?)
3. ‘Bahasa Indonesia bisa? Saya enggak bisa bahasa inggris’ (Can you speak
Bahasa? I can’t speak English)
4. ‘mudah-mudahan aku tahu itu laguku’ (I hope I know that is my song’)
5. ‘Kok lagunya jadi horror ya?’ (Why does my song become horrible?)
From the first sentence it could be said that the judge wanted the contestant put off
his sunglasses. It seemed he was over-confident to pass the audition. Meanwhile, in the
second and third sentence, judges tried to ask the contestant stop using English in the
conversation. They were in singing audition, not English speaking audition. After Armand
said, ‘Can you speak Bahasa? I can’t speak English’, Rudy, the contestant finally spoke
in Bahasa to all the judges.
Moreover, while Judika said ‘I hope I know that is my song’ and ‘why does my song
become horrible?’. It showed that Judika as the judges want to show that the contestant

9
could not sing well. It was one way for Judika to show that he was unsatisfied with the
contestant.
In other hand, from 4 contestant it was found there were only 3 FTA off-record were
uttered. They were:
6. ‘Habis kakak nangis aku ini nangis’ (After you cry, then I would cry)
7. ‘Takut Ghea’(I (Ghea) am afraid)
8. ‘Makasi kak’(Thank you Kak)>>occurs after Ari Lasso asked it to Ghea
The first sentence showed that Trio Pangabean would not pass the audition. It could be
seen from the statement that after the judges cried because of contestant jokes, and then
he already knew that he would cry after the judges say he could not pass the audition.
Statement number 6 showed indirectly showed that Ghea Indrawari was afraid because
she address Ari Lasso as uncle. She was afraid if it affected the judges evaluation for her
performance. Then, statement number 8 showed that Ghea was indirectly under-pressure
to say ‘Kak’, because she felt comfortable to address Ari Lasso as ‘Om Ari’.

b) Baldly, On-record without redressive action, involve doing it in the most direct,
clear, unambiguous and concise way possible. Using this strategy, it is likely to shock
the persons to be addressed, embarrass them or make them feel a bit uncomfortable.
In this case, it was found that the judges used baldly FTA strategy to speak between
judges and also to the contestant because they were in higher level to the
contestants, especially in evaluating and giving the comments to the contestant.
These statements were the example:
1. ‘Mukamu tua, udah gitu aja ah’.(Your face seemed old. That’s all)
2. ‘Aduh tapi maaf belum bsia jadi Indonesian idol tahun ini ya’.(Sorry, you cannot
be the Idol in this year)
3. ‘Tapi sebenernya dia cocoknya kalo lagu-lagu tuh, lagu yang opera’ (Actually,
you are good in singing, especially for opera song)
4. ‘itu lagunya kaya gitu,tapi kelakuanmu kaya gitu, pacar dua belas. Kontra itu’
(Your song is like that(good), but your behavior is like that (bad). You have 12
girlfriends. That is contradictive)
From the first sentence, it happened between the judges. They felt free to make any
joke and spoke eah other. It showed that this type of strategy is commonly found with
people who know each other very well, and are very comfortable in their environment,
such as close friends and among family members. This type of strategy was
commonly found with people who know each other very well, and are very
comfortable in their environment, such as close friends. Moreover, the second till
fourth sentences showed how judges used baldly FTA strategy to give their
comments for the contestant. It showed different status or level between the judges

10
 and the contestant. Judges were superior in power of contestants, and they could
enlist people support to destroy contestants’ face without losing their own.
However, contestants also used some baldly FTA strategy in their utterances with
different intention. For the example:
5. ‘Iya bang siap pasti aku jadi juara satu. Tapi Aku mimpi semalam lho bang Juara
satu, ternyata enggak’ (Yes I will ready. I will be the first winner. But last night I
had a dream, I got the first winner, actually it is not)
Trio Pangabean used this sentence after the judges gave their comments. Gabe
tried to speak baldly as a joke to create colese relationship to the judges and also to
show that he was not sad because the judgment in order to show his spirit for the
next audition.
6. ‘Gak apa-apa, karismanya om-om’ (No, you have a special charisma like ‘uncle’)
7. ‘Biar beda beda manggilnya.’ (To make different addressing terms)
According to two statement above (number and 7) uttered by Ghea, it showed
that she felt free to talk with the judges. She tried to construct good feeling before
starting to sing a song in order to gain her confidence.

