Politeness Phenomena as a Source of Pragmatic Failure in English as a Second Language

l"anguage should be learned in the cultural context ofits speakers. This is because the speakers bring an intention in performing a linguistic act. Failure in understanding the intention of the speakers will lead to failure in responding to the intended message and, thus, failure in using the language. The study of how language is used in a particular context or situation is the focus of pragrnatics. An important pragmatic issue concerns with politeness, i.e. showing awareness of another person's public self-image. This article highlights the politeness phenomena and the degree of success in learning English. The issues discussed include the definition ofpoliteness, strategies ofpoliteness, politeness in the Oriental cultures, politeness in the context of Indonesian cultures, and the implication of politeness phenomena in the teaching of

Learning a language is not just learning collection of rules and applying them in meaningful utterances or sentences' We need to understand how language is used within the cultural context of its speakers.In addition, leaming a language is not just learning the meaning o[ the utterances or sentences literally, but it deals with ttre speakers' intcntion in performing a linguistic act.Goody (1978) points out two l'catures in analyzing the meaning of utterances (speech acts).The first onc is that the language is rule-governed behavior; it can be analyzed lccording to the certain rules for the use of linguistic elements.The soconcl one is that the language is performative aspects, so that it can be lnalyz.cdaccording to its performative aspects, i.e., the utterance which is produced with ccrtain kind of intention.Sometimes what the listener t{9 understands from the speaker is different form what the speaker intends to communicate.This kind of meaning may be difficult to anaryze grammatically or semantically.Pragmatics is then used, i.e., the study of how language is used in a particular context or situation.
There are many other definitions of pragmatics.yule (1996), for example, defines pragmatics as the study of speaker meaning which is different from word or sentence meaning.It is the study of language use and its relation to language structure and social ccntext.Thomas (1995) defines pragmatics as meaning in interaction, which reflects that meaning is not independent; "it is not something which is inherent in the word alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer alone."Therefore, interpreting meaning of one utterance is a dynamic process.It includes the negotiation of meaning between the speaker and the hearer.It also involves the social, physical and linguistic contexts of the utterance.
Nowadays pragmatics has become a real issue for some teachers, researchers, and learners.There are a large number of research studies investigating how pragmatics works in a particular language and culture.'l'lrc investigation covers all aspects of pragmatics such as speech acts, t'onvcrsational implicature, diexis and politeness phenomena.polite- rrcsr; is onc ol'pragmatic aspects which is widely discussed and which sr-xrretirncs creates misunderstanding, misinterpretation and miscommunication betwcen thc spcaker and the heareq which in turn lead to what is called "pragmatic failurc."The failure happens because of the different ways of expressing politeness across culture.Although there are some universals in language usage concerning politeness, there are still some specific politeness phenomena across culture.These phenomena are potential sources of pragmatic failure especially for those who learn English as a foreign language.

