IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES IN THE 1ST 2024 INDONESIAN

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DEBATE BY PRABOWO

SUBIANTO: A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

Lestary Jungjunan Effendy

English Department, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Widyatama University

Email: lestary.effendy@widytama.ac,id

ITRODUCTION

In the realm of political discourse, the strategic use of language plays a pivotal role
in shaping public perception and influencing electoral outcomes. Presidential
debates, in particular, serve as a crucial platform for candidates to articulate their
policies, ideologies, and visions for the nation. However, beyond the surface-level
exchange of ideas, these debates often involve intricate linguistic maneuvers aimed
at gaining rhetorical advantage over opponents.

During the first presidential debate of 2024, Prabowo Subianto, a prominent

Indonesian politician, took the stage as one of the presidential candidates. Born on
October 17, 1951, in Jakarta, Prabowo has a background deeply rooted in both the
military and politics.

He served as the Commander of the Indonesian Army's Strategic Reserve

Command (Kostrad) before transitioning into the political arena. Prabowo is known
for his involvement in founding the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) in
2008 and his multiple presidential bids, including in 2014 and 2019.

In the discourse surrounding Prabowo Subianto's participation in the inaugural

Indonesian presidential debate of 2024, his communication style emerges as a focal
point for analysis, exhibiting distinct characteristics such as high notes, directness,
sarcasm, and firmness. Prabowo's words successfully captured significant public
attention, such as:
 Prabowo (Speaker) : Kita ini bukan anak kecil Mas Anies ya. Anda juga
paham ya, sudah lah ya. (02:13:06 – 02:13:14 )

Prabowo's discourse may seen as part of impoliteness strategies aimed at

challenging opponents, asserting dominance, or rallying support from specific voter
demographics. His use of high-pitched tones and firm statements serves not only to
convey conviction but also to command attention and project authority, and this
style possibly influenced by his military background. Moreover, Prabowo's
utilization of sarcasm as a rhetorical device adds another layer of complexity to his
communication style, functioning as a means to critique opponents indirectly and
challenge their assertions.

Jonathan Culpeper's exploration of impoliteness as a deliberate means to challenge

social norms and provoke reactions offers valuable insights into Prabowo's
discourse. Culpeper (2011) explain impoliteness as a pragmatic strategy employed
to disrupt social harmony and assert dominance through linguistic choices.

In the context of his participation in the presidential debate, the use of language
communication style also impoliteness strategies, later can be analyzed through the
lens of pragmatics. (Yule, 1996) argued that pragmatics, as the study of language
use in context, offers valuable insights into how speakers employ language to
convey meaning beyond the literal interpretation of words.

Furthermore, this study contributes to the broader understanding of political

discourse and pragmatic analysis by offering insights into the intricate interplay
between language, power, and persuasion in the context of presidential debates.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Pragmatics, as explained by George Yule (1996), is the study of language in use,

emphasizing the role of context and intentionality in shaping meaning. Yule's
framework provides a robust foundation for understanding how speakers navigate
social norms and expectations to achieve communicative goals effectively.

Influential scholar as Leech (1983), said, pragmatics is the study of language use in
context, focusing on how meaning is constructed and interpreted in communicative
exchanges. Pragmatic analysis offers valuable insights into the strategic
deployment of language to achieve rhetorical objectives.

Building upon this, Jonathan Culpeper (1996) explore into the context of
impoliteness, highlighting how language can be strategically used to offend or
challenge social norms. Culpeper identifies five distinct impoliteness strategies:
Bold on record, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock, and
withhold impoliteness.

Bold on Record involves directly conveying an impolite message without

mitigation, while positive impoliteness asserts dominance or superiority over the
interlocutor. Negative impoliteness distances oneself from the interlocutor, while
sarcasm or mock employs irony or ridicule to criticize indirectly. Withhold
impoliteness involves omitting politeness markers to convey indifference or
disregard.

This theoretical framework integrates Yule's pragmatic perspective with Culpeper's

insights into impoliteness, providing a comprehensive understanding of how
language is used to convey impolite messages and navigate social interactions.
Through empirical investigation, this study aims to explore what types of
impoliteness strategies were found in the 1st Indonesian Presidential candidate
debate by Prabowo Subianto and what function it is for

METHODS

The study relied on transcriptions from the first presidential debate involving
Prabowo Subianto, sourced from available materials. These transcriptions were
chosen to ensure a thorough analysis of the impoliteness strategies used by Subianto
during the debate. Identifying these strategies involved carefully reading through
the transcriptions to spot moments where Subianto's language exhibited
impoliteness. These instances were then sorted based on their characteristics,
distinguishing between various types of impoliteness strategies following the
framework outlined by Jonathan Culpeper (1996).

The dataset analyzed in this study zeroed in on Subianto's verbal exchanges

throughout the debate, highlighting instances where impoliteness strategies were
noticeable. Through careful examination, a total of occurrences of impoliteness
strategies were pinpointed and dissected within the conversation. These instances
were categorized using Culpeper's framework, which provided a structured method
for understanding the practical implications of impoliteness in political discourse.

The transcriptions used in this study followed the transcription conventions

developed by Jefferson, Atkinson, and Heritage (1984). By employing this
transcription system, the study ensured the faithful representation of Prabowo
Subianto's language during the first presidential debate. Subsequently, the
transcribed data were analyzed and classified according to impoliteness strategies
outlined in the Culpeper (1996).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The data pprovided data consists of a transcript from a debate, likely involving
political candidates or figures. The debate touches on various topics, including
human rights issues, governance, economic development, and environmental
concerns. The debate begins with formal greetings and an outline of the speaker's
vision and mission, emphasizing the importance of upholding the law, human
rights, and combating corruption. The debate involves multiple question and answer
sessions directed towards different candidates. Topics include strategies to address
human rights violations and conflicts in Papua, governance issues, policies
regarding minority groups, political party governance reform, and unemployment.
Candidates provide responses to questions, often expressing disagreement with
each other's viewpoints. Some responses include criticisms of opponents' policies
or approaches. Throughout the debate, there are instances of impoliteness strategies,
including sarcasm, disagreement expressed in confrontational tones, and overuse of
politeness that can come across as insincere. Candidates conclude with closing
remarks, reiterating their positions and highlighting their proposed solutions to
various issues.

Data 1 : Sarcasm

Pak Prabowo: "Jadi benar keadilan benar sekali harus ada keadilan tetapi saya mau
mengatakan tidak sesederhana itu Pak" (44.03)
Data 2: Mock Politenes

Pak Prabowo: "ye harap kenal pendukung Mas Anis Saya tidak punya apa-apa
saya sudah siap mati untuk negara ini ye" (1.27.41)

Data 3: Positive Politeness

Pak Prabowo "waktunya masih ada Bapak terima kasih" (1.33.43)

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 349-

367.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness : Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge

University Press.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.