INTERPERSONAL RHETORIC: CONSTRAINT BETWEEN … · an interview of Malcolm Turnbull which is hosted...

INTERPERSONAL RHETORIC: CONSTRAINT BETWEEN

COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND POLITENESS PRINCIPLE

IN MALCOLM TURNBULL INTERVIEW WITH DAVID SPEERS

IN SKY NEWS SEPTEMBER, 23th

2015 EDITION

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One (S1)

ROHMATULLAH UMAR

NIM. 109026000134

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY “SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH”

JAKARTA

2016

i

ABSTRACT

Rohmatullah Umar, Interpersonal Rhetoric: Constraint between Cooperative

Principle and Politeness Principle in Malcolm Turnbull Interview with David

Speers in Sky News September, 23th

2015 Edition. Thesis: English Letters

Department, Letters and Humanities Faculty, Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta State

Islamic University, 2016.

The research of Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP) and Politeness, in any

forms, has progressively increased in the great numbers. However, most of the

researches are partial, either just on the cooperative or just on the politeness. It is

only few researches that combine both theories. Instead, this is purposely aimed to

conduct on both.

This research is on Leech’s Interpersonal Rhetoric (IR) framework and

uses an interview of Malcolm Turnbull which is hosted by David Speers in Sky

News as the corpus. The focus of this research is to analyse how the theory of IR

and the constraints of conversational principles work in real utterances, Malcolm

Turnbull’s utterances.

The Interpersonal Rhetoric (IR) theory conceived by three components:

Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP) and Politeness Principles (PP) as the primary

stanchion and Irony Principle (IP) as the second-order principle, as to why it is not

to be a point in this research. The CP is used to explain the relation between sense

and force and delineates how ideally an effective and an efficient way to

communicate; while the PP is used to explain why such indirectness occurs in

Malcolm Turnbull’s utterances. Interaction of maxims between both principles

enables some non-observances to maxims of the CP in which they are constrained

by Malcolm Turnbull’s observance to particular maxims of the PP.

Based on the research findings, the writer finds 6 non-observances maxims

to the CP in which most of Malcolm’s non-observances seem often to use indirect

expressions by which to keep polite either to the hearer or to the third person. This

research uses qualitative method.

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my

knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by

another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the

award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher

learning, except where due acknowledgment has been made in the text.

Jakarta, Mei 2016

Rohmatullah Umar

vi

Nurdi Cungkring, Asep, Gorby, Bisri, Suyuti Risol, Mega and the gang,

Emil and the gang and any other names that have not been mentioned.

5. Student Executive Board of English Letters and Ex President Kang Bed,

Bang Iir, and Ex Ketum Deden. Thank you to unite us in “The Everlasting

Brotherhood”. Also to all friends 2009 English Letters.

6. All friends of HMI, a place where all the sacred things are questioned.

Thanks for the brotherhood in intellectual and emotional.

7. Big thanks to BUMN Angkasa Pura II, the scholarship is really meant and

helpfull to me. Hope, this scholarship will continue to other students of

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

8. Thanks to Mr. Utob Thabrani, the first ‘kiyai’ of Mahad UIN Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta. Also, All friends in Mahad UIN Syarif Hidayatullah

Jakarta, a wonderful experience in togetherness.

9. Kak Amel and Bang Adrian and all of officers in the Student board Affair.

10. The last, All Friends of Madura: Komandan Wasil, Faiq, Holil, Habib,

Ali, etc. Also, to all people who are meritorious but are not mentioned.

May Allah always protect them all. Finally, I realize the thesis is far from

perfection. Therefore, I am sincerely open to critics and suggestions from

everyone who will contribute to make this paper better.

Jakarta, Mei 2016

Rohmatullah Umar

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ i

APPROVEMENT ................................................................................................. ii

LEGALIZATION ................................................................................................ iii

DECLARATION .................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ....................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1

A. Background of the Study ................................................ 1

B. Focus of the Study .......................................................... 6

C. Research Question .......................................................... 7

D. Significance of the Study ............................................... 7

E. Methodology of the Research ....................................... 8

1. Method of the Research ..................................... 8

2. Objective of the Research ................................. 8

3. Technique of the Data Collecting and Data

Analysis .............................................................. 8

4. Unit of Analysis ................................................. 9

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................. 10

A. Previous Research ........................................................ 10

B. Theory .......................................................................... 14

B.1 Interpersonal Rhetoric (IR).............................. 14

B.1.1 Cooperative Principle (CP)............... 21

viii

B.1.2 Politeness Principle (PP) .................. 24

C. Aspects of Situation ....................................................... 27

D. Malcolm Turnbull in Sky News ................................... 28

CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................. 30

A. Data Description........................................................... 30

B. Data Analysis ............................................................... 33

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ........................... 41

A. Conclusion ................................................................... 41

B. Suggestion .................................................................... 42

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 43

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 46

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Language in simplest is a set of signals by which people communicate.1 It

infiltrates to people activities before breakfast, and they may not be able to avoid

themselves from speech again until the last good night has been said.2 It indicates

that language is socially bound up with people‟s life and has been one of the most

progressive medium to communicate. In linguistics, an ideal communication are

expected to observe Grice‟s Cooperative Principle. According to Huang, this

principle determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency

and effectively to achieve rational interaction in communication and it has been

categorized into four basic maxims i.e quality, quantity, relation, and manner.3

Consequently, in term of achieving that purpose, observing these four maxims in

language use is such an obligatory.

However, According to Mei, these Grice‟s four maxims and the associated

principle of cooperation have been under attack almost from the beginning.4 The

attacks come up in various notions either just to strike it down or to offer a

solution along with the critiques. Leech, a pragmaticist who concerns with the

second view, criticises this principle on its incapability to explain complexities of

utterance. He exemplifies it in case of „indirectness‟ in which, intrinsically, people

1 Loreto Todd. 1987. Introduction to Linguistics. (Singapore: Longman Singapore

Publishers Pte Ltd.) p. 6 2 W. Peter Robinson. 2003. Language in Social World. (USA: Blackwell Publishing) p. 1

3 Yan Huang. 2007. Pragmatics. (USA: Oxford University Press) p. 25

4 Jacob L Mei. 2001. Pragmatics: an Introduction, Second Edition. (USA: Blackwell

Publishing) p. 82

2

engage in a conversation need to cooperate, but conversational „constraints‟,5 like

„to be polite‟ normally observed by participants, restrict the speaker to observe the

cooperative maxims.

According to him, the cooperative principle is important to relate between

sense and force as being used to solve puzzles arising in a truth-based approach to

semantics, but he underlines that it is still inadequate to explain problems such

why people are often indirect to convey what they mean and what is the relation

between sense and force in non-declarative types of sentence.6 This, linguistically,

seems urgent to explain in order to avoid quandary. Therefore, Leech proposes his

concept i.e. the politeness principle to cover what could not be handled inside the

cooperative principle as it is integrally studied in his Interpersonal Rhetoric in

which the relation of these two are necessary and complementary each other.7

In the interpersonal rhetoric which this term is assumed to involve at least

two persons i.e. speaker and hearer, the cooperative principle is no longer capable

explaining utterances that they semantically do not match between the form and

the modus or called as indirect form. Finch mentions some reasons could be taken

in the act of communication such as requesting, informing, ordering, promising,

and reprimanding by which all these cases are used to perform direct speech act,

but he asserts the problem is to determine what those act might be. As an example,

5 „Constraint‟ is Leech‟s term to describe speaker‟s restriction in achieving his aims

imposed by principles and maxims of „good communicative behaviour‟ as it is mentioned in his

thesis „communication as problem-solving‟ viewed in a rhetorical approach to pragmatics by

incorporating three familiar conversational principles: Cooperative Principle, Politeness Principle,

and Irony Principle (further those principles are framed in „Interpersonal Rhetoric‟), in Geoffrey

Leech. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. (London: Longman) pp. x-xi 6 Ibid, p. 80

7 Derek Bousfield. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. (Amsterdam: John Benjamin

Publishing Company) p. 47

3

he gives a parable if people says, it‟s cold in here, it is presumably performing an

informing or announcing act, but it may also be doing other thing such as indirect

asking to others to close the window, or perhaps complaining because someone

has turned off the heating, or indeed both.8 It is such problematic relation between

meaning and form where a declarative form is functionally used to convey or to

imply another modus by indirect way.

Indirectness, which is a weakness for the cooperative maxims to explain, is

a domain of politeness as Reiter clarifies that “indirectness is one of central issue

in politeness theory”.9 Thomas, quoted by Deeyu, states that “indirectness refers

to a speech act in which the expressed meaning of an utterance does not match the

speaker‟s implied or intended meaning. An indirect illocutionary act requires the

speaker‟s and the listener‟s shared background information and the ability to make

inferences on the listener‟s part. Indirectness is a universal phenomenon as it is

believed to occur in all natural languages”.10

Leech clarifies that pragmatic paradigm so far has mostly been influenced

by two linguistic courses ( i.e. Austin and Searle in the view of a meaning in terms

of illocutionary force and Grice‟s view of meaning in terms of conversational

implicature).11

That means this interpersonal rhetoric is not only about an across

boundary between Grice‟s cooperative maxims and Leech‟s maxims of politeness

8 Geoffrey Finch. 2003. How to Study Linguistics: A Guide to Understanding Language,

Second Edition. (Great Britain: Palgrave Mcmillan) p. 35 9 Rosina Marquez Reiter. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A

Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. (Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company)

p. 41 10

Deeyu Srinarawat. 2005. Indirectness as A Politeness Strategy of Thai Speakers in

Robin T. Lakoff and Sachiko Ide, Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. (Amsterdam:

John Benjamin Publishing Company) p. 175 11

Geoffrey Leech, Op.Cit., p. x

4

being concurrently bounded in a scope, but further this is also the involvement of

their approach (i.e implicature to cooperative principle and indirectness through

speech act to politeness).

To be clearer, the following is one of examples to describe the weakness

of Grice‟s cooperative maxims and the importance of Leech‟s politeness principle

in explaining indirectness.12

A: We‟ll all miss Bill and Agatha, won‟t we?

