6

TEACHERS’ POLITENESS STRATEGY IN CRITICIZING

CLASSROOM PRESENTATION

Elvira Victorina

Abstract

The act of criticizing students‟ performance have higher tendency to threat students‟

faces. Though criticism is aimed at giving positive input, the way it is delivered may give

different result. The present study investigates teacher‟s politeness strategy in giving

certain criticism and its reason to perform it by observing and interviewing six

participants. The results were analyzed based on Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) theory of

politeness strategy and Nguyen‟s (2008) classification of criticism strategies. The result

indicates that teachers mostly tend to state the problem when criticizing student‟s

performance and use bald on record politeness strategy. The main reason is because the

teachers mostly focus on the form of criticism rather than student‟s face or other reason.

The result of the study can be used to help teachers and student-teachers develop their

awareness to save their student‟s face by choosing the most appropriate politeness

strategy when criticizing students.

Key words: Criticism, Face, Politeness strategies

INTRODUCTION

“Feedback is the key to the formative assessment. It can be defined as the

information that is given or is being given on how an action is being developed in terms

of its quality of success (Sandler in Santos & Pinto, 2006).” However, little concern has

been given enough to the effect of how they deliver the feedback especially criticism in

feedback. According to Trees, Kerssen-Grip and Hess (2009), “Although we

communicated feedback that does indeed offer participants an array of positive outcomes,

there are many ways that teachers‟ attempts to convey feedback can be ineffective, or

worse, counter-productive.” Smith and King (2004) also state similarly that the manner in

delivering feedback remains unclear. Therefore, criticism as feedback could serve as an

7

act of threatening student‟s face. Dannels, Gaffey & Martin (2011) also argues that

criticism as the central part of education may suggest a situation of pressure, fear and

harsh criticism. Cohen & Lotan as cited in Rex & Schiller (2009, p.50) explained that the

power of teacher is substantial. Since higher social statuses will give more powerful

threat over the hearer, teachers who have higher social status in classroom may threat

students‟ face. That is why students and colleagues become silent and stop showing off

(Rex & Schiller 2009, p.50). Hence, it can be concluded that criticism as feedback even

said for the sake of students‟ learning process may be very depending on the way it

delivered.

As some teachers tend to threaten students‟ face, the others try to save students‟ face

as their strategy in learning process. Rex & Schiller (2009) stated, “To build a learning

community requires the conscious exercise of face saving to mitigate face-threatening

acts (p.45).” Therefore, it is interesting to find out why some teachers try to save

students‟ face while the other try to threat students‟ face and in which criticism strategy

FTA often occurred.

Previous study by Jiang (2010) on Teacher‟s politeness in EFL class (a case study of

Chinese EFL learners) concludes that politeness does exist in EFL classroom and it does

contribute to both teaching and learning. Politeness in classroom contributes to the

effective relationship, create friendly and lively atmosphere and will affects the mutual

understanding and the relationship between student and teacher. The other study

conducted by Peng, Cai, and Tan (2012) on teacher‟s politeness strategies in EFL

classroom claims that teachers in EFL classroom are highly aware of politeness strategies

8

and often used negative politeness and positive politeness as their strategies in classroom.

They prefer to use positive politeness as it helps the students to develop their self image.

Those previous studies are emphasizing more on communication in classroom. However,

feedback is also play an important role in classroom interaction but less attention was

given in the previous study. Therefore, this study will focus to investigate the politeness

strategy used by teachers in giving feedback (criticism).

The investigation of this study was guided with three questions below.

1. What kinds of criticism are used by participants in criticizing student‟s oral

presentation?

2. What politeness strategies are used by participants in criticizing students‟ oral

presentation?

3. What are the participants‟ considerations in using these politeness strategies in

criticizing?

The study is aimed to investigate the politeness strategy which is used by the teachers

in giving criticism by also looking at the intention. The result of this study can be used

for teachers to reflect their methods in criticizing their students and also as a media for

student – teachers to develop their awareness to save their students‟ face by choosing the

appropriate politeness strategy when criticizing students. By developing awareness,

teachers can help bridge the gap between teachers and students, also to create a relaxing

and friendly atmosphere (Peng, Cai, Tan, 2012). If teachers are able to develop their

awareness, hopefully it will help the students to receive more positive results (Rex and

Schiller, 2008)

9

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Politeness

Jiang (2010) found, for the last two decades or so, many researchers try to

develop politeness theory. In this study, Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory will be

used as the main politeness theory since the theory could be considered as the most

influential theory with many critiques, modifications, and reactions towards the theory

(Eelen, 2001). To note, the main focus of Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory was

the notion of face. They mentioned that „face refers to, “the public self image that every

member wants to claim for himself (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.61)”.

