Content uploaded by Rashid Bushra Ni Ma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rashid Bushra Ni Ma on Sep 29, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
38
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Face Threatening Act in Media Chat: A
Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis
Asst. Prof. Dr. Bushra Ni’ma Rashid
College of Education/ Ibn Rushd for Human Sciences/ The Department of English
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to investigate how face threatening acts are used in Donald Trump’s Victory speech.
The study has examined the use of different speech acts (requests, offers, promises, etc.) to impose negative or
positive face threat on either the speaker or the hearer, in order to obtain political objectives. The study is,
therefore, based on the study of face threatening acts used by the former American president, Donald Trump, in
his victory speech. The researcher also wants to examine whether positive or negative face threatening acts are
being used more frequently by Trump. It is hypothesized that the American president, Donald Trump, uses negative
face threatening acts more frequently than positive face threatening acts. The procedures followed by the
researcher involves illustrating the adopted model of analysis of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model on
politeness theory, and collecting data. One speech by the former USA President, Donald Trump has been chosen.
The researcher has discovered that Trump uses negative face threatening acts more than the positive one towards
the hearer.
Keywords: Speech Acts, Face Threatening Acts, Positive FTA’s, Negative FTA’s, Politeness Theory
INTRODUCTION
Communicating in a language is performing speech
acts, for example, making statements, giving
commands, asking questions, making remarks,
requests etc., and all the more uniquely, acts, for
example, alluding and predicating and that these acts
are when all are said in done made conceivable by
and are acted as per certain standards for the
utilization of linguistic components. The purpose
behind focusing on the investigation of speech acts
is just this: all discourse correspondences include
etymological acts. The unit of linguistic
correspondence isn't the image, word, or sentence
but instead the generation or issuance of the image,
word, or sentence in the presentation of the speech
act. Speech acts are the fundamental or minimal
units of etymological correspondence.
A language hypothesis is a component of an activity
hypothesis simply because talking is a conventional
type of behavior prescribed. An inconceivable
framework can be said without considering speech,
but such a fully shaped hypothesis is fundamentally
insufficient. The speech act acted in the articulation
of a sentence is all in all an element of the
significance of the sentence. The importance of the
sentence doesn't in all cases extraordinarily figure
out what speech act is acted in a given expression of
that sentence, in light of the fact that a speaker may
mean more than what he really says, yet it is
consistently on a fundamental level workable for
him to state precisely what (s)he implies. Of the
considerable number of issues in the general
hypothesis of language use, speech act hypothesis
has most likely excited the greatest enthusiasm as it
arranges logical undertakings towards
contemplating the capacity of language in human
correspondence. The speculation that the speech acts
are the essential unit of correspondence together
with the guideline of expressibility proposes that
there are a progression of logical associations
between the idea of discourse acts, what the speaker
implies, what the sentence (or other linguistic units)
articulated methods, what the speaker expects, what
the listener comprehends, and what the standards
administering the semantic components are.
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
39
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
LITERATURE REVIEW
Preliminary Remarks
This section introduces some basic topics to
understand speech acts in linguistics. Therefore, it is
important to shed a light on the study of pragmatics,
politeness, the notion of face, and speech acts
theory.
The Study of Pragmatics
Huang (2014, p. 1) states that one of the most
encouraging and quickly created field of concentrate
in ongoing linguistics and the way of thinking of
language is pragmatics. These days, it turns into a
significant subject in ―artificial insight,
informatics, neuroscience, language pathology,
human studies, and sociology.
Richards and Schmidt (2002, p. 412) state that
pragmatics manages ―the investigation of the
utilization of language in correspondence, especially
the connections among sentences and the unique
circumstances and circumstances in which they are
used. Bloodsucker (1983), along with Sperber and
Wilson (1986) contend that pragmatics becomes in
the late 1970s, a progressed subfield of semantics, it
sees how individuals comprehend and make an
activity or a speech act in a specific conversational
setting. It attempts to recognize two purposes or
senses in every speech or expressive activity of
genuine transmission. One is the scholarly goal or
the provision sense, and the other is the expressive
goal or sense (as referred to by Byram, 2000, p. 693).
Yule (2010, p. 128) characterizes Pragmatics as
―the investigation of ―invisible significance, or
how we perceive what is implied in any event, when
it isn't really said or composed. Moreover,
pragmatics is concerned about the investigation of
significance, i.e., the intention of what the speaker
wants to mean as opposed to the genuine words or
expressions he employs. Consequently the
clarification of what individuals demonstrate in a
particular setting and how the circumstance controls
what is said, is absolutely exemplified in pragmatics.
It requires a knowledge on how speakers request
what they should state in concurrence with who they
are addressing, where, when, and underneath what
occasion. One addition by Yule is that pragmatics is
associated with the investigation of importance
passed on by a speaker and showed by an audience.
