THE REALIZATION OF GRICE S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN OBAMA EXCLUSIVE RCTI BERSAMA PUTRA NABABAN : PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW

Transcription

1 THE REALIZATION OF GRICE S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN OBAMA EXCLUSIVE RCTI BERSAMA PUTRA NABABAN : PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW Wulan Rahayu English Department, Faculty of Language and Arts Education Indonesia University of Education wulanrahayu.zall@gmail.com ABSTRACT The study, entitled The Realization of Grice s Cooperative Principle in Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan : Presidential Interview, was aimed at identifying the flouting of Grice s maxims and investigating the function of that flouting in the presidential interview entitled Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan. The data were collected from four downloaded videos of Obama s interview in White House, Washington DC that were taken from youtube.com on April Qualitative method was employed in processing the transcription of the data. The data were identified, classified, and then separately analyzed based on Grice s Cooperative Principle proposed by Grice (1975) and Politeness Strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). The findings show that Obama flouts all the maxims. There are 27 occurrences of flouting the maxim of quantity, 24 occurrences of flouting the maxim of relation, 9 occurrences of flouting the maxim of manner, and 3 occurrences of flouting the maxim of quality. In terms of politeness strategy, Obama performs the strategies to decrease the degree of face-threatening acts (FTAs) that comes under the interviewer s questions. The study reveals that there are four politeness strategies found in the data, i.e. off-record with 23 out of 46 occurrences (50%), negative politeness that holds 17 out of 46 occurrences (36.96%), positive politeness with 6 out of 46 occurrences (10.87%), and bald on record that holds 1 out of 46 occurrences (2.17%). In conclusion, off-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and bald on-record strategy in politeness principle correlate with the flouting of Grice s maxims in saving Obama s self-image. Key words: cooperative principle, flouting, face-threatening act (FTA), politeness strategy INTRODUCTION In recent years, numbers of scholars have re-examined the role of cooperativeness in terms of Grice s cooperative principle. Many previous studies have discussed about Grice s maxims and most of them transcribe conversations 33

2 appear in debates or movie scripts. As a matter of fact, language can be used in many aspects, not only in debate or movie script but also in the interview. Kartika (2009), for example, studied maxims in Clinton-Obama Democratis Presidential Debate. She studied presidential debate in the United States to know how the candidates treat the language in the political setting. Moreover, Li (2008) studied A Performative Perspective of Flouting and Politeness in Political Interview. He conducts the perspectives of performance of how politicians in political interviews rely on linguistic strategies to deal with the conflict between being cooperative and being polite. The study, that is conducted by Li (2008), shows that hedging of Quantity are frequently employed in the interviewee s replies to avoid a precise expression of his opinion and attitudes, thereby protecting China s negative face in the future. This view has received a considerable support recently. For example, Zaman (2010) examined the Flouts of the Cooperative Principle Maxims in SBY s Presidential Interviews. He found that the most frequently flout in the research was the maxim of Quantity, it reveals for eight times over all maxims that is flouted by SBY. However, that research only carried out on the Cooperative Principle, while the research that combine CP and Politeness theory specifically in presidential interview are rarely found. Therefore, the present study investigates the research on pragmatic area under the concept of Grice s Cooperative Principle and Brown and Levinson s Politeness Strategy. Grice s Cooperative Principle is used to analyze the types of maxims and what maxims are flouted in the interview entitled, Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan. Moreover, Brown and Levinson s Politeness Strategy is used to find out the strategy of how Obama anticipates the pressure comes from Putra Nababan s questions. Grice s Cooperative Principle Grice gains Cooperative Principle to explain the mechanism by which people interpret conversational implicature (Thomas, 1995, p. 66). Grice does not suggest that all people are cooperative when they communicate, in order to make the communication runs effectively and efficiently the participants in a speech must follow the Cooperative Principle as a guideline (Levinson, 1983). According to Grice (1975), Cooperative Principle is characterized by four principles of maxims. The principles of four conversational maxims are developed as follows: Quantity (concerned with the amount of information to be provided), Quality (dealing with the genuineness and sincerity of providing the information), Relation (dealing with the relevance of information provided), and Manner (concerned with the way how people have to provide the information) (Aziz, 2000, p. 8). Breaching the Maxims Non-observance of maxim is called as breaching the maxims. Breaching the maxims happens when the speakers are not cooperative and they do not fulfill a 34