There are two kinds of face based on Brown and Levinson‟s theory. The first is

positive face which refers to the desire to be approved or appreciated. The other is

negative face which means someone‟s freedom (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In some

situation, the speaker may threaten hearer‟s face. The act to threaten hearer‟s face

(conscious or unconsciously) is called Face Threatening Act (FTA) . It is an act where the

speaker tends to speak in ways that runs contrary to the face wants of the hearer in an

interaction either an act to threaten positive or negative face wants (Franch & Conejos,

2003).

To reduce the tendency of threatening hearer‟s face, the speaker can use some

strategies. The speaker may choose to perform FTA or choose to not perform FTA. The

choice that the speaker makes will influence the level of FTA. The speaker may choose to

10

perform FTA in either low or high level to threat speaker. Table 2.1 will present some

possible strategies for doing FTAs.

Diagram 2.1 “Possible strategies for doing FTAs” (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.60)

Speaker‟s decisions to perform a particular strategy will affect the hearer‟s face.

When the speaker decides not to say anything as the strategy to avoid performing FTA,

the speaker actually performing „Don‟t do FTA‟ strategy. It indicates that the speaker is

able to measure the level of the hearer‟s face. Here, the speaker is aware that there are

some certain situations when something is so face threatening to say. Even so, there are

also many situations where the speakers have to perform FTA or unconsciously perform

FTA. When the speaker chooses to perform FTA, there are four strategies that can be

chosen. Those strategies are off record, with redressive action (bald on record), positive

politeness and negative politeness.

The first strategy to perform FTA is off record. It is a strategy to be indirect and

ambiguous by using metaphor, irony, rhetorical questions, or by giving many hints.

Thomas and Jenny (1995) add other characteristic of this strategy which is ambiguous or

vague. Here, the hearer have to conclude what the speaker means since it is not clearly

stated. Thomas and Jenny states that, “These strategy include give hints, use metaphors,

be ambiguous or vague (Thomas and Jenny, 1995, p.173).”

Lesser

Positive politeness

Without redressive action, baldly On record

Estimation of risk of face loss

With redressive action

Do the FTA

Negative politeness Off record

Don’t do the FTA Greater

11

On the contrary, when someone or a speaker chooses to performs on record, the

speaker intends to speak directly and clearly. By choosing to perform this strategy, the

speaker tries to avoid being ambiguous. There are two ways to perform this strategy. The

speaker can perform it without redressive action or with redressive action.

„Without redressive action (bald on record)‟ is a strategy where the speaker

speaks in maximum efficiency, very direct, concise and unambiguous. It is a strategy that

is usually used in an emergency situation or when the speaker has greater power over the

hearer, where the tendency to perform FTA is very small. On the other hand, when the

speaker chooses to perform redressive action, it means that the speaker recognizes the

hearer‟s face wants and tries not to threaten hearer‟s face by adding or reduce the threat

in a conversation. Here, both sides want to fulfill the need of face wants. There are two

forms of redressive action, positive politeness and negative politeness.

Positive politeness is an action where the speaker has an orientation to make the

hearer gives positive face. The possibility of face threat is minimized by performing this

strategy, as the speaker assume that in general the speaker‟s wants is at least some of

hearer‟s wants. Thus, the hearer‟s face is very important for the speaker when the strategy

is performed. The second form is negative politeness. It is more to hearer‟s basic wants

and self – determination. The speaker will not (or at least minimize) interfere the hearer‟s

freedom of action.

12

Table 2.2 summary of politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987)

Politeness

Strategies

Characteristics

Don‟t do FTA When speaker decides not to say anything as the strategy to

avoid perform FTA.

Off record Indirect and ambiguous by using metaphor, irony, rhetorical

questions or by giving many hints.

Bald on record Very direct, concise and unambiguous. Usually used in an

emergency situation or when speaker has greater power over

the hearer where the tendency to perform FTA is very small.

Negative

politeness

More to hearer‟s basic wants and self – determination. The

speaker will not (or at least minimize) interfere the hearer‟s

freedom of action.

Positive politeness When the speaker has an orientation to make the hearer give

positive face. The possibility of face threat is minimized by

perform this strategy, as the speaker assume that in general the

speaker‟s want is at least some of hearer‟s wants.

Criticism

Giving a criticism as teacher‟s feedback can be very helpful for the students in

teaching learning process. However, no one could ensure that every teacher know how to

deliver their criticism correctly. Tracy et al as cited in Nguyen (2008) defines criticism

as, “The act of finding fault which involves giving a negative evaluation of a person or an

act for which he or she is deemed responsible.”

