Mutual Consideration as a Principle for Doing Politeness

Oleh : E Aminudin Aziz

Abstract

 There are various strategies used by people to show politeness in their language exchange, all of which are largely determined by the level of a speaker’s perception about the potential risk of losing face resulted from his/her utterance. The provision of responses other than refusals to a request directed to a speaker at times his/her circumstances actually pressure him/her to make a refusal or refusing the request indirectly accompanied by a number of politeness markers can be regarded as examples of the speaker’s strong willingness to maintain the (existing) harmony with the requestor. In this paper, I will show how indirectness has become the norm for Indonesians when making refusals. This is clearly contrary to the claim made by non-Indonesians which often regard such a behavior as a sign of uncooperativeness and impoliteness. It appears that there are a number of cultural norms and values that govern their linguistic politeness behaviors which I shall formulate in a Principle of Mutual Consideration (PMC). Being a refinement to Grice’s (1975) CP and to Leech’s (1983) PP, PMC assumes three levels of politeness: pre-communicative politeness, on the spot politeness, and post-communicative politeness.

1. 1.      Introduction

 

This paper is a report on a study intended to reveal politeness phenomena performed by Indonesian people when they are responding to their interlocutor’s request at times their circumstances pressure them to make refusals. This study was, in particular, motivated by complaints made by non-Indonesians that Indonesian people did not speak openly and frankly, preferring to express their feelings, thoughts, and ideas indirectly. This is especially the case when they are making a refusal. The non-Indonesian speakers found these behaviors very frustrating and confusing. The question I seek to resolve is whether such indirectness is really a sign of uncooperativeness and impoliteness, as often claimed by the non-Indonesian speakers. I shall show that rather than implying ignorance, Indonesian people precisely regard indirectness, especially in expressing refusals, as the norm for doing politeness. They seem to believe that by so doing, the (existing) harmony between them and their interlocutor can be maintained and then enhanced.

Brown and Levinson (1987) claimed that the realization of strategies of politeness is largely determined by a speaker perception about the three social dimensions labeled as P (the relative power that a speaker can exercise upon hearer), D (the social distance that exists between speaker and hearer), and R (the ranking of imposition of a request). It appears that different culture or societies perceive these dimensions differently, which lead members of the societies to different realization of politeness strategies. Section 3 of this paper will discuss the Indonesians’ perception of the three social dimensions. This is followed by a section that compares Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principles (CP) and Leech’s (1983) Politeness Principle (PP) on the one hand, and the Principle of Mutual Consideration (PMC) on the other. As I will show, PMC can be regarded as a refinement both to CP and PP, as it assumes the existence of three stages of politeness: pre-communicative politeness, on the spot politeness, and post-communicative politeness.

 

1. 2.      Method: subjects and instruments

 

In this study, I used a fictional questionnaire Discourse Completion Test (DCT) as the principle method of data collection. In addition to adopting the format of DCT similar to that used in Blum-Kulka’ study (1982), and in a larger study of CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al 1989), which I call DCT Type A, I also developed two different formats of DCT in the belief that these formats are more applicable for use in the Indonesian context. DCT Type B, the first type of the modified version, for example, is a combination of multiple choice and open-ended questionnaire, and was developed to limit the number of strategies which can be applied in a given situation. This type of DCT gives the respondents a range of strategies to choose. Yet, it requests the respondents to provide examples of type of responses in accordance with the strategy they have chosen. It was anticipated that the use of an open-ended DCT such as types B and C would produce more complex responses. The development of DCT Type C, the other type of the modified version, was mainly intended to obtain data not revealed through the use of DCT Types A and B. Unlike Type B, DCT Type C does not provide strategies for respondents to choose. Instead, it requests the respondents to explicitly express their responses to a given situation. In each DCT, there are 9 different situations, making a total of 27 questions that need to be answered by respondents. 163 Indonesians from a range of different ages, social and cultural backgrounds were questioned. The distribution of the respondents is shown in Table 1.

An interview with selected respondents was conducted upon the completion of the DCTs. This interview was intended to investigate the very reasons that had motivated them when giving their responses to the written questionnaires as well as to seek their opinions about the issues described in the DCTs.

 

1. 3.      Findings: Speech Act Realization in Face-threatening Situations

 

The study revealed that there were three kinds of responses that an Indonesian person would potentially give when he/she was hypothetically presented with a situation which pressured him/her to make refusals. The responses include refusals, acceptances, and silences, in which case a refusal or an acceptance can be expressed either explicitly, i.e. by using the direct strategy NO when refusing or YES when accepting, or implicitly, i.e. by using one of the various indirect strategies of refusing and accepting a request.

In addition to the three kinds of responses, some respondents also provided responses which are simply comments that describe the acts that they would carry out when presented with the situations described in the discourse completion questionnaires. Viewed from the objective of the study, such responses are anomalous, in the sense that they do not exemplify the utterances the respondents would produce. Nevertheless, the responses clearly indicated that the respondents would either accept or refuse the requests uttered by their interlocutors described in the questionnaires. However, their responses cannot be classified into the proper acceptance or refusal, but treated as a different category of responses.

A given response was classified as a direct refusal if it contained the negator tidak ‘no’ or its variants such as nggak, ndak, kagak, ogah (strategy #1 in Table 2), and as an indirect refusal if did not contain one of them (strategies #2-#12 in Table 2). A given response was also categorized as an indirect refusal if the supportive moves used in the response, when taken together, pointed to and would be perceived by Indonesian speakers as a refusal. A given response would be categorized as a direct acceptance if it contained the agreement expression ya ‘yes’ or its equivalents such as baik, baiklah, boleh (all these three expressions can be translated as “all right” or “no problem”), silakan “yes, please”, tentu saja “of course”, or jangan kuatir “don’t worry” and as an indirect acceptance if the agreement to comply with a request was expressed in some other way. Because the uttering of such direct acceptance markers rests on a speaker’s sincerity of carrying out an act, this direct acceptance can also be described as a sympathetic acceptance. With the sympathetic acceptance, it means that the speaker sympathetically welcomes the request directed to him/her and reflexively indicates his/her willingness and/or readiness to undertake the necessary act required of him/her by the requestor.

Indirect refusals utilized a number of strategies, from the more polite forms such as offering an alternative, postponement, general acceptance with excuse, and giving reason and explanation, to the less polite ones such as questioning the request, complaining and criticizing, and threatening or warning a requestor. Similarly, indirect acceptances were realized in various kinds of strategies, which include rhetorical replies, expressions of solidarity, acceptance with reservations, and non-committal responses (see Table 1). Each strategy implies different degrees of politeness, largely depending on the hearer’s perception of the utterances made by a given speaker.

