This is my mini research ....ndekman kenak meton laguk pede-pedean wah begak jari content blog ne
A
Study on the Politeness in Sasak Perspective at Petak Batujai West Praya Central
Lombok
Abdul Muhid
NIM: I2J012001
Abstract
This mini research presents the results of a
study analyzing the extent to which the performance of Sasak people
demonstrated an understanding of the norms of politeness influencing the
selection and realization of strategies associated with two prominent speech
acts (suggestions and apologies) in the Sasak society. I hope that the examples that
will be presented here, might combine careful attention to the common features
and unique social circumstances, which might encourage a reconsideration of
“ancient” category of language and culture. However,
understanding the sasak speech style can be insightful for all readers
especially Sasak people. In this social study, Sasak speech style is described
through observations of Sasak’s native speaker. In addition, I will use qualitative
method since I want to describe the data findings. The purpose of this
description is to let the readers know what happened in the environment under
observation, what it was like from the participants' point of view to be in the
setting, and what particular events or activities in the setting were like.
Then in this mini research I entitled this paper “A Study on the
Politeness in Sasak Perspective at Petak
Batujai West Praya Central Lombok”.
This mini research is developed based on the article entitled ‘Cultural Expectations and Perceptions of
Politeness: The “Rude Chinese”, Yu-Cheng Lee Foreign Language Department, Fudan
University, Shanghai, China.
1. INTRODUCTION
Politeness is an
aspect of language that has been thoroughly studied. In the West, a number of
theories have influenced research on notions of politeness and language. The
Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), the Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983) and
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of universal politeness.
One of the issues
of major concern when it comes to intercultural encounters is the socio
linguistic discourse of politeness. Even though at a theoretical and practical
level extensive research in the field has already been conducted (Leech, 1983:
108), little research has been conducted so far into the politeness discourse
of Romanians as compared to other nations. Therefore, I believe that this mini
research may contribute to a research later and, hopefully, provide a
theoretical and practical framework for further investigations into the field
of polite requests. Moreover, I would like to emphasize the importance of
taking such a specific approach when it comes to understanding intercultural
relationships from a socio linguistic perspective. Through observation of communication
styles and cultural artifacts manifested in action (process), the communication
is theoretically a neutral way of sharing knowledge or worldviews and of
maintaining social relationships. Practically, some aspects of communication
can vary according to geographical areas, social class, gender, age and level
of education. Thus, what generally is viewed as common sense
knowledge.
2.
Research question
To
do the mini research in proper way the writer formulates some questions to
answer:
1. What
does the factors of Sasak Politeness in social interaction and how does
politeness affect directive and in directive in speaking?
3. Review
of Literature
The first
question addressed by the author’s previous studies, and the basis on which
further studies have branched out from, is whether Chinese students and native
English speakers possess the same basic cognitive perceptions of what
politeness is, and how politeness is shown (through politeness strategies). A
previous study by the author found that in terms of conceptualization at least
(if not production), Chinese learners and native English speakers seem to hold
very similar ideals of politeness. When asked about whom it is required to show
politeness to for example, Chinese learners gave answers no different from
those of native English speakers (age, occupation, knowledge, etc. of
interlocutor). When asked about how Brown and Levinson’s weight factors would
affect the degree of politeness needed, again Chinese learners and native
English speakers concurred, replying that when faced with an interlocutor of
high social status/power, high social distance, or when degrees of imposition
are high, greater degrees of politeness are required.
In addition, the
former researcher also investigated whether Chinese learners held the same
beliefs about the hierarchy of politeness strategies. When asked to rank
different strategies according to their degree of politeness, Chinese learners
gave responses that once again agreed with Brown and Levinson’s model.
From the results
of previous studies reported above, I can conclude that in judgments of
politeness, Chinese learners and native English speakers do not differ greatly.
At this point, we see that beliefs about how social factors affect politeness
required are highly congruent, and that perceptions of politeness strategies
are also highly similar between Chinese learners and native English speakers. I am interested in developing case of language and culture.
And in this mini research I develop this material based on
the former research entitled ‘Cultural Expectations and Perceptions of Politeness: The “Rude
Chinese”, Yu-Cheng Lee Foreign Language Department, Fudan University, Shanghai,
China.
4.
