POLITENESS STRATEGY ON SOCIAL INTERACTION IN MUNANESE DIALECT GU
Abstract
This study aims to investigate different politeness strategy used
by Munanese in their social interaction. The source of the data was verbal
utterances of Munanese dialect Gu . This study used pragmatic study especially
theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson, and supported by other theory
particularly Yassi’s theory. It also used descriptive qualitative method that
is observation by recording and note taking. The result of the study showed the
pattern politeness strategies used in Munanese Dialect Gu are; Hormat Non Kerabat; mixed, Hormat
berkerabat; mixed and positive politeness (KP), Akrab Non Kerabat; mixed, Akrab Berkerabat; positive politeness
(KP), Hierarki Non Kerabat; mixed
(hierarchy), and (6) Hierarki Kerabat; mixed. The differences of the
strategies maybe caused by several possible reasons including cultural
differences, different age and social status when the people interact each
other.
1. Introduction
Language is a system that holds an important role in human life. It
becomes a fundamental instrument of communication that allows people to
communicate. They communicate through a language in order to convey their
ideas, their needs, feeling, and expectations towards someone or something.
Besides, the ways which people use language in their daily life are in order to
have a connection or maintain their relationship.
The use of language in communication is a part of pragmatics study.
According to Mey (2001:6) pragmatics as a study of the way human use their
language in communication, bases itself on a study of those premises and
determines how they affect, and effectualize, human language use. Moreover,
according to Hence as cited in Mey (2001:6) pragmatics studies the use of
language in human communication as determined by the condition of the society.
In other words, pragmatics refers to the social language skill which people use
in their interaction with others. It includes what they say, how they say, their
body language and whether it is appropriate to the given situation or context.
One important aspect of pragmatics competence is politeness. Yule (1996)
states that “politeness in an interaction can be defined as the means to show
awareness of another person’s face” (p. 60).
The knowledge of politeness is important because politeness has an
instrumental role in the social interaction.
The theory of politeness was established by
Brown and Levinson in 1987. They also introduced the notion of face which is
most influential theory on politeness. It contains Face Threatening Acts (FTA)
and politeness strategy. They state that everyone in the society has two kinds
of face wants; negative face and positive face. Negative face
is the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to
non-distraction, i.e., face to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. While
the positive face is the positive consistent self-image or personality
claimed interacts. Moreover, according to Brown and Levinson every speaker and
hearer should avoid threatening to face with considering potentially of face
threatening act of a speech act due to some factors i.e Power (P), Distance (D)
and R (Relationship) supported by cultural factors, social interaction and
appropriate application of politeness strategy.
Scollon and Scollon (2011) has got three
politeness systems; the deference politeness system, the solidarity politeness,
and hierarchy politeness system. The distinction of the three systems is mainly
based on the difference in the existence of power (+P or –P), and on the social
distance between interlocutors (+D or –D) in which participants are considered
to be equal or near equals but treat each other at a distance. Scollon and
Scollon (2001) considers in a solidarity politeness system, the speaker may
feel neither power difference (-P) nor social distance (-D) between themselves
e.g friends. Their hierarchical politeness system may be widely recognized
among companies, government and educational organizations, in which the speaker
resorts to different politeness strategy; the ‘higher’ use involvement
politeness strategies and the ‘lower’ use independence politeness strategies. Yassi
(2012) introduces six systems of politeness strategies on social interaction by
adding one of systems that is Kinship (K); (1) Hormat Non Kerabat (-P +D –K), (2)
Hormat berkerabat (-P +D –K), (3) Akrab
Non Kerabat (-P –D –K), (4) Akrab Berkerabat (-P –D +K), (5) Hierarki Non
Kerabat (+P +D –K), and (6) Hierarki Kerabat (+P –D +K). System number (1)
until (4) is symmetry and system number (5) and (6) is asymmetry. Yassi’s
theory was introduced by his research of politeness system in Makassarese, and
due to the cultural factor the theory is as the criticism of Brown and
Levinson’s theory.
In Yassi (2012) the politeness strategies used
by Makassarrese based on the six
strategies are Hormat Non Kerabat; mixed,
Hormat berkerabat; positive politeness (KP), Akrab Non Kerabat; negative politeness
(KN), Akrab Berkerabat; hierarki, Hierarki Non Kerabat; mixed
(hierarki) , and Hierarki Kerabat; mixed.