c) Positive politeness strategy is oriented toward the positive face of hearer, the
positive self-image that they claim for themself. It emphasizes solidarity with the
hearer. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing
friendliness and solid interest in the hearer’s need to be respected. Sentence
numbers 1 - 4 were uttered by the judges, meanwhile sentence number 5 -7 utterd by
the contestant.
1. ‘Semangat terus’ (keep spirit)
2. ‘Makasi udah menghibur kami’ (Thank you for entertaining us)
3. ‘Bisa bisa dengan mic-ing seperti itu’ (you can do it by that microphone system)
4. ‘Itu bagus itu’ (That’s good)
5. ‘Cita citaku jadi bidan. Bintang anak medan’ (My dream is become BIDAN,
Medan Superstar)
6. ‘Ya udah sama berarti’ (Yes, it is same actually)
7. ‘Enggak pernah belajar sebelumnya' (I never learn before)
These positive strategies make the hearer feel appreciated by the speaker, and
this can express solidarity and familiarity between individuals. For sentence number
1, it showed that the judge interest and did not want the contestant feel depress after
failing pass the audition. The second sentence showed that judges uttered their
gratitude to the contestant and wanted the hearer felt being included in activity. The
third sentence showed that Ari Lasso promised to Cindy if she could sing with the
special microphone system. It made Cindy felt happy. Also for the fourth sentence

11
 showed the positive politeness strategy was used to notice their interest to the
speaker.
Besides, three sentences uttered by the contestants to show their optimistic while
joking, their agreement and gave a special reason. All of the utterances using positive
politeness strategy were used in order to minimize the distance between judges and
contestant, although they were in different level of status.

d) Negative politeness strategy is to increase the social distance between

interlocutors. It is essentially avoidance-based, it dictates that the speaker respects
the address’s negative face and will not interfere with his or her freedom of action.
These were the examples of negative politeness strategy used by the judges in the
audition of Indonesian Idol 2018.
1. ‘Kamu jadi kaya Jackie Chan nyanyi bahasa Inggris’ (You seemed like Jackie
Chan sing English)
This sentence was uttered by Maia Estianty, one of the judges. She
impersonalized the contestant (Rudy) by using word ‘kamu’ which is in Indonesia
it is less polite than using word ‘Anda’. Moreover, Maia also state that Rudy’s
singing was not good. She showed her status as a judges by supposing Rudy’s
singing as like as Jackie Chan singing in English.
2. ‘Ni kalau ada pencipta lagunya dimarahin’ (If here was the song arranger, he
would be angry)
3. ‘Kamu kebanyakan dengar lagu Hongkong’ (You listened to much Hongkong’s
song)
These 2 sentences also showed how the judges were pessimistic and
impersonalized the contestant. It created a longer distance between speaker and
hearer, again to differ their status. Also, they were supposed to give comments to
the contestant. So that, they used this strategy.
4. ‘Iya rencana cita-cita emang mau jadi penyanyi’ (Yes, my dream is becoming a
singer). This sentence uttered by Rudy after the judges seemed underestimate
him. Directly Rudy stated that he wanted to be a singer. He just tried to create
longer distance to the judges and showed that he was in right way to reach his
dream.
5. ‘Panggilan Gabe, ganteng bener’ (My nick name is Gabe, very handsome). Trio
Pangabean stated this statement just to say his overconfident as a handsome
man. He also proved it by saying that he had 12 girlfriends. In which his
overconfident created a longer social distance between Trio and the judges. He
imposed on the hearers.
6. ‘I am unsatisfied with the decision of judges’ Rudy’s last statement was direct to
say that he was not satisfied to the judges’ decision.

12
 The main focus for using this negative strategy was to assume that speaker may
be imposing on the hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these
automatically assume that there might be some social distance or
awkwardness in the situation.
According to the data, it could be generated a general conclusion that in
beginning of the audition, judges and contestant preferred to used positive politeness
strategy rather than negative one, because both of them wanted to create closer
distance relation between them. Besides, they also tried to create pleasure situation
before the contestant started to sing. However, when the judges delivered their
judgment, they used negative politeness strategy in order to create social distance
and indirectly stated that they were different in their status. They uttered comments
directly about the contestant performances, whether their performances were
awesome or not. Thus, the politeness strategy was implemented both of the judges
and contestants according to the context. Although they were in same setting, they
used different types on politeness based on their intention to say.