13

There are some characteristics of good and bad criticism. A research by Tracy et

al cited in Nguyen (2008) about „good‟ and „bad‟ criticism divides five major

characteristics of criticism. The first one, a „good‟ criticism will be performed in positive

language and manner. Second, „good‟ criticism must show specific changes and the

critique must be used to help. Next, it has to have good and clear reasons. It also needs to

provide something good or useful in a positive message. Lastly, it has to be accurate and

does not violate the relationship between the speaker and the hearer. The other criticism

characteristic was defined by Wajnryb as cited in Nguyen (2008) that effective criticism

should be simple yet specific. The aim is to help the students to develop and gain

experience. The way it is delivered also needs to be soften by „measuring words‟, „soft

pedaling‟, and „using negotiating language‟. The other way, to save student‟s face,

teacher can give their critique either indirect or implied via third person.

In the present study, criticism by teacher in classroom will be used as the situation

or condition to investigate the reason behind politeness strategies chosen by teachers

when criticizing students‟ presentation. It is very important for the teachers to reflect their

methods in criticizing students orally (whether it is possible to minimize the level of FTA

towards the students or not). Moreover, it can be used as the media for student-teacher to

learn how to give oral criticism in classroom by minimizing threats to student‟s face.

In this study, the criticism theory that is mainly used is the adaptation of criticism

theory by Nguyen (2008). The criticism theory by Nguyen (2008) is used because the

theory classifies characteristic of criticism very specific and clear. In this theory, there are

14

five kinds of direct criticism and seven kinds of indirect criticism as can be seen in table

2.3.

Table 2.3 the taxonomy of criticism that adapted from Nguyen (2008)

Type Characteristics

1. Direct Criticism Explicitly pointing out the problem with the hearer‟s choice/

actions/work/products, etc.

a. Negative

evaluation

Usually expressed via evaluative adjectives with negative

meaning or evaluative adjective with positive meaning plus

negation.

b. Disapproval Describing speaker‟s attitude towards hearer‟s choice.

c. Statement of the

problem

Starting errors or problems found with hearer‟s choice, etc.

d. Statement of

difficulty

Usually expressed by means of such structures as “I find it

difficult to understand…” “It‟s difficult to understand…”

e. Consequences Warning about negative consequences or negative effects of

hearer‟s choice, etc.

2. Indirect Criticism Implying the problems with hearer‟s

choice/actions/work/products, etc. by correcting hearer,

indicating rules and standard, giving advice, suggesting or

even requesting or even requesting and demanding changes

to hearer‟s work/choice, and by means of different kinds of

hints to raise hearer‟s awareness of the inappropriateness of

hearer‟s choice.

a. Correction Including all utterances which have the purpose of fixing

errors by asserting specific alternatives to hearer‟s choice,

etc.

b. Indicating

Standard

Usually stated as a collective obligation rather than an

obligation for hearer personally or a rule which speaker

thinks is commonly agreed upon and applied to all.

c. Demand for

change

Usually expressed via such structures as “you have to”,

“you must”, “it is obligatory that” or “you have required” or

“you need”, “it‟s necessary”.

d. Request for

change

Usually expressed via such structures as “will you…?”,

“can you…”, “would you…?” or imperativeness or want-

statement.

e. Suggestion for

change

Usually expressed via “I advise you…”, or structures as

“you can”, “it would be better if” or “why don‟t you” etc.

f. Expression of

uncertainty

Usually expressing speaker‟s uncertainty to raise hearer‟s

choice, etc.

g. Asking/

Presupposing

Rhetorical questions to raise hearer‟s awareness of the

inappropriateness of hearer‟s choice, etc.

15

THE STUDY

Context of the Study

The study was conducted at English Department (ED) of Satya Wacana Christian

University which is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. In all classes, ED

teachers were required to give oral feedback in English to their students. Thus, the

context is suitable, considering that the focus of this study is to investigate the politeness

strategy used by teacher in giving feedback. The main focus of the study is to determine

the domain of politeness strategy used by teachers in English Department when

criticizing students‟ presentation and its reason.

Participants

The participants for the study were six non native teachers of English Department

who teach at any courses that require the students to do presentations in English, and

gave oral feedback. The use of non-native teacher as the participants was because both

the teachers and the students were non native. Thus, they share the similar politeness

value with other non native speakers.

16

Method of Research

This study was a qualitative study. The participants tend to be in small number

which is six participants. The data display of the study that would be used is participants‟

words. The data display later would be presented descriptively.

Instrument and Data Collection

The observation was conducted to identify which politeness strategies used by the

teachers and to describe more about strategies that the teachers used in criticizing their

students. In doing the observation, the researcher acted as non-participant observer and

recorded the observation by using video recording. The focus of the observation was the

teacher‟s talk which includes topics such as the way teachers criticize their students and

politeness strategies used by the teachers when criticizing. Observational protocol would

be used to capture the observational data (table 3.1) which is event-sampling protocol to

give an accurate description about the event that happened in the classroom during the

observation.