To determine the degree of politeness of a given response, the study used four politeness criteria: 1) the level of directness of the response; 2) the use of terms of address; 3) the use of courtesy words; and 4) the use of slang expressions in the response. These criteria were applied based on the socio-cultural parameters suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987) as well as the norms and values that exist in the Indonesian society.

 

Categories of Responses	R E F U S A L S[1]	Categories of Responses	A C C E P T A N C E S
1	Direct NO	13	Direct YES (Sympathetic acceptance)
2	Hesitation and lack of enthusiasm
3	Offer an alternative	14	Rhetorical responses
4	Postponement
5	Put the blame on a third party	15	Expression of solidarity
6	General acceptance of an offer but giving no details	16	Acceptance with reservation
7	General acceptance with excuse
8	Giving reason and explanation	17	Non-committal responses
9	Complaining and criticising
10	Conditional YES	18	Silence
11	Questioning the request
12	Threatening or warning	19	Comments without exemplification

 

Table 1. Categories of Responses given to the DCT Types A, B, and C

 

1. 4.      Discussion

4.1. Refusal Strategies

 

An analysis of the total of 1467 responses for each DCT reveals that the responses are distributed unevenly for both refusal and acceptance categories. Compared to the responses given to the DCT type B, for instance, the DCT types A and C contain more refusals; the distribution being 951 responses or 64.8% for the DCT type B; 1311 responses or 89.4% for the DCT type A; and 1147 responses or 78.2% for the DCT type C. That the trend of the distribution in which the percentage of refusal responses far exceeds the percentage of acceptance responses is not very surprising, considering the fact that the investigative tool is designed to reveal refusal strategies.

The analysis further revealed that the distribution of the responses for each strategy within categories is not even, either. For example, the direct refusal strategy (strategy #1) in which the negator Tidak ‘No’ is explicitly conveyed appears to be preferred to any other strategies in all DCTs. The finding suggests that, to a great extent, most respondents would employ this direct refusal strategy when they are confronted with a request which puts them in a critical situation. While expliciteness of expressing the negator Tidak ‘No’ is regarded as necessary, the manner in which such a refusal is expressed is equally important. The refuser cannot ignore politeness when refusing. This is indicated by the fact that the respondents are apt to use the downgrader Maaf ‘Sorry’ or its equivalent in most of their responses. The downgrader is generally used ‘naturally’ in the sense that it only occurs once before or after the negator or other supportive moves (example 4a) although in some cases it is conveyed in an exaggerated way (example 4b).

 

4a. Aduuuh …maaf yaa, saya nggak bisa bantu Anda, sedang sangat sibuk.

        Excl.           sorry    yes      I       not     able     help     you       being       very       busy

‘Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t help you, [I’m] very busy’.

 

4b. Saya mohon maaf seribu kali maaf, karena tidak bisa memenuhi undangan Anda

I     request   sorry   thousand times  sorry  because  not    able       fulfil        invitation       you

‘I apologize a thousand times because I cannot accept your invitation’.

 

Examples 4a and 4b clearly illustrate that while their refusals are conveyed explicitly, they are apt to accompany their refusals with an apology for their inability to comply with their interlocutor’s request. This strategy is understandably intended to maintain harmony among them (cf. Deephuengton 1991; Lyuh 1992; Kodama 1996).

With an exception to the DCT type C whose responses center round the direct refusal strategy (Strategy #1) (32.9%), the percentage distribution of strategies #1, #3, and #8 in the DCT types A and B is very similar. Despite distribution similarities, strategy #8 (giving reason and explanation) took more responses than the other two strategies. Nevertheless, strategy #1 (direct refusal) is far more preferable than strategy #3 (offering an alternative). In contrast, the trend of the distribution to the DCT type C is more on strategy #1 than on strategy #8, although the preference is given more on strategy #3. If complying with the interlocutor’s request is not likely, giving reason and explaining the inability would be sufficient and can be seen as a satisfactory attempt in maintaining the harmony between interactants. If a satisfactory reason is given, the interlocutor would feel appreciated and the strategy will be perceived as polite accordingly. One interviewee, for instance, claimed that

 

[4Int.1] Kalaupun akhirnya permintaan kita ditolak, asalkan ada alasan   yang jelas

although     finally         request         we   rejected     provided that exist reason  that    clear

            dan memuaskan kita sih nggak apa-apa; daripada pembicara yang menolak

and    satisfying      we   part.   not      matter       rather than    speaker          who       refuse

            dan tidak memberi alasan, kita rasanya dilecehkan.

and    not     provide       reason    we      feel         despised

‘Even if our request is finally refused, so long as [the speaker] gives a clear and satisfactory reason, that doesn’t matter; far better than a speaker who refuses but gives no reason, so we feel despised’.

 

Strategy #3 (offering an alternative) can be regarded as a compromise attempt offered by the speaker which is intended mainly as a redemption for his/her inability to comply with the interlocutor’s request. This face-saving strategy would potentially be effective in keeping harmony between the speaker and the hearer, although the offer would not always satisfy the requester. In some cases, for instance, the proposed offer might be used only as an avoidance strategy in the sense that the offer is very unlikely to fulfil the requester’s request. Look at the following example which was uttered by a bicycle owner requested by a stranger to lend his bike so that the stranger could take part in the race.

 

4c. Mau nggak pakai sepeda saya yang lain, tapi bukan sepeda balap?

want     not         use      bike       I      that     other  but      not      bike       racing

‘How about if you use my other bike, but it’s not a racing-bike?’

As example 4c illustrates, the bicycle owner seemed to be willing to accommodate the race spectator’s want to take part in the bike race. His accommodation was explicitly conveyed in the first part of his expression (Mau nggak pakai sepeda saya yang lain) which was basically not a refusal, but rather a sympathetic offer. However, the offer was naively proposed with respect to the second part of the expression (tapi bukan sepeda balap) which sounds ironical to the stranger: how would he be able to race and win the race by riding a non-racing bike?

While in the DCT type B category #7 (general acceptance with excuse) gained only 4.1% of the total responses, the percentage of the strategy is twice as many as in the DCT types A and C, which reach the total of 9.6% and 9.7% respectively. These figures, which are high, indicate that to a certain degree the speakers were unwilling to refuse their interlocutors’ requests for some reason. Even if they eventually were unable to comply with the requests, it was not due to their unwillingness, but rather it was primarily due to their prior commitment elsewhere. For instance, a neighbor was invited to have dinner, but she could not come.