B: Well, we‟ll all miss BILL.

“When A asks B to confirm A‟s opinion, B merely confirms part of

it, and pointedly ignores the rest. From this we derive an implicature: „S is

of the opinion that we will not miss Agatha.‟ But on what grounds is this

implicature arrived at? Not solely on basis of the CP, for B could have

added „. . . . . but not Agatha‟ without being untruthful, irrelevant, or

unclear. Our conclusion is that B could have been more informative, but

only at the cost of being more impolite to a third party: that B therefore

suppressed the desired information in order to uphold the PP”.

The example above in detail has showed how one maxim constrains to one

another between both principles. Further, based on the generalisable evidence in

illocutionary view, B‟s utterance, which in semantics is declarative form, is not

only to perform an informing act that „B just misses Bill‟, but it is also based on

implicature has been explained by Leech that B‟s utterance, in politeness view, is

to perform an indirect illocutionary force i.e. „B does not miss Agatha‟. B‟s non-

observance to the cooperative‟s maxims has been motivated by B‟s observance to

the politeness‟s maxims, tact maxim. This maxim says „minimize cost to others‟

indirectly has saved B from an offence act to A (as the second side) and Agatha

(as the third side) by evading Agatha from blatant cost of B‟s utterance by not

12

Ibid, pp. 80-81

5

mentioning explicitly... „but not Agatha‟. It means in the same time this maxim

has „maximized benefit to others‟ i.e. Agatha. Simply, in this case the tact maxim

of Leech‟s Politeness has constrained B to observe cooperative‟s maxims in which

it saves the cooperative from its inability to explain why B uses indirect way to

convey what B means.

Indeed, this approach is different from linguists, who just overthrow the

cooperative principle with no improvement such as, Green, in Mei, criticises the

unequal value of the cooperative maxims and hesitancy of necessity to have all the

maxims around,13

and Thomas in Bousfield judges the term of cooperation as an

ambiguous and misleading term in case of speaker‟s uncooperative behaviour,14

Leech‟s „complementary‟ in this interpersonal rhetoric seems theoretically more

reliable to be a groundwork.

Furthermore, besides the cooperative principle‟s weakness in reasoning

indirectness and non-declarative sentence above, explanation of the constraints

between both in the interpersonal rhetoric framework is also necessary based on

other fundamental motives: (a) many thesis researches which, in the writer‟s

assumption, tendentiously have partial approach either just on the principle of the

cooperative or just on the politeness. This can be proved on the rare researches of

thesis and linguistics literary, at least, in the library of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah

Jakarta itself, that seriously focuses on this Interpersonal Rhetoric issue; (b) many

other linguists who argue that ideally both are interrelated and supposed to be

13

Jacob L Mei, Loc.Cit. 14

Derek Bousfield, Op.Cit., p. 25

6

complementary for more comprehensive understanding as such as the constraint

explanation is only understandable when they are together.

In a nutshell, this research is about non-observance maxims of cooperative

principle being constrained by politeness maxims that emerge in indirect form. It

is approached by „implicature and illocutionary act‟ being inferred as „implicature

functions to explain how and what cooperative‟s maxims are not observed by the

speaker; the politeness principle, through indirect illocutionary act, functions to

reason, based on the contextual evidence, why the speaker does not observe those

maxims‟. Both the cooperative and the politeness should work together to

interpret the meaning of utterances in order the process of how their maxims

interact and conflict, or even constrain each other affecting the speaker to sacrifice

one of them is clearly unveiled as this approach has been showed by Leech.

Based on the description above, the writer thinks analyzing conversational

implicature that emerge from non-observance maxims of Grice‟s cooperative

being constrained by Leech‟s politeness principle in the interpersonal rhetoric

framework has a strong postulate to do. For this case, the writer would like to

analyse some utterances that have been performed by today Prime Minister of

Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, in his interview With David Speers in Sky News,

September, 23th

2015 Edition, which the writer finds examples of this issue and

seems suitable to be a corpus of the research.

B. Focus of the Study

This research is on pragmatic analysis. It is intentionally focused on the

conversational implicature of Grice‟s non-observance maxims being constrained

7

by politeness maxims as in the framework of Leech‟s Interpersonal Rhetoric. The

object of research is the video and its transcript of Malcolm Turnbull interview

With David Speers officially publicated in Sky News, September, 23th

2015

Edition.

C. Research Question

Based on the background of study above, some related questions have

been formulated as:

1. What kinds of cooperative maxims are non-observed by Malcolm Turnbull

in his interview with David Speers in the Sky News, September, 23th

2015

Edition?

2. What kinds of politeness maxims constrain Malcolm Turnbull in his

interview with David Speers in the Sky News, September, 23th

2015

Edition?

3. Why do constraints between the cooperative and politeness maxims in

Malcolm Turnbull‟s utterances in his interview with David Speers in the

Sky News, September, 23th

2015 Edition occour?

D. Significance of the Research

The writer hopes this study could give the reader more comprehension

about interpersonal rhetoric maxims especially about the interrelation between the

cooperative maxims and the politeness maxims in a conversation. Furthermore,

the writer wishes, in a practice domain, the reader could apply the theory in other

kinds of research to enrich pragmatics literary.

8

E. Methodology of the Research

This research methodology includes some aspects of the research such as:

1. Method of the Research

This research is a qualitative method. According to Trask and

Stockwell, qualitative research is a research that employs observation,

textual analysis, interview, and the recording and transcribing of speech.15

2. Objective of the Research

The objectives in this research are about:

1. To find out what the Cooperative Maxims are non-obersved by

Malcolm Turnbull.

2. To find out what the Politeness Maxims constrain in Malcolm

Turnbull‟s utterances.

3. To find out why the constraints occur in Malcolm Turnbull‟s

utterances.

3. Technique of the Data Collecting and Data Analysis

In this research, the technique of collecting data uses „bibliography

technique‟ as has been shown by Edi Subroto. Bibliography technique is

collecting data by using written source.16

In this case, the written source is

the transcript of Malcom Turnbull interview with David Speers in Sky

News, September 21st 2015 Edition. It is downloaded a day after

broadcasted from Malcolm Turnbull‟s official link. Further, to analyze the

15

R. L. Trask and Peter Stockwell. 2007. Language and Linguistics: The Key

Concepts. 2nd

Edition, (New York: Routledge) p. 240. 16

D. Edi Subroto. 1992. Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural.

(Surakarta: Sebelas Maret Press) p.42

9

data, I read the transcript, identify and chart the appropriate utterances into

data cards, then analyze and interpret the utterances, and indexing them as

data.

4. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis in this research is the video and its transcript of

Prime Minister of Australia, Malcom Turnbull, in his interview with David

Speers in Sky News, September 21st 2015 Edition.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Previous Research

Interpersonal Rhetoric (henceforth: IR) latterly has been in the researches

of linguistics either in theses or journals forms. Some are selected in the following

review to comparatively investigate and avoid the similarities among their objects,

methods, and theories. The first research was performed by Muhammad Haikal in

the thesis of UNPAD entitled Pelanggaran Retorika Interpersonal di Media

Sosial Facebook (Suatu Kajian Pragmatik). By using the corpus updated in the

Facebook social media, Haikal uses writing technique (tekhnik catat) to collect

some data which then they are approached through descriptive method. The study

is appointed on two points: first, to find violation context of the IR, second, to find

violation types of the IR which occur in the facebook social media.

For the IR itself, Haikal uses Leech‟s framework with three principles i.e.

Cooperative Principle (CP), Politeness Principles (PP), and Irony Principle (IP)

(henceforth they called by their abbreviation i.e. CP, PP, IP). Nevertheless, one to

become a conspicuous distinction is the analysis does not tuck explanations of

„constraints‟ among the maxims of principles as the writer has intentionally

proposes in this study. Haikal analyzes the paper in a general view; it is not in the

specific cause of why a speaker violates a certain maxim like Leech‟s motives of

why those conversational principles are combined in one framework i.e. IR.

Also, a notable point here is the approach of context which is based on

Hymes‟s SPEAKING theory. In the end, Haikal concludes two points: the

10

11

urgency of context to interpret and understand the utterances, and the violation of

maxims in the facebook social media being dominated by male which the majority

occurs to the relevance maxims.17

The second is Ni Wayan Eminda Sari in the postgraduate journal of

UNDIKSHA entitled Analisis Deskriptif Retorika Interpersonal Pragmatik pada

Tuturan Direktif Guru dan Siswa dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia di Kelas

XI SMAN 1 Kediri. Approaching the study by a qualitative descriptive method, the

researcher uses the speech between the teacher and the student as a corpus to

analyze and has purposely noted three points to describe: function, form, and

strategy of delivering pragmatics IR in the directive speech between the teacher

and the students.

In this study, the result of the three points above delineates difference view

between the teacher and the student. Dominant directive function used by the

teacher is to command, ask, allow, and forbid being manifested in the form of the

declarative, imperative, and interogative. Meanwhile, the directive fucntion used

by the student is only to ask question politely that comes in the imperative form.

Here, indirect speech is a part of the explanation to be courteous, but the

researcher does not specifically discuss it in „politeness theory‟.

The strategy of delivering pragmatics IR raises in the direct and indirect

with multi-fucntion as above. Further, although it uses the term IR, the theory and

the analysis in this research are more inclined to Searle‟s and Austin‟s Speech

Act; it has not been approached by conversational principles as Leech‟s IR. The

17

Muhammad Haikal. 2010. Pelanggaran Retorika Interpersonal di Media Sosial

Facebook (Suatu Kajian Pragmatik). (Bandung: Universitas Padjadjaran)

12

researcher states that speech act can be analyzed through rhetoric in which, in the

essence, it is a technique of using language as art, both oral and written, based on

a well structured knowledge, and pragmatics based on its force included

locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. 18

The third, Hussain Hameed Mayuuf in the Rhetorical Pragmatics journal

of advanced social research University of Babylon works through an idea about

rhetoric and its relationship with the dialectics, communication, and pragmatics.