The next step, the researcher gathered the data by interviewing teachers. The

interviews focused more on the reasons of giving criticism in that particular way.

unstructured interviews were conducted, because the researcher wanted the participants

to be more open to the reasons why they performed particular politeness strategies and

developed understanding on the participants‟ point of view. Besides, this kind of

17

interview offered great flexibility for both researcher and the participant to respond to the

question. Therefore, the main point of the interviews was not to compare one reason to

others, but to report reasons why participants performed those strategies. The further

reason of selecting this kind of interview is to gather richer data since the participant

could describe the situation or give any detailed information that might be missing from

the researcher‟s point of view. The interviews were done not more than three days after

the observation.

Table 3.1 An event-sampling protocol for teacher‟s politeness strategies in criticizing

student‟s presentation

Observational Protocol

Name of course: Name of Instructor: Class time: Topic: Class duration: Total number of students:

No Types of Criticism Data Strategy

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, the observation recording was transcribed. Then, the data

were coded by highlighting the teacher‟s criticism using the taxonomy of criticism by

18

Nguyen (2008). In the third step, the politeness strategy that used by teacher was

classified based on Brown and Levinson theory.

The data on teacher‟s reason for giving that particular criticism, which was

gathered through interviews, were transcribed. Statements and explanations from the

teachers indicated the reasons why they gave certain kind of criticism by using some

particular politeness strategy. Later, the reasons from the participants would be used to

concluded the result of the study by making a conclusion based on the combination of the

analysis of politeness strategy that the teacher used when they giving criticism and its

reason.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In attempt to answer the research questions, the paper will elaborate, first, the

strategies of criticizing in giving feedback. Second, politeness strategies in criticizing is

discussed. Third the considerations of performing those strategies is presented based on

interviews with the participants.

EFL Teachers’ Criticism Strategy

One of the objectives of the study is to find the criticism strategy that is used by

the participants. In this study, the taxonomy of criticism by Nguyen (2008) is adopted to

define the kinds of criticism which has been done by observing six participants. Table 4.1

19

presents the result that has been analyzed by quantifying the number of criticism

feedback while observing the participants.

Table 4.1. Kinds of criticism that are performed by participants.

Kinds of criticism Number Percentage

Correction 6 6.52%

Indicating standard 4 4.35%

Demand for change 12 13.04%

Request for change 1 1.09%

Suggestion for change 2 2.17%

Expression of uncertainty 2 2.17%

Asking/presupposing 13 14.13%

Negative evaluation 7 7.61%

Disapproval 8 8.70%

Statement of problem 25 27.17%

Statement of difficulty 1 1.09%

Consequences

11

11.96%

Total 92 100%

The data indicates that the participants mostly used statement of problem (27.17%)

as their strategy to deliver criticism in classroom. Statement of problem is a strategy

where the speaker tends to state the errors or problems that teacher, as the speaker, thinks

require fixation. The way it is delivered is also very direct to the main problem(s) that the

student as the hearer should fix or consider.

Example of statement of problem

1. Criticism data: “Look at your audience! Eye contact!”

2. Criticism data: “I found that the slide is lack of pictures.”

The second strategy that is mostly used by participants is asking/presupposing. It is

used 13 times (14.13%) in total. Through this strategy, the teacher criticizes students

indirectly by asking questions to make the students aware of the inappropriateness. The

characteristic of asking/presupposing is the teacher tends to ask question to the students.

20

In the example, the teacher use asking/presupposing to raise a discussion about

inappropriateness that student made.

Example of asking/presupposing

1. Criticism Data: “Did you notice that the speaker have difficulties to put

his hand?”

2. Criticism Data: “Interlocutor. What is it? Why is it difficult?”

Next strategy, demand for change is used 12 times (13.04%) by the participants.

Demand for change is a strategy where the teacher not only asks but demand students to

change by using expressions such as “you have to”, “you must”, etc (see table 3.2).

Although the example do not use such words that clearly show that it is including in

demand for change, the teacher demands the student to change by using idiom “leave the

debaters somewhere in your pocket.”

Example of demand for change

1. Criticism Data: “I know you’re debater but please leave the debaters

somewhere in your pocket.”

2. Criticism Data: “You’re in control of the class so whether you want it or

not you have to show them that I’m in control.”

The last criticism strategy, consequences is used 11 times (11.96%) by the

participants. Consequences is a strategy where the teacher warns the students about the

negative effects of student‟s decision or act. In the data presented below, the participants

warn the students of the negative effects of student‟s act in a presentation.