 

4d. Mau sih   mau, tapi bagaimana ya saya udah kadung janji    sama temen mau

want  part.   want    but           how        yes   I     already  go too far  promise with   friend   want

      ngadain   acara.      Jadi, maaf aja ya  kali    ini   nggak bisa, Insya Allah lain

carry out    programme       so     sorry   only  yes  time   this        not   able    willing    God  other

      kali deh saya mau datang.

time   part.   I      want     come

‘Actually I do want to, but I’ve already promised my friend to get together with him. So, I’m sorry, this time I can’t. God willing, next time I’ll come’.

 

Within the indirect refusal categories, the percentage gained by strategy #8 (Giving reason and explanation) and strategy #3 (Offering an alternative) exceeds the average percentage of the distribution of all types of responses. By contrast, strategies #10 and #11 ¾ Conditional Yes and Questioning the justification of request, respectively ¾ seem to be the least preferred strategies to be used as the responses to the DCT types A and C, which is also the case for strategy #5 (Postponement) in the DCT type B. In the DCT type A, categories #10 and #11 collected no responses, while in the DCT type B they gained 1.5% and 0.3% respectively, which is far less in the DCT type C that collected only 0.5% for category #10 and no response for category #11. The findings suggest that expressing an insincere promise through a Conditional Yes strategy (Category #10) or pretending not to understand the interlocutor’s request by questioning the justification of the request (Category #11) seemed to be viewed by most of the respondents as an unfavorable mode of refusal. From the requesters’ point of view, these strategies may even be regarded as attempting to make a fool of them, and would therefore be perceived as impolite if not insulting. Presented with responses containing an ‘empty’ promise, one interviewee grumbled while stating that

 

[4Int.2] Kalau mau nolak, ya nolak aja, nggak usah ngasih janji    macem-macem.

if       want    refuse   yes  refuse  only     not      need     give        promise     this and that

           Kita ‘kan   jadi   nggak enak   dibohongin kayak gitu, sebab   kita memang

we     then  become   not  feel good    cheated         like      that    because  we    indeed

          nggak yakin apakah dia bilang   gitu     itu   serius apa nggak. Jadi, enaknya

not      sure     whether   he      say       like that  that    serious   or     not         so     good   the

          ya langsung aja terus terang menolak  ‘nggak bisa’ gitu.

yes   directly     only      frankly         refuse          not       able     that

 

 

‘If [the speaker] wants to refuse, just say it; [it’s] not necessary to promise this and that. [That will] make us feel bad, as if [we’re] cheated; [it’s] because we’re not really sure whether he said that seriously or not. So, the best thing is [that he] refuses explicitly [by saying] ‘I can’t’.

 

Complaining and criticizing (Category #9) and Threatening (Category #12) are perceived among other strategies as two of the least polite strategies of refusal. In contrast to the Complaining and criticizing strategy (Category #9) which is more preferred in the DCT Type A than in the other DCTs, Threatening (Category #12) seemed to have been used more in the DCT Type B. The analysis of responses revealed that these two strategies were mostly employed by superior persons, either in terms of power or social distance when they convey refusals to the less powerful. The analysis also found that questioning the justification of request (category #11) is the least preferred strategy compared to the other strategies.

In the DCT Type C, strategy #5 (Putting the blame on a third party) gained responses almost twenty times (3.8%) as many as those in the DCT Types A and C; each DCT gained 0.2%. Responses of strategy #2 (Hesitation and lack of enthusiasm) are distributed quite evenly over all types of DCT, with type C gaining more responses followed by type A. Both in the DCT Types A and C, hesitation and lack of enthusiasm occupies the sixth most preferred strategy while in the DCT Type B it is the ninth.

The findings indicate that there are four strategies which are far more preferred than other strategies and which are distributed evenly in all DCTs. The strategies are Direct “NO” (strategy #1), Giving reason and explanation (strategy #8), Offering an alternative (strategy #3), General acceptance with excuse (strategy #7).  However, the order of such preferences, particularly for the last three indirect strategies, is not necessarily indicative of the order of politeness perceived by the respondents. This is evidenced mainly in the claims made by most respondents that state that their strategy choice was determined more by both the nature of the request (or the ranking of imposition) addressed to them and their own availability to comply with the request than by the differences of the formats of the DCT they had.

 

4.2. Acceptance Strategies

 

Acceptance categories constitute 19.5% (856) of the 4401 responses. This figure is distributed as follows: 8.2% to the DCT Type A, 31.7% to the DCT Type B, and 18.4% to the DCT Type C (these figures were based on the analysis of the total of 1467 responses given to each DCT).

Unlike the distribution of the refusal responses described previously, the acceptance responses are distributed more evenly within each category of strategies. Of the five strategies of acceptance, explicit, sympathetic acceptance or direct YES (strategy #13) and acceptance with reservation (strategy #16) seemed to have been preferred to other types of strategies. On the other hand, strategy #14 (Rhetorical replies) becomes the least preferred strategy almost in all types of DCTs. To a greater extent, expression of solidarity (strategy #15) is more preferred in the DCT Type C. Most respondents regard the format of the DCT Type C as giving them more options whether to refuse or accept the request addressed to them.

With regard to the direct acceptance (strategy #13), most of the responses can be subsumed under the sympathetic acceptance category in which the speakers show their deep sympathy to comply with their interlocutor’s request. This finding suggests that while the speakers are already committed to their prior schedule, their feeling of sympathy and the intent to maintain friendship outweigh or even override their own commitment. Therefore, they are apt to commit themselves to the request directed to them. The following response (example 4e) may clearly illustrate how deep the speaker’s feeling of sympathy is.

 

4e. Oh,   mari…  mari saya bantu. Mudah-mudahan bisa segera selesai dan bisa

excl. come on  come on    I     help           hopefully             able   quick        done    and   able

       dipakai nganter anak   Ibu  yang sakit. ‘Kan kasihan kalau sakitnya keterusan?

used         deliver  child   Madam  who    sick       not     dear          if       illness the     continue

     Tapi kalau misalnya nggak selesai, pake aja mobil punya saya, dan mobil Ibu

but      if      for instance    not     finish      use      just      car     own        I      and    car    Madam

      ditinggal di sini. Besok     saya lanjutkan lagi.

left           at   here   tomorrow     I      continue     again

 

‘O, let me, let me, help [you]. Hopefully, it can be done quickly and you can use it to deliver your daughter who is sick. Won’t it be a pity if her illness persists? But, if I cannot finish repairing your car, use mine, and leave yours here. Tomorrow, I’ll continue [repairing] it’.

 

The above example clearly shows that, apart from welcoming his regular customer whose car was damaged, the speaker is impressively prepared to lend his own car if he could not get his customer’s car repaired in time. His expression of acceptance is further intensified by his feeling of sympathy to the sick child (‘Kan kasihan kalau sakitnya keterusan?), although the opening expression (Oh mari …, mari saya bantu) has sufficiently shown his intent to help and comply with the customer’s request. Expressed rhetorically, such feeling of sympathy must be seen as the speaker’s readiness to set aside his prior commitment regardless of any potential risks.