3 particular maxim, for example, they do not speak clearly and choose to lie (Thomas, 1995). As the same with Thomas, Aziz (2000, p. 9) asserts, The speaker may break a particular maxim, producing in a liability to misleading other participants because of his or her unwillingness to cooperate with other participants. Grice (1975) discusses that there are five ways of not observing the maxims, i.e. (1) flouting a maxim, (2) violating a maxim, (3) infringing a maxim, (4) opting out of a maxim, (5) suspending a maxim. Brown and Levinson s Politeness Strategy The politeness strategies are based on Goffman s notion of face (1967) which claims that self-image is an important element within human interaction. Brown and Levinson (1978) further define face-work in two notions, i.e. Positive face and Negative face. Positive face is defined as the desire to be accepted by others (i.e., to maintain connection), while Negative face is the desired not to be imposed upon by others (i.e. maintaining autonomy). Positive face is threatened when disagreement occurs. Meanwhile, Negative face is threatened when requests occur. Brown and Levinson illustrate four different linguistic strategies that are used to decrease the different degrees of face-threatening acts (FTAs), i.e. Bald on-record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, Off-record (Brown and Levinson, 1978). METHODOLOGY The study attempted to analyze breaching the Cooperative Principle of maxims in Barack Obama s presidential interview entitled Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan, and how Obama anticipated the pressure came from Putra Nababan s questions by using the strategy of Politeness principle. The research applied qualitative method as it used a naturalistic approach that sought to understand phenomena in context-specific settings (Hoepfl, 1997). The method was considered appropriate since the study attempted to uncover and understand what lay behind Barack Obama s utterances in terms of his cooperativeness with the interviewer while performing interviews or conversations. Cooperative Principle of maxims as the focus of the present study was identified through qualitative procedures i.e. by identification, classification, and interpretation. Furthermore, some quantifications were employed. Descriptive statistics covering frequency and percentage of occurrences of the breaching maxims were involved in order to examine trends in maxims. The data were collected from four downloaded videos of Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan in White House, Washington DC, the videos were retrieved April 19, 2011 from youtube.com. The total length of the videos were 22 minutes 7 seconds in which the data covered the issues, i.e. the departure delay of Obama s Indonesia trip, how much he remembered his personal experience in Indonesia and bilateral meeting between Indonesia and the United States. 35

4 Furthermore, the data were transcribed into written text. The words, phrases, and utterance became the focus of the analysis. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS Trends in the Realization of Flouting and Politeness Strategies The present study reveals the failure that occurs in the realization of Grice s Cooperative Principle in the dialogue entitled Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan. The failure is categorized into failures in observing the Grice s maxims and non-observance of the maxims. The following table presents the percentage of failures of the maxims. Table 1.1 Percentage of Failure in Observing the Maxims Types of Failure the Number of Occurrences Percentage (%) Maxims Quality % Quantity % Relation % Manner % Total Number % The table above shows that the failures of maxim of quantity are frequently employed in observing the maxim, 27 out of 63 failures (42.86%). Thomas (1995) asserts that when a speaker blatantly gives more or less information than what the situation demands then s/he flouts the maxim of quantity. The second rank of failure is occupied by failure in observing of the maxim of relation that holds 24 out of 63 occurrences (38.10%). The failure in observing of maxim of relation exists when a speaker changes the subject of discussion or fails to address the other person s goal in asking a question (Thomas, 1995). Furthermore, the failure in observing of the maxim of manner occupies the third rank of failure in observing maxims with the occurrence of 9 out of 63 (14.28%). The speaker fails to observe a maxim of manner by overstating the statements and using different words with the same meaning repeatedly (Thomas, 1995). The last rank of failure in observing maxims is occupied by failure of observing maxim of quality with 3 of 63 occurrences (4.76%). It occurs when a speaker says untrue utterances or gets uncertain utterance in conveying the message (Thomas, 1995). Besides, the present study also found the failure in the realization of Grice s Cooperative Principle that is breaching of the maxims or it is also called as nonobservance of the maxims. Aziz (2000, p. 9) said, the speaker might break a particular maxim, producing in a liability to misleading other participants because of 36