Mayuff, in the same theoretical approach to Haikal earlier, has adopted Leech's

framework of IR, but the principles have been added to be four components: the

Cooperative Principles (CP), Politeness Principles (PP), Irony Principles (IP), and

Banter Principles (BP). The analysis becomes richer by mentioning the textual

rhetoric. As its title, this study has to do with the Rhetoric Pragmatic Strategies,

types of arguments, figures of speech and tropes. In the last part of the study,

Mayuff ends it with strategic maneuvering in argumentation.19

The fourth, Badridduja in the thesis of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah entitled An

Analysis of Implicature in Arthur Bishop‟s utterance in his conversation with

Harry Mc Kenna in The Mechanic movie talks over two points: first, implicature

of Arthur Bishop‟s utterance in his conversation with Harry McKenna, second,

how the process occurs in their conversation. Even though this study is not

specifically appointed to the IR, but there are two acceptable reasons to include

this thesis to the review: (a) it contains one component of the IR principles (i.e.

18

Ni Wayan Eminda Sari. 2012. “Analisis Deskriptif Retorika Interpersonal Pragmatik

pada Tuturan Direktif Guru dan Siswa dalam Pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia di Kelas XI SMAN 1

Kediri”. (Bali: Ganesha University of Education,) 19

Hussain Hameed Mayuff. 2015. “Rhetorical Pragmatics”. (Journal of Advanced Social

Research Vol. 5 No. 5 19-38 University of Babylon)

13

CP), and (b) the study uses Leech‟s Approach of means-ends analysis and

heuristic analysis20

to interprete utterance by which it is also used in the IR. His

work is succesfull to show the complicated implicature process in interpreting the

utterances.

The fifth, Dwi Atmawati in the journal Prinsip Pollyana dalam Wacana

Dakwah (Kajian Pragmatik) presents different approach. This study has used the

sixth components of IR i.e the Pollyana Principles. Cited from Leech, Atmawati

mentions all these six principles of IR: Cooperative Principle, Politeness

Principle, Irony Principle, Banter Principle, Interest Principle, and Pollyana

Principle.21

This study take applies in depth method. The analysis shows that the

preaching discourse has employed pollyana principles. The contents of pollyana

principles are the way to see the life positively and to convey goodness in the

form of story telling.22

A number of differences arise between this research and the five previous

one. This research is intentionally to specify IR in the domain of two principles

i.e. Grice‟s CP and Leech‟s PP with the constraints between their maxims. As

noted, the previous researches above have academically been valid for those have

been taken from theses and journals of the reliable institution. So far, actually

many other linguistics researches related to this tittle. It indicates that this research

is also fundamentally acceptable on linguistics literary. Indeed, it is feasible.

20

Badridduja. 2013. An analysis of Implicature in Arthur Bishop‟s Utterance in His

Conversation with Harry Mc Kenna in The Mechanic Movie. ( Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah) 21

Dwi Atmawati. 2011. “Prinsip Pollyana dalam Wacana Dakwah”, (Semarang: Balai

Bahasa) 22

Ibid

14

B. Theory

B.1 Interpersonal Rhetoric (IR)

Leech has defined Interpersonal Rhetoric through „taxonomy‟ (per-word

classification), not in a specific technical term. That means this term has no a

specific signification. Therefore, for too wide use of this term, the writer would

sequentially classify it from general, communicative, into linguistics definition in

order to have more systematic comprehension. In General, Oxford Advances

Learner‟s Dictionary literally defines it as connected with relationship between

people.23

Pearson et.al make interpersonal more specific in a communication view

which means as a process of coordinating meaning between at least two people in

situation that allows mutual opportunities both speaking and listening,24

by which

the primary goal of this interpersonal communication is to develop, maintain, or

improve relationship. How people interact to others is strongly influenced by

ability to use the skills of communication most closely associated with

conversation: shaping messages, listening and responding, and coping with

conflict.25

Meanwhile, in linguistics Leech defines the term of „interpersonal‟ by a

signification which is taken from one of language functions in Hallyday‟s view

which aims to express “one‟s attitude and an influence upon the attitudes and

behavior of the hearer”.26

23

Joanna Florio and Dilys Parkinson, (ed), Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary,

International Edition, p. 711 24

Judy C Pearson et.al. 2003. Human Communication. (New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies) p. 25 25

Rudolph F. Verderber. 1990. Communicate. (California: Wadsworth Publishing

Company, Inc) p. 17 26

Geoffrey Leech. Op.Cit., p. 56

15

For rhetoric, it has many definitions including its history. Rhetoric literally

appoints to the speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but that is

not completely honest or sincere.27

In the origin, rhetoric has been recognized as a

tool to persuade and closely bound up to democracy in the fifth century BC

Athens.28

Certainly, it has consequently been asked for confusing what its relation

to linguistic study is. One in general view that has been closely to answer this

study in Booth, quoted from Burke, is that rhetoric is rooted in an essential

function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic and continually born

anew: the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings

that by nature respond to symbols.29

The definition has abridged an observation to

an approach of essence where rhetoric is innately in language usage due to the

human communication is always mutually interacting and tendentiously

cooperating. However, the definitions above perhaps could not cover linguistic

definition in specific to this research.

Therefore, In linguistic, Leech delimitates the definition as “the focus it

places on a goal-oriented speech situation, in which s (speaker) uses language in

order to produce a particular effect in the mind of h (hearer)”. He also uses the

term rhetoric as “a countable noun, for a set of conversational principles which are

related by their functions”.30

27

Joanna Florio and Dilys Parkinson, (ed). Op.Cit., p. 1143 28

John E Joseph. 2006. Language and Politics. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Ltd) p. 110 29

Wayne C. Booth. 2004. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest of Effective

Communication. (UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd) p. 8 30

Geoffrey Leech. Op.Cit., p. 15

16

In another book, Leech and Mick Short give an important note why

rhetoric is manifested in conversational principles, as in the following:

“Rhetoric in ordinary language use can be seen as a set of principles or

guidelines for getting things done by means of language. These are not rules of

the kind which define the grammar of a language; rather, they are normative

rules, or rules of good or effective performance, and like all such rules, they can

be broken – indeed, other considerations may make it advisable to break them.

This is natural and unavoidable, since, as we shall see, such rules frequently make

conflicting claims on the language user. They may also be observed with a greater

or lesser degree of success. For these reasons, it will avoid confusion if we call

them not rules, but principles”.31

Further, the explanation of interrelation between rhetoric and principles as

talked above is also affirmed by another Leech‟s statement. In his book

„Principles of Pragmatics‟, Leech has set out the IR by a glance of „General

Pragmatics‟ i.e. a theoretical ground in which Leech has specified it as “an

important aspect for understanding human language as a whole”,32

and outlines

this term under a study of linguistic communication in terms of conversational

principles, and has been limited in the rhetorical model of pragmatics,33

as their

interrelation (principles and rhetorical pragmatics) is inferred in his

„communication as problem-solving‟ thesis, he says:

“But my approach to pragmatics is by way of a thesis that communication

is problem-solving. A speaker, qua communicator, has to solve this

problem:„Given that I want to bring about such-and-such a result in the hearer‟s

consciousness, what is the best way to accomplish this aim by using language?‟

for the hearer, there is another kind of problem to solve: „Given that the speaker

said such-and-such, what did the speaker mean me to understand by that?‟ This

conception of communication, leads a rhetorical approach to pragmatics,

whereby the speaker is seen as trying to achieve his aims within constraints

imposed by principles and maxims of „good communicative behavior‟. In this not

31

Geoffrey Leech and Mick Short. 2007. Style in Fiction A Linguistic Introduction to

English Fictional Prose, Second Edition. (UK: Pearson Education Limited) p.169 32

Geoffrey Leech, Op.Cit. p.1 33

Ibid, p. 11

17

only Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, but other principles such as those of

Politeness and Irony play an important role”.34

Through these three principles: CP, PP, and IP, Leech afterward compiles

a framework called IR, as in figure 2.1 adopted below, but he says the taxonomic

lay-out of this figure is merely a way of sketching out in which it is not meant to

be definitive.35

Consequently, this IR is having no technical definition; taxonomic

way is seemingly preferred to provide the definition as done by Leech earlier.

Maxim of Quantity (sub-

maxims)

Cooperative Maxim of Quality ……

Principle (CP) ……

Maxim of Relation ……

……

Maxim of Manner ……

……

Maxim of Tact …....

Interpersonal Politeness Maxim of Generosity …....

Rhetoric Principle (PP)

Maxim of Approbation …..

Maxim of Modesty …....

………

Irony Principle (IP) ………

……...

……………

Figure 2.1: The diagram of Leech‟s Interpersonal Rhetoric

In the IR, Leech states the CP and the PP are important principles due to

they are largely regulative factors which ensure that, once conversation is under

way, it will not follow a fruitless or disruptive path.36

Quoted from Leech, Reiter

comments that in a communication, both interact with each other; the CP and its

34

Ibid, pp. x-xi 35

Ibid, p. 16 36

Ibid, p. 17

18

maxims are used to explain how an utterance may be interpreted to convey

indirect messages; meanwhile, the PP and its maxims are used to explain why

such indirectness might be used. Leech, like Lakoff, says these two principles can

conflict which are possibly affecting the speaker to sacrifice one of them.37

This

affirms that in this view Leech is not only a pioneer, but he also has contributed to

development of linguistics by taking non-traditional approach without abnegating

his predecessor.

Further, another linguist Derek Bousfield has also cited from Leech. He

emphasizes a point that both the CP and the PP are two primary stanchions being

complementary in which the CP supports the bridge of communication and the PP

has been subdivided into six maxims and renamed as „constraint‟. According to

him, Leech sees the PP as rescuing the CP in that where the CP explains how

people create implicatures in a communication by deviating from or transgressing

a tacitly expected norm, the PP explains why people deviate from communicating

completely in accordance with that norm (i.e. Grice‟s CP).38

Otherwise, the IP is

viewed as second-order principle39

that is why the IP is not to be a point to discuss

in this research. The constraints could be in form as the following:40

a. Principles/ maxims apply variably to different contexts of language use.

b. Principles/ maxims apply variable degrees, rather than in an all-or-nothing

way.

c. Principles/ maxims can conflict with one another.

37

Rosina Marquez Reiter. Op.Cit., p. 9 38

Derek Bousfield. Loc.Cit 39

Geoffrey Leech. Op.Cit,. p. 82 40

Ibid, p. 8

19

d. Principles/ maxims can be contravened without abnegation of the kind of

activity which they control.

To be clearer, let us see Leech‟s example of indirectness where the PP rescues

the CP from serious trouble. As the following:41

P: Someone‟s eaten the icing of the cake.

C: it wasn‟t me.

The example above is typically an exchange conversation between parent

(P) and child (C). It seems an apparent irrelevance in C‟s answer. C reacts like he

has to avoid a crime in question eventhough it is not found an indirect accusation

in P‟ utterance that C has done it. This kind of C‟s non-observance to relevance

maxim is actually could be predicted as: if P does not know who eats the icing of

the cake but P suspects that it is C and because P, in the same time, wants to be

polite, P does not say an a direct accusation. Instead, P takes a less informative but

true assertion in the utterance. P substitutes second personal pronoun you with an

impersonal pronoun someone. It remarks such an indirect accusation. When C

hears the assertion, C responds to it as having implicated that he may be guilty.

Denying an offence which has not been overtly imputed. The irrelevance of C is

motivated by implicature in P‟s utterance i.e. an indirect implicature motivated by

politeness rather than to what is actually said. Underlining P‟s utterance as such as

contextual evidence above, it is important to note that P (probably, but it is still

stronger assumption of observation) takes an indirect way to perform an indirect

41

Ibid, pp. 80-81

20

illocutionary force i.e. using declarative type of proposition to be functioned as

indirect accusation for a politeness consideration.

In fact, this complementary function of both like above is inseparable due

to the embryo of the PP‟s existence has been originated from the CP. Reiter says

that Grice‟s principle and his maxims on conversation have been used as an

approach of the effective exchanging information in which its formulation has

become a basis reference to build PP in order to explain linguistic phenomena that

could not be explained by the CP.42

Further, another linguists, Susanne and

Bettina Migge also strengthen the perception above by their statement on the CP

and the PP relation as in the following:

“Austin‟s (1962) and Searle‟s (1970, 1972) speech act theory as well as

Grice‟s work on conversational implicatures provided the first theoretical ground

for the exploration of linguistic politeness in the 1960s and ‟70s. Some of the

early models of politeness were thus expansions of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle

(CP) (Lakoff 1973b), or took CP as a starting point for a model of general

pragmatics (Leech 1983) which would then include a Politeness Principle (PP)

with six or more maxims (Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement

and Sympathy)”.43

As a theoretical postulate, issue of mutual interrelation between the CP

and the PP as in Leech view, basically Lakoff was in advance that has offered her

concept of necessity to complement Grice‟s framework with a politeness principle

called „Logic of Politeness‟ under two competences. They are „Be clear‟, which is

corresponding to Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, and „Be polite‟ which politeness

is usually given priority in conversation, since it is more important to avoid

offence than to achieve clarity. The similarity between Leech and Lakoff are both

42

Rosina Marquez Reiter. Op.Cit., p.6 43

Bettina Migge and Susanne Muhleisen. 2005. “Politeness and Face in Caribbean

Creoles: An Overview” in Susanne Muhleisen and Bettina Migge (ed), Politeness and Face in

Caribbean Creoles. (Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company) p.7

21

regard that the PP has higher regulative role than the CP.44

Latter, the study of

relation between the CP and the PP is also analogously to what Keith Allan says,

in Rahardi, that “being cooperative is being polite”.45

In this way, also Kushartanti

comments that politeness is one of certain conditions allowing a social interaction

well intertwined in which indirectness is another form of expressing politeness.46

It deeply means that conveying messages by utterance should ideally be

performed in a proper stage, relevant, and controlled way, for non-observance of

this is closer to be uncooperative in which finally it is inclined to be impolite.

Based on the explanations above, the concept of the IR is apparently clear

enough to construct a view that the IR is a set of conversational principles which

drives to deviate if it is partial. The main focus is on the formula of how the CP

and the PP then interacted; it means that interaction between them either on

conflict or saving each other apparently are just a side of view called

complementary where that is the constraints analysis for. In the analyses, the

conversational maxims would be together in interpreting utterances. The

reasoning of how speaker expresses utterances cooperatively and politely would

be founded by applying maxims of the CP and the PP.

B. 1.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle

In his theory of conversational implicature, Grice makes a principle

with some maxims called cooperative principle. According to Levinson,

44

Eva Ogierman. 2009. On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness.

(Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing company) p. 10 45

Kunjana Rahardi. 2006. Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. (Jakarta:

Erlangga) p. 52 46

Kushartanti. 2005. Pragmatik in Kushartanti, et al., Pesona Bahasa. (Jakarta: PT.

Gramedia Pustaka Utama) p. 105

22

these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a

maximally efficient, rational, cooperative way: people should speak

sincerely, relevantly, and clearly, while providing sufficient information.47

Grice clarifies that in everyday communication speakers violate the

maxims; opt out of them, find themselves facing a clash between two

maxims, and occasionally even blatantly flout them. The intentional non-

observance of the maxims, in particular, is its central point in which the

meaning is approached by conversational implicatures.48

Implicature is a

component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant

in speaker‟s utterance without being a part of what is said.49

In another words, quoted from Sperber and Wilson, Nadar explains

that a success communications is not at the time when hearer knows the

linguistics meaning of speaker‟s utterance, but at the time when the hearer

can catch the speaker‟s mean truthfully by his utterance.50

To be clearer,

the following is example of implicature

A: Am I in time for supper?

B: I've cleared the table.

Here it is obviously B's intention to convey the proposition that A

is too late for supper, but this has to be worked out by the hearer.51

The implicature appears as non-observance of speaker to Grice‟s

CP. Grice, quoted by Wijana, proposes that in performing the CP, the

47

Stepen C. Levinson. 1983. Pragmatics. (UK: Cambridge University Press) p. 102 48

Eva Ogierman. Op.Cit., p.8 49

Laurence R Horn, 2006. “Implicature” in Laurence R Horn and Gregory Ward, The

Handbook of Pragmatics (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd), p.3 50

F.X. Nadar. 2009. Pragmatik & Penelitian Pragmatik. (Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu) p. 26 51

D. Alan Cruise, 2000. Meaning in language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. (New York: Oxford University Press) p. 349

23

speaker should follow these four maxims: quantity, quality, relevance, and

manner.52

In the original quote, Grice explain his CP as follows: Make

your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the

accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are

engaged.53

1. Quantity: - Make your contribution as informative as is

required (for the current purpose of the exchange).

- Do not make your contribution more

informative than is required.

2. Quality: - Do not say what you believe to be false.

- Do not say that for which lack adequate

evidence.

3. Relation: - Be relevant.

4. Manner: - Avoid obscurity of expression.

- Avoid ambiguity.

- Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) and

orderly.

1. Quantity: If you are assisting me to mend a car, I expect your

contribution to be neither more nor less than is required; if, for

example, at particular stage I need four screws, I expect you to

hand me four, rather than two or six.

52

I Dewa Putu Wijana. 1996. Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. (Yogyakarta: Andi) p. 46 53

Paul Grice. 1995. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Harvard University Press)

pp. 26-27

24

2. Quality: I expect your contribution to be genuine and not spurious.

If I need sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are assisting me to

make, I do not expect you to hand me a salt; if I need a spoon, I do

not expect a trick spoon made of rubber.

3. Relation: I expect partner‟s contribution to be appropriate to

immediate needs at each stage of transaction; if I am mixing

ingredients for cake, I do not expect to be handed a good book, or

even an oven cloth (though this might be an appropriate

contribution at a later stage).

4. Manner: I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is

making, and execute his performance with reasonable dispatch.

B. 1.2 Leech’s Politeness Principle

Politeness as a linguistic theory was first systematized by

Brown and Levinson. Extending ideas from scholars like Grice the

authors carried out a comparative study of the way in which speakers

of three unrelated languages, English, Tamil and Tzeltal, departed

from the observance of the conversational maxims for motives of

politeness.54

The English term „polite‟ dates back to the fifteenth

century and etymologically derives from Late Medieval Latin politus

meaning „smoothed‟, „accomplished‟. Thus „polite‟ was usually

54

Rosina Marquez Reiter. Op.Cit., p.11

25

associated with concepts such as „polished‟, „refined‟, and so on when

referring to people.55

Yet, in pragmatics, politeness does not mean some social rules

practiced in the society like letting the others go forward first when

walking through the door and cleaning the mouth after dinner with

serviette. But it means choices made in language usage and in

language expressions which show friendliness to the hearers.56

Meanwhile, Yule defines politeness, in interaction, as the means

employed to show awareness of another person‟s face which could be

accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness.57

Politeness theories have focused on how communicative

strategies are employed to promote or maintain social harmony in

interaction. On the other hand, little work has been done on

communicative strategies with the opposite orientation, that of

attacking one‟s interlocutor and causing disharmony.58

The purpose of

politeness is the maintenance of harmonious and smooth social

relations in the face of the necessity to convey belittling messages. Of

course, the nature of reality, social, psychological, and physical,

constrains the scope for politeness: if our world is to 'work', we must

respect this reality. We can think of the co-operative principle as a

55

Ibid, p. 1 56

Muh. Sohibusirri. 2011. An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababan‟s

Interview with Barack Obama. (Thesis: English Letters Department, State Islamic University

Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta,) p. 2 57

George Yule. 1996. Pragmatics. (New York: Oxford University Press) p. 60 58

Jonathan Culpeper. 1995. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness” (Lancaster:

Department of Linguistic and Modern English Language, Lancaster University)

26

restraining influence on the politeness principle.59

Meanwhile, the PP

has such various distinctions according to some experts, but to focus

the primary concept is going to be used is Leech‟s theory which is, in

Rahardi, regarded as most the comprehensive maxims in the PP

theory.60

In specific Leech infers his maxims of PP under six points as

follow:61

1) Tact: Minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other.