Acceptance with reservation (strategy #16) must essentially be regarded more as an acceptance than a strategy of declination. Some interviewees claimed that their reservation about a particular request was raised only to anticipate in case any state-of-affairs might prevent them from carrying out the act requested. In other words, they are essentially willing to comply with the request. Only because they were not sure of fulfilling the request from their interlocutor had they been finally forced to raise a particular reservation.

 

[4Int.3] Syarat yang saya ajukan semata-mata untuk berjaga-jaga jangan-jangan

condition that       I     propose       only              for          anticipation           in case               

             karena satu dan lain hal saya akhirnya tidak bisa memenuhi permintaan

because  one   and  other thing    I         finally      not    able      fulfil              request

             kawan bicara. Kalau saya langsung nerima, tapi akhirnya ingkar janji, nama

friend      talk          if          I         directly     accept    but     finally       deny    promise  name

baik saya akan tercoreng. Jadi, pada dasarnya saya mau nerima permintaan

good     I    will      tarnished      So        on      basically       I      want   accept        request

kawan bicara itu.

friend     talk     that

 

‘The reservation I raised was only in case for one or another reason I finally can’t fulfil my promise to the interlocutor. If I accept [the request] and then break my promise, my reputation will be tarnished. So, basically, I am willing to comply with my friend’s request’.

 

In conjunction with the above claim, the following examples may illustrate how a reservation to a particular request is essentially a ‘reserved’ readiness of the speakers to comply with the requests addressed to them:

 

4f. Bagaimana    Bu    kalau yang bikinnya bukan saya, tapi teman saya?

             how             Madam   if        who     make  it      not          I       but   colleague  I

         Tapi, jangan  kuatir Bu      semua resepnya saya yang nyiapin.

but        don’t   worry    Madam     all       recipe   the     I     who     prepare

 

‘Madam, how about if [the one] who’ll make it is not me, but my colleague? But

don’t worry Madam, all recipes will be prepared by myself’.

 

4g. Boleh Mamah beliin mainan, tapi Adik harus rajin belajar biar  jadi anak

may       Mummy    buy      toys        but   Adik  must   diligent  study   so that become child

      yang pintar. Jadi, sekarang belajar dulu ya, ‘kan udah  malem. Besok   kalau

who  clever        so         now          study    first    yes     not  already   night    tomorrow     if

      Mamah pulang kerja Mamah beliin mainannya ya?

Mummy   return     work     Mummy    buy       toys    the   yes

 

‘Okay, Mummy will buy you the toy, but you have to study diligently, so that you

become a clever girl. So, now you study first, okay? It’s night already. Tomorrow,

when Mummy returns from work, Mummy will buy the toy, okay?’

 

4h. Oke deh gue kembaliin bukunya, tapi beliin pisgor  sama gehu,         ya? Lu ‘kan

okay   part.  I      return       book   the      but   buy    fried banana with  mixed tofu   yes   you  tag

       tahu gue belom makan. Jadi, gue ke kampus nganterin buku ‘lu sekalian ngisi

know  I      not yet    eat         so      I     to    campus      return       book     you  while      fill in

perut.   Gimana, mau apa nggak?

       stomach    how       want   or       not

 

‘All right, I’ll return the book, but buy me pisgor and gehu, okay? You know I haven’t yet eaten. So, I’ll go to campus to return the book while and fill my [empty] stomach. What do you think? Do you want it or not’.

 

In example 4f, the speaker seemed to agree to accept the order, that is preparing a special food for the customer’s daughter’s party and act accordingly, although he was already extremely busy with the prior order that needs to be finished urgently. However, the request from his regular customer is not likely to be refused. Thus, as a compromise, he accepted the offer with a condition that his colleague would do it although he would prepare the recipes by himself. The cook would not have accepted the offer and let his colleague do the job unless he trusted his colleague. Otherwise, his reputation would be tarnished.

Unlike in example 4f, the acceptance expression in example 4r was conveyed persuasively only because the interlocutor is a small child. The speaker seems to be prepared to comply with the child’s request to buy a new toy as long as the child studies diligently. This proposal is apparently not always easy to comply with or observed by the child even in the near future. This is because the mother ¾ although she is always more powerful ¾ will not always be able to force her little daughter to study. The reservation raised by the mother to her daughter, therefore, cannot be regarded as a rigid commitment without whose compliance the toy would never be bought. Rather, the reservation is best seen as a persuasive strategy from the mother to make her daughter study diligently. This is because the mother would eventually buy the toy even though she was not convinced of her daughter studying diligently.

 

[4Int.4] Pokoknya kita ada upaya dulu untuk tawar-menawar dengan anak.

main   the   we   have   attempt  first     to            bargain               with       child

            Maksudnya, kita nggak langsung bilang ‘Iya nanti Ibu     beliin’ tanpa  syarat

mean      the   we      not      straight       say         yes   later  Mummy   buy    without condition

            apa-apa. Nanti ‘kan anak bisa-bisa   jadi  manja.  Itu malah akan merepotkan.

anything    later      tag   child    potentially   become  spoiled   that   even    will         trouble

‘The thing is we first attempt to bargain with our child. I mean, we don’t straight out say ‘Okay, Mummy will buy it’ without any condition at all. That would be to spoil the child. That will eventually be a trouble to us’.

 

Example 4h illustrates an exchange between two friends whose level of intimacy is very close. This is clearly indicated by the use of some colloquial and slang words in the speaker’s expression. Apart from using the intimate forms of terms of address (gue instead of saya or aku to refer to the speaker and lu instead of kamu or Anda to refer to the hearer), the speaker also used non-standard or colloquial forms of Jakarta dialect such as kembaliin, beliin, belom, nganterin, ngisi, gimana and nggak for kembalikan, belikan, belum, mengantarkan, mengisi, bagaimana and tidak, respectively, along the use of particle deh which also marks intimacy. The reservation proposed by the speaker, in its very nature, cannot always be taken very seriously because it might sometimes be proposed non-reflexively, in the sense that even if the requester did not comply with the speaker’s request to buy him pisgor [pisang goreng] ‘coated fried banana’ and gehu [tauge dan tahu] ‘fried tofu filled with bean sprouts’, the speaker, in order to fill his stomach, would finally have to find food to eat. In other words, the speaker did not mean to propose it seriously and he did not expect his hearer to comply with it accordingly. The speaker stated that

 

[4Int.5] Saya bilang begitu    itu bukan dengan maksud sebenarnya. Tahu sama tahu

I        say      like that   that    not       with    intention         actual    the    know with   know

            deh sebagai mahasiswa. Masak saya minta dijajanin sama kawan yang

part   as            student          how come  I        ask        bought         by     friend    who

            mungkin  juga lagi boke. Yaa, itu sih    hitung-hitung ngerjain dia aja.

possibly     also   being  broke    yes  that  part     unintentionally    teas          he  only

‘I said it in a way that that was not to be taken seriously. We know among ourselves as students that I would not ask to be bought some food by a friend who is possibly broke. Well, that’s only  meant to tease him’.