To look through how listeners can turn out
conclusions about what is expressed, ought to be
explored so as to discover a clarification of the
speaker's implied idea or the shrouded significance.
Researchers raise various perspectives about the
expressed and unuttered speech. Furthermore, the
idea of separation is connected by the basic answer.
Closeness, regardless of whether physical, social, or
theoretical, surmises shared analysis. Speakers
pinpoint the amount it should be said based on how
adjoining or remote the audience is. In this manner,
the investigation of the outflow of relative
separation is alluded to as (1996, p. 3).
Speech Acts
Definitions of Speech Acts
According to Searle "speaking a language is
performing speech acts". Consequently, to offer
expressions, to offer directions, to pose inquiries, to
make promises, and so on are viewed as speech acts.
With explicit principles for utilizing language, these
demonstrations are in general made conceivable.
Language correspondence incorporates linguistic
acts on the grounds that any sort of linguistic
correspondence is utilized for a particular sort of
expectation under specific conditions (1969:16).
Furthermore, Sadock (2006: 53) specifies that
speech acts demonstration hypothesis shows "the
appropriate harmony among show and expectation".
Along these lines, individuals can utilize language
to welcome a visitor, to demand something, to fire
someone, and so on. These are called 'speech acts'
done during the time spent talking. Yule (1996, p,
47) includes those activities accomplished by
talking are for the most part called 'speech acts' such
as apology, complaint, complement, invitation,
promise or request.
It is implied that speech acts theory fundamentally
deals with "the communicative functions of
utterances in terms of what the speaker aims to
achieve by virtue of speaking and in terms of the
resulting effect on the addressee". (Perkins, 2007, p.
15).
It is claimed by Crystal (2008, p.424) that speech
acts are articulations which perform various
purposes, for example, r, requesting, welcoming,
advising, complaining, warning, persuading, and so
forth. In semantics, they are utilized to contain a
hypothesis that examines the job of expressions in
connection to the conduct of speaker and listener in
relational correspondence.
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
40
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Speech Acts Theory
Speech acts theory assumes that when human beings
communicate with each other, the smallest unit in
their communication is not seen as only an
expression or a sentence. The smallest unit is
considered as a performance of a specific type of act.
Acts like conveying information, saying a statement,
asking a question, ordering someone, making a
description, stating an explanation, expressing an
apology, to congratulate, to thank the others, and the
like. A performance of one, or more than one, of
these acts mentioned could be made by the speaker
when he/ she utters a sentence or sequences of
sentences. Therefore, it is worth mentioning that
there should not be a confusion between the concept
of act in performance and the concept of sentence in
utterance. (Searle, Kiefer, & Bierwisch, 2010, p
.vii).
Consequently, in dealing with speech acts theory
and face theory, a distinction is made between face-
threatening act and face- saving act. When a person
speaks in a way that causes a threat to the other
person's self-image or face, this might cause face
damage in pragmatics, then this is called "face
threatening act". For example, using direct speech
act to make a request by using imperative mood
without having the social power or status that allows
for such use as in the sentence "Give me that pen".
The speaker of this sentence seems to have more
social power than the hearer but in fact they are in
equal status. (Yule, 2010, p.135).
In contrast, the face- saving act shows the request,
for example, in a way that is less threatening by
using indirect speech act implies the polite function
embedded in interrogative structure by putting the
modal verb "could" at the beginning of the sentence
to become "could you give me that pen please?".
Furthermore, face- saving act includes an emphasis
on displaying solidarity, cooperation, paying
attention to the common goals, and participating
with the others if the face- saving act has an
emphasis on positive face. (Yule, 2010, p.135).
It is obvious and concluded from the previous
explanations from studies involved in the concepts
of politeness, the notion of face, speech acts theory,
positive and negative face and other aspects like
face- saving act and face threatening act, that all
these topics deal pragmatically with the functions
and performances of utterances. These concepts are
basic background knowledge to deal with practical
applications like request, invitation, suggestion,
apology and other functions of language use in
communicative purposes. The later topic "Apology"
is an example of speech act theory.
Classification of Speech Acts
The main developer who has watched the huge
arrangement of the scientific categorization of
speech acts is Austin, at that point after his demise
in 1960, Austin's thoughts were refined,
systematized, and exhorted particularly by his
Oxford student, the American rationalist J. R.
Searle. At long last, Bach and Harnish together
accompany their order (mixed classification)
Due to the fact that various speech acts are found to
make different purposes, numerous noticeable
propositions for arranging discourse acts, for the
most part Austin's (1962) classification, Searle's
(1969) arrangement and Bach and Harnish's (1979)
order have been displayed. The ensuing areas are to
exhibit the three referenced above noticeable
characterizations .