Examples of consequences

1. Criticism Data: “So, when you talk that fast, your audience will lose

some information.”

21

2. Criticism Data: “Be careful with the spelling because you are the

teacher.”

Refers to the data presented, it can be conclude that the way teacher deliver their

criticism is vary and unequal. Indirect criticism is used 40 times (43.47%), while direct

criticism is used 52 times (56.53%). Therefore, direct criticism and indirect criticism are

almost equally used by the participants, while the number of each criticism strategy such

as correction, indicating standard, demand for change, etc is vary

Teachers’ Politeness Strategy in Criticizing Students and its Consideration

Trees, Kreshen-griep and Hess as cited in Rudick and Martin (2011) explained

that teachers have difficult task to correct students‟ performance while at the same time

also need to protect student‟s face. Even, teachers with professional role often threats

continually threats student‟s face by evaluating their actions and utterances, and

interrupting students. (Cazden as cited in Shing, 2012) Thus the researcher try to seek the

strategy that teachers use in giving their criticism, considering that criticism is an act of

finding fault and have higher possibility to threat student‟s face.

Six participants were observed and four out of five politeness strategies by Brown

and Levinson appeared. The only strategy that did not appear is don’t do the FTA, that

was intentionally removed because feedback is unavoidable. Brown and Levinson (1988)

also argue that there are no interesting linguistic that is reflected by this strategy.

Therefore, in this study don’t do FTA strategy will not be discussed further. The table 4.2

22

presents the result that has been analyzed by quantifying the number of politeness

strategies found in criticism feedback while observing the participants.

Table 4.2. Result of politeness strategies that are performed by participants.

Politeness Strategy

Criticism Strategy

Bald – on –

record

Off record Negative

Politeness

Positive

politeness

Num % Num % Num % Num %

Correction 6 6.52% - - - - - -

Indicating Standard 2 2.17% 1 1.09% 1 1.09% - -

Demand for Change 1 1.09% 1 1.09% - - - -

Request for Change 1 1.09% - - - - - -

Suggestion for Change 1 1.09% - - - - 1 1.09%

Expression of

uncertainty

1 1.09% 1 1.09% - - - -

Asking/Presupposing - - 12 13.04% 1 1.09% - -

Negative Evaluation 5 5.43% 2 2.17% - - - -

Disapproval 6 6.52% 1 1.09% 1 1.09% - -

Statement of problem 24 26.09% 1 1.09% - -

Statement of Difficulty 1 1.09% - - - -

Consequences

10

10.87%

1 1.09% -

-

-

-

Total 68 73,91% 20 21.74% 3 3.26% 1 1.09%

Bald on Record Strategy

In criticizing by giving the statement of difficulty, the participants tend to use bald

on record as their strategy. It is because the way the speaker delivers the criticism very

direct and unambiguous, which is the characteristic of bald on record. Here is the data

displayed for statement of difficulty in bald on record.

Criticism data: “I’m confused when you say tem. So what

do you mean is theme?”

From the data, the researcher hooks the participants by asking the consideration why to

choose to deliver the criticism in that way, and the consideration is the participant wants

23

to emphasize that wrong pronunciation may confuse people. Based on the participant‟s

consideration, it can be concluded that the participant only focused on how the main

message of her criticism is understandable for her students.

According to the data displayed in table 4.2, bald on record strategy is also

mainly used in correction strategy. James as cited in Tomczyk (2013) defines correction

as “The improved version of what the first speaker aimed to say.” Therefore, it depends

on how the correction is delivered to the hearer. Here, the researcher found that all the

correction strategy is always delivered in concise and unambiguous way by the

participants. Below is the data displayed of correction.

Criticism data: “And then on the slide. Just this group you

say for celebrate is wrong. You say for celebrating or to

celebrate so choose either one.”

Through interview, participant explained that she give example because she wants to give

prove while giving criticism to them. Therefore, it can be conclude that the participants

only focused on the form or how the criticism is delivered in order to make the students

understand the main message of the criticism.

In table 4.2, it is interesting to note that participants always used bald on record

strategy in criticizing by using request for change. It is fascinating to note that the

participant as the speaker use bald on record to ask or request the hearer to change

something. Again, the classification is very depending on how the criticism strategy is

delivered. Here, the participant chooses to deliver the request in maximum efficiency,

24

very direct and concise. Below is the data display of request for change in bald on

record.

Criticism data: “So what I’m asking from you and all of you here is

intonation.”

In criticizing by using statement of problem, participants mainly use bald on

record to deliver criticism. It is probably because the way it is delivered mostly very

direct and unambiguous which is also the characteristic of bald on record. Below are

some data presented for statement of problem in bald on record.