 

Although silence (strategy #18) constitutes only a small percentage of the total responses (1.7% or 74 responses out of 4401), its importance cannot be ignored. The percentage of silence category is distributed unevenly among the different types of DCT: 0.6%, 2.9%, and 1.6% for the DCT types A, B, and C respectively (based on the total number of responses of each DCT, 1467). These different figures of distribution can partly be associated with the different nature of each DCT. The difference is also due to the presentation of the investigative instrument which places DCT type A at the beginning section, followed by DCT types B and C in the concluding section. A number of respondents claimed that the format of the DCT type A, in which the hearer response is included, enabled them to mobilize their pragmatic knowledge when they were requested to fill in the questionnaire. The format allows them to think of the most suitable response to be supplied into the questionnaire, although they do not always agree with the hearer response provided in the questionnaires (and apparently the respondents who do not agree with the hearer response are those who supplied non-refusal responses). For instance, one interviewee maintained that

 

[4Int.6] Dengan adanya bagian respon pendengar pada angket    bagian A itu, kita

with        provided    section    response      hearer     on   questionnaire section   A  that  we

            memang dipaksa untuk membuat penolakan, walaupun kadang-kadang tidak

indeed       forced         to        make         refusal           although          sometimes         not

           pas           benar dengan apa yang saya pikirkan. Jadi saya pikir, kecil sekali

appropriate  exactly     with    what   that     I         think            so      I     think      small   very

           kemungkinan responden tidak mengisi angket      ini.  Apalagi, bagian A itu

possibility          respondent     not      fill in   questionnaire  this    moreover    section  A that

            ditempatkannya pada bagian awal. Sebelum mengisi bagian lain,‘kan kita

           placed              the      on    section  beginning   before       fill        section   other    not   we

           pasti membaca dan sekaligus mengisi bagian ini.

surely     read       and     automatically    fill    section    this

‘Provided with the hearer response on the questionnaire section A, we are indeed forced to make refusals, although sometimes [the hearer response] does not completely fit with what I think. So, I think, there will be a little chance that the respondents do not fill in the questionnaires. Moreover, section A is placed at the beginning section. Before filling in other sections, we would surely read and automatically fill in this section first, wouldn’t we?’

 

Responses of category #19 i.e. comments without exemplification constitute 1.4% (or 62 responses) of the total of 4401 responses. 26 and 27 responses are distributed to the DCT Types A and C respectively, which are 17 and 18 responses higher than those distributed to the DCT Type B. As has been mentioned in the previous section, category #19 comprises both refusal and acceptance responses and this type of response has been driven by factors discussed in section 3.5.4. The differences in this distribution strongly suggest that they are due to the different nature of each DCT. For example, the DCT Type B, which includes introductory hints in each option, gives less possibility for the respondents to provide responses other than utterance types, defined as responses that clearly simplify the words that the respondents will utter and not the particular act, when they are presented with a particular situation described in the DCT (see Appendix AAA for the detailed description of the DCT Type B). In fact, by contrast, DCT Types A and C do allow some room for the respondents to provide responses which are of comments without exemplification (category #19).

 

1. 5.      D, P, and R Variables in the Context of Politeness in Indonesian

 

The socio-cultural parameters claimed by Brown and Levinson (1987) as being universal with respect to politeness in face-threatening situations, to a certain extent, proved to be relevant to the Indonesian context. The parameters include the social distance (D) between a speaker S and a hearer H, the relative power (P) of H over S, and the absolute ranking of the imposition (R) involved in performing a face-threatening act (FTA). However, it was found that the application of these parameters also needs to take account of the cultural norms and values that exist in Indonesia.

Brown and Levinson, for example, conceded the complexities of the variables constituting the D, P, and R parameters. They admitted that they “are not here interested in what factors are compounded to estimate these complex parameters; such factors are certainly culture-specific” (1987: 76). This means that a given factor can be very significant in one culture, but not in another. The difference in gender, for example, is very important in some cultures, because, as an ascribed status, it can become a source of power to be exercised on a hearer. This being the case, it is obvious that gender plays a significant role in the assignment of P factor, and that it will consequently affect the choice of strategies of politeness expressed by the speaker. According to Brown and Levinson, if gender does count in the assignment of P factor, then it should also be the case that gender will “certainly play a (sometimes compensating) role in D assignments” (1987: 30). For Brown and Levinson, gender is … “just one of the relevant parameters in any situation” (1987: 30) that might affect the choice of strategies of politeness, although it was widely believed that women were more polite than men (Lakoff 1975). According to Brown and Levinson

 

if gender is, as seems to be generally the case, a contributory factor in the perception of social asymmetry, power and authority, then we might expect to find that women are more polite to some arbitrary interlocutor than are men from the same status-bearing group (family, caste, class, etc.); also that, for any arbitrary speaker, there ought to be more politeness shown to a male than a female addressee of the same status-bearing group (1987: 30)

 

 

The present study found that the influence of gender on the deliverance of politeness was not as strong as the influence of age. It was found that the solidarity-indicating devices used in the communication transactions between same-age interactants were remarkably different from those used in cross-age communication. There was no adequate and convincing evidence to claim that females were more polite than males. This was evident, for example, in the patterns of responses given by female respondents discussed in Chapter Five. It was clearly shown that their politeness when talking to a male interlocutor could not be attributed, for example, to their status relative to males, which is usually claimed to be lower. The study found no indication that their politeness had arisen from such a feeling of inferiority, because their perception was that they were of equal status to males. Yet, both male and female respondents seemed to recognize the significant role of the relative age of a hearer on the deliverance of politeness by a speaker. Given that such ascribed statuses as gender, descent, and caste, or achieved statuses such as wealth, position, etc., influence the deliverance of politeness, age clearly occupies the highest place among the factors. Respondents regard generational differences as requiring greater attention than any other differences. Two attributes are normally associated with older people in Indonesia: 1) wisdom; and 2) expectation of respect. Their wisdom, as it is intended here, is derived from the worldly knowledge they have accumulated during their many years of experience. By definition, young people lack worldly knowledge. This suggests that regardless of the social status held by a given speaker, he/she will always have to be polite to an older hearer. In other words, a speaker’s social superiority appears powerless and insignificant before the relative age of a speaker. This is clearly illustrated in the examples below, which were given by the same respondent.