DM'INITION OF POLITENESS
Politeness is showing awareness of another person's public self- image (Yule, 1996).According to Brown and Levinson (197g) politeness is basic to the production of social order and a precondition of human cooperation; therefore, to understand this phenomenon, the theory under- lying it should match with the foundation of human social life.since politeness deals with human interaction, there musl be somc univcrslrl principles.An example is thc fact that there is no olrc who likcs ro lrr: Aridnh, Politeness Phenomena As a Source Of Pragmatic Failure In -,.151 treated impolitely.Furthermore, the way of expressing politeness can be in the forms of linguistic or non-linguistic behaviors.This universality applies to any society in the world, regardless of the degree of its isolation or distance, or the complexity of its social and economic life.However, what considers as polite or impolite might be very much different from culture to culture, from group to group, from situation to situation or even from person to person.One expression, for example, may be considered polite for a certain group of society and impolite for another group.It really depends on the sociocultural elements of the society.Green (1996) makes a distinction between polite behavior and rude behavior.Polite behavior makes people feel comfortable, whereas rude behavior makes people feel uncomfortable.Therefore, to avoid making other people uncomfortable, or to show good regards to them in order to rnake them comfortable, politeness is one choice.Poiiteness covers any kinds of interpersonal behavior, including linguistic and non-linguistic bchaviors.Yule (1996) argues that politeness could be treated as a fixed t:oncept, that is, in an idea of polite social behavior or etiquette within one lxrrticular culture.However, possible specification for being polite in social irrtcraction within a particular culture can be occurred.The underlying rrssumption of this possibility is that people in one interactional situation irrc generally aware that such nonns (politeness and rudeness) and 1rr-irrciples do exist in society at large extent.Nevertheless, how to act lxrlitcly in one situation, such as at work, at dining table is more specific rrrrrl rnay be different from one to another society.ln short, politeness and its universal principles are possessed by a prrlticular society.All members of the society they need to be treated politcly.The differences lie in the ways of expressing polite linguistic or rrorr lingr-ristic behaviors.In this case, there are some strategies of politr:rrr:ss lhat may share universal characteristics across culture' S l'ltA'l'l,l( JIIrS Olf l{)LITENESS l\rlitr:ncss is rrcccssary for a society because it shows a relationship lrr.trvt.crrirrrlivirluals: it shows rcspccts and cultural nonns.Since people rrrtr-r:tt'( :rll thc tilnc irr lhc socicty, thcy need to maintain relationship, to rrr;untirirr l'lrr:t: trrrl lo bc lblc: kr colttlttutticatc to people and to common qorIl 1l irrtcriu'liorr.'l'hclirrrrotrs work cortccrrtittg stratcgics of politeness is that of Brown and Levinson (1979).Brown and Levinson have explored very broadly the universality of the concept of politeness, which come from the cultural notion of "face."Face consists of two specific kinds of "wants" that is, the wants or the needs not to be impeded in one's actions which is called negative face, and the wants or the needs to be approved or to be connected to a group, which is called positive face.Brown and Levinson claim that this notion of face is universal.Their observation reveals that when making a small request one will tend to use language that stress in-group membership and sotial similarity, and when making a bigger request, one will use the more formal languale and more formal politeness strategies, such as using indirect speech, apologies and hedges-This strategy is claimed to be related to participant'J fu"", which is the core element in the notion of politeness.
Given the assumptions of the universarity of face, Brown and Levinson claim that certain kinds of acts can threaten face, that is, the acts that go contrary to what the face needs from the speaker.This is called "face threatening act" (FrA).FTA is an ufterancJ or action that threatens a person's public self-image (face).Some acts can threaten the hearer's negative face and some others can threaten positive face of the hearer.some acts also threaten the hearer's face and some others th,reaten the speaker's face.These two distinctions of FTA lead to consider whether doing the FrA or not doing the FrA.The strategies of doing FTA depend mainly on the circumstance or situation whether speaker wants to preserve hearer's face to any degree.
The possible sets of strategies that Brown and Levinson propose in relation to doing FTAs can be seen in the following chart: off record (4) Don't do the FfA (5)   Possible strategies tor doing FTA (Ilronrr rrrrl l,evluvrr, trrTlll Aridah, Politeness Phenomena As a Source of Pragmatic Failure In '.. |53   Based on the chart above, there are five possible strategic choices concerning with FTAs.However, how to choose those five strategies clepends on the condition of both speaker and hearer.According to Brown and Levinson there are three sociological factors which are important to tletermine the choice of stmtegies of politeness in many cultures.These variables involve:(l) the social distance of speaker and hearer, that is how close the relationship between speaker and hearer; (2) the relative power 9f speaker and hearer; and (3) the absolute ranking of imposition in the particular culture, that is what is permissible in one culture may not be lrcrmissible in another culture.