Analysis research/Methodology
Here, I will
limit discussion to the most influential theory on politeness, developed by
Brown and Levinson (1987). This theory originated with the aim to explain
universal ‘politeness’ and the concept of face that is shared by every member
of society. In their book titled Politeness: Some Universals on Language, Brown
and Levinson (1987) give numerous examples, especially from non-European
languages. Their approach divers from that of other researchers (Grice, 1975;
Leech, 1983), who conceive politeness as a series of pragmatic rules and
maxims. Brown and Levinson’s approach is more interactional and dynamic and
takes into account a vast number of languages, including those that possess
honorifics. A basic concept of politeness is face. Face, as defined by Brown
and Levinson (1987), is a basic human desire that influences human interaction.
Positive face is the desire to be liked, accepted, understood and so on.
Negative face is the dislike of being imposed upon. People thus communicate so
as to ‘save’ face, using strategies that address either positive or negative
face. However, many communicative acts can potentially cause ‘loss’ of face, in
what Brown and Levinson (1987) defined as face threatening acts (FTA).
The approach is concerned with; (1) the linguistic resources
people use in context, including the socially situated uses and meanings of
words, their relations, and sequential forms of expression; (2) the way verbal
and nonverbal signs create and reveal social codes of identity, relationships,
emotions, place, and communication itself. In addition to its focus on locally politeness
of communication is also guided by a particular methodology and general
concerns in theory pragmatic. As a theoretical perspective, it offers a range
of concepts for understanding communication in any possible scene and/or
community; as a methodology, it offers procedures for analyzing communication
practices as formative of social life. The methodology typically involves
various procedures for analysis including participant in the contexts of
everyday, social life, as well as interviewing participants about communication
in those contexts. Therefore, the most suitable method used in this mini
research is descriptive qualitative method; since I want to describe the
data findings in the society. The purpose of this description is to let the
reader know what happened in the environment under observation, what it was
like from the participants' point of view to be in the setting, and what
particular events or activities in the setting were like.
Dell Hymes In 1962 published a paper that called ‘a new area
of study’, a kind of linguistics that explored language not just as a formal
system of grammar, but as something culturally shaped in the contexts of social
life. In 1964, Hymes and his colleague John Gumperz published a special section
of the journal ‘American Anthropologist’, the basis of a highly influential
reader on the subject, pioneering a general path for ethnographic studies of
communication.
The concept of communication
event has become a prominent starting point for these analyses; it draws
attention to communicative action as formative of social processes and
sequences. A communication event can be understood from the point of view of participants’
part of social life. Communication events typically involve a sequential
structuring of acts, can be understood by formulating norms or rules about
them, and involve culturally bounded aspects of social life which have a
beginning and ending.
Communication acts are most typically parts of larger
sequences of social actions and in this sense are often usefully conceptualized
as integral aspects of communication events. In any human community, there are
many places where communication is expected or prohibited. These enter into
ethnographies of communication as aspects of a setting in which communication
itself occur. The concept of communication situation is used to identify
specific settings and scenes for communication.
Communication situations may involve activities with some
particular limitation but without a strict sequencing of acts or activities. A speech community is a group of people
who share rules for using and interpreting at least one communication practice.
A communication practice might involve specific events, acts, or situations,
with the use and interpretation of at least one essential for membership in a
speech community.
In this respect,
I cannot claim though too much originality of the findings due to the
restricted sample of respondents. Nevertheless, if further research will
confirm these findings, then this research is considerable as reference in the
field of similar research of pragmatics. Moreover, I emphasize the idea that
only through such research one can actually cover in a scientific manner a part
of the challenging field of intercultural, and more specific of intercultural
encounters at the level of linguistic discourse markers.
4.1.Population
(Arikunto:
2002) stated “ population is the whole amount of research object, if somebody
else wants to research all element in that area, then the research called
research population. Batujai is very
large village with thousands people there. Then, if I try using all population is as the sample, I think
quiet hard to mobile from one place to another one. Therefore, I limit the
location, and the setting where mini research conducted was at Petak Kampong
Batujai Village Central Lombok. The villagers are approximately 350 families.
4.2.Sample
The
sample is a part of the population, which can represent the total amount of
population in the research (Arikunto: 2002). In this mini research, I do not
take all villagers as the sample.
4.3.
Data Collection
In
the research, data is very important. All researchers need data to complete
their research. Moreover, to have better description, the writer collected the
data through observation and interview. In addition, researcher should involve in every
activities conducted by the member of the social community observed. The
observation of a particular community is not taken from a distant and safe
point but by being in the middle of things, that is, by participating in as
many social events as possible.