 

[A response to a neighbor asking to take her and her child to hospital]

 

5a. Waduh, gimana ya, saya buru-buru sekali. Coba saya tanya istri saya kalau-kalau

excl.            how    yes      I       in a rush        very         try        I      ask        wife    I          in case

      dia bisa nganterin sebelum pergi belanja.

she  able      deliver       before       go       shopping

‘Umh, what shall I do? I’m in a rush. Let me ask my wife if she can take you to the hospital before she goes shopping.’

 

[A response to a staff member asking to leave work to take her child to hospital]

 

5b. Waduh, gimana ya Bu,   kita ’kan lagi sibuk sekali. Tapi, nggak apa-apa deh, Ibu

excl.          how     yes Madam  we   tag   being  busy   very       but         not     matter      part.  Madam

      boleh pergi asalkan ada yang menggantikan. Saya ngerti  deh perasaan Ibu.   Biar

may      go     provided   exist   that    replace                   I    understand part.  feeling     Madam  hope

      cepet sembuh   deh anaknya.

quick   recovered  part.   child  the

‘Umh, what shall I do? We’re very busy, but it’s all right, you can go provided that there is someone else to replace you. I sympathize with you, Madam. I hope your child will be well soon.’

 

While the D and P factors subsuming the two situations described in 5a and 5b were remarkably different, the R factor was obviously the same: a request to take a child to hospital. In 5a, it was between two neighbors, whereas in 5b it was between a staff member and a manager. Both responses contained similar patterns with respect to the opening expressions: the speaker hedged to avoid making a direct refusal as well as expressing a direct acceptance. Usually, the distance between two neighbors is not great, and communication between them would be a bit more casual than with a stranger. Therefore, expressing a refusal or acceptance directly followed by a redressive expression will be regarded as a common phenomenon between them, and will not result in serious offence. However, most people would expect that a manager would speak more openly and directly when he/she wished to refuse or accept a request from his/her staff members. Yet, it was not the case with the speaker in 5a and 5b, where he spoke more politely when (hypothetically) acting as a manager than when functioning as a neighbor. While the response given in 5a can be regarded as common, the response in 5b may be somewhat surprising for some people, because they might think that such a response was only idiosyncratic. A manager is supposed to be more straightforward when talking to a staff member. The study, however, found that the phenomena shown in 5a and 5b could not be regarded as idiosyncratic; the speaker was completely aware of his role as described in the questionnaire. Furthermore, the data obtained by the present study indicated that most responses given to an older interlocutor contained a number of strategies to show a high degree of politeness. When interviewed, the speaker in 5a and 5b stated that he was very unwilling to speak impolitely to an older interlocutor, because by doing so, he would go against the cultural values that hold sway in Indonesian society. The importance he placed on showing respect to an older interlocutor was clearly expressed in the following words:

 

[5Int.1] Pokoknya, apapun statusnya, orang tua itu wajib   dihormati, sekalipun dia itu

main    the    whatever  status  the     person  old   that compulsory respected   although  he/she that

             bawahan kita. Saya yakin, kemuliaan seseorang itu akan tercermin dari bisa

subordinate   we     I       sure         honor           someone     that   will   reflected      from  able

             tidaknya dia    menghormati orang tua. Kita harus memperlakukan orang tua,

unable  the   he/she  respect             person  old      we     must         treat                  person   old

            siapapun dia, seperti orang tua kita. Kita harus hormati dia.

whoever  he/she   like      person  old    we     we     must    respect   he/she

‘The thing is that, irrespective of their status and even if they are our subordinate, older people must be respected. I guarantee it, a person’s good reputation will depend on his/her ability to honor older people. We have to treat them like we treat our parents. We have to honor them.’

 

The above claim seems to represent the perception of the majority of Indonesian speakers about the most significant factor to be taken into account in the proper use of Indonesian among members of the speech community. The claim seems to be closely related to the second attribute associated with old people: they are due the same respect as parents. So respected is a parent’s position that no expression of disrespect is permitted, not even the use of a gentle reproof such as ‘hush’. A person who fails to honor an older person may be ostracized by other members of his/her society, and he/she therefore will not have a place in the society. This social sanction seems to be so severe that every member of the society attends to the social norm. This differs, for examples, from other cultures which seem to regard other social attributes as being more important: castes in South Indian society (Levinson 1979); descent in (old) Arabic society (Haikal 1996), jawara in Bantenese society (Slamet-Velsink 1994); or the ade relationship of the New Guinean community (Schieffelin 1984).

 

1. 6.      CP, PP, and Politeness Realization in Indonesian

 

Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) holds that efficient communication takes place if a speaker says what he/she has to say, at the time he/she has to say it, and in the manner he/she has to say it (cf. Hymes’ SPEAKING mnemonic 1972). In Grice’s words: “Make your conversational contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (1975: 45). CP is assumed to operate in most conversation, and speakers are believed to follow the principle. Yet, it is likely that at a point in a conversation, a speaker will be unable to fulfil one or more maxims associated with the principle, thereby exploiting the principle. From politeness perspectives, deliberate exploitations of CP can be seen as a sign of a speaker’s unwillingness to take part in a communication transaction actively, as a result of which the speaker is able to be regarded as impolite; such violations may insult a hearer. Grice himself conceded that there are various ways in which a speaker may fail to fulfil a maxim, including:

 

1. He may quietly and unostentatiously VIOLATE a maxim;
2. He may OPT OUT from the operation both of the maxim and of the CP;
3. He may be forced by a CLASH;
4. He may FLOUT a maxim

 

(Grice 1975: 49)

 

Look at the examples below.

 

[A response to a regular customer asking to prepare special food]

 

6a. Ganti    aja deh    Bu    dengan masakan lain, ‘kan Ibu katanya suka nyoba makanan

substitute just   part. Madam   with       food        other    tag   Madam  said     like     try          food

      baru. Kebetulan saya lagi nyoba resep baru. Dijamin   enak   deh Bu.    Saya kasih

new     accidentally    I     being    try      recipe  new     guaranteed delicious part. Madam   I     give

      harga promosi deh.

price    promotion  part.

‘How about if you replace it with another type of food? You said you like trying new food. By chance, I’m trying a new recipe now. It will be delicious, Madam. I’ll give you a promotional price.’