5 his or her unwillingness to cooperate with other participants. See Table 1.2 for the percentage of non-observance of the maxims. Table 1.2 Percentage of Non-observance of the Maxims Types of Breaching the Number of Occurrences Percentage (%) Maxims Floating % Violation % Infringing % Opting out - 0% Suspending - 0% Total % From the table above, it can be seen that the most frequently used nonobservance of maxim is flouting the maxims, with number of occurrences 46 out of 53 (86.79%). Flouting a maxim occurs when speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim at the level what is said, with deliberate intention of generating an implicature (Thomas, 1995, p. 65). Furthermore, the second rank of non-observance of the maxim is occupied by violation of the maxim with total occurrences of 6 of 53 (11.32%). In contrast to flouting, violating a maxim happens when a speaker is liable to mislead the hearer (Grice, 1975, p. 49). Besides, the type of non-observance of maxims that occur least frequent is infringing the maxim that occurs once from 53 occurrences (1,89%). Infringing a maxim emerges when a speaker unintentionally fails to observe a maxim with no intention to deceive their hearer (Thomas, 1995). Furthermore, the data presents some hedges for the maxims. Hedging is used as markers that a speaker may be in danger of not fully following to the Cooperative Principle (Yule, 1996). Some hedges are presented on table 1.3 as follows. Table 1.3 Percentage of Hedges Used for the Maxims Types of Hedges of the Number of Occurrences Percentage (%) Maxims Quality - 0% Quantity % Relation % Manner 1 7.1% Total Number % The table above shows that the most apparent hedging is hedge of maxim of quantity (64.28%), which comprises 9 of 14 occurrences. Yule (1996) asserts that hedging for maxim of quantity emerges when the speaker, in this case Obama, indicates his awareness of the maxim of quantity by avoiding the contributing 37

6 information more than required. Moreover, Obama also expresses hedges of maxim of relation. The hedging of maxim of relation occurs in the table as the second rank of the percentage with number of occurrence 4 out of 14 (28.6%). Besides hedging of maxim of quantity and hedging of maxim of relation, the data shows that the hedging of maxim of manner occupies on the last rank of the occurrences of hedging of maxim. It only emerges once on the data. Moreover, the study found that the Politeness Strategies that is performed by Obama is used to lessen the degree of FTA. Politeness Strategies are the weapon to save someone s face when his/her face threatened, and the face itself is defined as a self-image. In this case, Face Threatening Act (FTA) exists when Obama could not answer particular question issued by the interviewer. Therefore, Obama s self-image is threatened. In order to decrease the degree of FTA, Brown and Levinson (1978) posit four strategies, i.e. Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, Off Record, and Bald On record. The finding shows that the politeness strategies that are mostly used by Obama is off record with 23 out of 46 occurrences (50%), and negative politeness on the second rank that holds 17 out of 46 occurrences (36.96%). The third rank is occupied by positive politeness with 6 out of 46 occurrences (10.87%). The least occurrence of politeness strategies is bald on record that holds 1 out of 46 occurrences (2.17%). Table 1.4 presents the percentage of politeness strategies. Table 1.4 Percentage of Politeness Strategies No Strategies Occurrences Percentage 1. Positive Politeness Strategy Avoid disagreement 2 Give for reason 1 Intensify interest to hearer 2 Sub Total % 2. Off-record Overstate 15 Be vague 3 Understate 3 Contradiction 2 Sub Total 23 50% 3. Negative Politeness Strategy Apologize 1 Question 2 Hedge 14 Sub Total % 4. Bald On-record Farewell 1 Sub Total % 38