1. Criticism data: “Well, I think all of the group is show

consistency in making classic mistakes.”

2. Criticism data: “Actually some of you are very complete

in socializing about the budget but some of you may be

forgot mention about it.”

3. Criticism data: “Almost all of you depend much on the

slide and that’s going back to the problem of preparation.

Not to mention the pronunciation.”

In the first example, the participant explained the consideration that he thinks

some people understand with flowery words, while some do not. Therefore, the

participants argued he needs to be direct in order to make the students understand. The

conclusion is the participant tends to threat students‟ face in purpose in order to achieve

his communication goal which is to make them understand.

While in second example, the participant stated that the consideration to deliver

criticism this way because the participant decide not to judge the students, but start with

25

something positive by mentioning some students are good while some missing. In this

criticism, the participant use certain words like the word some to make the criticism is

less direct. By looking at the reason, the participant is aware of the student‟s faces,

especially those who do not make the mistake. The way it is delivered is also in positive

way in order to prevent the participant from threatening the students‟ face. The

interesting part here is that even the participant does not have intention to hurt the

students‟ face, the criticism is delivered in bald on record strategy which has high

tendency to threat someone‟s face. It is probably because of the time efficiency factor

since the criticism is delivered at the end of the lesson.

In the third example, the participant admit that the main consideration to deliver

the criticism in bald in record is because the limited time he has. That is why he has to

deliver it as concise as possible. By trying to deliver it as concise as possible, the

tendency to do FTA is increase as in one criticism data, the participants can deliver some

problem that the students have.

The other criticism that often used by participants in bald on record strategy is

disapproval. Disapproval itself is a strategy where the teacher can express his/her attitude

towards students‟ choice. Therefore, deliver a criticism using this strategy in bald on

record may have high tendency to threat students‟ face. Below is the criticism data

presented.

Criticism data: “My first comment is your gesture. You

keep doing this as if your left hand was glued with this

white board.”

26

The participant stated that the consideration to deliver the criticism this way because of

the student‟s factor which it is only applicable to certain people that he know very well.

By looking at the consideration which is not only try to deliver the message and

considering student‟s face but also look deeper into one of the politeness factors which

are relationship‟s distance. In other words, the participant is highly aware that his

utterance may threat student‟s face, but still perform it. The main consideration

participant tends to do FTA in purpose because the participant know the student well and

probably think that by performing FTA to the students will not affect their relation.

Last criticism strategy that often used in bald on record is consequences.

Consequences is a criticism strategy where the teacher can warn the negative effects of

students‟ choice. Hence, deliver consequences in maximum efficiency and direct may

have high tendency to perform FTA. In the data presented below, the participant

mentioned the consideration is because this kind of situation was rarely happened in

classroom, however it was suitable with the topic. The interesting part here, the

participant give this kind of feedback not because the students make mistake in class, but

more to prevent the students to make this kind of mistake. In other words, it can be

conclude that the participant is totally unaware of the FTA and only focused on how the

main point of her criticism is understandable for the students.

Criticism data: “Even when you write down on the board,

some of the students may write the wrong answer.”

Bald on record is never used in asking/presupposing since the nature of

asking/presupposing is to raise hearer‟s awareness of something by using rhetorical

27

question. Hence, asking/ presupposing is never delivered in form of bald on record

because it is hard to raise hearer‟s awareness in a maximum efficiency and very concise

form (which is characteristic of bald on record).

Off Record Strategy

As the safest strategy according to Shing (2012), off record was not used as much

as bald on record which is known to have more tendency to threat hearer‟s face. To note,

off record was never used in statement of difficulty, request for change, and suggestion

for change. It can be because these kinds of criticism rarely delivered through hints, irony

or sarcasm.

According to table 4.2 off record is commonly used in asking/presupposing by

participants. Shing (2012) pointed out that off record is the safest strategy as the strategy

includes giving hints, being ironic and using rhetoric questions. Since the nature of

asking/presupposing is also using rhetorical questions, it is obvious when the participants

perform this criticism strategy mostly it will be in off record classification. Below are

some data displayed for asking/presupposing in off record.

1. Criticism data: “I think that’s a language use. Where’s the

difficulty?”

2. Criticism data: “Diction here related to pronunciation. I

guess its unconsciousness.”

In first example, is a common example of off record strategy that also has a

common reason which is to make the student think and aware. Here, the participant tends

28

to ask question to raise students‟ awareness and think about their mistake instead of

explicitly stated the error. By the consideration above, it can be concluded that the

participant only focus on how the students can understand their error.