 

[A response to a neighbourhood subordinate asking to join a picnic to a beach]

6b. Wah, pasti asyik ya kalau piknik cuaca   lagi   gini,  apalagi banyak temen. Tapi,

excl.   surely fun     yes   if        picnic   weather  again  like this  moreover  many    friends     but

      gimana lagi ya, saya udah punya acara sama keluarga, mau nengok mertua

how       again  yes    I     already  have    program with   family        want   visit       parens-in-law

‘Wow, it will be fun to have a picnic in weather like this, especially if many of our friends are there. But, there is nothing I can do, [because] I’m already committed to my family to visit my parents-in-law.’

 

As we can see, the speakers in 6a and 6b cannot be said to have violated any of Grice’s maxims, but rather they have precisely observed the maxims. In the case that the maxims have been observed in very indirect ways, that should be understood in the broadest sense of observing CP’s maxims. The speakers can said to have observed the Maxim of Quality, for example, because in the respective situations they might have told the truth (as we will normally expect). In 6a, it might be true that a) he was trying a new recipe; b) the requestor was really an adventurous eater; or c) the speaker was willing to offer a special price. Similarly, in 6b, it might be true that having a picnic with some friends would be fun, but unfortunately the speaker could not join in because he was already committed to a family visit. Neither can we say that Maxims of Quantity and Manner have been unfulfilled just because the speakers provided indirect responses; such responses are neither ambiguous nor prolix. Therefore, the responses can be regarded as showing the speakers’ willingness to be sociable and friendly enough to their interlocutor.

However, it appears that the data obtained by the present study are best examined by using politeness perspectives proposed by Leech (1983), instead of CP from Grice, so that a comprehensive explanation of politeness phenomena in Indonesian can be achieved. This is because, as Leech argues, “CP in itself cannot explain … why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean”, as is apparent in the data obtained by the study, and … “it does not stand up to the evidence of real language use” (1983: 80; italics from the original). Leech’s politeness perspectives, which are clearly an elaboration of Grice’s Cooperative Principle, are mainly formulated in what he calls the Politeness Principle (PP), which is subsumed under Interpersonal Rhetoric. Leech’s PP consists of a number of sub-maxims, including Maxims of Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement, and Sympathy. However, as Leech believes, these maxims are not equally important, and it appears that the Tact Maxim is the most powerful constraint on conversational behavior, which can be observed as operating in the manner of a cost-benefit scale. Leech, therefore, suggests that the general law of politeness should focus “more strongly on other than on self“ (1983: 133). Let us consider again examples 6a and 6b above as well as 6c below.

 

[A response to a regular customer asking to fix her damaged car]

 

6c. Bagaimana ya, saya lagi sibuk ngerjain mobil ini. Begini aja Bu, simpan mobil Ibu

how            yes    I    being  busy   working       car      this   like this  just  Madam  put     car  Madam

      di sini,    besok      saya kerjakan, sebab nampaknya mobil itu agak berat   rusaknya.

at   here   tomorrow        I           do         because    seem                car    that  rather serious  damage the

      Kalau Ibu memang perlu mobil untuk nganter anak ke rumah sakit, pakai aja mobil

if     Madam  really     need        car       to     deliver      child   to  house      sick    use      just     car

      saya. Nggak dipakai kok.

I          not       used       part.

‘What shall I do? Right now, I’m very busy working on this car. How about if you leave your car here and tomorrow I’ll fix it. It seems to be seriously damaged. If you really need a car to take your child to hospital, use mine. I won’t be using it.’

 

Leech’s Maxim of Tact says “minimize cost to other, maximize benefit to other” (1983: 132). This maxim suggests that politeness in interpersonal communication will take place if a speaker is able to avoid expressions of beliefs which are not favorable to a hearer. Referring to the examples above, the speakers, in saying

 

(6a) Saya kasih harga promosi deh

‘I’ll give you a promotional price.’

 

(6b) Wah, pasti asyik ya kalau piknik cuaca   lagi   gini,  apalagi banyak temen

‘Wow, it will be fun to have a picnic in weather like this, especially if many of our friends are there.’

 

(6c) Pakai aja mobil saya. Nggak dipakai kok.

‘Use my car. I won’t be using it.’

 

have put the cost on themselves, for the benefit of their interlocutors.

The speaker’s willingness to reduce the price in 6a, for example, clearly indicates his readiness to bear any cost caused by his response. If the requestor accepted this offer, she would obviously obtain benefit from it. Similarly, the response such as 6c above strongly suggests that the speaker was prepared to bear any consequences from lending his car to his customer, for the benefit of the requestor. No matter whether the requestor eventually accepted the offer or not, the speaker had observed the need to be polite to his interlocutor. While this type of response may exploit one or more maxims in Grice’s CP, this is clearly in accordance with one or more maxims in Leech’s PP. Furthermore, although the kind of cost to be borne by the speaker is not clearly indicated (example 6b), in expressing the response, the speaker was actually trying to avoid an expression unfavorable to his hearer, which is consistent with the Tact Maxim. On this basis, I believe that the politeness principle proposed by Leech, especially the Tact and Generosity maxims, is more suitable for the purpose of accounting for politeness phenomena in the Indonesian context than Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Leech’s PP appears to be concerned about the maintenance of social harmony as well as togetherness, taking into account the normative values in which a given language operates. Therefore, I believe PP is able to explain in a more comprehensible manner the language usage phenomena found in the Indonesian context, as the data of the present study show. As has been indicated in the previous discussions, the data, particularly the refusal responses, clearly showed the respondents’ preference for using indirect strategies.

 

1. 7.      Indirectness as a Politeness Norm in Indonesian

 

This study used the criterion level of directness as one of the parameters in determining the degree of politeness of a given refusal or acceptance expression. It was found that the preference of the respondents for using the direct refusal/acceptance strategy when responding to a request was significantly lower than that of indirect strategies. This seems to suggest that, in Indonesian society, responding to a request indirectly, particularly when making a refusal, is common and apparently completely acceptable. This seems to constitute an attempt to maintain the existing interpersonal harmony as well as to minimize the level of infringement, tension, and insult potentially caused by a direct response. Thus, from this point of view, indirectness in the Indonesian context does not necessarily suggest dishonesty or a deliberate attempt to deceive an interlocutor. Neither was it intended to hide a fact or truth from a hearer. Rather, indirectness is best regarded as part of the speaker’s wisdom, which seems to operate under the Tact Maxim of Leech’s politeness principle.

