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
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