9. Conclusions
The study reveals that judges and contestant of the Audition of Indonesian Idol
2018 performed all kinds of politeness strategies in conversation they are positive
politeness strategy, negative politeness strategy, bald-on record strategy, and off-record
strategy. Positive politeness strategy was the most frequently used by the judges and
also by the contestants to show cooperation and also to maintain her close relationship
between them. Thus, the politeness strategy was implemented both of the judges and
contestants according to the context. Although they were in same setting, they used
different types on politeness based on their intention to say.

13
 References

Adel, Seyyed Mohammad Reza, M. Davoudi and Akram Ramezanzadeh. (2016). A Qualitative
Study of Politeness Strategies Used by Iranian EFL Learners in a Class Blog. Iranian
Journal of Language Teaching 47-62, Urmia University Press.
(http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127416.pdf) , accessed on September 21, 2017

Agustina, Sheila and Bambang Yudi Cahyono. (2016). Politeness and Power Relation in EFL
Classroom Interaction: A Study on Indonesian Learners and Lecturers. International
Journal of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 2. Universitas Negeri Malang
(http://ijllnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_2_June_2016/11.pdf), accessed on September 21,
2017

Aslinda and Leni Syafyahya. (2010). Pengantar Sosiolinguistik. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in language
Usage. In Jaworski, Adam and Nikolas Coupland. 2006. The Discourse Reader (pp. 311-
323). London: Routhledge.
(http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:64421/component/escidoc:2225570/B
rown&SCL-Politeness1999.pdf), accessed on September 21, 2017

Fauziati, Endang. (2013). Linguistics Politeness Theory. Publikasi Ilmiah. Surakarta: Universitas
Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
(https://publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id/bitstream/handle/11617/3462/4_LINGUISTIC%20POLIT
ENESS%20THEORY.pdf?sequence=1), accessed on September 21, 2017

Fitch, Kristine L and Robert E. Sanders. (2005). Handbook of Language and Social Interaction.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
(http://cogsci.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/oldpages/miscom/handbooklsi.pdf ), accessed on
September 24, 2017

Elhadj, Nabila. (2011). Politeness Strategies in Requests: The Case of Elfhoul Speech Community.
(http://dspace.univ-tlemcen.dz/bitstream/112/3637/1/elhadj-said-nabila.pdf), accessed on

Grundy, Peter. (2008). Doing Pragmatics: Third Edition. London: Routhledge.

(https://publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id/bitstream/handle/11617/3462/4_LINGUISTIC%20POLITENESS%
20THEORY.pdf?sequence=1), accessed on September 21, 2017

Holmes, Janet. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman Group.

Kariithi, Francis. (2016). Politeness Strategies Used by Youth in Their Language Use. IOSR Journal
Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 21, Issue 7, Ver. IV (July. 2016)
PP 70-72 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
(http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2021%20Issue7/Version-
4/I2107047072.pdf ) accessed on September 28, 2017

14
 Meyerhoff, Miriam. (2006). Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Routhledge
(http://home.lu.lv/~pva/Sociolingvistika/0891160_FFF6C_meyerhoff_miriam_introducing_
sociolinguistics.pdf), accessed on September 20, 2017

Smith, Peter Wilfred Hesling. (1991). Spech Act Theory, Discourse Structure and Indirect Speech
Acts. The University of Leeds.
(http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/734/1/uk_bl_ethos_438318.pdf) accessed on October 4th,
2017

Valkova, Silvie. (2004). Politeness as A Communicative Strategy and Language Manifestation.

Olomouc: ISBN 80-244-0961-5. (http://kaj.upol.cz/Politeness.pdf), accessed on
September 29, 2017

Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. USA: Blackwell Publishing.

(http://home.lu.lv/~pva/Sociolingvistika/1006648_82038_wardhaugh_r_an_introduction_t
o_sociolinguistics.pdf) , accessed on September 21, 2017

Yakubi, Mojde, Karwan Ustafa Saeed and Mahta Khaksari. (20160. Conversational Maxim View of
Politeness: Focus on Politeness Implicatures Raised in Performing Persian Offers and
Invitation. Theory and Practice in language Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 52-58 ISSN 1799-
2591
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mojde_Yaqubi2/publication/291385489_Conversati
onal_Maxim_View_of_Politeness_Focus_on_Politeness_Implicatures_Raised_in_Perfor
ming_Persian_Offers_and_Invitations/links/56a6503808aebf168e323082/Conversational-
Maxim-View-of-Politeness-Focus-on-Politeness-Implicatures-Raised-in-Performing-
Persian-Offers-and-Invitations.pdf), accessed on October 2, 2017.

15

View publication stats