Austin's Classification
Austin (1962) suggests that not all utterances are
intended for depicting various things or matters, in
other words, they can't be valid or bogus, however
they may show certain exhibitions and acts being
performed. He names such sorts of utterances as
performatives or performative expressions to
recognize them from constatives. Austin (1962, p. 5)
sees that this originates from the perception that
sentences, for example, "I name this ship Queen
Elizabeth" can't be valid or bogus, in light of the fact
that by talking such a sentence is clearly playing out
an activity, however, not portraying a true or bogus
activity.
Austin's exertion is to propose a syntactic
foundation by which performative and constative
expressions are separated from one another. Yet,
while applying his hypothesis, it has numerous
troubles. He understands that there are conflicting
examples to the formula he puts (1962, p. 55-6).
He recognizes that numerous performative
utterances are not traditional. In this way,
subsequent to managing the traditional
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
41
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
performatives, he extends the scope of the
performative utterances, yet new issues develop
when managing these performatives. In this manner,
he subdivides performatives into two different
terms: explicit performatives and implicit
performatives. He keeps up that there is a
correspondence between the explicit performatives,
in other words, they contain explicit performatives,
for example, 'I wager', 'I guarantee', 'I hand down'.
Also, explicit performatives are commonly
demonstrative in indicating the act, for instance
wagering, promising, and granting (ibid, p. 32-3).
Then again, because of their having no express
performative action words, the understood (or
essential) performatives are assigned by the 'crude
gadgets' going with the speech, for example, state of
mind, manner of speaking, qualifiers, interfacing
particles and the conditions of the articulation (ibid,
p. 73-6)
At long last, Austin surrenders the
performative/constative order and exhibits an
alternate classification by which he partitions an
expression into three acts. These demonstrations are:
Locutionary Act, Illocutionary Act and
Perlocutionary Act (ibid, p.101).
1. According to (Sadock, 2006, p. 54), locutionary
Acts, are demonstrations of uttering explicit sounds
and words that include the creation of speech in
blend of linguistic principles of a specific language
and with distinct faculties and references.
2. Illocutionary Acts, are acts done in talking
denoting the activity accomplished by a speaker
through performative (wedding, dedicating and so
on.) or constative (satisfying or attesting)
expressions (ibid, p.54-5)
3. Perlocutionary Acts, are the outcome or result of
talking. They are acts done by talking. In this way,
they signify the impact of illocutionary act, for
example, making individuals to allude to a particular
ship as the 'Joseph Stalin', persuading someone to
the truth of an announcement, making someone to
the need to accomplish something (Sadock, 2006, p.
55).
Searle's Classification
The American scholar, Austin's understudy, John R.
Searle progresses and organizes Austin's Speech
Acts Theory. After his educator's passing, he had an
important role in developing the Speech Acts
Theory. He keeps up that all 'linguistic
communication' involves semantic acts (Searle,
1969, p.16).
However, he adds that not every one of the action
words listed inside the classes of Austin's order of
discourse acts really satisfy the meanings of the
classes (ibid, p.10). Searle (ibid, p.24) gathers that
playing out an illocutionary demonstration implies
performing, simultaneously, the propositional and
utterance acts. To perform a speech act is to observe
certain essential principles that set up the sort of act
(Huang, 2007, p.104)
Searle relies on three fundamental dimensions for
the classification of speech acts, and these are:
1. Contrasts in the purpose of the act.
Searle claims that the point of an "order can be
shown by saying that it is an endeavor to get the
audience to accomplish something." Yet, the
objective of description is to speak to something as
"genuine, bogus, exact or ‟inaccurate". What's
more, the point of a promise is that the speaker is
obliged to ‟do something (1979, p.2)
1. Contrasts to fit between words and the world.
It is worried about how to get the words and the
world compare with each other. For example, in
assertions the words must match something ‟true in
the world". Be that as it may, promise requires the
speaker to accomplish his commitment, which
means that the world changes to fit the speaker's
words (Searle, 1979, p.3)
3. Contrasts in the mental states.
In this point, the speaker communicates a state or a
frame of mind to the propositional content. Searle
conveys that the speaker exemplifies a certain state
of mind in the display of every illocutionary act with
an intended meaning. In other words, the speaker
expresses his mental state when he talks. He
includes that "the mental state communicated in the
presentation of the illocutionary act is the
truthfulness state of the demonstration" (ibid, p. 4-
5)
Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
There is a straightforward differentiation of speech
hypotheses between direct acts of speech , in which
the speaker says what he simply means, and indirect
acts of speech, in which (s)he implies more than
what he (s) says.
The speaker says a certain thing in an indirect speech
act, signifies what he says, but it presupposes
something more. For example, a speaker may say to
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
42
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
a listener, "You are remaining on my foot." And it
could mean: "You are remaining on my foot,"
however in many situations, it would definitively
indicate something progressively, for example, "If
it's not too much trouble get off my foot." The
immediate speech act, which communicates the
exacting significance of the sentence, lies in the
realm of semanticization. The indirect speech act is
expressed in the wording of the speaker insofar as it
varies in the field of pragmatics from the strict
significance of the sentence. (Vrabel, 2005, p.38)
The speech of the speaker may differ in a range of
ways from literal significance. The meaning of the
speaker often include literal meaning; however it
may go past because of the acts of speech, or
because of similarity or because of inconsistency it
may leave. It may be opposite to it. The distinction
between meaning of the speaker and the meaning of
a sentence is normal for all theories of speech-act;
the dilemma is whether the qualification
corresponds to that of context free meanings
(semantics) or context dependent meanings
(pragmatics). There are evolving grades of
indirectness depending on how unique the two
substances are. For example, the sentence "Do you
realize what time it is?" It is likely (not the only
possible one, of course) in this context that I do not
know the time, want to know the time, and believe
you may well be able to tell me. In this setting it
would in a roundabout way pass on "What time is
it?" This is why it is completely uncooperative to
reply only with "Yes" in such a context. "Yes"
would respond to the question that is really posed,
however not the one that really need to have replied.
Another conceivable setting for the previously
mentioned sentence is the place it is routed to a kid
(by a parent, for example) when it is known to be
past the kid's sleep time: here my goal likely could
be to pass on an order to hit the sack. In either
contextualization, I perform two illocutionary acts
all the while, one legitimately (an inquiry with
respect to whether you recognize what time it is),
and one by implication (an inquiry regarding what
time it is, or an order to hit the sack). Regularly, the
immediate demonstration is clearly less significant
than the circuitous one – as when the enthusiasm of
the inquiry whether you realize the time is just that
in the event that you do you will have the option to
respond to the inquiry that I truly need a response to.
The first recommended contextualization is less
aberrant than the second on the grounds that the
propositional substance of the passed on "What time
is it?" is incorporated as a component of that which
is really communicated, though "You hit the hay"
isn't (ibid).
Indirect speech acts are phenomena that are
remarkably unavoidable. Some types of
illocutionary acts are executed indirectly more
regularly than directly, either in general or in a
certain scope. Take first the case of applications, not
generally but where speakers and addresses are not
closely related but are social equivalents. In this
case, a request would be much less likely made
directly than indirectly. Rather than the direct
"Please open the window", for instance, the speaker
is probably going to utilize one of the accompanying
indirect directives or something along similar lines:
Can/Could you (if it's not too much trouble) open the
window (ibid, p 38).
The Framework of Politeness Theory
On Politeness and Face
In general, the concept of politeness means to treat,
and communicate with, people tactfully, modestly,
and nicely. Pragmatically, the word "face" is closely
related to the study of politeness as a linguistic topic.
"Someone's face" means his/her public self-image.
The meaning of self-image is something emotional
and social. Expectations are made that people
recognize each other's' self-image. (Yule, 2010,
p.135).
Historically, Ide and Lakoff (2005) mention that the
introduction of the study of politeness into
linguistics began more than thirty years before the
year of their book publication (p.1).
The two researchers mentioned earlier state that, at
the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a
useful and important contributions in the study of
interpersonal behavior that involved different
cultures in diversity investigated by the
anthropologists at that time who emphasized and
clarified the idea that what is regarded as polite in
one group might be the opposite by the other group's
considerations (Ide & Lakoff, 2005, p.1).
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
43
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
The Notion of Face
The notion of face, which is very important and
crucial to recent researchers of politeness, was first
introduced by the anthropologist and sociologist
Eving Goffman in 1967 in his book titled
"interaction ritual". He states:
“Face is an image of self-
delineated in terms of
approved social attributes –
albeit an image that others
may share, as when a person
makes a good showing for his
profession or religion by
making a good showing for
himself” (Goffman, as cited
in Marquez- Reitter, 2000,
p.18).
Two types of face aspects are specified by brown &
Levinson (1978) as universal aspects of face
according to their claims. These are called "negative
face" and "positive face" which represent two
crucial desires of any speaker or communicator in
any communication activity. The concept of
"negative face" means the need of a person to act
without imposition, to have the freedom, and not to
be prevented by others. (As cited in Marquez-
Reiter, 2000, p.12).
On the other hand, the concept of positive face could
be defined according to Brown and Levinson (1987)
as:
“They want of every member that his wants
be desirable to at least some others”. (Brown
and Levinson, as cited in Seiwald, 2011, p.5).
The wants of positive face are exemplified in two
types of desires. The first type of desire is to get the
acceptance and approval by others in a specific
group. The second type of desire is to get the self-
image appreciated by others. In other words, to
accomplish the wants of positive face, the speaker
who converses want his goals to get the acceptance
and even the desirability by the others hence the
positive face wants could be fulfilled (Thomas, as
cited in Seiwald, 2011, p.5).
Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory
Building on the study of politeness in three
languages, English, Tzeltal and Tamil, Brown and
Levinson theory (1987) was developed. Two related
aspects made up this theory. The first assumption is
that all speakers and hearers have a face, the public
self-image that each member tries to acquire
himself, comprising two fundamental principles.
(i.) Negative face: fundamental territorial claims,
personal preservation, non-distraction rights – i.e.
freedom of action and the freedom from imposition.
(ii.) Positive face: the positive self-image
(including the desire to appreciate and approve
the self-image) that the interactors claim (Brown
and Levinson, 1987, p. 61)
The second assumption is that interactors can
achieve certain objectives rationally. Face is an
interaction with others that is changeable and
thorough, socially and culturally dynamic. In order
to sustain their faces, speakers recognize their
vulnerability as rational agents and are ready to
work with others.
Brown and Levinson (1987, p.65) claim that
everyday communication includes the use of face-
threatening acts (FTA), which in their nature are
opposed to the face desires of the hearer and/or of
the speaker.
Both the face of the speaker and the listener can
be threatened by FTAs. Also, the positive and
negative side of the face can be obstructed. Negative
FTAs obstruct the freedom of the speaker or the
hearer to act and impose. These can threaten the
listener if they:
a) Put the hearer under pressure to do or not
do something, such as: advice, suggestions,
requests, orders, remindings, warnings, and
threats.
b) Convey the speaker's a strong negative
attitude or opinion of the hearer, such
as: hatred, anger, lust, compliments,
expressions of envy, admiration.
c) Signify some positive future actions by the
speaker towards a listener that force the
listener to refuse or accept it, such
as: offers and promises.
FTAs that threaten the negative face of the speaker
are those that offend the person's face, for example
by expressing gratitude, accepting the thank-offer,
apologies, answers to hearing the untrue pas, etc.
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
44
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Positive FTAs harm the hearer's face by denoting
the disregard of the interlocutor for one's feelings,
desires, etc. Thus, the hearer's face is threatened by:
I. Demonstrating the negative assessment of the
positive face of the hearer by the speaker, as
in: disapproval, criticism, insults, complaints, etc.
II. Displaying a lack of care for the positive face of
a listener, as in: excessive emotionality, irreverence,
misuse of honorifics, mention of taboo topics, etc.
The positive face of the speaker is threatened with
acts that imply that one has committed transgression
or lost control of the situation, e.g. apologies,
confessions, admissions of guilt or responsibility,
etc.
Brown and Levinson's interpretation of politeness is
accurate with regard to FTAs – they identify it as
face saving, act i.e. the use of threat reduction
strategies (1987, p. 68). They distinguish between
multiple categories when discussing the strategies of
politeness. In the case of the speaker and listener,
however, both agree that the importance of face
requests may be stopped in the interest of urgency
or effectiveness" or where the threat to the face of
the listener is very slight, it is reasonable for the
Bald-on recording strategy (Brown and Levinson
1987, p. 69).
A positive politeness strategy has been designed to
reduce the threat to the positive face of the hearer
and involves expressions that express an interest in
the needs and wishes of the hearer, contain in-group
markers of identity, optimism, humor and discord
prevention. Negative politeness are used to avoid or
reduce possible damage to the negative face of the
hearer and include hedges or question statements,
pessimism, indirectness, etc.
Finally, the off-record or indirect politeness strategy
turns into totally indirect statements that prevent the
speaker from posing a potential threat.
While Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness
has received much criticism, in particular because it
is not universally applicable to cultures and its
interpretation of the face, it certainly sets goals for
further politeness research.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND
ADOPTED MODEL
Preliminaries
The researcher has used the internet in order to
collect the data; the script of Donald Trump’s
victory speech, which was found in
(https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/t
rump-speech-transcript.html)
Moreover, the first strategy used by the researcher
was to read the speech, and then classify the data
according to Brown and Levinson's politeness
theory to be analyzed.
Moreover, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model was
chosen by the researcher for analysis.
The Adopted Model for Analysis
The researcher has chosen Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) model for analysis. The following Figure
illustrates the model.
Figure (1) Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Model
Negative Face Threatening Acts Positive Face Threatening Acts
Compliment. Suggestion. Offer. Promise. Request. Boasting. Challenge. Belittling.
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
45
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
RESEARCH RESULTS
Face-threatening Acts and Politeness Strategies
in Donald Trump’s Victory Speech
The examination of Trump's victory speech has
resulted in a total of 197 discovered FTAs. The
separated FTAs were classified as positive or
negative and as targeted towards the hearer or the
speaker. Table 1 demonstrates that negative FTAs
appear more frequently and that a great majority of
FTAs represent a threat to the hearer’s rather than
the speaker’s face.
Table (1): Negative Face Threatening Acts in
Donald Trump’s Victory Speech
Negative FTA’s
NO.
To the hearer
33
Compliment
17
Suggestion
1
Promise
14
Request
3
Offer
1
To the speaker
0
These Face Threatening Acts include large numbers
of Compliments, promises and requests:
(1) Fantastic family. I was very lucky. Great
brothers, sisters; great, unbelievable
parents.
(2) And I promise you that I will not let you
down. We will do a great job. We will do a
great job.
(3) We must reclaim our country’s destiny and
dream big and bold and daring.
However, there are also suggestions and offers:
(4) We will seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict
(5) For those who have chosen not to support
me in the past, of which there were a few
people, I’m reaching out to you for your
guidance and your help so that we can
work together and unify our great country.
Trump uses different forms of negative face
threatening acts in his speech. He causes disruption
to his audience's wants to be free to do everything
on their own. When the negative face is threatened,
freedom of choice and action is affected. The acts
can harm the negative face of the listener if that act
which confirms or denies a future act of the listener
causes the listener to either carry out the act or not.
Table (2): Positive Face Threatening Acts in
Donald Trump’s Victory Speech
Positive FTA’s
NO.
To the hearer
Boasting
10
Challenge
1
Belittling
0
To the speaker
0
Positive Face Threatening Acts are found in two
various forms, all of them threatening the hearer.
99% of positive Face Threatening Acts are of
boasting:
(1) Sorry to keep you waiting; complicated
business; complicated.
(2) We have a great economic plan.
(3) For those who have chosen not to support
me in the past, of which there were a few
people, I’m reaching out to you for your
guidance and your help so that we can
work together and unify our great country
The study demonstrates how Trump threatens his
audience's positive face, as he does not care about
their feelings, wants, etc. His acts damages his
audience's positive face, as they express negative
assessment of the hearer's positive face
CONCLUSION
The analysis demonstrated that face threatening acts
occur in presidential speeches. A significant
majority of FTAs are directed to the listener and
threaten the negative face. Qualitative analysis
suggests that face threatening acts, whose role is to
perform a particular action, such as suggestions,
promises, offers, and that place pressure on the
hearer are usually found in presidential speeches. In
political discourses, there is a frequent use of
politeness strategies, most of them positive and
negative. However, bald on-record strategies are
placed in specific places in the texts.
REFERENCES
1. Austin, J. (1962). How To Do Things With
Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
2. Ayu, D. T. & Sukyadi, D.
(2011).Complaining in EFL Learners:
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
46
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Differences of Realizations between Men
and Women. Indonesia: Indonesian University
of Education .
3. Baggini, J. (2010).Complaint: From Minor
Moans to Principled Protests. London: Profile
Books LTD.
4. Brown, Penelope, Stephen Levinson (1987).
Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
5. Byram, M. (Ed).(2000). Routledge
Encyclopedia of language Teaching and
Learning. New York: Routledge .
6. Clyne, M. (1996).Inter-Cultural
Communication at Work: Cultural Values in
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
7. Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural
communication at work: Cultural values in
discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
8. Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics
and Phonetics (6th ed.).Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd .
9. Crystal, David.(2010). The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Language.(3rd ed.). UK,
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
10. Edmondson, W. and House, J. (1981). Let’s
Talk and Talk about it. München: Urban and
Schwarzenberg
11. Fortanet, I. Palmer, J.C.& posteguillo, S.
(2004).Linguistic Studies in Academic and
Professional English. Castello de la Plana:
Publicacions de la UniversitatJaume I, D.L .
12. Guillen-Nieto, V.Marimon-Llorca, C.
&Vargas-Sierra,C. (eds) (2009). Intercultural
Business Communication and Simulation and
Gaming Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang AG
13. http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/spchacts.html
14. Huang, Y. (2014).Pragmatics. (2nded).
Oxford: Oxford University Press
15. Ide, S.; Hill, B.; Garners, Y.; Ogino, T. and
Kawasaki, A. (1992). “The Concept of
Politeness: An Empirical Study of American
English and Japanese”. In: Watts, R. J., Ide, S.,
and Ehlich, K. (eds.), Politeness in Language,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.281-299 .
16. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993).
Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Introduction. In
G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.),
Interlanguage Pragmatics, (pp. 1-17). New
York: Oxford University Press
17. Kent Bach, Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy entry
18. Kummer, M. (1992). “Politeness in Thai”. In:
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K. (eds.),
Politeness in Language, Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp.225-337 .
19. Laforest, M. (2002). Scenes of family life:
Complaining in everyday conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1595-1620 .
20. Lakoff, Robin T.,& Ide, S.(2005).
Introduction. In Ide, S., & Lakoff, R.
Tolmach(Eds.), Broadening the Horizon of
Linguistic Politeness (pp. 1-18). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing
Company .
21. Marquez-Reiter, Rosina. (2000). Linguistic
Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A
Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins
Publishing Company .
22. Meinl, M.E. (2014).Electronic Complaints:
An Empirical Study on British English and
German Complaints eBay. Berlin: Frank &
Timme
23. Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An
Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
24. Nodoushan, M.(2006) ."The Socio-Pragmatics
of Greeting Forms in English and Persia" in
Journal of Language. Society and Culture,
Issue 17 .
25. Ogiermann, Eva.(2009). On Apologizing in
Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures.
Amsterdam, The Netherlans: John Benjamins
Publishing Company
26. Perkins, Michael (2007). Pragmatic
Impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
27. Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2002).Language
Teaching and applied linguistics. Edinburgh:
Pearson Education Limited .
28. Sadock, 2006: 54). Jerrold (2006). "Speech
Acts". In Horn, Laurence R. and Gregory
Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
29. Salgado, F. Elizabeth.(2011). The Pragmatics
of Requests and Apologies : Developmental
Patterns of Mexican students. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands : John Benjamins Publishing
Company .
30. Searle (1969:16) Searle, J. (1969). Speech
Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
47
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
31. Searle, J. R. , Kiefer, F. , & Bierwisch, M.
(2012). Introduction. In Searle, J. R. , Kiefer,
F. , & Bierwisch, M (Eds.), Speech Act Theory
and Pragmatics. (pp. vii-xii). Dordrecht,
Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company .
32. Seiwald, Regina. (2011). The Importance of
Face in Politeness Theory. Germany: GRIN
VERLAG .
33. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage
Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .
34. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press..
35. Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language. (4th
ed.). New York : Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX
Following is a transcript of Donald J. Trump’s victory speech, as compiled by Federal News Services.
TRUMP: Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone.
(APPLAUSE)
Sorry to keep you waiting; complicated business; complicated. (Boasting)
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I’ve just received a call from Secretary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
She congratulated us — it’s about us — on our victory (Boasting)
, and I congratulated her and her family on a very, very hard-fought campaign. I mean, she — she fought very
hard. (Compliment)
(APPLAUSE)
Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude
for her service to our country. (Compliment)
(APPLAUSE)
I mean that very sincerely.
(APPLAUSE)
Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats
and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. (Request)
(APPLAUSE)
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
48
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important
to me. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I’m reaching out to
you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country. (Offer)
(APPLAUSE)
As I’ve said from the beginning, ours was not a campaign, but rather an incredible and great movement made up
of millions of hard-working men and women who love their country and want a better, brighter future for
themselves and for their families. (Boasting)
(APPLAUSE)
It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect
our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream. I’ve
spent my entire life and business looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world.
That is now what I want to do for our country. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
Tremendous potential. I’ve gotten to know our country so well — tremendous potential. It’s going to be a beautiful
thing. Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. The forgotten
men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re
going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of
our people to work as we rebuild it. (Promise)
We will also finally take care of our great veterans. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
They’ve been so loyal, and I’ve gotten to know so many over this 18-month journey. The time I’ve spent with
them during this campaign has been among my greatest honors. (Compliment)
Our veterans are incredible people. (Compliment)
We will embark upon a project of national growth and renewal. I will harness the creative talents of our people
and we will call upon the best and brightest to leverage their tremendous talent for the benefit of all. It’s
going to happen. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
49
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
We have a great economic plan. (Boasting)
We will double our growth and have the strongest economy anywhere in the world. At the same time, we will get
along with all other nations willing to get along with us. We will be. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
We’ll have great relationships. We expect to have great, great relationships. No dream is too big, no challenge is
too great. (Promise)
TRUMP: Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach.
America will no longer settle for anything less than the best. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
We must reclaim our country’s destiny and dream big and bold and daring. (Request)
We have to do that. We’re going to dream of things for our country and beautiful things and successful things
once again. (Promise)
I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America’s interests first, we will deal fairly with
everyone, with everyone — all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict. (Suggestion)
And now I’d like to take this moment to thank some of the people who really helped me with this, what they are
calling tonight, very, very historic victory.
First, I want to thank my parents, who I know are looking down on me right now.
(APPLAUSE)
Great people. I’ve learned so much from them. They were wonderful in every r egard. I had truly great parents.
(Compliment)
I also want to thank my sisters, Maryanne and Elizabeth, who are here with us tonight. And, where are they?
They’re here someplace. They’re very shy, actually. And my brother Robert — my great friend. Where is Robert?
Where is Robert?
(APPLAUSE)
My brother Robert. And they should all be on this stage, but that’s OK. They’re great. And also my late brother,
Fred. Great guy. Fantastic guy. (Compliment)
(APPLAUSE)
Fantastic family. I was very lucky. Great brothers, sisters; great, unbelievable parents. (Compliment)
To Melania and Don. . .
(APPLAUSE) . . . and Ivanka. . .
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
50
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
(APPLAUSE)
. . . and Eric and Tiffany and Baron, I love you and I thank you, and especially for putting up with all of those
hours. This was tough. ?
(APPLAUSE)
This was tough. This political stuff is nasty and it’s tough. So I want to thank my family very much. Really
fantastic. Thank you all. Thank you all.
And Lara, unbelievable job, unbelievable. (Compliment)
Vanessa, thank you. Thank you very much.
What a great group. You’ve all given me such incredible support, and I will tell you that we have a large group of
people. You know, they kept saying we have a small staff. Not so small. Look at all the people that we have. Look
at all of these people. (Boasting)
And Kellyanne and Chris and Rudy and Steve and David. We have got — we have got tremendously talented
people up here. (Compliment)
And I want to tell you, it’s been — it’s been very, very special. I want to give a very special thanks to our former
mayor, Rudy Giuliani.
(APPLAUSE)
Unbelievable. Unbelievable. He traveled with us and he went through meetings. That Rudy never changes.
Where’s Rudy? Where is he? Rudy. Compliment)
Governor Chris Christie, folks, was unbelievable.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Chris.
The first man, first senator, first major, major politician, and let me tell you, he is highly respected in Washington
because he’s as smart as you get: Senator Jeff Sessions. Where is Jeff? Compliment)
(APPLAUSE)
Great man.
Another great man, very tough competitor. He was not easy. He was not easy. Who is that? Is that the mayor that
showed up? Is that Rudy? Oh, Rudy got up here. Compliment)
Another great man who has been really a friend to me. But I’ll tell you, I got to know him as a competitor because
he was one of the folks that was negotiating to go against those Democrats: Dr. Ben Carson. Where is Ben?
(APPLAUSE)
Where is Ben?
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
51
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
TRUMP: And by the way, Mike Huckabee is here someplace, and he is fantastic. Mike and his family, Sarah —
thank you very much.
General Mike Flynn. Where is Mike?
(APPLAUSE)
And General Kellogg. We have over 200 generals and admirals that have endorsed our campaign. And they’re
special people and it’s really an honor. We have 22 congressional Medal of Honor recipients. (Boasting)
We have just tremendous people. (Compliment)
A very special person who believed me and, you know, I’d read reports that I wasn’t getting along with him.
(Compliment)
I never had a bad second with him. He’s an unbelievable star. He is. . .
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: That’s right. How did you possibly guess? So let me tell you about Reince, and I’ve said this. I said,
Reince — and I know it, I know. Look at all those people over there. I know it. Reince is a superstar. But I said,
“They can’t call you a superstar, Reince, unless we win,” because you can’t be called a superstar — like Secretariat
— if Secretariat came in second, Secretariat would not have that big, beautiful bronze bust at the track at Belmont.
But I’ll tell you, Reince is really a star. And he is the hardest-working guy. (Compliment)
And in a certain way, I did this — Reince, come up here. Where is Reince? Get over here, Reince.
(APPLAUSE)
Boy oh boy oh boy. It’s about time you did this, Reince. My God.
(APPLAUSE)
Say a few words. No, come on, say something.
RNC CHAIRMAN REINCE PRIEBUS: Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the United States, Donald
Trump.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. It’s been an honor. God bless. Thank God.
TRUMP: Amazing guy.
Our partnership with the RNC was so important to the success and what we’ve done. (Boasting)
So I also have to say I’ve gotten to know some incredible people — the Secret Service people.
(APPLAUSE)
Multidisciplinary International Journal http://www.mijournal.in
(MIJ) 2022, Vol. No. 8, Jan-Dec e-ISSN: 2454-924X; p-ISSN: 2454-8103
52
MULTIDISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
They’re tough and they’re smart and they’re sharp, and I don’t want to mess around with them, I can tell you.
(Compliment)
And when I want to go and wave to a big group of people and they rip me down and put me back down on the
seat. But they are fantastic people, so I want to thank the Secret Service.
(APPLAUSE)
And law enforcement in New York City. They’re here tonight.
(APPLAUSE)
These are spectacular people, sometimes underappreciated unfortunately, but we appreciate them. We know what
they go through. (Compliment)
So, it’s been what they call a historic event, but to be really historic, we have to do a great job. (Request)
And I promise you that I will not let you down. We will do a great job. We will do a great job. (Promise)
(APPLAUSE)
I look very much forward to being your president, and hopefully at the end of two years or three years or four
years, or maybe even eight years. . .
(APPLAUSE)
. . . you will say, so many of you worked so hard for us, but you will say that — you will say that that was
something that you really were very proud to do and I can. . . (Boasting)
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Thank you very much.
And I can only say that while the campaign is over, our work on this movement is now really just beginning.
(Challenge)
(APPLAUSE)
We’re going to get to work immediately for the American people. (Promise) And we’re going to be doing a job
that hopefully you will be so proud of your president. (Boasting) You’ll be so proud. (Boasting) Again, it’s my
honor. It was an amazing evening. It’s been an amazing two-year period. And I love this country.
(APPLAUSE) Thank you. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you to Mike Pence. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
