Face-Threatening Acts and Face-Invading Acts of Students’ Asynchronous Conversation in Online Learning

: This research aimed to examine the use of FTA and FIA in communication of online learning during covid 19 outbreak. Descriptive qualitative study was exploited to answer the research question. The communication between teacher and student in WhatsApp group during online learning was main focus of this study. The group consisted of 15 courses taught by 7 lectures. The result of the study showed that the most frequent utterance used was directive which outnumbered all categories with 38%. Declarations 36%. Commissive, expressive and assertive got the smallest proportion with 12%, 8% and 6%. Moreover, there was not the existence of FIA found in the lecturer’s utterance. Meanwhile, the utterance of FTA by lecturer showed that 70 % as hearer negative face that bind student freedom. Speaker negative face followed in the second highest number with 23 percent. Both positive face either speaker and hearer got 7% of all utterances. The hearer negative face in directive utterance turned out to be the most appearance by the lecturer on 34.11%. This followed closely by the negative face in declaration by 21.57%. The unique thing existed on how commissive act in both speaker and hearer negative face got 10.50% and 11.08 %. This concluded that the authority of the teacher led the use of hearer negative FTA that constraints student freedom. However, the students were also aware the status as learner, hence student did not feel threatened.


INTRODUCTION
The use of language by the teacher could affect the progression of teaching and learning activity. The misinterpretation of the teacher's message may lead inaccurate expression or influence student responses. In addition, teacher communication style plays important role in how teacher convey the meaning to avoid misjudge and misinterpretation by the student. The words that the speaker produces through communication have a deeper meaning than the actual meaning of the word or phrase itself. hence the teacher needs to be careful on the language used. Jager & Evans (2013) indicated that lack of pragmatics understanding cause teacher delivered vague message that preceded misinterpretation and misjudgment by the student.
Speech act defined as the way speaker used language to deliver the message (Barron et al., 2017). The speech act itself determined the perception of the hearer. The mistake on delivering massage by the failure of understanding speech act delivered the consequences of the speaker; Mostly the consequences affected the interpersonal relationship between speaker and hearer (Simon & Dejica-Cartis, 2015). Moreover, the speaker needed to be aware the choice of language to communicate with the hearer. One of speech act that dominantly induce interpersonal relationship is the use of politeness strategy. Politeness strategy in communication can take form by avoiding a statement that threatening hearer. Brown & Levinson (1987) stated that there are two types of politeness strategies related to threatening statements; Face threatening act (FTA) and Face invading act (FIA).
Face-threatening acts are acts which in a few manners threaten the `face` or self-picture of any other humans withinside the communication. Murakami (2011: 7) describes Face Threatening Acts as an act that violates both varieties of face; Negative and positive. The act itself is in reality a risk relies upon now no longer a lot at the motive of the speaker however at the notion of the hearer. If the hearer has a poor face, each act that probably can distract his/her wishes or preference of freedom may be categorized as FTA. Meanwhile, Face-Invading act consider as rude speech act (María Gil, 2012). By understanding this, speaker may avoid the misjudge by the hearer.
Previously, the study of FTA by the teacher had been conducted in different manner. Chen (2017) investigated the use of FTA by female teacher in EFL classroom. Chen observed the participant of the study on how she unconsciously used FTA in the classroom. The result indicated that the teacher used various type of FTA. The use of more direct threats potentially conforms with as well as idea of schematic set of strategies that a FTA can be performed baldly without regressive action when fear of retribution from the addresses does not exist. The student perceived FTA as negative impact. The student dislike this and decrease student motivation in the classroom. Sapoetra (2021) investigated pre-service teacher speech act in term of FTA. The study covered the FTA used and the student perception regarding FTA used by the teacher. Indirect threat was the most frequent FTA used by the teacher. The result also portray that the pre-service teacher used FTA to maintain authority. For instance, the student perceived the use FTA in the classroom was the form of disciplinary act from the teacher. Senowarsito (2010) investigated the FTA applied by EFL teacher and students in .The result indicated that the FTA of positive politeness strategy is dominantly employed by teacher and students in the class. Moreover, Sapitri et al., (2020) figured out the factor that influenced the choice of FTA. They are social distance, the age, the student's power, and the limitation of the linguistic ability.