2) Generosity: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize cost to self.

3) Approbation: Minimize dispraise. Maximize praise of other.

4) Modesty: Minimize praise of self. Minimize dispraise of self.

5) Agreement: Minimize disagreement between self and other.

Maximize agreement between self and other.

6) Sympathy: Minimize antipathy between self and other. Maximize

sympathy between self and other.

Leech cited by Kunjana Rahardi has inferred pragmatic scales

to determine the degree in utterances, as follows:62

1. The „cost/benefit‟ scale: representing the cost or benefit of an act to

speaker and hearer.

2. The „optionality‟ scale: indicating the degree of choice permitted to

speaker and/ or hearer by a specific linguistic act.

59

D. Alan Cruise. Op.Cit, p. 362 60

Kuntjana Rahardi. Op.Cit,. p. 59 61

Geoffrey Leech. Op.Cit,. p. 132 62

Kunjana Rahardi, Op.Cit., p. 66

27

3. The „indirectness‟ scale: indicating the amount of inferencing

required of the hearer in order to establish the intended speaker

meaning.

4. The „authority‟ scale: representing the status relationship between

speaker and hearer.

5. The „social distance‟ scale: indicating the degree of familiarity

between speaker hearer.

C. Aspects of Speech Situation

To have an effective communication, Leech requires some aspects to be

attention as he categorized in five points as follows:63

a. addresser or addressees

For the convenience and as linguistic habit, speaker symbolized as

s and h as hearer (or in writing, in could be writer and reader). A

significant distinction can be made between receiver (a person who

receives and interprets the message) and an addressee (a person who is an

intended receiver of the message). A receiver might be a bystander or an

eavesdropper. Otherwise, an addressee always becomes an intended

message receiver of the speaker‟s utterance and always symbolyzed h.

b. the context of utterance

In the study of how language used in the communication, context

always has important role. The same utterance used in different situation

63

Geoffrey Leech, Op.Cit., pp.13-14

28

and environment possibly affects h‟s interpretation. Leech defines it as the

background knowledge assumed to be shared by s and h which contributes

h‟s interpretation of what s means by a given utterance.

c. the goal(s) of an utterance

The goal of utterance is something that speaker wants to convey or

the meaning that is intended by his utterance.

d. the utterance as a form of act or activity: a speech act

Utterance (in pragmatics) deals with verbal acts or performance

which takes place in particular situation, in time. It is different from

sentence (in syntax) and proposition (in semantics) which are realted to

grammar; utterance is related to pragmatics.

e. the utterance as a product of a verbal act

Sentence refers to grammatical system of language while utterance

refers to sentence-instance which is used in particular situation as the

element by which the meaning is studied in pragmatics.

E. Malcom Turnbull in Sky News

Malcolm Turnbull is 29th

Prime Minister of Australia. He has

controversially been elected after beating Tony Abbot on the ballot of Liberal

party. It becomes controversial due to Malcom was the Communication Minister

in Abbot‟s Cabinet which is in fact they are in the same party. Some people say

that is a revenge for something happened between them years ago; others say that

29

is such as a betrayal. But, the point of this corpus is how Malcolm through his

utterances communicates in the interview.

In this interview, David Speers, as the host, asks some questions which

make Malcolm blatantly violate maxims of the CP. However, Malcolm does it

interestingly in a very polite utterance. He looks like, in such possible reasons, to

be wary of giving offence relating to the third sides. Indirect speeches emerge to

explain why he often avoid to answer directly what David Speers points out to

him.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

In this chapter, the research will discuss two points: data description and

data analysis. The explanation of these two are necessary to examine the theory to

the real utterances in the corpus of the research by meant to have a reliable result.

A. Data Description

The following data are taken from an interview of today Australian Prime

Minister Malcolm Turnbull with Sky News Political Editor, David Speers. It has

officially been published at www.malcolmturnbull.com.au. In this research, there

are six tabulated data in which each datum contains analysis of speaker‟s non-

observance maxims of the CP which is constrained by maxims of the PP. The

obtained data are written in data cards to ease the analysis. Then, those data are

classified based on sequence of utterance in the conversation.

No Data Minute Context

Non-

Observed

CP’s

Maxims

Constrain

t of PP’s

Maxims

1 David: Can you tell us when

did you finally decide to

challenge Tony Abbott and

when did you tell Julie

Bishop and Scott Morrison?

Malcolm: Well I have made

a practise of not talking

about leadership issues

before I was the Leader and

I‟m not going to talk about

them after I‟ve become the

Leader. The decision to

challenge was entirely mine.

But I really, I don‟t want to

00:02-

00:42

David asks

Malcolm to

tell about a

decision he

takes to

challenge

Tony

Abbot (his

predecessor

) in which

this makes

the anger

among

colleagues

due to

-

Quantity

Maxim

- Manner

Maxim

- Tact

Maxim

30

31

get into a debate about the

archaeology or the history or

the connections and so forth.

Malcolm is

the

communica

tion

minister in

Tony‟s

cabinet and

they stand

on same

party,

Liberal

Party. The

anger is

also

directed to

Julie

Bishop (his

treasurer)

and Scott

Morison

(his deputy)

as raising

issue that

they are all

behind

Malcolm‟s

decision.

2 David: As you know there is

still suspicion around it. It‟s

no trivial thing changing

Prime Minister.

Malcolm: It‟s a very serious

thing.

00:43-

00:49

Related to

the

previous

utterances,

David

wants to

ensure that

Malcolm‟s

decision in

challenging

Tony is

serious

thing

- Manner

Maxim

-

Agreeme

nt Maxim

3 David: Don‟t people deserve

to know what happened?

Malcolm: It‟s a very simple

matter. I came into see Tony

I told him I was going to

challenge him, I told him

why I was going to challenge

him. I left his Office. I spoke

briefly to the media and

explained why I was

00:50-

01:10

David asks

Malcolm

that don‟t

people

deserve to

know the

motives of

why he

challenges

Tony.

- Quantity

Maxim

- Tact

Maxim

32

challenging him. Then the

party had a ballot.

4 David: …When you made

the decision and when those

two key figures knew about

it?

Malcolm: I‟m sorry but I am

not going to go into the

history of it. I don‟t think

there is any purpose to be

served for the Government or

the Party by my doing so.

I‟ve always been very

circumspect about issues of

leadership, for many years as

you know, much to the

disappointment of

distinguished journalists like

yourself.

01:11-

01:38

(still on the

suspicionof

people)

David asks

Malcolm

about the

true time of

making a

decision

and the

time of

telling Julie

Bishop and

Scott

Morison.

-

Quantity

Maxim

- Manner

Maxim

- Tact

Maxim

5 David: What do you say to

settle down those who are

still upset? Should they back

off in terms of Scott

Morrison and Julie Bishop?

Malcolm: What I would say

is that we have got to work

together as a team. There are

times when tough decisions

have to taken about

leadership. I know all about

that I was removed as Leader

by the Party some years ago

in 2009. I‟ve been on the

receiving end. The leader of

the Liberal Party serves at

the pleasure of the party

room. Full-stop. That‟s what

it is all about. It is up to the

party room to make that

decision. No one is entitled

to be leader it is entirely a

function of the wishes of the

party room. Once they‟ve

made their decision then,

because politics is a team

business, all of us should get

together behind the Leader.

Just as everyone got behind

Tony back in 2009.

01:39-

02:33

Context 1:

David asks

Malcolm

what are

the words

he is going

state in

order to

appease the

people who

are still

angry.

Context 2:

Should

people (still

on

suspicion)

take for

granted on

Julie

Bishop and

Scott

Morison.

- Quantity

Maxims

- Tact

Maxim

33

6 David: Let me ask you about

one of the leadership

decisions you have taken.

You are dropping Peter

Dutton from the NSC

(National Security

Committee) of Cabinet.

Immigration Ministers for

quite a while now have sat on

that committee. Why?

Malcolm: Well during the

Howard Government - which

I regard in terms of Cabinet

process as absolutely the

gold standard - and while

this is a very modern

21st century Government,

and obviously I‟m not John

Howard, none-the-less John

was an outstanding Prime

Minister. He ran a very,

very, solid, traditional

business-like Cabinet

Government and that is

something I am determined

to restore. That‟s why

Arthur Sinodinos is the

Cabinet Secretary. We are

very focused on that. Under

the Howard Government the

Immigration Minister was

for most of that time not a

permanent member of the

National Security

Committee.

02:34-

03:32

David asks

Malcolm‟s

reason of

why he

drops Peter

Dutton

from NSC

and why

Immigratio

n Ministers

for while

handling

that

committee.

- Quantity

Maxim

-

Approbat

ion

Maxim

B. Data Analysis

Based on the data description, the data have been classified and presented

consecutively based on the transcript of conversation. There are ten appropriate

data related to Interpersonal Rhetoric (IR) theory which the writer will analyse as

below:

34

Datum 1

Context : David asks Malcolm Turnbull to tell about a decision he takes to

challenge Tony Abbot (his predecessor) in which this makes the anger

among colleagues due to Malcolm is the Communication Minister in

Tony‟s cabinet and they stand on same party, Liberal Party. The anger

is also directed to Julie Bishop (his treasurer) and Scott Morison (his

deputy) as raising issue that both are all behind Malcolm‟s decision.

David : Can you tell us when did you finally decide to challenge Tony Abbott

and when did you tell Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison?

Malcolm : Well I have made a practise of not talking about leadership issues

before I was the Leader and I‟m not going to talk about them after I‟ve

become the Leader. The decision to challenge was entirely mine. But I

really, I don‟t want to get into a debate about the archaeology or the

history or the connections and so forth.

The first data above shows that there are three utterances which have been

expressed by Malcolm Turnbull as a response to David‟s question, each of these

utterances has something that the speaker wants to convey implicitly to the hearer.

In linguistics it is called implicature. Those are:

1. Well, I have made a practise of not talking about leadership issues before I

was the leader and I‟m not going to talk about them after I‟ve become the

leader.

[I would never talk about leadership issue related to Tony Abbot or Julie

Bishop and Scott Morison and so forth.]

