Managing Face: A Pragmatic Analysis of Political Interview Discourse in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v7i2.483-510Keywords:
facework, politeness, political interview, politeness strategyAbstract
This study aims to analyze the facework strategies used by Indonesian political actors in public interviews to maintain their self-image and mitigate accountability in front of the public. Using a pragmatic approach with Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory framework and Goffman's (1967) face theory, this study analyzed transcripts of the political talk show Mata Najwa, September 2023 edition, featuring Anies Baswedan (ABW) and Muhaimin Iskandar (MI). The analysis results showed that the three main strategies, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record politeness, were used selectively and contextually in responding to sensitive, confrontational, or ideological questions. Positive politeness was widely used to build solidarity and shared values, negative politeness to show caution and avoid direct responsibility, and off-record politeness to convey messages implicitly through metaphors, humor, and religious symbolism. Theoretically, these findings expand the development of politeness theory by incorporating dimensions of religiosity, hierarchy, and collective orientation that are unique to the political context of Southeast Asia. Empirically, this study shows that facework strategies function not only as linguistic tools but also as means of ideological and cultural framing in the Indonesian public discourse space.
References
Bayley, P. (2004). Introduction: the whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In Applied Linguistics (Vol. 26, Issue 3, pp. 1–44). https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
Bintangtricahya, E., Hartono, R., & Saleh, M. (2023). Positive politeness strategies performed by international guest speakers in Mata Najwa exclusive interview. English Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v13i3.72815
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. In Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587263
Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Vis, B. (2019). Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs concepts: A meta-analysis. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.5
Bull, P. (2015). Follow-ups in broadcast political discourse: speeches, interviews, and parliamentary questions. In E. Weizman & A. Fetzer (Eds.), Follow-ups in political discourse: explorations across contexts and discourse domains (Vol. 60, pp. 3–24). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60
Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. In Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale (Vol. 23, Issues 2–3).
Charteris-Black, J. (2013). Analysing political speeches: rhetoric, discourse, and metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cheng, W., & Zhang, M. (2020). Indirectness and facework in Chinese political discourse: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Pragmatics, 30(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18067.che
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. In Routledge. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0117
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
Fetzer, A. (2006). “Minister, we will see how the public judges you.” Media references in political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Anchor Books.
Harrington, L. (2019). Facework and (im)politeness in professional communication: An analysis of debt collection encounters [University of Huddersfield]. https://consensus.app/papers/facework-and-impoliteness-in-professional-communication-harrington/515978989cd75f35af46fd7fffdae915/?utm_source=chatgpt
Haryanto, H., Indriani, N., Safar, M., Fansiska, F. W., & Dewi, D. U. (2024). The use of politeness strategy and the influence factors in political talk show. Surakarta English and Literature Journal, 7(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.52429/selju.v7i1.214
Heyvaert, P., Randour, F., Dodeigne, J., Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2020). Metaphors in political communication. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17057.hey
Hinton, M., & Budzyńska-daca, A. (2019). A comparative study of political communication in televised pre-election debates in Poland and the United States of America. Research in Language, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2019-0002
Ilie, C. (2018). Pragmatics vs rhetoric: Political discourse at the pragmatics-rhetoric interface. In C. Ilie & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces (pp. 85–119). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.05ili
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. In Understanding Politeness (Vol. 9781107031). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717
Kurnia, S. S., Kartikawangi, D., & Satriani, A. (2024). Islamic communication in Asia has a distinctive colour, style, and practice. Asian Journal of Communication, 34(3), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2024.2346382
Lauerbach, G. (2006). Discourse representation in political interviews: The construction of identities and relations through voicing and ventriloquizing. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.015
Liang, M. (2021). Constructing collective identity through political discourse: A pragmatic analysis of solidarity strategies in Chinese official press conferences. Discourse & Society, 32(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520968022
Lyashuk, A. (2024). Facework display of a political leader: Linguo-rhetoric approach (The case study of Julia Gillard’s speech on misogyny). Forum for Linguistic Studies. https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i1.1996
Macaulay, M. (2017). The question of politeness in political interviews. Pragmatics, 27(4), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.4.03mac
Mammadov, A., & Agamaliyeva, J. (2023). Pragmatic function of ellipsis in political interview. Forum Lingwistyczne, 11.2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.31261/fl.2023.11.2.07
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–486. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6
Musloff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: discourse and scenarios. Bloomsburry Academic.
Pan, Y. (2012). Facework in refusals in Chinese survey interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR-2012-0004
Purwitarini, D. (2020). Polite strategies in interview videos of Asian Boss and Bondo Wani. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 6(2), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.26740/JPI.V6N2.P42-54
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Redington, M. (2022). Language as a dynamic tool for coordination in political interviews. Language & Communication, 85, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.03.004
Rezkian, S. H. P., & Simatupang, E. (2024). Face threatening-acts in Indonesia fourth vice presidential candidate election debate (2024): Pragmatics study. Jurnal Onoma: Pendidikan, Bahasa, Dan Sastra. https://doi.org/10.30605/onoma.v10i3.4057
Schäfer, S. (2024). Political homophobia: the rise of anti-queer rhetoric in Indonesia and Turkey. Journal of Language and Politics, 23(6), 808–830. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22050.sch
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Introduction. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: culture, communication, and politeness theory (pp. 1–8). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In Theorizing about intercultural communication. (pp. 211–233). Sage Publications Ltd.
Tracy, K. (2017). Facework and (im)politeness in political exchanges BT - The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (eds.); pp. 739–758). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_28
van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Ideology and discourse: a multidisciplinary introduction. In SAGE Publication. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n18
Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: what right-wing populist discourses mean. In SAGE PublicationOpen Medicine. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487574635-009
Yafi, M. A., & Maris, D. (2025). Politeness in Political Interviews : A Pragmatic Analysis of Indonesian Presidential Candidates ’ Answers to Critical Questions. Proceeding International Conference on Economy, Education, Technology, and Environment, 3(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36728/iceete.v3i1.225
Yap, F. H. (2016). Face-giving (bagi muka) and face-protecting (jaga muka) through metaphors: Analysis of verbal indirectness strategies and politeness in political discourse. PRASASTI: Journal of Linguistics, 1, 6–28. https://doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.1436
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mohammad Ali Yafi, Dewi Maris
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS RESEARCH agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
