THE ANALYSIS OF PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES IN VARSITY ENGLISH DEBATE CONTEST (A Descriptive Study of Varsity English Debaters at IVED 2013)

Transcription

1 The writer 1 The reviewer 2 THE ANALYSIS OF PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES IN VARSITY ENGLISH DEBATE CONTEST (A Descriptive Study of Varsity English Debaters at IVED 2013) Anggiawan Nugraha 1 awn_ghi3@yahoo.co.id Rahmat 2 rahmat@unsil.ac.id ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES AND TEACHERS TRAINING SILIWANGI UNIVERSITY Jl. Siliwangi No. 24 Kotak Pos 164 Tlp (0265) Tasikmalaya info@unsil.ac.id ABSTRAK Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui banyaknya penggunaan strategi pragmatis dan faktor pemenangan debat berdasarkan maksim prinsip kooperatif dan maksim prinsip kesantunan dalam lomba debat bahasa Inggris tingkat mahasiswa. Metode penelitian ini ialah menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif. Teknik pengumpulan data pada penelitian ini ialah non participant observation dan naturalistic observation. Data dalam penelitian ini berupa rekaman video debat yang terdiri dari 8 pembicara (6 pembicara inti dan 2 pembicara balasan) di salah satu lomba debat bahasa Inggris tingkat mahasiswa, yaitu IVED (Indonesian Varsity English Debate) Teknik analisis data dalam penelitian ini berupa analisis isi yang berdasarkan teori prinsip kooperatif Paul H. Grice (1975) dan prinsip kesantunan Geoffrey N. Leech (1983) yang dilengkapi dengan koding dan kategorisasi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa peserta debat menggunakan lebih banyak maksim prinsip kooperatif sebanyak 1320 kali daripada menggunakan maksim prinsip kesantunan sebanyak 112 kali. Dari data tersebut, diyakini terdapat faktor-faktor yang menjadi penentu dalam kemenangan, diantaranya yaitu mematuhi maksim prinsip kooperatif dengan cara memberikan ungkapan yang informatif, berkata benar, memberikan ungkapan yang relevan dan jelas dan melakukan pelanggaran terhadap prinsip kesantunan dengan cara memberikan celaan pada tim lawan, memberikan pujian terhadap tim sendiri dan menyatakan ketidaksetujuan terhadap tim lawan. Kata kunci: strategi pragmatis, maksim prinsip kooperatif, maksim prinsip kesantunan 1

2 2 ABSTRACT This research aimed to know the extent of using pragmatic strategies based on cooperative principle maxims and politeness principle maxims in varsity English debate contest and to know the factors of winning debate using pragmatics strategies based on cooperative principle maxims and politeness principle maxims in varsity English debate contest. The method of this research was descriptive qualitative method. The techniques of collecting data in this research were non participant observation and naturalistic observation. Data of this reseach was debate video recorded consisting of 8 speakers (6 substantive speakers and 2 reply speakers) in one of the varsity English debate contest, IVED (Indonesian Varsity English Debate) The technique of analyzing data in this research was content analysis based on the theory of Grice s Cooperative Principle and Leech s Politeness Principle completed with coding and categorization. The result of this research showed the debate participants use cooperative principle maxims as much 1320 occurrences more than politeness principle maxims as much 112 occurrences. Based on findings, there were some factors of winning the debate, such as observing cooperative principle maxims by giving informative utterances, saying truth, giving relevant utterance, and giving perspicuous utterance and violating politeness principle by giving dispraise to the opponent, giving praise to the team, giving disagreement. Keywords: pragmatic strategies, cooperative principle maxims, politeness principle maxims INTRODUCTION A good communication is built based on the way of human using the language. The human or the user of language becomes the important thing in language analysis. It is due to that the other language analyses do not involve the user of language. One of its language analyses is syntax. It just analyzes the rules of language focusing on the correctness of structure. This explanation is in line with Yule, George (1996:4) that argues, Syntax is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms, how they are arranged in sequence, and which sequences are well-formed. Besides syntax, semantics becomes the language analysis that is just analyzing the literal meaning of the language forms. This definition is in line with Yule, George (1996:4) that states, Semantics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and entities in the world. It means that linguistic forms are just related to what is in the world, so the meaning should be drawn literally. Moreover, there is just one language analysis involving the user of language. It is pragmatics. Pragmatics is a study to analyze the language usage which relates the linguistic forms and the user of the language. It is in line with Levinson, Stephen C. (1985:5) that believes, Pragmatics is the study of language usage. And Yule,