2. The decision to challenge was entirely mine.

[They (Julie Bishop and Scott Morison) all have nothing to do with my

decision to challenge Tony Abbot.]

3. But I really, I don‟t want to get into a debate about the archaeology or the

history or the connections and so forth.

[I mind discussing whatever related to the leadership issue.]

35

This is such a confirmation of his first utterance.

It is going to be detailly set out by David question. There are three

questions in David‟s utterance. (1) Can you tell us?, (2) when did you finally

decide to challange Tony Abbot?, and (3) when did you tell Julie Bishop and Scott

Morrison? From the questions above, it can be inferred that Malcolm violates

some maxims of the CP. First, Malcolm does not observe blatantly the maxim of

quantity. He does not give an enough information when David asks him about the

leadership issue as in quetion 2 and 3. He responses David by utterances which

imply [I minds discussing whatever related to this issue]. But, where did we get

this such implicature? Of course, it is not purely from violation of CP‟s maxims

because he can utter it in the more direct way such „No, I don‟t want to answer

your question‟. Indeed, it is not right option to say because if Malcolm say so it

seems to be impolite at all to David. Malcolm through indirect illocutionary force

seems that he will go nothing to whatever related to the question or in a direct

inference „Malcolm rejects to answer David‟s question‟ i.e. rejecting to David

questions 'can you tell us'. It is violates maxim of manner. In Leech‟s view the

word „can‟ in a question has two possible purposes, first a question that is seeking

an information and, second a question which serves to anticipate a request or a

command (indirect question).64

Further, the maxim violation above is caused by clash of maxims which

makes Malcolm must choose between the CP or PP. As fact, based on the second

utterance above apparently has a motive to rescue the third side i.e. Julie Bishop

64

Geoffrey Leech, Op.Cit. p. 97

36

and Scott Morison from a scapegoat of David‟s accusation behind all thing

happened previously. Politenees appears to take part in his utterance. A statement

„the decision was entirely mine‟ is used to dismissed people‟s assumption that his

decision in challenging Tony is influenced by Julie Bishop and Scott Morison as

the growing issue. This utterance is constrained by tact maxim as a purpose to

save Julie Bishop dan Scott Morison from the cost of issue of Malcolm‟s decision.

Yet, if Malcolm lies with this proposition, he violates quality maxim.

Referring to Searle‟s taxonomy of speech act, utterance „i do not want to

get‟ seems most suited to be categorized as expressive speech act i.e. speech act

which expresses the psychological or mental behavior of the speaker such as joy,

sorrow, and like/ dislike.65

Through this utterance, Malcolm wants indirectly to

state that 'do not ask me to answer that question'. In the another possibility, the

implicature of „i do not want to get‟ actually could be „I mind to answer this

question‟. The use of declarative sentence to show the „dislike‟, which is

functionally it used to inform, is considered too superficial. This based on the fact

that thus utterance could utter in an imperative way. But this action can raise

disharmony to the addresse, David.

Datum 2

Context : Related to the previous utterances, David wants to ensure that

Malcolm‟s decision in challenging Tony is serious thing.

David : As you know there is still suspicion around it. It‟s no trivial thing

changing Prime Minister.

Malcolm : It‟s a very serious thing.

65

Yan Huang, Op.Cit. p. 107

37

Malcolm‟s utterance above is not only to inform that what he did in

challenging Tony is something serious. More, when says, “It‟s a very serious

thing” he indirectly looks like to convey an illocutionary force that he declares his

seriousness. Malcolm uses declarative proposition to show declarative function,

but it is not in declarative word like the example of illocutionary act, like „I name

this ship Queen Elizabeth‟ which uses performative utterance. It is an indirect

proposition to be functioned as direct proposition. In the CP, Malcolm could be

assumed that he observes the quality maxim. He contributes at sufficienly by

utterance that in his belief it is true, and uniquely by doing so at the same time he

observes agreement maxims of the PP and being polite to the interlocutor, David.

Datum 3

Context : David asks Malcolm that don‟t people deserve to know the motives of

why he challenges Tony.

David : Don‟t people deserve to know what happened?

Malcolm : It‟s a very simple matter. I came into see Tony I told him I was going

to challenge him, I told him why I was going to challenge him. I left his

Office. I spoke briefly to the media and explained why I was

challenging him. Then the party had a ballot.

„Yes they do‟ that is maybe what Malcolm wants to imply with his

utterance above. It seems that Malcolm wants to say that what he did is not so

remarkable. It refers to the utterance 'I came into see Tony‟. He wants to give a

strong impression to David that the assumptions of people are suspicious about

him was not right. In another word, he wants to show that there is no hostilty

between him and Tony. In the subsequent utterance, he impresses that what he did

was suited in accordance with ethics.

When David asks Malcolm, Malcolm directly said the second utterance, „It

38

is a simple matter‟ that implies „There‟s no serious thing.‟ This is then proved by

giving the sequence of history of what happened between him and Tony as he

said.

It could be concludes that:

1. s (Malcolm) observe manner maxim of CP

2. by doing so, he is indirectly observe manner maxim that means he is

polite to h (david) and the third side i.e. people (tact maxim)

Datum 4

Context : (still on the suspicion of people) David asks Malcolm about the true

time of making a decision and the time of telling Julie Bishop and Scott

Morison.

David : …When you made the decision and when those two key figures knew

about it?

Malcolm : I‟m sorry but I am not going to go into the history of it. I don‟t think

there is any purpose to be served for the Government or the Party by my

doing so. I‟ve always been very circumspect about issues of leadership,

for many years as you know, much to the disappointment of

distinguished journalists like yourself.

In this utterance, Malcolm seems violating the CP and the maxims. He,

however, doesn‟t make his conversational contribution such as is required, at the

stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange

in which he is engaged. And via maxim of quantity, Malcolm does not make his

contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of exchange).

And via sub maxim of manner, he doesn‟t avoid obscurity of expression.

Here is when the hearer‟s interpretation is match with the modus, called as

direct speech act. If the hearer‟s interpretation is that speaker wants him/her to do

something (imperative effect) by using directive sentence or interrogative

sentence, it‟s called as indirect speech act.

39

And by this term, the utterance „when you made the decision and when

those two key figures knew about it?‟ has an interrogative effect, that is to know

the truth when he take a decision to challange Tony and when Julie Bishop and

Scott Morison know about it. But, behind this question, actually there is a motive

is that true or not both Julie and Scott have contribution in his decision. He

disobey the emphasizing question from David to observe the tact maxim of the

PP.

Datum 5

Context 1: David asks Malcolm what are the words he is going to state in order to

appease the people who are still angry.

Context 2: Should people (still on suspicion) take for granted on Julie Bishop and

Scott Morison.

David : What do you say to settle down those who are still upset? Should they

back off in terms of Scott Morrison and Julie Bishop? Shouldn‟t they?

Malcolm : What I would say is that we have got to work together as a team.

There are times when tough decisions have to taken about leadership. I

know all about that I was removed as Leader by the Party some years

ago in 2009. I‟ve been on the receiving end. The leader of the Liberal

Party serves at the pleasure of the party room. Full-stop. That‟s what it

is all about. It is up to the party room to make that decision. No one is

entitled to be leader it is entirely a function of the wishes of the party

room. Once they‟ve made their decision then, because politics is a team

business, all of us should get together behind the Leader. Just as

everyone got behind Tony back in 2009.

In the datum 5 above, Malcolm at glance seems to disobey maxim of

relevance, but through many information actually he wants sequentially answer

david‟s question by telling chronologycal condition that there is no reason for the

people to be still angry as he accepted party‟s decision when he removed from his

party. It is still relevance but by giving many information than being asked it

could be said that he violates quantity maxim. Perhaps that is the best way of

Malcom to be polite either to people who is still angry or again to save Julie

40

Bishop and Scott Morrison from the statement that make a cost to them. By doing

so, Malcolm observe the tact maxim of the PP

Datum 6

Context : David asks Malcolm‟s reason of why he drops Peter Dutton from NSC

and why Immigration Ministers for while handling that committee.

David : Let me ask you about one of the leadership decisions you have

taken.You are dropping Peter Dutton from the National Security

Committee of Cabinet. Immigration Ministers for quite a while now

have sat on that committee. Why?

Malcolm : Well during the Howard Government - which I regard in terms of

Cabinet process as absolutely the gold standard - and while this is a

very modern 21st century Government, and obviously I‟m not John

Howard, none-the-less John was an outstanding Prime Minister. He ran

a very, very, solid, traditional business-like Cabinet Government and

that is something I am determined to restore. That‟s why Arthur

Sinodinos is the Cabinet Secretary. We are very focused on that. Under

the Howard Government the Immigration Minister was for most of that

time not a permanent member of the National Security Committee.

In the utterance above, actually David asks a simple question i.e. a reason

of why he drops Peter Dutton from National Security Cabinet and why

Immigration minister takes over that position for while, but Malcolm gives to

much and long information which seems unreleveant. In this case, he violates

maxims of quantity. The information of appraising the third side (John Howard) is

not essential and apparently apologist. Perhaps that is intentionally taken to be the

way of avoiding an offence act to the Peter Dutton. He looks like prefer to observe

approbation maxim. But it is unrelevant.

BAB IV

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the research findings, the writer concludes that the utterances of

Malcolm Turnbull indicate a complicated interrelationship among the IR maxims:

CP‟s maxims and PP‟s maxims. Malcolm observes maxims of the CP by uttering

as clear as necessary of its maxims level; nonetheless, he is often unable to avoid

the use of utterances that gives priority to the PP‟s maxims than the CP. It causes

a clash among maxims which makes him violate the CP, mostly, in the quantity

maxim and tact maxim or quality maxims and tact maxim.

Simply, Malcolm cannot rigidly observe the maxims of PP without

sacrificing the maxims of the CP. This, in Leech‟s term, called „constraint‟ i.e. a

restriction to the speaker in observing CP‟s maxims imposed by PP‟s maxims. In

essence, The CP is a necessary, but non-observance to its maxims, in some cases

for the greater purpose i.e. politeness, is needed to keep a harmonious condition in

a conversation. That is what Malcolm did to bring away the third side from

offensiveness.