Furthermore, as covid 19 rises, online learning is the common activity to maintain the sustainability of teaching and learning activity during pandemic. In line with the benefit of online learning, one of challenge of online learning is misjudgment, and miscommunication during asynchronous communication. Valaitis et al. (2005) argued that misinterpretation during online learning was the main barrier in delivering distance education. This also may lead misjudgment by the student. In addition, Chase et al. (2002) pointed out that cultural gap and individual capabilities in digital increase the possibility of miscommunication during online learning. Misjudgment on how teacher delivers the message in online learning could create tense situation even the failure of teaching and learning activity. The creation of interactive and comfortable in online learning is essential (Sembiring et al., 2021).
However, teacher may ignore the importance of how the speak to the student. The authority of the teacher lead them snubbed politeness in communication (Hamuddin et al., 2019;Khokhar, 2016). Based on the discussion above, this study aimed to investigate the use of FTA and FIA in asynchronous communication during online learning.
Pragmatics defined as a study to understand on the way how statement has meanings in certain context. A speaker, when conveying the message to the hearer, partakes some intended meanings. These intended meanings sometimes are not expressed directly, but implicitly for a certain purpose (Barron et al., 2017). Bardovi-Harlig (2018) argued that pragmatics the study of exploration person ability to express utterance to match with certain context. They added that the understanding of pragmatics principle will determine the capabilities of the person to discover socially proper language for the situations they meet. Griffiths (2006) declared pragmatics as the utilities for meaning. that pragmatics is concerned with the "toolkit" for meaning, the understanding to formulate word, sentence and text to bring meaningful communication.
Meanwhile, according to Leech (2016), pragmatics can be defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situation.
According to Yule & Widdowson (1996), pragmatics concerned three things; context, utterance, and speech event. Context is the essential part of communication. it is the physical environment where the communication occurs. Understanding the utterance of the language must involve context as main focus. The failure to understand the context lead misinterpretation and misjudgment.
Carter and McCarthy (2014), asserted that Utterance is as a communicative component containing linguistics terms such as words, clauses, phrases, and clause combinations in relation with particular context carried. To simplify, utterance is the product of spoken and written language. And the last one is speech event. Yule & Widdowson (1996) outlined a speech event as an activity of a partaker communicating through language in conventional behaviors, to acquire at intended outcome. Besides, it can be served as the basic unit of analysis in a spoken interaction. In pragmatics, there factors that define the pragmatics itself, they are Context, Presupposition, Adjacency Pairs, Implicature, Speech Acts, and Deixis and Distance. The focus in this study is speech act. According to Yule (1996), speech acts are a study of how the speakers and hearers exploit language.
In addition, Aronoff (2016) described a speech act as a case of speaker meaning that can, but need not, be carried out by saying that one is doing so. Speech act can be divided into three types, locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. Locutionary is one of the speech acts that simply using sense as the reference. The sentence of the classroom is dark in the locutionary means that the sense of eye stating that the classroom is dark (Barron et al., 2017). In additions, locutionary is the process to produce meaningful expression.
Meanwhile, illocutionary means that act to communicative force which has intention behind the utterance (Yule & Widdowson, 1996). The intentions of illocutionary include promise, apology, and offer. In the illocutionary act, the force plays major role during communication process. The force is desired by the speaker to lead act. The statement "the classroom is dark" has the meaning that speaker want to ask the hearer to turn on the light because the classroom is dark. And the last one is perlocutionary.
Perlocutionary is the utterance of the speaker while he is doing something that affect hearer or other (Yule & Widdowson, 1996). The statement of "the classroom is dark" come from the speaker itself while he is switching the light on. Furthermore, according to Searle (1982), there are classification of speech act; expressive, commissive, directives , representatives, and declarations. The definition is mentioned in the table below: Table 1 Searle Speech Act However, Speech act delivered by the speaker may lead unintended response especially negative response. Hence, Leech (2016) postulated the distinction of speech acts: impolite acts, such as, request and orders; and polite acts as in thanks and offers. In summary, he proposed negative politeness as an act of reducing impoliteness. P. Brown and S. Levinson (1987) consider every single competent adult have positive and negative face in the society to maintain the relationship. This double-featured is perceived as the public image of every single adult. The face it-self include two aspects. The negative face is the basic want of freedom from imposition, whereas the positive face is the basic desire of appreciation and approbation of his or her wants (María Gil, 2012).
Maria Gil (2012) concluded the act of face is not only affect the hearer , but also the speaker himself. Gil used the two examples of statement which has one meaning but different strategy on delivering the message. The intended utterance was to show the essay was bad it need revision. The first statement is harsh remark ("Reading your essay is the most wasteful moment in my life"), meanwhile the second statement is suggestion ("your essay need to be revised"). The first statement, the rude statement from speaker insulted the possession of the hearer; the essay, it directly invades hearer positive face. In the other hand, the last statement clearly threatens hearer face but not invading Hearer positive face. In this case, speaker strongly affected hearer face because the essay of the hearer is judged as a bad essay, however, the speaker politely says that in a good choice of language.