3 3 George (1996:4) believes, Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. Furthermore, pragmatics is the study that analyzes the use of language based on its user of language. Based on the characteristic of pragmatics in analyzing the language usage, there are many researchers analyzing it in communication either spoken or written, especially in the debate. The type of debate analyzed is political debate. The researchers that have conducted the research of language usage in spoken and written communication in form of political debate is Ningsih, Harni Kartika (2009), investigated the meaning of language ussage based on the maxim observance and maxim violation of cooperative principle (Grice, H. Paul, 1975) in the presidential debate between Obama and Clinton. Another researcher, Braga, Daniela and Maria Aldina Marques (2004) analyzed the pragmatics based on prosody features in political debate. Besides political debate, the debate that is investigated by some of the researchers in pragmatics is applied debate. Freeley, Austin J. (2008) classifies the other type of debate is academic debate. That type is competitive debate or known as debate contest. The previous researchers seldom investigated debate contest, especially English debate contest viewed by pragmatic strategy. According to the previous research, this research is analyzed dealt with the use of pragmatic strategy in English debate contest based on maxim of cooperative principle and politeness principle that belong to the principles in the language usage communication interpersonally or known as interpersonal rhetoric by Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Explicitly, this research is focused on the utterances based on cooperative principle and politeness principle consisted of maxims and how maxims are observed or violated in the interpersonal communication in varsity English debate contest IVED 2013 in ITB. Furthermore, the writer is interested in investigating: 1. the extent of the use of pragmatic strategies based on maxims of cooperative principle and politeness principle used by the varsity English debate contest participant in IVED the factors of using pragmatic strategies based on maxims of cooperative principle and politeness principle used by the varsity English debate contest participant in IVED 2013 to win the debate. LITERARY REVIEW Pragmatics, Pragmatic Strategy Pragmatics is the study of meaning based on the context. It is defined by Yule, George (1996:3), Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. Its definition is supported by Mey, Jacob L. (1993:6) states, A truly pragmatic consideration has to deal with the users in their social context. From both of the definitions above, it can be said that pragmatic has correlation with the context while using the language./ The language usage contextually in pragmatics is intertwined with the meaning of utterances. It is explained by John Perry (2011:1) that, Pragmatics deals with the utterances, by which we will mean specific events, the intentional