This contrasts, for example, with the use of indirect strategies in requestive speech acts in other societies which is often regarded as implying impoliteness e.g. Blum-Kulka 1987, 1989, 1990 in Israeli society; Lee-Wong 1991 in Chinese communities; Le Couter 1996 in Australian society. In Indonesian society, indirectness in expressing ¾ especially a refusal ¾ seems to be part of the social norm that every member of the society should hold, although its values are not absolute or definite. This means that the norm still allows the members of the society to use the direct refusal strategy, i.e. saying NO explicitly, if it is really necessary. Nevertheless, in expressing the direct refusal, one must always comply with the more general politeness principle, which I will call Prinsip Saling Tenggang Rasa ‘The Principle of Mutual Consideration’. This principle, which incorporates as well as requires a mutual understanding of a speaker and a hearer to care for each other’s feelings in order to preserve social harmony, can be formulated as follows:

 

a)      Avoid using expressions to your interlocutor which you would not like to be addressed to you if you were in his/her shoes;

 

and

 

b)      Use expressions to your interlocutor which you would like to be addressed to you if you were in his/her shoes.

 

A greater emphasis of the realization of this principle is obviously placed on the first part, because, prima facie, it constitutes a more general rule of doing politeness, in which every speaker is required to avoid uttering expressions unfavorable to a hearer by, for example, not imposing (Lakoff 1973), minimizing cost to a hearer (Leech 1983), and not doing an FTA that will result in a hearer’s face-loss (Brown and Levinson 1987). According to Leech (1983: 133), such a position “illustrates the more general law that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is a more weighty consideration than positive politeness (seeking concord)”. It is, however, strongly believed that the realization of this principle in a communication exchange will vary a great deal, and is individually unique, in the sense that it largely depends on an individual’s understanding of the principle.

The principle of mutual consideration (PMC) requires that both a speaker and a hearer observe and behave according to the norms of appropriateness, in the sense that each participant would place himself/herself in the other’s shoes (cf. Kartomihardjo’s (1982) social norm in Javanese empan-papan, which he claimed to be comparable to Hymes’ SPEAKING mnemonic 1972). PMC operates under a number of sub-principles or values, including:

 

a)      Harm and Favor Potential: an expression, made up of one or more words, has the potential to harm as well as favor a hearer, so be careful when using it.

b)      Shared-feeling Principle: your interlocutor has the same sort of feelings as you do, so consider his/her feeling as you would consider your own.

c)      Prima facie Principle: your interlocutor’s evaluation of your politeness is largely determined by his/her first impression about your communication manner, so indicate your willingness to cooperate.

d)      Continuity Principle: the continuity of your relationship with your interlocutor is partly determined by the current communication transaction, so make attempts to maintain it by creating mutual trust.

 

An exploitation of any of Grice’s maxims will mostly ¾ though not necessarily ¾ result in uncooperativeness, and so is an exploitation of PMC. Nevertheless, a speaker using an indirect strategy when refusing, for example, in which the maxim of quantity is being exploited, cannot necessarily be regarded as having violated any of PMC sub-principles; but rather, he/she can be said to have observed the harm and favor potential and the shared-feeling principles of PMC. This is because in uttering his/her response, the speaker believes that a direct refusal, especially to an R-high request, will endanger his/her relationship with the requestor. The speaker seemed to anticipate the occurrence of similar circumstances which he/she may face sometime in future, with similar emotional discomfort resulting, if his/her request is refused directly. Furthermore, an indirect refusal accompanied by redressive expressions can give a good impression about a speaker. This leads the hearer to conclude that the speaker is actually unwilling to refuse his/her request, and he/she will thus regard the speaker as being polite. This impression occurs because the speaker has fulfilled the prima facie principle.

Like CP, which regards a contribution of false evidence such as lying as having violated the maxim of quality, PMC regards such a contribution as having violated at least three, if not all, its sub-principles. In the first place, a hearer may believe the lies told by a speaker, and he/she may thus regard the speaker as being cooperative (the prima facie principle). However, realizing that he/she is or was deceived, the hearer will feel insulted, which can result in severe consequences, e. g. it is very likely that the hearer would not trust the speaker any more ¾ a result of the continuity principle being violated. In telling a lie, a liar has obviously disregarded the potential hazard caused by his/her lie, because he/she has ignored the feelings of his/her hearer. This suggests that a deliberate violation of a sub-principle of PMC would result in severe consequences.

Compared to Leech’s PP, PMC looks simpler, though not simplistic. Unlike PP, which tautologizes its principles, PMC operates more in cause and effect logic. The maxim of generosity, which says “a) Minimize benefit to self; [and] b) Maximize benefit to other” (1983: 131), for example, is actually already implied in the maxim of tact, which says “a) Minimize cost to other; [and] b) Maximize cost to self“. It is logical to say that when someone minimizes benefit to himself/herself (generosity maxim), he/she actually attempts to minimize cost to others (tact maxim). Similarly, the maxim of approbation in Leech’s PP actually contains the logic of the maxim of modesty, because when someone minimizes dispraise of other (maxim of approbation), he/she is inevitably required to minimize praise of himself/herself (maxim of modesty).

The harm and favor potential in PMC requires that, before uttering an expression, a speaker should consider the potential benefit of his utterance against the potential loss both to himself/herself and to his/her interlocutor. This awareness can be achieved if the speaker has from the outset taken into consideration the same sort of feelings on his/her interlocutor, as he/she would in relation to himself/herself (shared-feeling principle). PMC, therefore, assumes that an act of politeness actually begins when a speaker for the first time formulates his/her communicative intention before an act takes place. This intention, which I will call ‘pre-communicative politeness’, is a precondition for polite communication. This precondition must be fulfilled and then manifested in the very first utterance expressed in a communicative exchange. Therefore, it is necessary that when a communicative exchange takes place, the speaker give an impression to his/her interlocutor that he/she is willing to cooperate (prima facie principle). It is this first impression that largely determines a hearer’s evaluation of a speaker’s cooperativeness, in which “being cooperative is being polite (mostly)” (Allan 1986: 10). Moreover, unlike PP, which seems to emphasize and require communicative cooperativeness at the time of a communicative exchange, i.e. on the spot politeness, PMC through its continuity principle requires that participants in communicative exchanges consider and manage conflicts that may occur after the exchanges. According to the continuity principle, which assumes and requires post-communicative politeness, a conflict can be avoided or at least minimized, if mutual trust between participants has been established. Therefore, PMC assumes the existence of three stages of politeness, i.e. pre-communicative politeness, on the spot politeness, and post-communicative politeness.

 

1. 8.      Conclusion

In this paper, we have looked at various types of responses given by Indonesian people when they are faced with requestive speech acts at times their circumstances pressure them to make refusals. The fact that the respondents gave responses other than refusals can be explained by looking at the cultural values that operate in the Indonesian society. Even if they happened to give refusals, for example, they preferred using the indirect strategies accompanied by a number of politeness markers. It appears that this choice and their preference of using a particular strategy were clearly motivated by their willingness to maintain the (existing) harmony between interactants, and this can only be achieved if both speaker and hearer observe the principle of mutual consideration (PMC).