Brown and Levinson claim that the weight of an FTA is a simple sum ol' these three factors.On the basis of this calculation, speaker decides u,hother he likes to perform one of the following strategies: l. Baldly on Record without Redressive Action In this strategy the speakers do the FIA in the most direct, clear and rrrrarnbiguous way because they believe that that there are occasions ,"1,c1 some constraints force people to speak very directly.For example, rl thcre is an emergency or if there is a major time constraint in which rlrc spcaker saves tirne in order to be effective' This strategy will also be ,krrrc il'the speaker does not fear retribution from the hearer, that is where rlrt.rlanger to hearer's face is very small or where speaker has superior l)()vvcl over hearer such aS between Cornmander and one of his soldiers.
).. I\\SITIItsPOLITEI'\TESS l)ositive politeness is an appeal to solidarity towards others, that is Irorv to rnake hearer feel good or to make him feel that his values are .,lr;rrt'rl.I\lsitive politeness utterances are used to extent intimacy, to imply r {)nunon ground or to share wants.By using positive politeness strategy, rl :,lrows that speaker wants to Come clOSer to hearer.There are three ilr,rl{rr srrirtogics proposed by Brown and Levinson in this category.First i', tlr;rt spr.rrkc:r clairns common ground with hearer by indicating that both '.1,r..rkr.r;rnrl ltcarcr can share specific wants, including goals and values' ',r'r on(l is thul lxrllt spcaker and hearer are cooperatively involved in the r,-lr.r,:rut:rt'livily.'l'hus thcy can share goals in Some ways.The last is that .,t,r.:rkt.rslt1rrrltl l'gll'ill hoarcr's want in order to indicate that he (speaker)   rr,rrrt,, lrt.:rrr:t''s wiulls itt sollrc Jlarticular cxtents suCh aS giving giftS to lr'';u('r's.tttttlct'sllrttrlitltl or syllll)alhy.

Negative Politeness Strategy
Negative politeness strategy refers to an attempt to demonstrate awareness not to be imposed on, that is, to avoid interfering the inter- locutor's freedom of action by using hedge, apology, etc. Brown and Levinson consider this strategy as the heart of respect behavior because it performs the function of minimizing the imposition over the hearer, There are five major strategies concerning with this negative politeness according to Brown and Levinson.(a) Be direct; (b) Don't presume/ assume; (c) Don't coerce H; (d) Communicate spealier's want to not impinge on hearer; and (f) Redress other wants of hearer's derivative from negative face.In negative politeness strategies, conventional polite- ness markers and deference markers are used to minimize the imposition.

Off Record Politeness Strategy
Generally, off record politeness strategy is that the use of utterances that are not directly addressed to another.In this strategy, the speaker performs the FTA by implicative, that is by saying something indirectly.Some of possible strategies Brown and Levinson suggest include .,givehints," "use metaphor," and "be vague or ambiguous."

Do not do FTA
Not doing FIA is the last strategic choice.By not doing FTA, no one would be imposed or threatened.Brown and Levinson are not the only persons who are interested in the issue of politeness strategies.Robjn Lakoff in Green (1996), for example, describes threes differenr rules a speaker may follow in order to be polite.The rules range from the most formal to informal rule of politeness.Lakoff and Brown and Levinson's strategies, although they are different in names, are corespondent to each other.The most formal rule of politeness according to Lakoff is "Don't impose."This rule relates to the three sociological variabres that Brown and Levinson propose, in that there is an acknowledged difference in power and status between speaker and hearer that allows speaker to act more politely to hearer.According to this rule, a speaker is considered being polite if he avoids or asks permission or apology f'r making his interlocutor do anything that the interlocutor docs rrot wiurt to do.It sccnrs that this rule might correspondcnt to l]rowrr urrrl l,r:vinsorr's stratcgy -5, that is: Don't do thc FTA.Not rkrilrli lhc lflA nr(.:rr, rlurt spcrrkcr tftlcs rrot inrltosc hcurcr. Aridah, Polireness Phenomena As a Source Of Pragmatic Failure In ,..155 The Lakoff's second rule is: "Offer options'" It means that a speaker express himself in such a way that his opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected.This situation is appropriate if speaker and hearer have approximately equal status and power, but they are not so close in terms of social relationship.The example of such rclationship can be found in the relationship between a businessman and a new client.The use of hedges and indirect acts could be appropriate in tlris case.An example that Green (1996) presents in this context is that irrstead of saying "You should get a haircut" it would be appropriate to sly: "I wonder if it would help to get a haircut."The latter utterance is ol'l'cring options.This rule relates to Brown and Levinson's negative lxrlitcness strategy, in that both demonstrate awareness of another right rvlrt:lher doing the FTA or not.In other word, both negative politeness and I .rloll''s Ruie 2 give options by attempting to minimize any imposition that .rrcurravoidable from speaker's point of view.'l'lrc last Lakoff's rule relates to friendly or intimate politeness.This nrl(' sirys: "Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie."In other words speaker lr;rht.sldclressee feel good.This rule applies appropriately to intimate or , l,i,,t.liicnds to show intimacy.In this situation any topic of conversations ',, ,'rir:j t() tre appropriate, meaning that one should be abie to talk anything 'r rrlr ;r t:krsc friend.Howeveq there might still some propositions that a ,l,r,,t' lrir:nd may have something to hide that he will not tell us.But in ,'! ri{.'irl, tlris strategy suggests that both speaker and hearer be expected ;r,,r ro rrrinr-'c words.They are expected to speak directly withoui hedges ,,r liirrt:, Spr:irking indirectly among participants in this context may imply ili.rr llrt.yrisk speaking their mind freely.Direct statements or requests .urr,,nJ,.p;utrciparrts show that the speaker believes that the relatiOnship 1,.rwr { n :,peukcr ancl hearer is so strong that truths do not need to be ,tr.1,,11.r'rlol sol'lcncd.Both speaker and hearer not only show interest to ,,r, lr 'rlrrr lrrrl ulso show regard and trust by being open to each other.l;rl.r,ll'slirrlc:3 seenrs to correspond with Brown and Levinson's l,,it,llr ,,ri rt'torrl slrltcgy and positive politeness strategy.This correspon- ,i.i!' i i;rrr l,t'secn irt (lte cxtcnt that S and H share so much that what *rr;:lrr rlrrr';rtt'rr llrc otrlsi<lcr's lacc in a certain occasion may not threaten rli, ir l;rr r rn lltis c'tlttlt:xl.Ilrr rr' .ut'otlrt'r 1x:t'spcc:tivcs ctlttccrnirrg politeness strategies.These i,,r ,t,,,trvi", ol poltlertr:ss wct(r l)r()p()sctl hy lirascr (1990).that there are four major perspectives on the treatment of politeness.Some of them relate to the strategies discussed previously.The four perspectives of politeness include (1) the social-norm view oi politeness; (2) the conversational-maxim view of poriteness; (3) the face saving view of politeness; and (4) the conversational-contract view of politeness.
The social-norm view of poriteness refers to the historical under- standing of politeness, which assumes that there is a particular set of social norms in the society which consist of rules prescribing a certain behavior, a state of affair, or a way of thinking in a context.This perspective also assumes that when an action is congruent with the norrns, a positive evaluation arises.on the contrary, when an action is in contradiction with the norm, a negative evaluation arises.one of the rules of politeness in this view requires that people avoid topic which may cause any pains.
The second perspective of politeness according to Frase is the conversational-rnaxim view.This perspective relies on the cooperative Principles (cP) proposed by Grice.This principle provides that a speaker say what he has to say, when he has to say it and how he has to say it.
In other words, a speaker should say the right thing at the right moment.
on the basis of this cP, Grice formulates specific conversational maxims which become guidelines for language use in conversation.The maxims involve: (l) Quantity, which suggests that speaker not say more and less, and make the conversation as informative as required; (2) euality, which suggests that speaker not say what he believes to be false and nof say something for which he lacks adequate evidence; (3) Relation which suggests to make the contribution relevant; and (4) Manner, which suggest to avoid ambiguity and obscurity.