4 4 acts of speakers at times and places, typically involving language. It means that pragmatics is identical with the utterances in which can be drawn the meaning based on the specific event consisting of time, place and language. It is clear that language is not meant by the basic language structure, but by the application of language. It is supported by Levinson, Stephen C. (1985:5) states, Pragmatics is the study of language usage. Generally, pragmatics can be defined as the study of meaning of utterances based on its context and usage. Strategy is meant as the approaches in gaining the aim. Pragmatic strategy is the approach in gaining the aim through the principle of pragmatics. The theory of pragmatic strategy is dealt with the approach to pragmatics. One of the approaches is rhetoric. According to Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983:15), Earlier I characterized the present approach to pragmatics as rhetorical. This use of the term rhetorical is very traditional, referring to the study of the effective use of language in communication. But whereas rhetoric has been understood, in particular history traditions, as the art of using language skilfully for persuasion, or for literary expression, or for public speaking, I have in mind the effective use of language in its more general sense, applying it primarily to everyday conversation, and only secondarily to more prepared and public uses of language. The point about the term rhetoric, in this context, is the focus it places on a goal oriented speech situation, in which speaker uses language in order to produce a particular effect in the mind of hearer. It means that the approach to pragmatics is rhetoric, the study of the effective use of language applied in everyday conversation primarily and public uses of language secondarily in which the speaker produces the particular effect in the mind of hearer while using the language. Rhetoric, the approach aspect of pragmatics, consists of two types. There are interpersonal rhetoric and textual rhetoric. It is explained by Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983:15),...I shall distinguish two rhetoric, the Interpersonal and textual rhetoric. It means that rhetoric is divided into interpersonal rhetoric and textual rhetoric. Each type of rhetoric has each own principles involving in conversation based on its function. In addition to, each principle has each own maxims. As stated by Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983:16), the rhetoric is divided into interpersonal rhetoric and textual rethoric. Interpersonal rhetoric consists of cooperative principle covering maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner; politeness principle covering maxim of tact, maxim of generosity, maxim of approbiation, maxim of modesty, maxim of agreement and maxim of sympathy; and irony principle. Textual rhetoric consists of processibility covering end-focus maxim and end-weight maxim; clarity principle; economy principle; and expressivity principle. In this research, the writer only identifies interpersonal rhetoric consisting of cooperative principle and politeness principle. Cooperative Principle Cooperative principle is the principle focusing on the expected amount of information provided in conversation. Its definition is explained by Yule, George (1996:36-37), The concept of there being an expected amount of information

5 5 provided in conversation is just one aspect of the more general idea that people involved in a conversation will cooperate with each other. From the above definition, Grice, H. Paul as quote by Yule, George (1996:36-37) states Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. It means that to achieve good communication, cooperative principle must be engaged between each other. Cooperative principle consists of some maxims. According to Grice H. Paul (1975) as quote by Yule, George (1996:36), First maxim is maxim of quantity: (1) Make your conversational contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange), (2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Second maxim is maxim of quality -try to make your contribution one that is true: (1) Do not say what you believe to be false, (2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. The third maxim is maxim of relation be relevant. The fourth maxim is maxim of manner - be prespicious: (1) Avoid obscurity of expression, (2) Avoid ambiguity, (3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity), (4) Be orderly. Based on the four maxims declared by Grice H.Paul (1975), it can be meant that those maxims should be used in the talk exchange. If it doesn t so, it is violated. According to Grice H. Paul (1975:49), A participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim... Politeness Principle The politeness in speaking is necessary for maintaining the social relationship between our self and the others. It is in line with Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983:131) who states,...politeness concerns a relationship between two participants whom we may call self and other. It means that politeness relates to two sides that make relationship between one person who speaks and the other people who hear. The relationship maintained while doing communication is possible to have differenet necessity. The polite speaker will not impose their interest to be fulfilled by the other people, but they will give the priority to the other people necessity. It is as the effort or strategy to avoid their self from the interest conflict. It is in line with Leech, Geoffrey N. (1980: 19) as quoted by Watts, Richard J. (2003: 50) that, "... defines it as strategic conflict avoidance, which can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into the avoidance of a conflict situation, and the establishment and maintenance of comity. It means that politeness can avoid the conflict because one another establish the respect. Based on the definition of politeness above, it can be explained that politeness principle will be related to the comity toward self interest and the others. It is explained in maxim that must be fulfilled while observing the maxims. Politeness principle consists of some maxims. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983:132) explains 6 maxims of politeness principle, (1) Maxim of Tact (in Impositives and commissives): a. Minimize cost to others, b. Maximize benefit to other; (2) Maxim of Generosity (In Impositives and commissives): a. Maximize cost to self, b. Minimize benefit to self; (3) Maxim of Approbation. (In Expressives and

