2 METHOD
Data were collected through an observational method,
note-taking and interviewing. Text messages
containing impolite request were recorded using a
screenshot. The respondents were then interviewed to
find out the reasons for their choice of language.
Pragmatics and a referential identity method were
used in conducting the analysis. The result was then
presented using formal and informal methods.
3 REQUESTS AND
IMPOLITENESS
The request is utterance in which the speaker appeals
to the hearer to do something for the benefit of the
speaker. Bach and Harnish state that a request
expresses the speaker’s desire that the hearer does
something in which the hearer takes this desired
expression as the reason to act. A request does not
contain an obligation for the hearer to fulfil the
required act like a command does. It means that a
request has the potential to be granted or rejected.
Requests are closely related to the loss of face of
both the speaker and the hearer. The speaker will lose
face if the request is rejected or denied. On the other
hand, the hearer will lose face if the strategy used in
delivering the request is unsuitable. Thus, in order for
both the speaker and hearer to save face, a specific
strategy should be employed.
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain proposes nine strategies
in making a request: (1) mood derivable, (2)
performative, (3) hedged performative, (4) obligation
statement, (5) want statement, (6) suggestive
formulae, (7) query preparatory, (8) strong hint, and
(9) mild hind (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984).
The nine strategies are also found in Bahasa
Indonesia but with more varieties. The variations
appear due to contacts that have happened to the
speakers from a different culture. In delivering a
request, the speaker will consider both the speaker
and hearer’s cultural background. It will result in a
different strategy that does not put a certain culture
above the other.
The sequence of the request is another form of
request making strategy. Revita (2007) states that
there are four sequences used in making a request.
The four sequences are:
1. 2 in 1 sequence. This sequence uses two kinds
of strategies where one of them is the intended
request itself. The request can either be before
or after the supporting utterance. Either way,
the position influences the focus of attention.
A request where the main request precedes the
support is more focused than the other way
around.
2. 3 in 1 sequence. This contains three
consecutive strategies in which the main
request can be at the beginning, middle or end
of the whole utterance.
3. 4 in 1 sequence. This uses four different
strategies to achieve one goal of the request.
4. Multi in 1 sequence. Request with multi in 1
sequence is constructed using five or more
strategies. This form of request is not
commonly found.
To communicate is related to preserving the other
person's face. When talking to others, speaker or
hearer can threaten their interlocutor's face. This
means that both speaker and hearer may cause the
other to feel embarrassed or offended. Any utterance
that makes others feel embarrassed or offended can
be categorized as impolite. Culpeper calls this as
impoliteness (Culpeper, J. 2005)
Impoliteness is an attitude which threatens
another’s face. Impoliteness is reflected in an attitude
that creates discomfort to the hearer. The discomfort
is displayed through shame, anger, hurt, or being
offended. The feeling of shame or hurt, according to
Brown and Levinson in Eelen is called a Face
Threatening Act (FTA) (Eelen, 2001).
To avoid attacking or threatening people’s face,
suitable strategies are applied in communication.
Revita state that in communicating with others, a
speaker will use specific strategies so that what is
uttered will not hurt other people’s feelings (Revita,
2013).
Culpeper distinguishes two forms of impoliteness,
inherent and mock. Inherent impoliteness is any
utterance that is explicitly designed to attack face. For
example, a command, threat, or criticism [4] [12].
The utterance ‘Kamu kira keberadaan mu
diperhitungkan?’ (Do you think your existence
counts?) is considered a criticism. This criticism is
seen as impolite because it is rude and anti-social and
not in line with the rules and norms applied in the
society. The impoliteness can visibly be identified if
it is said in order to degrade the hearer. Mock
impoliteness is superficially impolite, but the force is
not intended to attack face.
Impoliteness in communication can be avoided.
One of the ways to do that is by applying language
use rhetoric. Leech distinguishes two rhetorics, the
interpersonal and the textual rhetoric [12]. Textual
rethorics demands that when talking, one must be
clear, coherent, and relevant according to the
ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance
12