In this technique observation, I
intensively interact with other participant and might even get to participate
in. In the case of linguistic fieldwork, complete participation means being
able to interact competently in the native language. Complete participation,
when possible and ethically appropriate, gives researcher a great opportunity
to directly experience the processes they are trying to document. This
technique has its weaknesses. The participation of the researcher in
communities implies an attention to one’s role and one’s perception by others
that can be very absorbing and, from the point of view of documenting what is
going on, extremely distracting. Researchers should restrain themselves from
complete participation. They have to stand and sit the least intrusive place.
I should at least be in the middle
of community for about six moths. However, because it is just mini research,
yet the data taken is little and the time spent approximately one month. In the
interview, researcher is continuously asking questions and many of the
questions they ask are about topics and issues they are trying to make sense.
In this sense, researcher’s questions are never useless even though any answers
given are least informative, the answer might be quite informative for the
researcher sometimes later. Interview is good for obtaining background cultural
information that is crucial for understanding particular speech exchanges
researcher is studying. The interview might be an occasion for getting a
linguistic corpus for studying grammatical forms, stylistic variations, and
attitudes toward the language (Hill and Hill 1986) in. The weakness of this
technique is that this technique is rarely providing the richness of
information needed for culturally linguistic analysis. There are also
differences among society about conceptualizing what interview is. In relation
to asking question, researcher should know about the ecology of asking
question, that is who is allowed to question who, when and how, as proposed by
Dell Hymes.
4.4.Data
Analysis
The data of this research
was obtained through the techniques above, are transcribed, and then analysed
them. Descriptive method is the step of analysing the data, finding the
patterns, searching for the main problem and giving conclusion are some steps
of analysing qualitative data (Davies,
C. A. 1999).
Finally, For details, about
the problem statement, it will be presented in result and discussion in the
following.
5.
Discussion
After
all the data need were collected, here the writer will discuss and interpret
all the data collection. The analysis process begins with
assembling the raw materials and getting an overview of the entire process. The
analysis process involves consideration of words, context, non-verbal, internal
consistency, frequency, extensiveness, intensity, specificity of responses and
big ideas. Interpretation involves
attaching meaning and significance to the analysis, explaining descriptive
patterns, and looking for relationships and linkages among descriptive
dimensions.
In
this part, I will discuss the data finding the cause of Politeness, Politeness in Sasak, and the appearance of politeness.
5.1.
The Politeness
In
our daily life, we have the awareness about which one is polite action and
which one is not. Politeness, thus, is an observable and social phenomenon.
Whenever we want anybody else to respect and being good to us, we have to show
our politeness. In turn, he/she will respond you politely either. We often say
“hello!” to others. All we want to do is to show our good feelings, our
friendliness, and our intention to maintain harmonious relationships with them.
In general, we act politely in order to show our wishes to start a friendly
relation with someone, or to maintain it if it is already existing, or to fix
it if it is being threatened for some reasons. To maintain such smooth, harmonious
interpersonal relationships expected by every human in every society,
politeness serves as an appropriate means. There are ideas by expert about what
politeness is. Watts (2003, p. 39) had proposed four definitions of politeness.
They are as follows:
a)
Politeness is the ideal union between the
character of an individual and his external actions (e.g. the language which
that individual uses).
b)
Politeness is the ability to please others
through one’s external actions (e.g. through one’s language usage).
c)
Politeness is the natural attribute of a
‘good’ character.
d)
Politeness is a socially acquired state of
mind that is adjudged to have reached a state of being ‘polished’ and of
thereby being in conformity with a set of socially accepted forms
of behavior Kasper (1990) as cited in Huang (2008) said that
“communication is seen as a fundamentally dangerous and antagonistic endeavor”.
Politeness is therefore defined by Kasper as a term to refer to the strategies
available to interactants to defuse the danger and to minimalise the
antagonism. Similarly, Brown and Levinson (1978) as cited in Huang (2008) view
politeness as ‘a complex system for softening face-threatening acts’.
As stated in previous
sections, the reason why dis-preferred pairs are lengthier and more complex can
be explained in terms of ‘face’. A rejection for example, is a Face Threatening Acts and participants
will try to use strategies in order to avoid or minimize the threat. Speech
styles, personal pronouns and social relations Speech style is determined
by the relationship between interlocutors and the formality of the interaction.