7 Total % The Functions of Flouting the Maxims The function of flouting the maxims depends on the trace of flouts. The flouts that have been explained in the previous discussion are indicated by the failure of observing the maxims and the use of politeness strategies as a pragmatic factor. The functions of flouts are therefore discussed in terms of flouting of maxim of Quantity, flouting of maxim of Relation, flouting of maxim of Manner, and flouting of maxim of Quality. The Flouting of Maxims of Quantity The study reveals that Barack Obama (BO) flouts the maxims of Grice s Cooperative Principle. As has been discussed previously, Obama frequently breaches the maxim of Quality, 27 out of 63 failures (42.86%). Obama breaches the maxim of Quantity in two ways. In some cases, he only delivers little information to the questions asked by the interviewer. In another case, he gives too much information than what is required. The following details present textual evidence of failure in observing maxim of quantity that is performed by Barack Obama. Textual Evidence 1 PN: Is that the signal that in your administration is satisfied in military reform and the resolution of the past human right abuses in Indonesia? BO: We have to acknowledge that those past human right abuses existent and we can t go forward without looking back or some and understanding that was not a normal problem not just for America but it was also the problem for the Indonesia people. We have seen significant progress and so what we wanna do is continued to improve our consultation and move the support into a more positive direction, because we want Indonesia to be close partner for many years in prosperous and secure Indonesia that the interest United States as well as in the interest of Indonesia and the entire Asian pacific community. From the textual evidence above, the interviewer addresses about the polar question on the textual evidence 1, i.e. Is that the signal that in your administration is satisfied in military reform and the resolution of the past human right abuses in Indonesia? It is clear that the question only required yes or no as the answer. Meanwhile, Obama responds this question implicitly and gives too much informative response. He extends his answer by giving additional information about the military achievement of United States in solving the past human right abuses in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the answer that is needed by the interviewer is we have seen significant progress that Obama simply have replied: Yes, we are satisfied enough. Therefore, the textual evidence 1 is categorized into the category of failure of observing maxim of Quantity. 39

8 The Flouting of Maxims of Relation The result shows that flouting Maxim of Relation occurs when Obama flouts the maxims of Quantity. The maxim of Relation suggests that utterances should be relevant to the context of the conversation. Thomas (1995) asserts that flouting of maxim of Relation is performed by making a response that is irrelevant to the topic, e.g. by changing the subject, or failing to give the relevance answer when a person asks a question. The following is a textual evidence of flouting the maxim of Relation. Textual Evidence 2 PN: Oh, this is quite good I think. Banyak latihan? Do you have practice with? BO: You know, I don't have a chance to practice. Hmm, the, you know, one of the interesting things is I think Indonesian love their country so much, they usually go back and so there is no huge Immigrant Indonesian population in United States, so I don t meet enough Indonesian which also means there are no enough good Indonesian restaurant here in United States. Putra Nababan discusses about the fluency of Obama in using Bahasa Indonesia by asking the frequency of practicing to speak in Bahasa Indonesia. The study found that the flouting of maxim of Relation occurs when Obama flouts the maxim of Quantity. The textual evidence 2 above shows that Obama s contribution in giving the information is too short, so, he flouts the maxim of Quantity. Besides, Obama s answer implies that he could not speak Bahasa Indonesia fluently anymore; therefore, he flouts the maxim of Relation by changing the topic of discussion. He smartly responds it by shifting the topic on the interview into the cuisine of Indonesia and few numbers of Indonesian populations in United States by saying, I don t meet enough Indonesian which also means there are no enough good Indonesian restaurant here in United States. According to Tubbs and Moss (1994) as cited in Zaman (2010), politician frequently avoid questions by offering irrelevant answers. In that situation, Obama tries to protect his face by asserting another topic and blatantly changing the topic of discussion. As a politician and the head of the state, Obama needs a strategy when he cannot answer the question but he has the obligation to answer the question in order to be considered as a cooperative politician. Along with that issue, he offers the irrelevance topic rather than being marked as uncooperative person. However, Obama should technically elaborate more about the main topic. The function of flouts of the maxim of Relation on the textual evidence 2 above is a sign of flouting the maxim of Relation. Thus, he is marked as uncooperative person. The Flouting of Maxims of Manner The maxim of manner demands the speakers to present meaning clearly, concisely, orderly, and avoid ambiguity and obscurity of expression (Thomas, 1995). The speaker flouts the maxim of manner when s/he gives too long-winded or too short utterances and obscurity. Along with that explanation, Zaman (2010) adds that 40

9 the maxim of Manner requires the speakers to speak directly, orderly, not ambiguously, and not exaggeratingly. The following detail is the textual evidence of how Obama flouts the maxim of Manner. Textual Evidence 3 PN: And in your book, you wrote that you should bring the first lady and your daughters to Prambanan and to Bali. BO: Yes, Borobudur and to Bali and take them to my old ehmm, I don t know if we could get to my old house in Menteng Dalam. In the textual evidence above, Putra Nababan (PN) asks if Obama would bring the first lady and his daughters to Prambanan and Bali. The President s response tends to flout the maxim of Manner, since the President, as shown in textual textual evidence 3, addresses obscurity expression. He starts his explanation by justifying his writing on the book to bring the whole family to Prambanan and Bali, but he is not sure to bring his wish to reality. Thus, he gives an obscure answer by saying, Ehmm, I don t know if we could get to my old house in Menteng Dalam. The Flouting of Maxims of Quality The maxim of Quality expects the speaker to say something true or suggests the speaker to a valid contribution with certain evidence. According to Thomas (1995), flouting of the maxim of Quality occurs when the speaker says something that is blatantly untrue or for which s/he lacks adequate evidence. The following textual evidence shows the fragment of interview transcript that flouts the maxim of Quality. Textual Evidence 4 PN: You tickle the guy. BO: We were riding the bike together and he felt. It was a great and I was very traumatic. Is he ok? PN: You tickle him from the back and BO: We felt on the bike and I do remember The type of question that is delivered by Putra Nababan (PN) is an open question. The question is about the bicycle accident that injures a friend of Obama. The President responds the question with less conviction that Obama does not make the accident, yet his friend and Obama fall together from the bike. Besides, the way Obama flouts the maxim of Quality is indicated by contradicting the question asked by the interviewer. The Use of Politeness Strategies as the Self-Protection To restate the previous discussion, when Obama flouts particular maxims, his face is threatened. Therefore, in order to maintain his image, Obama performs politeness strategies to decrease the degrees of face-threatening acts (FTAs). Table 1.5 below shows the detail of the sub-strategies from each politeness strategies used 41

10 by the President of United States that occurs in the data based on the flouting of Grice s maxims. Table 1.5 The Occurrences Effect of Flouting of Maxims on Politeness Strategies FLOUTS OF MAXIMS Quantity Quality Relation Manner Total POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED Off-record Understate Contradiction Overstate Be vague PS Apologize Question Hedging PS Avoid disagreement Give for reason Intensify interest to hearer BOR Farewell Total (-PS = Negative Politeness Strategy) (+PS= Positive Politeness Strategy) (BOR= Bald On-record) When Obama flouts particular maxim, it does not necessarily mean that he is not aware and unintentionally flouts the maxim. Obama is fully aware to observe the maxims and it is his choice whether to observe or to flout the maxims. In this situation, flouting the maxim is considered as his strategy to protect his self-image. Therefore, Brown and Levinson propose four strategies to reduce the degree of Face Threatening Act (FTA), i.e. positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record and bald on-record. The study found that Barack Obama tries to use politeness strategies in expressing the incapacity to be cooperative since he flouts Grice s maxims. Thus, Politeness strategies are used to anticipate the pressure comes beyond the interviewer s questions. 1) Off-record Off record is a strategy in FTA in which a speaker or hearer removes him/herself from any impositions (Brown and Levinson, 1978). This strategy occurs 23 times of 46 strategies in doing an FTA and it occupies the first rank of the occurrences effect of flouting maxims on politeness strategies. In this strategy, the respondents say something that is either more general or actually different from what 42