6 6 assertives): a. Minimize dispraise of other, b. Maximize praise of other; (4) Maxim of Modesty (In Expressives and assertives): a. Minimize praise of self, b. Maximize praise of other; (5) Maxim of Agreement (In assertives): a. Minimize disagreement between self and other, b. Maximize agreement between self and other; (6) Maxim of Symphaty (In Assertives): a. Minimize antipathy between self and other, b. Maximize symphaty between self and other. Based on those maxims, the speaker may observes and violates. Varsity English Debate Contest Debating is the communication skill that needs the ability to assemble and organize effective arguments and convincing people that the argument is better than opponent team. It is appropriate with Harahap, Permata (1999:1) that states, Debating is about developing your communication skills. It is about assembling and organizing effective arguments, persuading and entertaining an audience, and using the language to convince people that your arguments outweigh your opposition's. Debating is not about personal abuses, irrational attacks or purely emotional appeals. It means that debating is the ability for giving the argumentation and makes it better than opponent. In the context of Varsity English Debating contest means that debating in which the participants are from university students. Assessment Aspects in varsity English Debate Contest The Assessment in academic debate, especially varsity English debate held using Asian parliamentary system, consists of matter, manner, and method. It is appropriate with Manurung, Hisar Maruli (1998:1) that says, The adjudicator has artificial constraints that influence his decision including the proportional worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and the weight of each individual speech to the overall case of the team. It means matter, manner, and method are three important aspects in assessing English debate using Australasian parliamentary system. Matter is the assessment of the quality of the arguments uttered by the speakers. Its definition is in line with Manurung Hisar Maruli (1998: 4) says that, In matter, you must assess the quality of the arguments irrespective of how well they were organized. Manner is the way to speak in front of public or presentation in the debate. Its definition uttered by Manurung, Hisar Maruli (1998: 7) that, Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the debating case. In this assessment, the aspects to assess are vocal style, use of language, use of notes, gesture, stance, dress, impression of sincerity, personal attacks on opponent, and humor. (Manurung, Hisar Maruli, Hisar Maruli, 1998:7-8). Method is the aspect to assess based on the effectiveness of the speech structure personally and the team toward the case generally and dynamically (following the debate development). Its definition is explained by Manurung, Hisar Maruli (1998: 5) that, Method consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, of the team case as a whole and the extent to which the team reacted appropriately to the

7 7 dynamics of the debate. Moreover, matter, manner and method are the important thing to be assessed in debate. RESEARCH METHOD The method of this research is descriptive qualitative method. Data of this reseach is debate video recorded consisting of 8 speakers (6 substantive speakers and 2 reply speakers) in one of the varsity English debate contest, IVED (Indonesian Varsity English Debate) 2013 held in ITB (Institut Teknologi Bandung). The technique of collecting data in this research is non participant observation and naturalistic observation. The technique of analyzing data in this research is content analysis based on the theory of Grice s Cooperative Principle and Leech s Politeness Principle completed with coding ad categorization. RESEARCH RESULT The Extent of CP and PP Maxims The research findings show that the extent of CP maxims are more than PP maxims. CP maxims are treated as much 1320 occurrences and PP maxims are treated as much 112 occurrences. The cooperative principle maxims treatment is treated 1320 occurrences in which 1076 occurrences (81.51%) observing CP maxims and 244 occurrences (18.49%) violating CP maxims. It means that observing CP maxim is more than violating CP maxim. It can be seen from the most frequent maxims and the least frequent maxims used by debate participants. The most frequent maxims used by debaters are observing maxim of quality, observing maxim of manner, observing maxim of relation and observing maxim of quantity. The finding shows the 284 occurrences (86.06%) observing maxim of quality, 272 occurrences (82.42 %) observing maxim of manner, 268 occurrences (81.21 %) observing maxim of relation, and 252 occurrences (76.36 %) observing maxim of quantity. On the other hand, the least frequent maxims used by debaters are 78 occurrences (23.64%) violating maxim of quantity, 62 occurrences (18.79 %) violating maxim of relation, 58 occurrences (17.58%) violating maxims of manner, 46 occurrences (13.94%) violating maxim of quality. On the other hand, the politeness principle maxims treatment is treated 112 occurrences in which 10 occurrences (8.93%) observing PP maxims and 102 occurrences (91.07%) violating PP maxims. It means that violating PP maxim is more than observing PP maxim. It can be seen from the most frequent maxims and the least frequent maxims used by debate participants. Based on finding, The most frequent maxims used by debaters are 43 occurrences (13.03%) violating maxim of approbiation, 39 occurrences (11.82%) violating maxim of disagreement, and 16 occurrences (4.85%) violating maxim of modesty. On the other hand, the least frequent maxims used by debaters are 7 occurrences (2.12%) observing maxim of agreement, 3 occurrences (0.91%) observing maxim of tact, 2 occurrences (0.61%) violating each maxim of generosity and maxim of symphaty, 1 utterance (0.30%) observing each maxim of generosity and maxim of modesty, and no occurrences observing each maxim of approbiation, observing maxim of sympathy, and violating maxim of tact.