Based on the explanation, this paper
will be discussed about the politeness strategy of social interaction in
Munanese by using Yassi’s theory. The data will be obtained from Muna native
speaker’s utterances by recording
and note taking. After collecting the data, it will be analyzed by using the
Yassi’s system of politeness strategies whether Muna people use positive
politeness (KP), negative politeness (KN) or Mixed. It will be seen whether
there is the differences or the similarities of politeness strategie used by
Munanese and Yassi’s result according to the six systems of politeness.
2. Finding and Discussion
Data Presentation
(1) Hormat Non Kerabat (-P +D –K)
Data 1
Here the
interaction between two adult women who do not know each other or we can say
this is the first time they meet each other. The conversation took places on
the ship. They was talking about their self and their family.
A :
Femie anabuantoa? (How many children do you have?)
B :
Popa (Four)
A : O popa. Pooto ga a idi popa dua.
Semie moane idia (Oh four. It is same with me. I only have one
son)
B : Ino’dia semie ho’bine,
totolu moane.( I have one daughter and three sons)
A : Jadi we kolowa nando lambuntoa
lae? (So, you have a house in Kolowa, don’t you?)
B : Umbe. O hato lambuntoa we lombe we
amai? (Yes. Then your house in Lombe where is the location?
A : We Watulea. (in Watulea)
STRATEGY: MIXED
(2)
Hormat Berkerabat (-P +D +K)
Data
2
This is the
interaction between distance relatives. They are talking about the cashew. A is
younger than B.
A : O no ko’bake toha dambuntoa lae?
(the cashews ripe now, isn’t it?)
B : Umbe. O dambuno futoku. Ane na
ko’bake dambuno kamukulaa, mahingga da moni daeondofi anaia. ( Yes. It
is my cashews. If the parents’s cashews will have ripen the children can take
it )
A : Umbe. (Yes)
STRATEGY: MIXED
Data
3
This is the
interaction between distance relatives. They have same age.
A : Do foni we la ae te masigi inia?
(With whom did you go to this mosque?)
B : Moisakua pa’a ( I my self)
A : Me kakala mayu we lambua? (Did you
go on foot from your house?)
B : Ae
safi ne ojek. (I went by ojek)
STRATEGY: KP
(CASUAL)
(3)
Akrab Non Kerabat (-P -D –K)
This is the interaction between two people. They are friends’
relation.
Data
4
A : Alhamdulillah. Nando pahaso to? Lancar
pahasontoa? (Are you selling?
Are your selling running well?)
B : La ae? (Who?)
A : Intao’dia pa’a. Pahaso te
lambu. (You. Sell at house)
B : Umbe. (Yes)
STRATEGY: MIXED
(4)
Akrab Berkerabat (-P -D +K)
This is the interaction
between two siblings. A is a older sister and B is younger sister.
Data
5
A : Me da’da ae? (What are you cooking
now?)
B : Me da’da banggai we palolano. O roti ae
aicua a? (I am cooking the Moringa vegetable and eggplant. What kind of
that bread?)
A : O roti kapute. (White Bread)
B : We
incino we laloa? (Is there any filling inside?)
A : Umbe. Me da’da banggai we palolano maka
da aomaomu. (Yes. Then, cooking the Moringa vegetable and eggplant now
after that I will eat)
STRATEGY: KP
(Casual)
(5)
Hirarki Non Kerabat (+P +D -K)
This
is the interaction between two people which recognize and respect the social
distance that places A is super ordinate position and B is subordinate position.
Data
6
A : Naefie ne kan o laporan a da’kumpuluemo.
Fo selesaiemomu laporanmiua. (Tomorrow, the report will be
collected. You have to finish yours)
B : Umbe ibu. (Yes, Madam)
A : Pa’da aicu wa aneomu we ino’ida. Fe
kahimba ao e. (After you finish it, give it to me. Be quickly)
B : Umbe ibu. (Yes, Madam)
STRATEGY :
HIERARKI
(6)
Hirarki Kerabat (+P -D +K)
Data
7
This
is the interaction between two people which have kinship relation. A is a wife
and B is a husband.
A : O Bapa, be ino’di doimu
so ae oli kenta,. Minamo be kenta’a. (Dad, I want your money. I want to buy
some fishes because there is no more)
B : Se ae hama angko. (how
much must I give you?)
A : Na moono pa’a Bapa. Ulanomo no
ali kenta’a. (One hundred. The fish is very expensive now)
STRATEGY:
MIXED (HIERARCHY)
Data
8
This
is the interaction is still in kinship relation. A is a daughter and B is a
mother.