Frase's third perspective is the face saving view.This view relates to the concept of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson.This perspective emphasizes on the concept of face which constitutes some strategies of politeness.
The last perspective is the conversational contract view.In this perspective Frase claims that his view adopts Grice's notion of coopera- tive Principle but it is different from that of Brown and Levinson,s in some ways.The assumption underrying this perspective is that each party in a given conversation has some initial sets of,right and obligations that will determine what participants cxJlcc:r rl.rr trrt..rlrc:rs.I)rrrirrg trrc Therefore, according to Frase's perspective politeness is not "a sometime thing."Participants in the conversation are aware that they have to act within the negotiated constraints.If they do not, they are considered as being impolite.Thus, being polite does not necessarily mean rnaking hearer feel good as what Lakoff suggests in her rule 3, nor rrraking the hearer not feel bad, as Brown and Levinson (1978) argue.llcing Polite simply follows the terms and the conditions of the convers:rtional confact.
The description about the perspectives and the strategies of poiite- rrt'ss discussed above provides some universality of politeness.However, rr rs irnportant to note that cultural values have a great influence of how ., 1,:rrticular act will be deemed in a particular cuiture.Within a certain !rlrurcr a speaker may employ different means of expressing politeness.llr, sr' differences are not only due to their beliefs about what kind of .rtuirtr()n a certain act is appropriate to, but also due to their personal t,r, l,'rt:nce.For example, a culture like Indonesia culture believes that ,r ,l rrrl' pcrsonal question, such as age and marital status, is not considered ',,1',lrl(', while other cultures may believe that this kind of question is ' ,,rr'.r,k'rr:(lirnpolite.Furlher description about oriental and Indonesian , irlrrrrt' rvill be discussed later.I't' I I t I,,N I.^\S ITIIINOMENA IN SOME ORIENXAL CUUTURES lrr.rvn rrrrcl l-evinson (1978), Lakoff (1973) and Fraser (1990) have 1,,,,1,,,,,',1 :.,r,rrrc universal properties shared in terms of politeness.How-, , r ilicrr' ;l1r sontc research studies which prove that the universality of 1,,,i1rr 11r".'., t'slrcially one related to the concept of face, may not be .r;,;,11,,1t, \{)u}r of oriental cultures such as in China and Japan.The !,,ll,,ir rrrl' :rrc tlrr: tlcscription of two oriental cultures which mostly draw .i!!, !!rr!tii {rl r,{}ul(' tcsc:itrchcrs in pragmatic area.lri Nl.rr,,rrrrroto's stutly (1988) the concept of face postulated by l!,,, ' r! .rr*ll.('vrns()rr irr tlrcir Modcl Person is questioned.Brown and I , ii, i,u { l,rrrrr tlr:rl "rrll corrrponcnts aclult members of society have face: r!,, t,,,1'lr, .,r'llirrr:r1r,t' thlrt c:vcry nrcnrbcr wnnts to claim for himself, ,,ii !rrrr! r'l tr',,o rt'i:rlivt'lrslrr:ct: nc1',ativc lltcc arrd positive face.".:. ',r,lrrr!' t' l\il;rl:.rrrrroto(()fill) llrt.r'onccpt ol rrcllir(ivc lhcc, as the tlcsircr to be unimpeded in one's action, seems most strange.This is because negative face presupposes that the basic unit of society is the individual, while in Japanese culture the dependence on the other individuals is highly maintained.Japanese people must understand their position among others, rather than the preservation of an individual's proper territory.Therefore, what is considered negative politeness strategies by Levinson may not be so in Japanese culture.Matsumoto describes this contradiction by an example.In Japanese culture it is the responsibility for senior to take care ofjuniors.Japanese society perceives that its an honor to be asked to take care of someone because this indicates that one is regarded as holding a higher position in the society.According to Brown and Levinson, taking care of someone may be an imposition, which refers to negative polite- ness.But in Japanese society, this is a kind of deferent imposition that can enhance the good self-image of the addressee which in turn can be perceived as positive politeness strategy. In short, Japanese culture tends to choose deference strategy of politeness although other strategies may be possible.one of Japanese conventions in terms of deference says: " Leave it to someone higher,' in contrast to western type of deference which says: "give option., ' Gu (1990) observes politeness phenomena in Modern chinese.similar to Matsumoto's observation in Japanese society, Gu's observation of face also contradicts to Brown and Levinson's concept of face.Gu considers that what Brown and Levinson conclude about politeness and face is an embarrassment.This is because Brown and Levinson's understanding of the concept of politeness is that being polite is to be face-caring, meaning that all FTAs are not polite, since itrey do not care for the face but they threaten the face, thus leading to impotite acts.Gu challenges the assumption that negative face can be thieatened by a certain act, such as offering, inviting, and promising.In chinese culture, such acts, under ordinary conditions, would not be considered as threat_ ening hearer's negative face, that is impeding hearer's freedom.