8 8 The Factors of Winning Debate based on CP and PP Maxims The winner of Semi Final IVED 2013 was the affirmative team. Based on the finding, there are so many factors of using CP and PP maxims in winning that Semi Final IVED Based on the findings, the Affirmative team observes more CP maxims than violates CP maxims. The affirmative team observes 660 occurrences (92.70%) and violates 52 occurrences (7.30%) CP maxims. Besides, if it is compared with the negative team, the number of maxims observance treated by affirmative team is more than maxims observance treated by negative team that just observes 416 occurrences (68.42%) CP maxims. On the other hand, the number of maxims violation treated by affirmative team is less than the negative team that violates 192 occurrences (31.58%). From the data shown, it can be concluded that the factors of using CP maxims in winning Varsity English Debate is observing all CP maxims that consist of observing maxim of quantity (informative), maxim of quality (truth), maxim of relation (relevant), and maxim of manner (clear). Based on the finding, the affirmative team is more treating PP maxims than negative team. The affirmative team treats 58 occurrences (51.79%) and the negative team treats 54 occurrences (48.21%). The affirmative team observes 7 occurrences (12.07%) and violates 51 occurrences (87.93%) PP maxims. On the other hand, the negative team observes 3 occurrences (5.56%) and violate 51 (94.44%) occurrences. From the data shown, it can be seen that PP maxims are violated more than observed by affirmative team and negative team. Both of team want to give some cost to their opponent and give some benefit to their team. Moreover, violating PP maxim can become the factor of winning the debate. Based on the finding, the PP maxims violated with the high frequently occured are violating maxim of approbiation, violating maxim of modesty, and violating maxim of agreement. DISCUSSION The Extent of CP and PP Maxims Based on the research result, Both Affirmative team and Negative team use CP maxims more than PP maxims. It means that CP maxims are more important than PP maxims. The treatment of observing CP maxims are 1076 (81.51%) and the treatment of violating CP maxims are 244 occurrences (18.45%). It means that the occurrences of observing CP maxims usage are more than the occurrences of violating CP maxims usage. In detail, based on the research result, the most frequent maxims are observing maxim of quality, observing maxim of manner, observing maxim of relation, and observing maxim of quantity and the least frequent maxims are violating maxim of quantity, violating maxim of relation, violating maxim of manner, and violating maxim of quality. It emphasizes that the use of observing all maxims of CP have a high frequency. Moreover, their contribution in the debate is required at the stage of debate and their purpose to engage in the debate is accepted. It is supported by Grice H. Paul (1975:45) that states, Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in

9 9 which you are engaged. Finally, the debaters prefer to observe CP maxims rather than to violate CP maxim due to it is required at the stage of debate and it can make the purpose of debaters utter the utterances in the debate accepted by the hearer/adjudicator. The treatment of observing PP maxims are 10 (8.93%) and the treatment of violating PP maxims are 102 occurrences (91.07%). It means that the occurrences of violating PP maxims usage are more than the occurrences of observing PP maxims usage. It can be seen detailly from the most frequent maxims and the least frequent maxims usage in Semi Final IVED The most frequent maxims are violating maxim of approbiation, violating maxim of disagreement, and violating maxim of modesty and the least frequent maxims are observing maxim of agreement, observing maxim of tact, violating maxim of generosity, violating maxim of sympathy, observing maxim of generosity, and observing maxim of modesty. It emphasizes that the use of violating PP maxims have a high frequency. Moreover, their speech in the debate tend to be impolite rather than polite because the occurrences of violating PP maxim usage is more than observing PP maxim. The Factors of Winning Debate based on CP and PP Maxims Based on the data analyzed, both affirmative and negative team treat the cooperative principle maxim and politeness principle maxim. In Semi Final IVED 2013, the team that is won is Affirmative team. It is based on the adjudicators decision and the decision is based on Asian Parliamentary System. This adjudication to choose which one should be the winner is proceed by many adjudicators. Every adjudicator has different thinking. They will decide the winner based on their knowledge and the understanding to what the affirmative and negative team debated. Their knowledge and understanding are based on the criteria to judge, such as matter, manner, and method. It is in line with Quinn, Simon R. (2005:5) that states, Adjudicators use three categories to consider debates: Manner describes the way that a particular speech is presented: how you say it. For example, how interesting, sincere or humorous is the speaker? ; Matter describes the arguments that you present, both in their general strength and in the way that you support and explain them; Method describes the structure of your speech. It can often become a mixed bag category involving all those parts of your speech that don t seem to fit into either manner or matter. From the three criterias (matter, manner, and method) that adjudicators judge, there are the factors involving in the way of debaters fulfil those criteria of matter, manner, and method. The factors are based on the communication using CP maxim and PP maxim. Based on the findings, the factors are Observing Cooperative Principle Maxims and Violating Politeness Principle Maxims. Observing Cooperative Principle Maxims There are some factors in term of observing CP maxims in winning the debate. The factors are based on the observing the part of the maxims of CP.

10 10 Those factors are giving informative utterance (observing maxim of quantity), saying truth (observing maxim of quality), giving relevant utterance (observing maxim of relation), and giving clear utterance (observing maxim of manner). a. Giving Informative Utterance In the debate, giving informative statement occures especially when the debaters explain the definition of the motion which consists of background of the problem and the mechanism of the sollution. It is in line with Quinn, Simon (2005:12) that states,...both teams should try to be as clear and as simple as possible when defining the topic. It means that when defining the motion whether in form of the background of problem or the mechanism of sollution, it should be simple as informative as what is required. Moreover, if the debaters give the informative statement, the adjudicators will be easy to recognize it as the important point. b. Saying Truth In the debate, saying truth can be found when they utter all the example or evidence of their argument. They need to convince the adjudicators that their quality of argument is good. Moreover, the adjudicators will trust on them. c. Giving Relevant Utterance In the debate, giving relevant utterance is an important thing. It is dealt with relevant matter which covers relevant arguments and relevant rebuttals. This explanation is supported by Flynn, Colm (1997:37) that states, Matter should be relevant. It should relate to the issues of the debate: positive material should support the case being presented and rebuttal should refute the material being presented by the opposing team(s). The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate. It means that the utterance of the debaters should be relevant while they give some arguments towards their case/theme line and while they give some rebuttals towards the material presented by opponent team. The relevant argument means the good arguments. It should be followed by assertion, reasoning, evidence, and link back. Sandra, Rully (2004:7) argues, Good arguments are logical and relevant to the point being proven. They should also comprise of: 1. Assertion the statement which should be proved 2. Reasoning the reason why that statement is logical 3. Evidence examples/data that support the assertion and reasoning above 4. Link Back the explanation of the relevance of this argument to the motion. Based on the quotation above, in order to give a good arguments, the debaters should give relevant assertion, reasoning, evidence, and link back. d. Giving Perspicuous Utterance In the debate, the speaker should give the clear utterance, not obscured, not ambigue, brief, and orderly in form of defining the motion, rebutting definition,

11 explaining the arguments, rebuttals, and giving link back of each argument and rebuttals towards the core argument/motion. Giving a clear definition in the debate is explained by Quinn, Simon (2005:12),...both teams should try to be as clear and as simple as possible when defining the topic. Besides giving clear definition, rebutting definition also is explained by Quinn, Simon (2005:121), It is always important to be very clear when rebutting a definition. In another hand, explaining a clear argument is stated by Quinn, Simon (2005:86), The simple structure that we examined (a label, followed by an explanation, examples and tie-back) is one way of combining these components. Ultimately, your goal in developing every argument should be to use a structure that is clear, logical and easy to follow. In additional to, giving clear link back also is stated by Quin, Simon (2005:68), Your audience, however, is hearing the argument for the first time, so your tie-back must make any logical links clear and explicit. Furthermore, giving perspecious or clear utterance is one kind of the factors to make the adjudicators undertood what the speaker said. If the adjudicators have understood, the adjudicator will be easy to decide which team should be the winner. Violating Politeness Principle Maxims The data analyzed shown us that both of team is more violating the politeness principle than observing it. Based on the scale of delicacy that is explained by Leech in Watts, Richard J. (2003:68), Leech then goes on to suggest that there are scales of delicacy along with each of the maxims of the PP must operate. It means that the operation of politeness principle is dealing with delicacy scale. The delicacy scale involves the cost-benefit Scale, antipathy-simpathy scale, agreement-disagreement, and praise-dispraise. It is in line with Leech Teory in Watts, Richard J.(2003:68), that states The first of these scales is, as we have seen, the cost-benefit scale according to which a speaker has to weigh the amount of cost to her/himself and the amount of benefit his utterance will bring the hearer. The Cost-Benefit Scale also involves other related scales ranging over values such as antipathy-simpathy, agreement-disagreement and praise. Based on PP maxim and its scale, in the debate, the debaters are more violating it, It can be meant that the debaters give some cost, dispraise, disagreement, and antipathy than benefits, praise, agreement, and sympathy to the others and give some benefit, praise, agreement, and sympathy than cost, dispraise, disagreement, and antipathy to their team. The way of debaters violate the PP maxim are to convince the adjudicator that their arguments are better than the other teams. It is in line with Johnson, Steven L. (2009:65) that states, Winning debaters are reluctant to leave to the adjudicator the decision of which arguments are better; they actively seek to critique and challenge the arguments of their opponents and to compare and contrast their opponents arguments with their own. It means that the debater will be the winner if they prove their argument is better, they attact the opponents argument and compare the opponents arguments with their own arguments. 11

12 12 Moreover, it can be said that they will give some benefits, praise, agreement, and sympathy to their team when they claim their argument is better and they will give some costs, dispraises, disagreements, and antipathy to the opponent s team when they critique the arguments of opponents. In Semi Final IVED 2013, the violation is more to be violated in form of maxim of approbiation, modesty and disagreement. They are more giving dispraise to the other team, more giving praise to the team and disagreement to the other team. Those kinds of efforts are the factors to win the debate in term of PP maxims. a. Giving Dispraise to the Opponent In the debate, it is found that many debaters give dispraise to the opponent and maximize its dispraise while giving some rebuttals and reply speeches. The dispraise uttered by debaters are for convincing the adjudicators that the opponent s case and arguments are not better than their own team. The dispraise utterances occured in the rebuttals are given before the debaters explains the contents of rebuttals. These utterances are for attacking the opponent and emphasizing that the opponent has some weakness and mistakes. It is supported by Sandra, Rully (2004:13) that states, Rebuttals should ideally be carried in two levels: 1. on a global level (teamwise), this level attacks the other team s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic. 2. on a detailed level (speechwise), this level attacks the mistakes and inconsistency of each individual speech. It means that rebuttals can be the chance for debaters to give dispraise to the opponent by telling the weakness and mistakes of opponent in form of the case, argument, logic, and individual speech. Besides giving dispraise is occured in rebuttals, it is occured also in reply speech. The debaters as a reply speaker have a duty to summarize the debate and emphasise that the opponent should be lost. It is in line with Quinn, Simon (2005: ) that states, In many respects, you should view a reply speech as a post-match interview after a football game that your team has won. You can emphasise the reasons that your team won, and your can constructively criticise your opponents approach, explaining why they lost. Based on the quotation above, during reply speech, the debaters can emphasize the reasons of your team should be won and constructively critise your opponents approach in order to explain why the opponent lost. One of the points, to explain why the opponent lost, the debaters in debate are found to open the statement by giving dispraise. b. Giving Praise to the Team In the debate, maximizing praise of self is meant as giving praise to the team. It becomes the factor to win the debate. This effort to give praise to the team is occured while the debaters give rebuttals and reply speeches. The theory is same as the factor of giving dispraise to the Opponent. One of the role of giving rebuttals is proving that the arguments of team is true and one of the rule of giving reply speech is proving that the team is fit to be the winner.

13 13 c. Giving Disagreement to the Opponent In the debate, giving disagreement to the hearer means giving disagreement to the opponent. It is done to fulfil the role of debate. Meanwhile, this kind of action is always found in the debate while debaters give the rebuttals. It is supported by Quinn, Simon (2005:110) that says,...rebuttal involves attacking your opponents arguments... It means that rebuttal is a form of disagreement with the opposition, because the argument that is presented by the opponent should alway be different with the team. CONCLUSION This research is intended to know the extent and the factors of winning debate using pragmatics strategies in varsity English debate contest at IVED Based on the research result, it can be concluded that the extent of using pragmatics strategies in term of using CP maxims are more than using PP maxims. It is because the highest frequency maxims treated by the affirmative team and negative team in Semi Final IVED 2013 is cooperative principle maxims and the lowest frequency maxims is the politeness principle maxims. Moreover, using CP maxims are more important than using PP maxims in debate. Dealing with using cooperative principle maxims, the affirmative team and the negative team are more observing maxims than violating maxims. It is vice versa with the politeness principle that the maxims are more violated than observed by the debaters. Furthermore, observing CP maxims are more important than violating CP maxims in debate, and violating PP maxims are more important than observing PP maxims. The factors of winning debate using pragmatics strategies is depended on the using of CP and PP maxims in varsity english debate contest. In case of the winner was affirmative team, the factors based on the using CP maxim is observing those maxims. There are observing maxim of quantity in term of giving informative utterance, maxim of quality in term of saying truth, maxim of relation in term of giving relevant utterance, and maxim of manner in term of giving perspecious utterance. Those factors emphasise the debaters to give contribution required at the stage of debate and by the accepted purpose of the debate. Besides, using politeness principle also becomes the factor to convince the adjudicator deciding the winner. By violating the politeness principle, the debaters use the delicacy scale that they give some cost, dispraise, disagreement, and antipathy to the other teams to indicate their opponents arguments is worst and they give some benefit, praise, agreement and sympathy to their team to indicate that their argument is better than the other team. In this research, it is found three factors that can make the team won in term of PP. There are giving dispraise to the opponent (violating approbiation maxim), giving praise to the team (violating modesty maxim), and giving disagreement to the opponent (violating agreement maxim).

14 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY Braga, Daniela dan Maria Aldina Marques. (2004). The Pragmatics of Prosodic Features in the Political Debate. Portugal: University of Minho. Flynn, Colm. (1997). Debating Tutorial Handouts. World Debating Website. Grice, H. Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. New York: Academic Press. Harahap, Permata. (1999). What is Competitive Debating?. Depok: EDS UI. Huang, Yan. (2007). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Johnson, Steven L. (2009). Winning Debates. New York: International Debate Education Association. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Inc. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Manurung, Hisar Maruli. (1998). Guidelines for Debaters (Australasian Parliamentary). Depok: EDS UI. Mey, Jacob L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. Ningsih, Harni Kartika. (2009). A Pragmatic Analysis Of Grice s Maxims In Clinton-Obama Democratic Presidential Debate. Bandung: UPI. Quinn, Simon (2005). Debating. Australia: published electronically by the author in Brisbane, Queensland. Sandra, Rully. (2004). Buku Instruktur ISDC: Debating in General. Indonesia: ISDC. Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yule, George. (1996). Oxford Introductions to Language Studies: Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.