The next example is another utterance with different manner. "Your essay is quite interesting, but it should be reassessed". From the analysis of this statement, again, the speaker threatened Hearer positive face, but redressive action of FTA was being used by the speaker. By claiming some general things of saying the essay is quite interesting, the threat was reduced. The speaker here showing approval to the hearer. The speaker said that the possession of the hearer needs to be assessed and modified. In this case, actually hearer positive face was being threatened but the speaker action was considered as polite. Broadly speaking, individually the meaning is created by threatening and invading act that may be different with the intended meaning. The speaker may be polite or rude without conscious intention. Gil (2012) roughly classified two kinds of speech act based on its face; Face-threatening acts (FTA) and Face-Invading Act (FIA) as described in the figure below: The classification derived from condition that every single speech act would affect both face of participant, either speaker or hearer. The analysis of utterance is needed to determine the impolite utterance based on the assumption that the speech act affect both speaker face and hearer face. Gil later classified the FTA and FIA by combined it with the classification of Speech act by Searle (1982). 1) Assertive speech acts oblige Speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. 2) Directive speech acts prompt that Speaker desires Hearer to execute a imminent feat. 3) Commissive speech acts commit Speaker to a future feat. 4) Expressive speech acts count as the exhibition of speaker's psychological attitude to a state of affairs. 5) Declarations count as the institution of a correspondence between the propositional content and reality. Furthermore, Gil summarized the classification of face threat by combining with Searle classification.

Figure 1 FTA and FIA
review on the practice and experience in online learning. The major concern of low interactivity and engagement and other problem caused by deficiency of imminence and non-verbal clues. Misunderstanding that may lead unpleasant responses was also major problem.
This study aimed to examine the use of FTA and FIA in communication of online learning during covid 19 outbreak. This study used qualitative research to answer research questions. Cresswell (2008) outlined qualitative research as an exploration of unknown phenomena surrounding the samples to examine the problems. The communication between teacher and student in WhatsApp group during online learning was main focus of this study. The online course was held in English language program of STKIP Media Nusantara Citra. The course consisted of 15 different courses. The WhatsApp communication data collected form march 2021 until June 2021. The examination emphasis on the utterance that contained FTA and FIA. The utterance divided into classification based on Searle (1982) which categorized speech act into 5 classification, they are 1) Assertive 2) Directive speech 3) Commissive. 4) Expressive and 5) Declarations. Besides, the study also determined to seek the use of FIA in the utterance. Later on, the utterance analysed into the 4 main different face threats; the speaker negative threat, the speaker positive threat, the hearer positive threat and the hearer negative threat.

FINDINGS
The study intended to described the utterance by lectures based on the Searle Speech act and also Levinson Face threatening act. The result of finding showed on the charts below.
The pie chart above showed the proportion of different categories of Searle speech act. The most frequent utterance used was directive which outnumbered all categories with 38 percent. Declarations followed closely and became the second highest percentage by 36%. Commissive, expressive and assertive got the smallest proportion with 12%, 8% and 6%. Next chart described the FTA utterance.

Face-Threatening Acts and Face-Invading Acts of Students' Asynchronous Conversation in Online Learning | Imam Santosa, Ifan Iskandar
Based on the chart above, the utterance of FTA by lecturer showed that 70 % as hearer negative face that bind student freedom. Speaker negative face followed in the second highest number with 23 percent. Both positive face either speaker and hearer got 7% of all utterances.
Next table depicted the connection between Speech act and FTA. The table displayed the overall of interconnection between FTA and Speech Act. The hearer negative face in directive utterance turned out to be the most appearance by the lecturer on 34.11%. This followed closely by the negative face in declaration by 21.57%. The unique thing existed on how commissive act in both speaker and hearer negative face got 10.50% and 11.08 %. The overall result also indicated the lecturers never use Face Invading Act in their utterance. The lecturer used FTA with some surpassed politeness strategy to hinder their intention or to lower the tone.

DISCUSSION
The aim of the present research was to examine the use of FTA and FIA in communication of online learning during covid 19 outbreak. This study had identified that the lecturer did not use Face invading Act in the communication with the student. As mention Murati (2015) by teacher's personality has always been an example of positivity and human pride, since he is considered the most valuable man in society, different from others. The teacher is the model to raise future generations. The teacher shapes the future by example. Based on this assumption the lectures seemed careful about what they said. The result of the study indicated that directive speech act was the most frequent speech act used by the lecturers. 38% of utterances categorized as directive speech act. Searle (1982) stated that the purpose of directive speech act was to make hearer do particular action. The utterance which included as directive speech are commanding utterance, requesting utterance, advising utterance, and warning utterance. Beside Maria Gill (2012) added the factor of authority lead the person to use directive speech act utterance in his conversation. This conforming with the relationship between lecturer and student in the classroom activity. In addition, the result displayed that directive negative FTA hearer was the most frequently used utterance by the teacher. Here is the example of Negative FTA appeared in the findings • "make sure that you already read today's materials & my feedback on you…" • "Last, don't forget to be happy."" • "Evaluate what you have done in your previous assignment, and discuss t…" • "Feel free to ask here or via personal chat if you questions related to…" • "Please enter our new room" • "'Please join our online class this evening" • "langsung masukan tugas aja rai" • 'Tulis dibawahnya" • "Edit filenya aja" • "Dear 'everybody', please remember that you have a final exam InsyaAlla… " • "Dear Intro to Ling students, InsyaAllah our meeting 15 of the course wi…" • "Keep fighting everybody.... " • "Be ready insyaAllah you are going to have your meeting 13 of Intro to…" • "Please find other 9 objective " • "Let me give you one example " • "Please kindly join the meeting now ya" • "Let's just use Gmeet ya" Most of the directive Negative FTA used imperative sentence, however, the lecturer tended to be careful in choosing the word. Even though the nature of FTA was constraint the freedom of the hearer, the hearer understood the position and the responsibility as the student in learning activity.
Next speech act was declaration. Declaration defined as an utterance that alter the state of the conditions in an immediate way. The data indicated that this utterance was 36% from the overall appearance of the speech act. This utterance appeared as the lecturer announced something, mostly the lecture announced the assignment for the student. As the result the kind of FTA dominantly appeared was Negative hearer FTA. The announcement of assignment and also the deadline of the assignment bind the students; freedom to act other. In line with the previous conclusion in directive speech act, the authority of the teacher played important role in how student reacted and perceive the utterances. here the following utterance of declarations speech act.
• "you will write goal and objectives based on a set of students' workshe…" • "Hasil pekerjaan kalian akan kita bahas minggu depan" • "Tomorrow we won't have an online meeting because the material is tree…" • "Next week, we won't have a virtual meeting ya because PBI lecturers wi…" • "30 mins late= 5 point-deduction 1 hour= 10 point-deduction " • "I lonly let you access the video n give comments on Monday so make sur…" • "The class will start on time" • "You still can submit assignments by this weekend. Your submission will…" One unanticipated result was that commissive was the third most frequent speech act utterance used by the lecturer. The commissive speech act is the utterance that led speaker and hearer have a commitment on any particular action in the future, these contained promising, threatening, offering, refusal, pledges. The appearance of commissive speech act mostly derived from the offers from the teacher. The teacher offered student to decided something like time, deadline, kind of work. The FTA of commissive was hearer and speaker speech act. This based on both of party decided on something. This conformed the argument by (Basra & Thoyyibah, 2017;Santosa & Kurniadi, 2020;Sumedi & Rovino, 2020) that believed commissive speech act expressed the future acts. Therefore, this kind of speech act utilized as the media of classroom organization. Furthermore, the intention teacher to use this speech act to make student understand what would happen in the future. These were the appearance of commissive speech act.
• "Ready to have a class?" • "Good morning, hari ini kalau kita geser ke jam 10 apakah memungkinkan?" • "kalo ga bisa ketemu malam ini" • "9jam berapa ketemuannya guys?" • "jam tengah 8 kali ya" • "tapi kal ga bisa saya leave tugas sa…" • "ya udah ditunda ga apapa" • "bisa ketemu kah" The least speech act was expressive and assertive with the proportion in 8% and 6%. In these categories, the FTA was not form negative FTA but it came from FTA of positive both speaker and hearer. This means that this speech act influenced the self-image of the hearer and the speaker. Here the utterance of expressive and assertive.
• "Sorry Joses for inviting you late to the group because your KRS was ju…" • "I forget to screen shot the meeting" • "Hi guys. I wish everything…" • "Outstanding" • "So proud to hear that Rai, when you can actually make use of the app f…" • "Very well, keep being all ear" • "Looking forward for your work, good luck guys" • "Thank you for your understanding" • "Congrats"