Gu gives the following illustration to prove that inviting is not a kind of threatening the negative face of the hearer: "A chinese s will insist on inviting H to dinner...In this situarion, an European will feel that s's act of inviting is intrinsically impeding, and that s.1 wav of performing it is even more so.A chinese, onih" olhcr nan.t, will think that S's act is intrinsically politc, a,d that thc way s pcr.hrr.nrs it shows that S is genuinely polite for S's insistence on H's accepting the invitation serve as a good evidence of S's sincerity.The Chinese negative l'rrce is not threatened in this case" (Gu, 1988: 242).
According to Gu, a successful inviting-transaction pattern in modern ('hinese rvould be like the following: A: lnviting It l)cclining (giving reasons for doing so) ,\ Inviting again (refusing B's reasons, minimizing linguistically cost to sclf) It l)cclining again (def'ending his/her reason).,\ lrrsisting on B's presence (refuting, persuading, and minimizing linguis- tir'llly cost to self) it,\r'ccpting (conditionally or unconditionally) l or a cultural outsider this kind of pattern may appear as an rrrr1,,,;.i1i1111,but for Chinese accepting the invitation directly risks the ,,t\ rr(',' s flce, for he might be seen as being greedy.Therefore, although ilr, rrrvrtct: <lcsires to accept the invitation, she or he should go through this i, ,ui nr rlrlhcr than accepts it directly.I lrr.tlt'scriptions of two oriental cultures above show that politeness t,i,,,i,,nr('nr urrd the ways of expressing them are different from one ,rlrrrr' rr, ;yr11thcr, Because of those differences, cross-cultural misunder- r iii,l,nr', ,,r.wltal we call "pragmatic failure," could possibly occur. I1 II I I I. NI:{S I'III'NOMENAININDONESIA It lr.r', lrt't'rr stated that the unspoken and spoken behaviors that " 1 i, l,,,lrlr'rrt'ss arc strongly based on culture.One of the easiest ways !,, r!i!,!\r'rtt'rrllyt:lrtscttff'enceiseithertoviolateaculturalnormortofail r , i,,tl,i\1 r,n('ril soc:icty's rules of polite behaviors.Many people assume .,,',iiri' nl llr:rt lx)litcncss is universal.It means that if we act politely I .. ,,1 ,,q1 iirrl rrrltlt'r'stltttclittg o[what is polite, people in othercultures rvill ,,,,,1, i i.rul tlr('irll('nll)t. (icncrally, this assumption may be true if people r,,,,ii ,lrlli ri rrt trrllruc (ukc lilttc: to loarn the specific cultural ideas of I .lir,rr' .. tlr.rl r':rry lx:twc:ctt Ctllturcs.l,r lrr, li,rr,".r.r (lrcrc irrt: rt llt.tltlbcl ol'spccific rules or strategies that ;..'1,1, .l'rrlrllrt' :.lu(' l() kttorv allottt itttd to lilllow.One of the nost ;,.'i,,,ir.iiir\\';!\'.{,1 cxptt'ssittl'.pttlilr":ltt:ss is rcl'lc:ctctl in thc ways tlf addressing people.Linguistic and cultural diversity in Indonesia provides different ways off addressing people that make people have to be careful of using forms of address to a particular person and in a particular situation.Although Indonesia has successfully implemented language planning, in which bahasa Indonesia has been adopted as the national language, this does not mean that people all over the country use the same standard forms in addressing people.what might appear in Indonesian textbooks are the siandard forms of address.However, Jenson (19gg) has done a study in this area and found that the forms of address in Indonesia sometimes concern with politeness level.she presents some data about the forms of address, which are different from other forms of address in other countries, like America.one example of these differences accord- ing to Jenson is that the selection of address forms depends on whether the addressee is adult or child.In American context a form of address is determined by the age of addressee while in Indonesia "it is determined by almost totally on the basis of age relative to the speaker" (Jenson,  1988: 119).For example, in Indonesia it is normal to address a younger pupil in the school as Nak (child).However an older man could still possibly address a twenty-five-years-old man as Nak because he was much older than the addressee and he remembers the teacher-pupil relationship.The American system does not have forms of address other than first name for children and does not provide forms of address where the name of the child is not known- In brief, according to Jensen's investigation, there are three elements of address in Indonesia: A "Address term" (Bapak, Ibu, Dik) P "Positional title" (Rektoc Hakim, Gubernur) N "Name" (Uip, Pasaribu, Subagio) The lexical realization for those elements of address is determined by age, rank, origin, degree of respect, formality and intimacy.However, in the textbooks, standard forms of address seem to be emerging in order to eliminate difficulties of choice either for Indonesia p"opt" or for foreigners who learn Indonesian as a foreign language.
other politeness phenomenon related to Indonesian culture is that of paralinguistic aspects.Paralinguistic aspects involve proxemic, kinesis, and gestures.Those unspoken behaviors are assumeci to bc srlrre: ol' Aridah,PolitenessPhenomenaAsaSourceofPragmaticFailureln...T6l pragmatic elements that may cause misunderstanding and miscommunicaiion.Unfo.tunately, there are no adequate references that discuss paralinguistic aspects in Indonesian context.One of the ways to provide ,ome information about paralinguistic aspects is by observing Indonesian customs and traditions, which might be different from other traditions and custom in other countries.
In Indonesia there are a number of paralinguistic aspects which show ;xrliteness to others.Those aspects should be understood by the outsiders rn order to prevent pragmatic failure.Perhaps the most important of these l,uralinguisiic aspects in Indonesia is the giving refreshments to the guests.;t'raditional Indonesian society considers that the giving of refreshments to rlrc guests a very important display of respect and politeness' An l,,rlonesian host should make sure that some refreshment is offered to the l,rrcst.Ifyouaretheguestyouwillprobablybeofferedteaorcoffee'It ,', ,,,rr-uliy advisable to accept even if you are not thirsty' A guest should ,r':rir for the host to indicate that it is permissible to drink.What might , ;ilrso pragmatic failure in this category is that when Indonesian people rr,rvcl abroad where this kind of tradition does not occur-In Indonesian r uslorn, guests do not need to bring some food or drink rvhen they are urvi(ccl to have a patt!, for example.