The humble forms are used by younger or lower status speakers when talking
about himself or herself or about someone who belongs to his or her inner
circle. Again, the form is not reciprocated.
5.2.The
Factors caused Politeness in Sasak
As I noticed in my
environment where I live in. I found some factors that cause the politeness in
speaking. Moreover, I involved myself to the society; in quite long term, even
though the data taken are not adequate to support such a large research. In
addition, the causes of politeness that I found during observation are:
a)
Education
As
we know that, education still holds high position in our society. Someone who
is educated may have such a high priority in social interaction. In addition,
this also affect how people say something, how they behave or interact to
others. For instance, Galih is S2 graduation,
while he welcomed the audiences at Maulid
Nabi; he is very polite and careful. Yet he is 29 years old of age and to
whom he spoke approximately 25 to 35 years old. This is the sentence whilst Maulid Nabi on 19th January
2013 at Masjid Petak; “tiang
pelungguhm sami saq sampun rauh leq masjid……., tiang tunas
do’e leq pelungguhm sami…., dani penglinsir….”. From this
sentence, we can see how he addressed people. Pay attention the underlined
phrase. He seems that he wanted to show whom he is, to whom he is speaking and where
he is speaking. As
what proposed by Hymes refers to this rule as SPEAKING. It consists of Setting, Participant, End, Act of sequence, Key, Instrument, Norm of instruction and interpretation,
Genre.
To
achieve the goal of politeness, we should consider it from the following
aspects proposed by Watts (2003): 1) Considering the social background of the
communicator. Generally, the more educated a man is, the more he tends to show
his politeness to other people. The more he knows about the suitable ways to
show politeness, the better he uses them to be polite to others. Besides, the
personality of the communicator is also very important here. Good-tempered person
prefers to use “face-saving act” while bad-tempered person prefers to
“face-threatening act” when they come across the “face-losing condition”. 2)
According to the communicative circumstances.
b)
Power
In this case, what I
include in this term is social status
(Principal, Kepala Dusun, Kepala Desa, Bupati, Gubernur, Kiyai, dan Tuan Guru,),
social strata (Lalu, Raden, Baiq and
Dinde). To get clarity from this social status, I will present some statements
that depict whom speaking, where it takes place and what situation he or she
peaking is. In referring to Hymes about Speaking; here, also proves that his idea
at thing that affect speaking.
For instance, vice of
Bupati Lombok Tengah gave speech in the funeral on 11th January 2013
at Pemakaman Montong Tangar Petak, I quoted his sentences as these; “…inaq
amaq semeton jari, toak tanak, arik-kakak, dewek tiang niki yak ngaturin
tipak pelunguhm sami…kance napi saq sampun tebaosang isiq tuan guru saq
baruk… ”
However, the speaker needs
to consider social relationship between the speaker and the listener in terms
of status and familiarity. Such decision is needed because many words have
different variants according to the style. For example: the equivalent to the
English word I is dewek tiang in high
style, tiang in middle and low style.
Geertz as cited in Wardhaugh (2002, p.276) added some interesting observation.
He said that “as you move from low to high style, you speak more slowly and
softly and more evenly in terms of rhythm and pitch, so that the highest levels
when spoken correctly have kind of stately pomp which can make the simplest
conversation seem like a greater ceremony. In general, one uses lower levels
when speaking commercial matters, higher ones if speaking of religious or
aesthetic matters. One will tend to speak rather high, if one speaks at all,
with someone with whom one has quarreled. The presence of the third person, one
tends to speak higher to the same individual if others are listening. Wardhaugh
(2002, p.278) stated three principles that seem to operate. They are:
1)
Highest style is used among the old
aristocrats or by anyone at the highest levels of society who wants to give the
appearance of elegance.
2)
Middle style is used by people who are not
close friend or peasants addressing superiors. In formal occasions, people tend
to use formal expressions to show politeness, especially between the new
acquaintances. While in informal states, people tend to be casual to show
intimacy even if it is in the very moment they meet. Moreover, that does not
mean impoliteness. We can see it through the following example: A man came into
a kiosk and said to the seller: “maeh endeng
segelas kopi juluk?”Although they have never met before, the man used very
casual phrases to enclose their relationship. This is a usual way to show
friendliness to strangers.