11 they mean. Hence, the intended meaning is left for the addressee. The result found that the Off-record strategies employed by Obama are overstate, understate, being vague, and contradiction. The study found that the Off-record s sub-strategies emerge based on the flouting of Grice s maxims. Overstating and understating are categorized into flouting maxim of Quantity. The table 1.5 above shows that overstate is frequently employed as off record strategy to anticipate the interviewer question when the questions have the possibility to threaten Obama s self-image. 2) Overstate Overstate occurs 15 times from four off record strategies and it is followed by the occurrence of flouting the maxim of Quantity. Overstatement is considered as exaggeration since the speaker gives wordy information more than the interviewer needs. 3) Understate Understating happens when the speaker says something less than it is required. In line with overstating, understating categorizes to the flout of maxim of Quantity. As Paltridge (2006) explains that when someone flouts the maxim of quantity, then s/he does not speak briefly. In this case, understate emerges three times based on the flouting of maxim of Quantity. 4) Being Vague This strategy occurs three times of four off record strategies. Being vague flouts the maxim of manner, it enables the speaker to avoid responsibility of doing an FTA by being unclear. 5) Contradiction The study found contradiction as strategy of Politeness Principle that emerges based on the flouting of Grice s maxims. Contradiction occurs in the study in line with the flouting of maxim of Quantity and Quality. Negative Politeness Based on the table 1.4, negative politeness strategy occurs 17 times of 46 strategies in doing FTA and it occupies on the second rank of the occurrences effect of flouting of maxims on politeness strategies. It concerns with the hearer s negative face, and occurs when the act is more threatening to another person (Brown and Levinson, 1978). The study found that Negative Politeness Strategies used by Obama are hedging, apologizing, and questioning. 1) Hedging From the pragmatic point of view, hedges indicate the ways of Gricean maxims is observed. The study found that hedging occurs along with the violation of maxim of Quantity, and maxim of Manner. In the violation of maxim of Quantity, hedges can limit the information conveyed by the speaker. Meanwhile, in the 43

12 violation of maxim of Manner, hedges indicate that the speaker s information is ambiguous. Relating to politeness, hedges are identified as politeness marker. 2) Apologizing Apologizing is one of the strategies of Negative Politeness. The study found that apologizing occurs once from the whole Politeness Strategies. By using this strategy, Obama conveys his guilt by saying sorry for breaking arm of his friend. 3) Questioning The result shows that questioning occurs two times and it is followed by the occurrence of flouting of maxim of Relation. Questioning can be theoretically interpreted as not assuming willingness to comply. Positive Politeness Politeness strategies are usually used to minimize the distance between speaker and hearer (Brown and Levinson, 1978). The study found that Positive Politeness Strategies used by Barack Obama, i.e. avoiding disagreement, intensifying interest to hearer, and giving for reason. 1) Avoid Disagreement The study found that Obama as the speaker uses avoiding disagreement strategy in performing positive politeness strategy for disagreement. Avoiding disagreement occurs two times in the study, and it is followed with the flouting of maxim of Quantity. 2) Intensifying Interest to Hearer Since intensifying interest to hearer is categorized into positive politeness strategy, hence Brown and Levinson (1978) imply that this strategy requires the speaker to pay attention on hearer s interest. 3) Giving for Reason Giving for reason emerges once on the study, and the occurrence of this strategy is followed with the flouting of maxim of Quantity. Obama intentionally breaks the maxim of Quantity by giving additional information and chooses to use giving for reason as a strategy of positive politeness. Bald On-record The study shows that bald on-record strategies hold ones of 47 occurrences (2.12%). Bald on-record is a strategy of FTA that emphasizes more on achieving maximum efficiency than on satisfying hearer s face and the strategy has been used by the respondents without redresive action (Paltridge, 2006). It can be theoretically interpreted that most of the strategy s feature are direct imperative. Related to the face concerns, the study found that Bald on-record only fall into one sub-strategy, i.e. farewell. 1) Farewell (Strategy) BO: Ya, selamat jalan. 44

