(Im)politeness Strategies Used in Vice -Presidential Candidates Debate Between Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris

Authors

  • Nur Najibah Sukmawati Universitas Pamulang, Indonesia
  • Lystiana Nurhayat Hakim Universitas Perjuangan Tasikmalaya, Indonesia
  • Tommy Hastomo STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
  • Purwanti Taman Universitas Pamulang, Indonesia
  • Hana Lia Universitas Pamulang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i2.2990

Keywords:

communication, debate, impoliteness strategies

Abstract

Politeness is necessary for the way people socialize. However, some people choose to communicate impolitely despite knowing that it’s inappropriate. This study aims to find out how people use impoliteness strategies in communication, and identify the impoliteness strategies used in the Vice-Presidential United States of Amerika candidates debate between Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris on October 8th, 2020, while also figuring out the purpose of using these strategies in the debate. For this reason, to identify the use of impoliteness strategies, the researcher used Jonathan Culpeper's (2005) theory of impoliteness strategies and a qualitative approach to analyze the data. The data was taken from a YouTube video entitled “Full Debate: Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris | WSJ†posted by the Wall Street Journal on October 8, 2020. The results of this study revealed that four out of five impolite strategies were used, with negative impoliteness as the most commonly used strategy. The other four strategies are bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, and sarcasm and mock politeness. Meanwhile, withholding politeness was never used in the debate.

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness; Some universals in language usage. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: SAGE Publications.

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.

Culpeper, J. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with several references to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and Entertainment in The Television Quiz Show: The WWeakestLink. Politeness Research, 41-42.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and Entertainment in The Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Politeness Research, 41-42.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective on Politeness. Journal of Practamtics, 225.

Hammod, N. M., & Rassul , A. A. (2017). Impoliteness Strategies in English and Arabic Facebook. International Journal of Linguistics, IX(5), 98.

Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity: Ma¯ori and Pa¯keha¯ discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness Research 4, 193-219.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). United States of America: Sage Publications.

Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lucky, J. (2015). A Pragmatic Analysis of Impoliteness Strategies in British TTV SeriesSherlock.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2021). Liberalism and Nationalism in contemporary America. American Political Science Association, VIV(1), 1-8.

Morin, D. A. (2020). Social Skills. Dipetik March 22, 2021, dari SocialPronow: https://socialpronow.com/blog/how-to-banter/

Pishghadam, R., & Navari, S. (2012). A Study into Politeness Strategies and Politeness Markers in Advertisements as Persuasive Tools. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, III(2), 161-171.

Sari, I. P., Emmiyati, N., & Maharani, S. (2019). Impoliteness Strategies in Peter Rabbit Movie. Elite, VI(2), 222-238.

Seetharaman, B. (2016). Sampling and Methods of Data Collection in Qualitative Research. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education, XVII(2), 41-47.

Shinta, V. M., Hamzah, & Wahyuni, D. (2018). Impoliteness Strategies Used by Supporters and Detractorsof Ahok in Their Online Comments by Gender. English Language and Literature, XII(1), 225-236.

Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in Interaction. New York: Routledge.

Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911 Reconceptualizing Face and face Attack. Human Communication Research, 25(2), 225-251.

Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language (4th ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2023-01-01

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 2 (2022): IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)