Different from the first example, in the second example the participant stated that

she did not want to judge the student since there is a possibility that the student may

forget about how to pronounce certain words. In this example, the participant not only try

to deliver her message but also aware of the student‟s face and do not want to judge the

students. The participants also try to lessen threat the students‟ face by using the word

guess.

In criticizing by using demand for change, participants found to make use off

record strategy. Demand of change is a strategy where the speaker expressed an

obligation by using certain expression (See table 2.3). By looking at the criticism data,

the participant used sarcasm in his criticism which is can be classified in off record

strategy.

Criticism data: “So, if you think your language is rubbish,

sorry… Then you need to correct it.”

The word rubbish is the main question since the word rubbish can be considered as very

threatening for the students‟ face. However, the participant admits that it‟s only a

unconsciousness he made since the background of the participant is English British and

according to the participant it‟s commonly used and can be considered as soft swear

word.

29

The last criticism strategy that mainly used in off record strategy is expression of

uncertainty. Same as demand for change, this strategy only occurred once but represent

50% of the total data of its occurrence (see table 4.2). Expression of uncertainty is a

strategy where the teacher can express his/her uncertainty to raise the inappropriateness

of students‟ choice. Since the participant delivers it indirectly and use sarcasm, therefore

it classified as off record. The participant stated that he was curious whether his students

is copy and paste their work from a book. By looking at the data displayed below, the

researcher may conclude that the participants use this strategy to clarifying something to

the students.

Criticism data: “It is mostly like what you have in the

book in chapter 7. Did you take it from chapter 7?.”

Negative Politeness

The next politeness strategy to be discussed is negative politeness which occurred

in very small number in the table 4.2. Dunleavy et al (2008) argued that negative

politeness can be the second most threatening strategy. “They include being

conventionally indirect, questioning, hedging, being pessimistic, minimizing imposition,

giving deference and apologizing (Kitao as cited by Chiravate, 2011).” To note, negative

politeness only occur in asking/presupposing, disapproval and indicating standard.

Through observation, similarity between those three data were spotted. All of them are

showing the tendency to interfere the hearer‟s freedom of action implicitly or questioning

30

hearer‟s choice. The criticism data below will present one of the examples of negative

politeness in asking/presupposing strategy.

Criticism data: “This one is also, I think it’s the content

which is mistake. This should be celebrate woman’s day,

Krtini’s day, but it’s on April 22nd

why? If Kartini’s day is

on April the 1st.”

The participant tends to interfere the hearer‟s freedom of action through the criticism as

the participant questioning something that should be the students‟ freedom of action. In

the interview session, the participant said that she would like to deliver the criticism

directly since the example is clear. By looking at the consideration, it can be conclude

that the participant just focus on the form to deliver the criticism and make the students

understand the criticism without considering other factors.

The next strategy that will be discussed further along with the reason from the

participants to perform is negative politeness in disapproval. Disapproval is a criticism

strategy where the teacher can describe his/her attitude towards students‟ choice. In this

strategy, there is only one participant and one data occurred in the observation.

Criticism data: “I remembered you Pratama was sitting

here and then I was asking a question to myself is

Pratama angry because the way… I mean his gesture look

like as if you’re angry. May be it’s a seriousness, but your

seriousness is angry to me.”

Through interview, the participants state his consideration to deliver his strategy this way

which is because for the participants the function of his criticism is to make a joke so he

31

could blend with the class. The participant also mentioned that he will only state the

name (choose to deliver the criticism personal) if only he know the student well.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the participant use negative politeness strategy in

order to reduce the distance between the participants and the students by make a joke

while deliver his criticism. The other thing that the participant also said is the way he

chooses to state the name which is also indicated the relation between the participants and

the student.

The last strategy to be discussed is negative politeness in indicating standard.

Indicating standard is a criticism strategy where the teacher a collective obligation which

is commonly agreed. Here is the example.

Criticism data: “Maybe it’s better when you say; okay, so

I’ll just find it out for you and then next week I’ll just come

with the word or names. As the teacher it’s okay if you

don’t know the word, then you can just say that or this

would be my homework and I’ll just try find it out for you

and I’ll give to you next week.”

The participant stated that the aim to deliver the criticism this way is because some of

the students tend to ignore some questions when they don‟t know the answer, while

the use of the word “if” is to show the students how to handle that kind of situation.

The participant tends to be very indirect in explaining the point of her criticism which

probably causes the students make a negative face. By looking at the reason, the

researcher conclude that the participant tend to focus on how she deliver the criticism

and make the students understand the point of her criticism.

32

Positive Politeness

The last politeness strategy to be discussed is positive politeness. This strategy

occurred only once in the data in suggestion for change. As the name, suggestion for

change is a strategy where the speaker suggests the hearer to do something. The used of

positive politeness in suggestion for change strategy signaling the speaker try to reduce

the FTA. Below is the display of criticism data in suggestion for change in positive

politeness.