3)
Low style is the style all children learn
first regardless of social class origin, and everyone uses it on some occasion,
even close acquaintances of the highest classes. Men and woman are also required
to speak differently. Women are expected to be more talkative than man do and
to err on the side of being over-polite in their words choices. On the other
hand, men are required to be extremely careful in manipulating the style of
speech because nuanced speech is highly prized.
c)
Age
One
more factor that affects our speaking politeness in society is the influence of
an age. For example; while young man addressed older people, he trends to use
polite language and expression; “assalmu’alaikum, mbek em lumbar miq”.
Thus, the language used in our contacts.
Another
example will be elaborated as additional data in this mini research. For
instance, while we talk with our friends (face to face or via phone) and we
talked about the third person, who is very popular, kind, pious, and charity,
we trend to address the third person in polite way; “marak basen pak kamal”. This
statement shows the politeness to someone we respect, even the man we mean is
in far way. In directly, we are respecting him a lot. Since, communication activity
is not only viewed as a tool to express the idea but also owns direct and
indirect function as well. The direct function
owns expressive, poetic, directive, referential, and phatic function (Saville-Troike:
13). Considering
the social distance or closeness. In situations of social distance or
closeness, showing awareness for another person’s face when that other seems socially
distant is often described in terms of respect or deference. Showing
the equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often described in
terms of friendliness or solidarity. Even though, there are exceptions.
Other
example; while Papuk Salam wants to
get his money from Inaq Pesah for payment of cage, he spoke like
this “…Inaq
Kadi litu bejual baruk, muk uk adik pindang aji Rp. 5000, mok kepengkh nggakn
karing Rp.3000 nyolet…” from statement of Papuk Salam he shows his
politeness in indirect way or negative face. The function is to avoid rejection
that makes him lose of face.
In
Savill-Troike 2003:12 the function of communication is used selectively and
owns motivation behind it. The function of communication is frequently related
to prestige, for instance, is as a tool to emphasize the limit of group,
self-identification, and separated outsiders from internal. The other function of language choice in
specific context is a tool of defense and manipulation of the social
identification in network. Diglossia
is happened in the communication usually depicts the dominant used of language,
which considered legal with historical background in the society.
6.
Conclusion
From the data above it can be concluded that:
1. Politeness
shows our good feelings, our friendliness, and our intention to maintain
harmonious relationships with them
2. To avoid hard rejection from partner
of speaking, we have to use strategies in order to avoid or
minimize the threat of losing face.
3. Hymes introduced four concepts as
basic units for the ethnographic study of communication. They are (1)
communication event, (2) communication act, (3) communication situation, and
(4) speech community
4. People do not speak in unmannered
ways. There is set of rule that governs the way people speak. Hymes refers to
this rule as SPEAKING. It consists of S=setting, P=participant, E=end, A=act of
sequence, K=key, I=instrument, N=norm of instruction and interpretation,
G=genre.
5. In conducting socio-cultural
research, there are some techniques that can be used to gather the data. They
are participant observation, interview, and using local language.
REFERENCES
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: CUP.
Cheng
Yu. Lee. 2011. Cultural Expectations
and Perceptions of Politeness: The “Rude Chinese”, Foreign Language Department, Fudan
University, Shanghai, China.
Davies, C. A. 1999 Reflexive Ethnography: a guide to researching
selves and others, London: Routledge.
Grice.
H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. University
College london
Hill.1986.
Universals of linguistic politeness : Quantitative evidence from Japanese and
American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 3347-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90006-8
Hymes, Dell.
1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.
Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania.
Kasper,
G. 1990.Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of
Pragmatics,14,193-218.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90080-W
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Suharsimi, A, 1991.
Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Ilmiah. Jakarta: PT Bina Aksara Wardhaugh, Ronald.
2002. An introduction to sociolinguistics. United Kingdom: Blackwell
Publishing.
Troike,
S.M. 2003. The Ethnography of Communication an introduction. Blackwell
Publishing.
Wardhaugh,
R. 2002. An introduction to sociolinguistics. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Watts,
R. J. 2008. Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness
Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1, 9-33.
Yongliang, Huang. 2008. Politeness Principle
in Cross-Cultural Communication (Available in Journal on English Language Teaching,
Vol.1 No.1. June 2008)
if you want to share your file, just tell our class leader (Iswadi) or you may contact Muhid.
http://www.4shared.com/file/hzZWQuiz/Final_Task.html
