Negative Politeness Strategies in What Would You Do? TV Show

Meidiana Suyono, Erna Andriyanti


Being polite is significant to maintain good communications as well as social relationship and therefore various strategies are applied to show language politeness. This sociopragmatic study deals with negative politeness found in What Would You Do? TV show to describe the types of negative politeness strategies and investigate the reasons of choosing those strategies. This research applied a descriptive qualitative approach supported by statistics. The data were in the form of utterances containing negative politeness strategies, sourced in the conversations and the scripts between the participants and the actors. There were 106 data collected by note-taking technique from the show’s YouTube channel. The trustworthiness was attained through analyst triangulation. The findings show that seven negative politeness strategies are used by the participants in their responses to the actors: Being Indirect (12), Questions, Hedges (40), Minimizing the Imposition (12), Apologizing (25), Giving Difference (9), Being Pessimistic (6), and State the FTA as General Rule (2). The dominance of Questions, Hedges relates to the options provided to the addressee to accept or refuse the speaker’s request and to make utterances sound more polite. Related to reasons, the payoffs factor was dominant (with 84 occurrences) because it is the basic factor the participants might think about what they will get by applying a certain strategy. The circumstances factor has 22 occurrences, consisting of social distance (14), social power (5), and rank of imposition (3).


sociopragmatics; negative politeness; What Would You Do?; TV Show

Full Text:




Al-Sobh, M. A. (2013). An analysis of apology as a politeness strategy expressed by Jordanian university students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(2), 150-154.

Banikalef, A. A., Maros, M, Aladdin, A & Al-Natour, M. (2015). Apology strategies in Jordanian Arabic. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(2), 83-99.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universal in language use. Trowbridge: Redwood Burn Ltd.

Fitriyani, S., & Andriyanti, E. (2020). Teacher and students' politeness strategies in EFL classroom interactions. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Lingustics, 4(2), 259-273.

Friginal, E., & Hardy, J. (2014). Corpus-based sociolinguistics: A guide for students. New York: Routledge.

Geertz, C. (1960). The religion of Java. Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis ,11(3), 255–274.

Haugh, M., & Chang, W. M. (2015). Understanding im/politeness across culture: an interactional approach to raising socio-pragmatic awareness. IRAL (International Review of Applied Linguistics), 53(4), 389-414.

Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Longman.

Huang, Y. (2008). Politeness principle in cross-culture communication. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 96-101.

Jeanyfer, & Tanto, T. (2018). Request strategies in Indonesia: An analysis of politeness phenomena in text messages. Journal of Language and Literature, 18(2), 137-145.

Jegarlooei, S. H. M., & Allami, H. (2018). (Im)politeness strategies and use of discourse markers. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 1-24.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York : Harper and Row.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Mohammadi, M., & Tamimi Sa’d, S. H. (2014). Native speakers’ assessment of (im)politeness of non-native speakers’ requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(4), 23–40.

Mills. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ramadhani, P., Gurning, B., & Sibarani, B. (2014). Politeness strategies and gender differences in Javanese indirect speech acts. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan Pascasarjana Unimed, 11(1), 24-33.

Redmond, M. (2015). Face and politeness theory. English Technical Reports and White Papers. 2.

Scupin, R. (1988). Language, hierarchy, and hegemony: Thai Muslim discourse strategies. Language Sciences, 10(2), 331-351. doi: 10.1016/0388- 0001(88)90020-4.

Senowarsito. (2013). Politeness strategies in teacher-student interaction in an EFL classroom contents. TEFLIN Journal, 24(1), 82-96. doi: 10.15639/teflinjournal.v24i1/82-96

Siffianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Vanderstoep, S. W., & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life: Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. California: Jossey Bass.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Literature (JOLL) is published by  Prodi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

JOLL is indexed in:


This journal is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License 

View My Stats