Criticism data: “Sometimes the questions even from your

friends you can think oh well, why don’t we think about

this previously?”

The criticism data, a question about the aim to use certain word like the word sometimes

is used to hook the participant. However, the participant explains that the consideration to

use the word sometimes here is just choice of words in order to show the students that

they might be just aware about the topic. By looking at the consideration, the researcher

conclude that through this criticism the participant only focus on the way it‟s delivered to

make the students understand. The fascinating part here lays on the classification of the

data which is can be classified as positive politeness which can be considered as one of

the strategies where the speaker have high opportunities to lessen the FTA‟s tendency.

However, the participant uses the strategy unconsciously.

33

CONCLUSION

This study reported the findings about kinds of criticism used by teachers in

criticizing students‟ performance in their presentation and the politeness strategies that

are used in those criticisms along with its considerations. The study is conducted by

observing six participants followed by interviewing them. At the end, this study conclude

that teachers as the participants mostly tend to state the problem when criticizing their

students, while the politeness strategy that commonly used is bald on record although the

other strategies also used in varied number. There are various considerations to use

certain politeness strategy but most of the reason is because the participants are focusing

more on the form rather than the student‟s face or other reasons.

The only limitation of the study is the time availability of participants to do interview

session which was varied. Some participants could not do the interview session within

three days which is the maximum time to do observation. Moreover, the interview is done

through using unstructured interview which also need plenty of time to conduct. This

time limitation, affect the number of the data.

For further research, it is suggested to investigate more on teacher‟s intention to

say certain criticism based on speech act theory. Since speech act theory is a theory to

identify the meaning of the speaker‟s utterance (Intachakra, 2004). Besides, Nguyen

(2013) also argues that, “Literature on L2 learner‟s use on highly offensive speech acts

such as complaints, chastisements and criticism has been rather scarce.” Therefore, the

34

future study related to this may be very useful for both teacher and student - teacher to

reflect their methods in giving criticism and learn ways to criticize students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First, I would like to thank to God Almighty for the favor and strength to finish this

study. I am also very grateful to my supervisor and the examiner for the guidance,

feedback and suggestion during this study. Finally, I would like to thank to my parents

for always cheer, support and inspire me during the process.

REFERENCES

Bou-Franch, P., & Conejos, P. (2003). Teaching linguistic politeness: A

methodological proposal. International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching, Vol. 41, pp.1-22.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chiravate, B. (2011). Perception of politeness in English request by Thai EFL learners.

The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, Vol. 17(2), pp.52-71.

Dannels, D. P., Housley-Gaffey, A. L., Martin, K. N. (2011). Students‟ talk about the

climate of feedback interventions in the critique. Communication Education, Vol.

60, pp.1-19.

Dunleavy, K. N., Martin, M. M., Brann, M., Booth-Butterfied, M., Myers, S. A., Weber,

K. (2008). Student nagging behavior in the college classroom. Communication

Education, Vol.57, pp.1-19.

Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. United Kingdom: St. Jerome

Publishing.

Intachakra. S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: apologies and

thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal, pp.37-62.

Jiang, X. (2010). A case study of teacher‟s politeness in EFL classroom. Journal of

Language Teaching and Research, Vol.1, No.5, pp. 651-655.

35

Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by

Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatic 5-1 (2008), pp.41-46.

Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). An exploratory study of criticism realization strategies used by

native speaker and non native speaker of New Zealand English. Multilingua, Vol.

32(1), pp.103-130.

Peng, L., Cai, L., & Tan, X. (2012). Research on college teachers‟ politeness

strategies in EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,Vol.3,

pp. 981-991.

Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2008). Using Discourse Analysis to Improve Classroom

Interaction. New York: Routledge.

Rudick, C. K., Martin, M. (2011). Students‟ perception of face threat from instructors‟

use of behavior alternation techniques. Texas Speech Communication Journal,

Vol. 36, pp. 13-23.

Santos, L., Pinto, J. (2006). The teacher‟s oral feedback & learning.

Shing. S. R. (2012). Politeness in mentor-mentee talk. International Journal of Human

Sciences, Vol.9.

Smith. C. D., King. P. E. (2004). Student feedback sensitivity and the efficiency of

feedback interventions in public speaking performance improvement.

Communication Education, Vol.53, pp.203-216. Retrieved April 1, 2014.

Tomczyk. E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback teachers vs

students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, pp. 924-931.

Trees, A. , Kerssen-Grip, J. , & Heiss, J. (2009). Earning influence by communicating

respect: Facework‟s contributions to effective instructional feedback.

Communication Education Vol.58, No.3, pp. 397-416.