Another example of paralinguistic aspect is the use of hands rvhen rrvrrlg or handing something to someone else' Most people already know rti;rt llrc left hand is considered "unclean" in many countries' That is also trut.irrlndonesia.It is considered impolite to hand anything to another t,, r:,on using the left hand.Some people from other country may not have rlrr:, kirrrl Of "rule" that when they hand something to anotheq they do not ,,ili,t)l whcther using the left or right hand.For Indonesian people who .il(.rr()t awarc of cross-cultural differences may judge that this action is \''ry nr(l(: that may cause offence and pain' 'llrcn: itrc a few diffcrences in the use of hands and feet for r',lrr :rlin1,, itclit'tns or gctting attention.For example, the proper way to call ,,,nr(.(ln(.islo usc Crnc of thc starrdard fOirnS of addresS Such as Pck, tl,rr, ll[ u|d Mltttk,lrncl ntlkc a scooping tnotion toward you with your l,.rrrrl.lrrrl,,cr.l:rcing tkrwn.C-rtloking thc intlcx linger as is commOn in thc \\,i...t l:, rrot Polilr: in lrttlttttcsilt.Also, wc shtluld l'rc tlbscrvant ol'whcrc rlr,.po:.iliorr our lic(.IixpoSitlg llttl s<llc: ttl'tlrtr slttlcr Cittl bc irnpOlitc as iS i,,,r!rlurl'.willr ottl lixrl to irrtlit'ltlc lttt ttltjt't:l' Finally, outsiders of Indonesia should keep in mind the important of status in Indonesian society.In Indonesia everyone has a status, although the status is sometimes situational.For example, a low-level employee in one office may have very high status in his home community, either through leadership ability or rerigious training.peopre have to try to understand the different situations arisen day to day u.iiuiti", and have to modify their personal behaviors to meet those situations appropriately.

GLISH AS A FOREIGN I.ANGUAGE
Politeness phenomena, as a part of pragmatics seem to have some implications in language teaching and learning, especially in the teaching of English as a foreign language.Thomas (19g3),uio ttui comrnunicative grammar of Engrish may have spilred over into pragmatics but the judgement of appropriateness can ever be spelt oui ,,irn"i"ntry to be incoqporated in textbooks.Therefore, Thomas suggests that it wourd be benefit to the learners if teachers try to mate e*pilit the type of choice which underlie pragmatic decision making to prevent pragmatic failure.she also proposes that teachers should develop a student's tetapragmatic ability, that is the ability of student to analyzi language use in conscious manner by discussing language use in the light of pragmatic parameters.
However, before the teachers are abre to devetop the students, metapragmatic ability, they have to know what is actually pragmatics.In this case Bardovi-Harlig (1992) observes the need to introauJe teachers to pragmatics.she points out three reasons why the introduction of pragmatics is important.First, language leamers frequently lack pragmatic competence, even at advanced rever ofproficiency.Second, teacher must be prepared to meet the need of students to acquire the pragmatics of the target language.The last reason is that textbooks olt"n inu""urately portray language use.Among these three reasons, the last reason has intrigued me whether English textbooks used in Indonesia has reflected the writer's pragmatic competence, whether those textbooks realry inac- curately portray language use, especiaily the use of language to convey politeness.
For the purpose of this anarysis, I incrude four dialogues as corpus.The analysis will provide information of how non nati-vc speakers of English present utterances in the diarogucs antr lr,w :r rrrrlivc spcaker reacts to the utter:rnccs, whcthcr rhcy rrrc :rl)l)11)l)ri;rrr.r.r ;r 'rrrticrrl:rr Aridah, Politeness Phenomena As a Source Of Pragmatic Failure In ..' 163 ,.rtrlrtign or not.For this purpose, I showed the dialogues to a native .;it':rkcr of English and the following are how he react to the dialogues ,r,r,l tlre speech act used in each dialogue.Wait here.I'll bonow a pump for you.
Oh thanks.
I{ere you are.IlolC it.t,et me pump' Stop.It's enough.You seem to be in a hurry, Tom.
Yes, I am going to pick Anik up.I've promised to take her to the film this evening.
Well, well, well.What a nice evening it'll be.
it,, rr..r.ol tlirect speech indicates a close relationship between the two 1,, rl Ir:,.Accorcling to Michel, the native speaker I consulted, this ,t ,i,1,rrr.lrls used appropriate language in an apprOpriate Situation.
t you ride Your bike, Tom?Its front tire is flat.
Fraser found l*b TEFLIN Joumal, Volume XII Number 2, August Z00l Politeness Phenomena As a Source Of Pragmatic Failure In ...1t7 renegotiate a conversational contract.It means that the two parties may readjust what rights and obligations they hold towards each other.