13 The speaker in utterance above concerns with the hearer s positive face. The case above illustrates that Putra Nababan has come to the end of the interview with Barack Obama. Here, Nababan gives a sign that the interview section has ended by asserting the gratitude and said, OK. Thank you very much Mr. President. Thus, Obama shows his cooperativeness as the interviewee by conveying, Ya, selamat jalan. CONCLUSIONS The first research question concerns with the flouts of Grice s maxim in the Obama s presidential interview entitled Obama Exclusive RCTI Bersama Putra Nababan. The study reveals that there are 63 flouts made by the president. All of the maxims of Grice are flouted. There are 27 occurrences of flouting the maxim of quantity, 24 occurrences of flouting the maxim of relation, 9 occurrences flouting the maxim of manner, and 3 occurrences of flouting the maxim of quality. The flouts of the maxim of quantity are indicated by overstatement, understatement, and hedging. The flouts of the maxim of relation are indicated by irrelevance answer and hedging. Moreover, the flouts of the maxim of manner are indicated by hedging. Then the flouts of the maxims of quality are only indicated by inaccurate answer. The second research problem concerns with the politeness strategies as a selfprotection to anticipate the pressure comes from Putra Nababan s questions. The result shows that four politeness strategies, i.e. off-record, negative politeness, positive politenesses, and bald on-record, occur in the data. Off-record strategy occurs 23 times out of 46 strategies in doing FTA and it occupies on the first rank on the occurrences politeness strategies. The study found that Obama tends to apply offrecord strategy in his interaction with the interviewer when Obama flouts the maxim of quantity and the maxim of quality. Besides, overstate, understate, being vague, and contradiction are employed as the sub-strategy of off-record to minimize the degree of FTA that comes on the questions proposed by interviewer. Furthermore, negative politeness strategy occurs 17 times out of 46 strategies and it occupies on the second rank on the occurrences of politeness strategies. The strategies are performed when Obama flouts the maxim of quantity, the maxim of manner, and the maxim of relation. The sub-strategies of negative politeness used by Obama are hedging, apologizing, and questioning. The study also found positive politeness strategies that are used by Barrak Obama, i.e. avoiding disagreement, intensifying interest to hearer, and giving for reason that occupies on the third rank on politeness strategies. The strategies are used when a maxim of quantity is violated by Obama. Moreover, bald on-record strategies hold 1 out of 46 occurrences. The study found that bald on-record only falls into one substrategy, i.e. Farewell. Finally, off-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and bald onrecord strategy in politeness principle correlate with Grice s maxims in saving Obama s self-image. The result of the study is also proved in the previous research 45

14 conducted by Li, Songqing (2008) and Zaman (2010) which shows that the most frequently flouted is the maxim of Quantity. Besides, Li, Songqing (2008) on his pragmatic study that stands under the similar concept of flouting maxim and politeness strategy proves that flouting has become the linguistic strategy for politician to perform variety of functions. Therefore, the flouting of maxim becomes such a nature of political figure s utterance in saving his/her self-image. The study has already discussed the flouting of Grice s maxims and politeness strategies that are employed by Barack Obama. The study has presented the analysis of the data using two theoretical foundations under the pragmatic area to make an appropriate interpretation of the results. Moreover, there are some suggestions provided for the further study. It is suggested that those who are willing to conduct the same research to have the potential source of the analysis, and mastering the theory to make the interpretation served significantly. REFERENCES Aziz, E. A. (2000). Refusing in Indonesian: Strategies and politeness implicature (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Monash University Australia, Victoria. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essay on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantic (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press. Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researcher. Journal of technology educations. 9 (1): pp Kartika, N. H. (2009). A pragmatic analysis of Grice s maxims in Clinton-Obama democratis presidential debate (Unpublished thesis). Indonesia University of Education, Bandung. Li, S. (2008). A performative perspective of flouting and politeness in political interview. Retrieved January 8, 2012, from Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: An introduction. London: Continuum. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman. Yule, G. (1996). The study of language. New York: Oxford University Press. Zaman, Fahrus. (2010). Flouts of the cooperative principle maxims in SBY s presidential interview (Unpublished master s thesis). Indonesia University of Education, Bandung. 46