and student lead to the same patterns, namely 1 single or multiple attacks with no response, 2 single or multiple attacks and accepting the
impoliteness, 3 OFF-DEF pairings and 4 OFF-OFF pairings. 3
The use of impoliteness strategies in the classroom interaction used by teacher and student shared several same reasons, namely 1 to mock the
others, 2 to vent negative feelings, 3 to show power, 4 to show disagreement. There were some new reasons of using the language
impoliteness in the classroom interaction, namely: to show disagreement, to clarify something clearly, to show dissatisfaction, and to give advice.
The most frequent reason of using impoliteness by teacher and student in the classroom interaction was to mock the others and the least frequent
reason was to give advice.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to the readers as provided in the following items.
1 To the other researchers, it is suggested that this study could be further
expanded, elaborated and explored in other field in order to contribute the development of impoliteness theories such as the use of impoliteness in
other application or literary works. 2
To all the readers, it is suggested to use the study as references for understanding the application of impoliteness in classroom interaction.
REFERENCES
Alia, A. D. 2008. Perbedaan Sikap Ayah dan Ibu Terhadap Kekerasan Oleh Guru. Jakarta: Universitas Guna Darma.
Allwright, R. 1984. The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied Linguistic Journal 5: 156-171.
Bogdan, R. Biklen, S. 2010. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bousfield, D. 2007. Beginnings, middles and ends. A Biopsy of the Dynamics of Impolite Exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 39, 2185-2216.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education- Longman.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. by R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990a. In Other Words-. Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Trans. by M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. 1990b. The Logic of Practice. Trans. by R. Nice. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Cashman, L. 2006. Impoliteness in Childrens Interaction in a Spanish English Bilingual Community of Practice. Journal of Politeness Research 2: 217-
246. Celebi, H. 2012. Extracting and Analyzing Impoliteness in Corpora: A Study
Based on the British National Corpus and the Spoken Turkish Corpus. Middle East Technical University
Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards An Anatomy of Impolitness. Journal of Pragmatics. Volume 25, Issue 3, 349-367.
Culpeper, J. 1998. ImPoliteness in Dramatic Dialogue. In Culpeper, J., Short, M., and Verdonk, P. eds., Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text
to Context. London and New York: Routledge
99