A : Aini kagomu ka oliaku we
manggasa. Fo ohue seone sealoa. (This is your medicine. I bought it in
Makassar. Take it one for a day)
B : Kagono ae aicua? (What medicine is
that?)
A : Kagono vitamin. Komolimpua aicua Inae.
Kohondoa seonu. (The medicine is vitamin. Don’t forget to take it one
for night)
STRATEGY:
MIXED
Based on the data presentation of
the dialogue transcription, it can be classified the politeness strategy on
social interaction in Munanese Dialect Gu. The data were tabulated below:
SISTEM
STRATEGI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
KP
|
V
|
V
|
V
|
V
|
||||||||
KN
|
V
|
|||||||||||
Mixed
|
V
|
V
|
V
|
V
|
The table above shows that the data
number (1) which is the system is Hormat Non Kerabat used Mixed strategy
between two people who do not know each other. Sometimes they used nto as
from persona nomina intao’di (You: polite way) and also
use direct speech.
In data number (2) which is the
system is Hormat Berkerabat shows that the strategy used by the speaker and the
hearer are mixed. The use of nto appears because there is the
different of the age between speaker and hearer. Moreover, they also use
language of intimacy which shows the casual way. This strategy is also occurred
in the system of Akrab Non Kerabat in the data number (4).
On the other hand, the data number
(3) shows another strategy even it still in the same system of Hormat
Berkerabat. The strategy used in the conversation is positive politeness
(KP). It can be seen when that the speech is more direct, lag of social
attributes, and casual honorific. Furthermore, in the system of Akrab
Berkerabat also used positive politeness (KP) as proven in the data
number (5) because there is no social attributes in the language they used.
The data number (6), (7) and (8) is
in the asymmetry system. In the system,
one places in a superodinate position and the other in a subordinate position.
In Data number (6), the speaker as one who is superior used positive
politeness (KP) to the hearer. While the hearer who is as the imperior one
use the negative politeness (KN). In contrast, the data number (7) and
(8) shows the superior use positive politeness (KP) and the imperior use
the mixed strategy. It can be
seen in the using of mu (You: impolite way) and the using of Bapa (Dad) , Ina (Mom) as deferent
honorific.
In Yassi (2012) the politeness strategies used
by Makassarrese based on the six
strategies are Hormat Non Kerabat; mixed,
Hormat berkerabat; positive politeness (KP), Akrab Non Kerabat; negative politeness
(KN), Akrab Berkerabat; hierarki, Hierarki Non Kerabat; mixed
(hierarki) , and Hierarki Kerabat; mixed.
If we compare the data to the Yassi’s theory,
there are some similarities and differences in the using of politeness strategy.
In the system of Hormat Non Kerabat, Hormat berkerabat, Hierarki Non Kerabat, and Hierarki Kerabat
both of them used the same strategies. However in the system of Akrab Non
Kerabat, in Yassi’s theory the strategy used
negative politeness (KN), Akrab Berkerabat used hierarki,
In Munanese Dialect Gu the system of Akrab Non Kerabat used mixed and Akrab
Berkerabat used positive politeness (KP). It caused by some factors such
as cultural differences and social status.
3. Conclusion
After analyzing the data, the writer concluded Dialect Gu in Munanese used some strategy of
politeness in their daily interaction. Under the framework of Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy
theory and supported by Yassi’s theory, this paper explored the differences in
the application of politeness strategies in Munanese Dialect Gu.
The result of
the study showed the pattern politeness strategies used are; Hormat Non
Kerabat; mixed, Hormat berkerabat; mixed and positive politeness
(KP), Akrab Non Kerabat; mixed, Akrab Berkerabat; positive politeness
(KP), Hierarki Non Kerabat; mixed
(hierarchy), and Hierarki Kerabat; mixed.
There are some similarities and differences of
the strategies used by Munanese Dialect
Gu and Makassarese based on Yassi’s theory. In the system of Hormat Non
Kerabat, Hormat berkerabat, Hierarki
Non Kerabat, and Hierarki Kerabat both of them used the same strategies.
However in the system of Akrab Non Kerabat, in Yassi’s theory the strategy
used negative politeness (KN), Akrab
Berkerabat used hierarki, In Munanese Dialect Gu the system of Akrab Non
Kerabat used mixed and Akrab Berkerabat used positive politeness
(KP). The differences of the strategies maybe caused by several possible
reasons including cultural differences, different age and social status when
the people interact each other.
References
Brown and
Levinson. 1987. Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage. New York
: Cambridge University Press
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd
Edition. British Library: Blackwell Publisher
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment