IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES IN 2016 USA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATE

The objectives of this study were to find out: (1) the types of impoliteness strategy used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their first presidential election debate, (2) the realization of impoliteness strategy used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their first presidential election debate and (3) the reasons for using impoliteness strategy used by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their first presidential election debate. This research was in descriptive qualitative design. The subject of this study was the first debate of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The data from this study was a debate dialogue from transcriptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the first debate of presidential elections taken from the internet. The data were identified, analyzed, and grouped according to Culpeper theory (1996, 2003), and Beebe (1995). The results of the study found that both candidates performed 4 types of speech impersonation during the debate. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton applied impoliteness strategies: (1) Bald on Record Impoliteness, (2) Positive Impoliteness, (3) Negative Impoliteness, and (4) Sarcasm or Mock Politeness. In realization, the speech implied by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were categorized as (1) snub, (2) disassociate with others, (3) use dissected, (4) seek disagreement, (5) use taboo words, (6) ) frighten, (7) condescend, (8) explicitly associate other with negative aspects. Furthermore, the reasons for both candidates in using impoliteness strategies in their presidential election debate were (1) to appear superior, (2) to get power over action, (3) to vent negative feelings, (4) to get power whenever there is an imbalance, 5) to entertain others, and there was another reason found in this study that is to self-defense. However, the findings only become temporary data so further research is needed by using other research subjects to gain a better understanding of the impoliteness strategies in another presidential election debates.