In particular, Malcolm violates the CP‟s maxims in the utterances that is

related to the third side (Tony Abbot, Julie Bishop, or Scott Morison). Commonly,

Malcolm‟s utterances as mentioned above occur in the case of non declarative

sentence i.e. syntactically, imperative and interrogative forms. The IR approach

brings an authentic collaboration force of implicature and illocutionary study.

41

42

B. Suggestion

The writer would like to give suggestions which they may hopefully be

usefull either for the student of English Letters Department, the readers, or the

next researchers who concern with pragmatics study. It is important to underline

that study or research of pragmatics would not give a wider comprehension if it

just involves one aspect of its sub field e.g just CP or just PP. So, combining both

approaches is the best way to unite partial complicated puzzle in understanding

utterance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Badridduja. 2013. An analysis of Implicature in Arthur Bishop‟s Utterance in His

Conversation with Harry Mc Kenna in The Mechanic Movie. Jakarta: UIN

Syarif Hidayatullah.

Booth, Wayne C. 2004. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest of Effective

Communication, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam: John

Benjamin Publishing Company.

Cruise, D. Alan. Meaning in language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics, New York: Oxford University Press.

Florio, Joanna and Dilys Parkinson, (ed), Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary,

International Edition.

Haikal, Muhammad. 2010. Pelanggaran Retorika Interpersonal di Media Sosial

Facebook (Suatu Kajian Pragmatik). Bandung: Universitas Padjadjaran.

Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Joseph, John E. 2006. Language and Politics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press Ltd.

Kushartanti. 2005. Pragmatik in Kushartanti, et al., Pesona Bahasa, Jakarta: PT.

Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.

Leech, Geoffrey and Mick Short. 2007. Style in Fiction A Linguistic Introduction

to English Fictional Prose, Second Edition. UK: Pearson Education

Limited.

Mei, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: an Introduction, Second Edition. USA:

Blackwell Publishing

Migge, Bettina and Susanne Muhleisen. 2005. Politeness and Face in Caribbean

Creoles: An Overview in Susanne Muhleisen and Bettina Migge (ed),

Politeness and Face in Caribbean Creoles, Amsterdam: John Benjamin

Publishing Company.

Nadar, F.X. 2009. Pragmatik dan Penelitian Pragmatik, Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

43

44

Ogierman, Eva. 2009. On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness,

Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Pearson, Judy C. et.al. 2003. Human Communication, New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies.

Rahardi, Kuntjana. 2008. Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia,

Jakarta: Erlangga.

Reiter, Rosina Marquez. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A

Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies, Amsterdam: John Benjamin

Publishing Company.

Robinson. W. Peter. 2003. Language in Social World. (USA: Blackwell

Publishing)

Sohibusirri, Muh. 2011. An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababan‟s

Interview with Barack Obama, (Thesis: English Letters Department, State

Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

Todd, Loreto. 1987. Introduction to Linguistics. (Singapore: Longman Singapore

Publishers Pte Ltd.) Verderber. Rudolph F. 1990. Communicate,

California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Trask R. L. and Peter Stockwell. 2007. Language and Linguistics: The Key

Concepts. 2nd

Edition, (New York: Routledge)

Wijana, I. Dewa Putu. 1996. Dasar-dasar Pragmatik, Yogyakarta: Andi.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Journals

Atmawati, Dwi. 2011. Prinsip Pollyana dalam Wacana Dakwah, Semarang: Balai

Bahasa.

Sari, Ni Wayan Eminda. 2012. Analisis Deskriptif Retorika Interpersonal

Pragmatik pada Tuturan Direktif Guru dan Siswa dalam Pelajaran

Bahasa Indonesia di Kelas XI SMAN 1 Kediri. Bali: Ganesha University of

Education.

Mayuff, Hussain Hameed. 2015. Rhetorical Pragmatics. University of Babylon.

45

Websites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gf-jKTFRWA. Retrieved on Thursday 10:47

AM November 19 2015

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/transcript-interview-with-david-

speers-on-sky-news. Retrieved on Thursday 10:47 AM November 19 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gf-jKTFRWA

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/transcript-interview-with-david-speers-on-sky-news


APPENDICES

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER

THE HON. MALCOLM TURNBULL MP

Interview with Sky News

Australian Parliament House

00:02- 00:19

David Speers : Thank you very much, we are talking to the Prime

Minister. There is still some anger amongst some of your

colleagues about the events of last week and some of that is

being directed at your Treasurer and your Deputy. To clear

the air on this, can you tell us when did you finally decide

to challenge Tony Abbott and when did you tell Julie

Bishop and Scott Morrison?

00:20- 00:42

Malcolm Turnbull : Well I have made a practise of not talking about leadership

issues before I was the Leader and I‟m not going to talk

about them after I‟ve become the Leader. The decision to

challenge was entirely mine. But I really, I don‟t want to get

into a debate about the archaeology or the history or the

connections and so forth.

00:43- 00:46

David Speers : As you know there is still suspicion around it. It‟s no

trivial thing changing Prime Minister.

00:47- 00:49

Malcolm Turnbull : It‟s a very serious thing.

00:50- 00:53

David Speers : Don‟t people deserve to know what happened?

00:53- 01:10

Malcolm Turnbull : It‟s a very simple matter. I came into see Tony I told him I

was going to challenge him, I told him why I was going to

challenge him. I left his Office. I spoke briefly to the media

and explained why I was challenging him. Then the party

had a ballot.

01:11- 01:14

David Speers : …When you made the decision and when those two key

figures knew about it?

01:15- 01:38

Malcolm Turnbull : I‟m sorry but I am not going to go into the history of it. I

don‟t think there is any purpose to be served for the

46

47

Government or the Party by my doing so. I‟ve always been

very circumspect about issues of leadership, for many years

as you know, much to the disappointment of distinguished

journalists like yourself.

01:39- 01:45

David Speers : What do you say to settle down those who are still upset?

Should they back off in terms of Scott Morrison and Julie

Bishop?

01: 46- 02:33

Malcolm Turnbull : What I would say is that we have got to work together as a

team. There are times when tough decisions have to taken

about leadership. I know all about that I was removed as

Leader by the Party some years ago in 2009. I‟ve been on

the receiving end. The leader of the Liberal Party serves at

the pleasure of the party room. Full-stop. That‟s what it is

all about. It is up to the party room to make that decision.

No one is entitled to be leader it is entirely a function of the

wishes of the party room. Once they‟ve made their decision

then, because politics is a team business, all of us should get

together behind the Leader. Just as everyone got behind

Tony back in 2009.

02:34- 02:45

David Speers : Let me ask you about one of the leadership decisions you

have taken. You are dropping Peter Dutton from the

National Security Committee of Cabinet. Immigration

Ministers for quite a while now have sat on that committee.

Why?

02:46- 03:32

Malcolm Turnbull : Well during the Howard Government - which I regard in

terms of Cabinet process as absolutely the gold standard -

and while this is a very modern 21st century Government,

and obviously I‟m not John Howard, none-the-less John

was an outstanding Prime Minister. He ran a very, very,

solid, traditional business-like Cabinet Government and that

is something I am determined to restore. That‟s why Arthur

Sinodinos is the Cabinet Secretary. We are very focused on

that. Under the Howard Government the Immigration

Minister was for most of that time not a permanent member

of the National Security Committee.

03:32- 03:33

David Speers : Amanda Vanstone was, wasn‟t she?

48

03:34- 03:57

Malcolm Turnbull : For periods. But let me be quite clear about this. Ministers

have got to get on with their day jobs. You clearly want to

ensure that no Minister is in a committee taking up his or

her very valuable time on matters that are not directly

relevant them.

03:58- 04:05

David Speers : Border Force is meant to equivalent of the AFP, we have a

lot of border control issues when it comes to the threat of

terrorism…

04:06- 05:18

Malcolm Turnbull : And when those matters come up the Immigration

Minister, as is always the case, will be seconded. When I

was the Communications Minister when issues relating to

telecommunications security or cyber security came up I

was often brought into the NSC. You‟re talking about form,

I am talking about function. We have to have an efficient

Government where people‟s time is used efficiently. This is

not an issue of status. We have a National Security

Committee that is very close to the arrangements that

worked so well during John Howard‟s time as Prime

Minister. And by the way if experience suggests we should

change the arrangements we will. None of this is being

written in stone. But I would rather start off with the NSC

being leaner to begin with and if we have to change the

permanent membership we can do so. You have to

understand this is modern 20th

century agile Government

and we will adapt all of our arrangements as circumstances

require to meet the situation.

05:19- 05:51

David Speers : Let me ask you another question on immigration and this

may go to some adapting as circumstances present. We do

have a bipartisan settlement on border protection policies

now, but we still have hundreds, more than hundreds, stuck

on Manus Island and Nauru. Many of them have been there

for two years now. Many of them have been processed,

found to be refugees but they are not being resettled. None

have been re-settled in PNG. In Nauru a little baby was

born in detention this week, a little girl who has no

citizenship. Will you rule out ever taking any of these

people here?

49

05:52- 06:10

Malcolm Turnbull : Well for a start, I have definitely ruled out answering rule

in rule out questions from journalists. What I am saying to

you is that all of our policies, our existing policies are on

foot…

06:10- 06:19

David Speers : I appreciate that but the situation, you have people really

stuck, and neither major party is talking about what to do

with them.

06:20- 07:03

Malcolm Turnbull : I understand the issue. I have the same concerns about the

situation of people on Manus and Nauru as you do, and as I

would think almost all, all, Australians do. As the Minister

Mr Dutton does. But, what I am not going to do is make

changes to our border protection policy sitting here with

you. Our policies will change, all policies change. But when

we do make changes we will do so in a considered way and

they will be made by the Ministers, the Minister, myself, the

Cabinet.

07:03- 07:06

David Speers : Is this an area that needs to be changed?

07:03- 08:03

Malcolm Turnbull : This is an area that is clearly is one that is controversial,

that is a challenging one. It is a challenging one. It is

certainly one that close attention is being paid to. What I am

not going to do is announce changes or foreshadow changes

sitting here with you. Much as I can understand all your

interest. I‟m going to be very frank with you. I thank you

for raising it. It is legitimate that you raise it. It‟s good that

you raise it. But you need to understand that this is a

Cabinet Government. We are not going to make, not me nor

any Minister, we are not going to make policy changes,

particularly of the type you are talking about, on the run. All

of these matters will be considered and in the event that

policy changes then we will make an appropriate

announcement.

08:04- 08:23

David Speers : I want to turn to the economy. Again this gets to the

priorities that you will bring as Prime Minister to these

things. You did say in mounting your case for the leadership

change that quote „the Government is not successful

providing the economic leadership we need.‟ When are we

50

going to see, when, and I‟m asking about the timing here,

when will see your alternative plans for the economy?

08:24- 10:05

Malcolm Turnbull : We are certainly determined to provide greater leadership,

stronger, leadership, more confident leadership, that‟s

probably the better term, more confident leadership, on the

economy. Of course there will be new policies. And we are

certainly looking at policies that will promote innovation,

policies that will promote productivity, that will provide

greater incentives to work. There are a lot of leavers and it

is very complex. They are absolutely very key priorities.

But you know something, we have already seen, and this is

the power of confident positive leadership, we have already

seen a significant rise in business confidence. That means

businesses are investing, they are hiring, people are getting

jobs, they are making more money, they are paying more

tax than they otherwise would. Business confidence has

been a critical issue. If you listen to Glenn Stevens, the

Reserve Bank Governor, he has been saying this for a very

long time. That here we are in a world where interest rates

are as low as they have ever been and yet we don‟t have

enough business confidence to promote investment. We

have already seen a rise in business confidence because we

have a Government that is talking confidently about our

future and is talking optimistically about our future, and

indicating, if not the precise policies, because I have only

been Prime Minister for a week, but the outcomes we seek

to achieve. It‟s important that people understand where we

want to get to and then of course we will design the policies

that we hope will take us on that journey.

10:06- 10:15

David Speers : Glenn Stevens has also been talking about labour market

reform for a while. One of the bits of low hanging fruit is

Sunday penalty rates. What‟s your view on this, should they

stay?

10:16- 10:31

Malcolm Turnbull : Again, sorry not to be able to announce all of our policies

on your program but all of these matters are under

consideration. It is very important that we proceed in an

orderly way.

51

10:32- 10:41

David Speers : What‟s the timing then on that orderly way? Are we going

to see a mini-budget any time soon? Or are you going to

actually wait until after the next election?

10:42- 11:13

Malcolm Turnbull : I don‟t believe in rushing things in a sort of hasty ill-

considered way. But equally I believe you can make well

considered decisions quickly. You saw the way I changed

the strategy and direction of the NBN. That was done

quickly, but it was done in a very, very well-considered

well-argued way and that is certainly the way I intend to

proceed as Prime Minister.

11:14- 11:17

David Speers : So will we see change this year in terms of economic

policy?

11:17- 11:44

Malcolm Turnbull : Well, I‟m not going to put a timeframe on it. What you

will see is the Government proceeding to deliver on an

economic reform agenda that will promote productivity,

will promote innovation, and will continue to promote

business confidence and investment. We will do so in an

orderly way and we will do it as quickly as we can. I don‟t

believe in spinning my wheels.

11:45- 11:48

David Speers : Is the next election still ten or 11 months away as you said

last week?

11:49- 11:58

Malcolm Turnbull : That is certainly what I am assuming, not unless you have

a better idea of what is going to happen… That‟s definitely

the plan.

11:59- 12:00

David Speers : Any plans for Senate voting reform before then?

12:01- 12:20

Malcolm Turnbull : We have no specific plans. It‟s obviously an issue that

people have talked about. I enjoy a very good working

relationship with the Senate crossbenchers. I have also

reached out to the Leader of the Greens, Richard Di Natale.

We want to have a good relationship…

52

12:21- 12:28

David Speers : Some of them were voted in though, Ricky Muir, on point

five, half a per cent was his primary vote. Does that concern

you at all?

12:29- 13:04

Malcolm Turnbull : I certainly understand the concerns about it and the issues

about transparency.The simple fact of the matter is Senator

Muir is a Senator. He is as democratically and

constitutionally elected to this place as I am as the Member

for Wentworth. And certainly there are many

considerations about changing the voting rules. But the fact

is we do not have a specific proposal but we are talking

about it with all the parties.

13:05- 13:07

David Speers : The China Free Trade Agreement. Have you read it?

13:08- 13:17

Malcolm Turnbull : I‟ve certainly read summaries of it, I‟ve read elements of

it, and I‟ve discussed it at length with Andrew Robb. But no

I haven‟t read the whole pile of documents.

13:18- 13:29

David Speers : The bit that Labor is concerned about is Chapter 10 part of

it, where it says that labour market testing won‟t apply to a

range of different groups including people with trade,

technical or professional skills. Why shouldn‟t tradies be

worried about that?

13:30- 13:41

Malcolm Turnbull : Labor really need to answer why it is that exactly the same

arrangements were in the Chile Free Trade Agreement.

They are really singling China out.

13:42- 13:43

David Speers : There are some differences though.

13:44- 14:39

Malcolm Turnbull : There are some differences but not material to the point

you‟re raising. Let me be clear about the China Free Trade

Agreement. This is an agreement that opens up to all

Australian businesses the world‟s largest single economy. It

is an absolutely fundamental building block for our

prosperity. It has the support of every Labor Premier. It has

the support of past Labor leaders like Bob Hawke, like

Simon Crean, like Bob Carr. It has the overwhelming

53

endorsement of the business community. Now what‟s

happened is that Bill Shorten has never proposed any

specific changes. He has been dragged along in the

slipstream of the CFMEU which has run an alarmist, scare-

mongering campaign. Millions of dollars designed to

frighten people back into poverty.

14:40- 14:54

David Speers : Not disputing that. Surely Labor is suggesting safe-guard

legislation to ensure that for those low skill 457 category

visas that jobs are off to locals first. In the interest of getting

this whole thing done quickly why not sit down and talk

about that?

14:55- 15:20

Malcolm Turnbull : We are obviously open to talking to them but they have

made no specific proposals. Now there is legislation in the

House. They could move an amendment. They could

propose a substantial change or variation to Mr Robb.

Andrew is there, he is the architect of this deal. He knows

every single comma and semi colon through the whole

thing.

15:21- 15:22

David Speers : So you‟re open to talks?

15:22- 16:34

Malcolm Turnbull : Of course we are always open to talks. I don‟t want to be

unduly critical of Mr Shorten. I understand his position, the

Labor Party is the political wing of the union movement - I

understand all of that. But his problem is that the CFMEU

has run an extreme scaremongering campaign designed to

frighten people, which is aggressively anti-Chinese and

really absolutely contrary to our national interest, contrary

to jobs. Because he has been silent, everyone assumes he

endorses it. He is just bobbing along like a cork in the

slipstream of the CFMEU. Basically you have the CFMEU

driving the Labor Party, this the the alternative

Government, the Labor Party‟s economic policy. Mr

Shorten could sort that out he can say „I don‟t go along with

all that extremist stuff‟ and put forward some specific

proposals. But he hasn‟t to date had the courage to that. I‟d

encourage him to focus on that rather than being a passive

cork as I said just bobbing along, trailed along.

54

16:35- 16:48

David Speers : You want deeper ties with China. You have been critical

of their foreign policy approach in the South China Sea. But

can I ask you, what will be your first port of call

internationally? Will it be China? Will it be Japan? What‟s

your priority?

16:49- 17:22

Malcolm Turnbull : Frankly, it is not settled yet. But it is likely to be, the first

substantial international gathering I go to, in terms of a

multilateral gathering, will certainly be the G20 meeting in

Turkey where of course I will be meeting with the leaders

of the 20 largest economies. The program is still a work in

progress. I know a week is a long time in politics but it‟s

actually not that long a time.

17:23- 17:50

David Speers : Let me finally ask you, you are a former journalist. You

gave a stirring speech at the War Memorial this morning.

You spoke about the importance of journalists speaking

truth to power and the need for a free and courageous press.

Peter Greste was there. I know you met him yesterday. He‟s

a good example of these fine traditions of journalism. Will

you be pressing the Egyptian president to pardon Peter

Greste who has been convicted of a terrorist offence?

17:51- 19:22

Malcolm Turnbull : That is absolutely the Government‟s position and we have,

we will and continue to encourage the Egyptian president to

do that. That is absolutely our position just as I said at the

War Memorial. To repeat what I said there David, the work

that you do, the work that Peter Greste does, is as important

to our democracy as the work that I do. We cannot have a

democracy without a free and enquiring press that

challenges Government and challenges vested interests.

When we are honouring war correspondents, we are

honouring the work of Peter Greste for example; we are

actually honouring ourselves, our democracy. It is an

integral part of our democracy. People sometimes think

because the media and journalists don‟t always agree with

the Government, it doesn‟t mean that they are not

absolutely critically important to our democracy. Just like

the judiciary, the agencies, security agencies, and the

Defence Forces that defend it. It is a very complex beast.

We have one of the most remarkable societies in the world.

One of the oldest democracies, and there are a lot of parts to

55

it. It is complex. But right at the very heart of our freedom

is a free and courageous press.

19:22- 19:24

David Speers : Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull thanks for talking to us.

19:25-

Malcolm Turnbull : Great David thank you.

Published on Sky News : September, 23 2015

Downloaded : Thursday 10:47 AM November, 19 2015

Link of Video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gf-jKTFRWA

Link of Transcript :

http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/transcrip

t-interview-with-david-speers-on-sky-news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gf-jKTFRWA



INTERPERSONAL RHETORIC: CONSTRAINT BETWEEN … · an interview of Malcolm Turnbull which is hosted...

Documents

Transcript of INTERPERSONAL RHETORIC: CONSTRAINT BETWEEN … · an interview of Malcolm Turnbull which is hosted...