THE IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY TEACHER AND STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION.

(1)

THE IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY TEACHER

AND STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

ERSIKA PUSPITA DANI

Registration Number: 8136112015

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

i ABSTRACT

Dani, E. P. Registration Number: 8136112015. The Impoliteness Strategies Used by Teacher and Students in Classroom Interaction. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. 2015.

The objectives of the study were to find out: (1) the types of impoliteness strategies used by teacher and students in classroom interaction, (2) the pattern of responses used by teacher and students in classroom interaction, and (3) the reasons of using language impoliteness in classroom interaction. The study was descriptive qualitative. The subject of the study was class VII-6 of MTS Negeri Tanjung Morawa which had been choosen randomly. The data of the study is the impolite utterances of transcripts which is recorded from the conversation in the classroom interaction. The data were identified, analyzed and categorized based on Culpeper’s (1996, 2003), Bousfield’s (2007), and Beebe’s (1995) theory. The findings of the study showed that: 1) there were five types of impoliteness strategy found in both data of teacher and students, namely: bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock politeness, and withhold politeness; 2) there were four patterns of responses the impoliteness, namely: single or multiple attacks with no response, single or multiple attacks and accepting the impoliteness, DEF pairings, and OFF-OFF pairings; and 3) The use of language impoliteness in classroom interaction used by teacher and students shared several same reasons, namely: to mock the others, to vent negative feelings, to show power. 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. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that overall teacher and students had equal chance to perform impoliteness in classroom interaction. Some suggestions are directed to those who are interested in understanding impoliteness strategy as found in practice.

(6)

ii ABSTRAK

Dani, E. P. NIM: 8136112015. Strategi Ketidaksantunan Yang Digunakan oleh Guru dan Murid di dalam Interaksi Kelas. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2015. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan: (1) jenis stategi ketidaksantunan yang digunakan oleh guru dan murid di dalam interaksi kelas, (2) pola respon yang digunakan oleh guru dan murid di dalam interaksi kelas, dan (3) alasan menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa dalam interaksi kelas. Penelitian ini adalah deksriptif kualitatif. Subjek data penelitian ini adalah kelas VII-6 MTs Negeri Tanjung Morawa yang telah dipilih secara acak. Data dari penelitian ini adalah percakapan ketidaksantunan dari transkripsi yang diambil dari hasil rekaman percakapan di dalam interaksi kelas. Data tersebut diidentifikasi, dianalisis dan dikelompokkan berdasarkan teori Culpeper (1996,2003), Bousfield (2007), dan Beebe (1995). Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: 1) ada 5 jenis strategi ketidaksantunan yang ditemukan di kedua data guru dan murid yaitu bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock politeness, and withhold politeness; 2) ada 4 pola respon bahasa ketidaksantunan, yaitu serangan tunggal atau beberapa dengan tidak merespon, serangan tunggal atau beberapa dengan menerima ketidaksantunan itu, pasangan OFF-DEF, dan pasangan OFF-OFF; dan 3) Penggunaan ketidaksantunan bahasa di kelas interaksi yang digunakan oleh guru dan murid memiliki beberapa alasan yang sama, yaitu untuk mengejek yang lain, untuk melampiaskan perasaan negatif, untuk menunjukkan kekuasaan. Ada beberapa alasan baru dalam pengunaan bahasa ketidaksantunanan di dalam interaksi kelas, yaitu: untuk menunjukkan ketidaksetujuan, untuk mengklarifikasikan sesuatu dnegan jelas, untuk menunjukkan ketidakpuasan, dan untuk memberikan nasihat. Alasan yang paling sering digunakan oleh guru dan murid di dalam interaksi kelas adalah untuk mengejek yang lain, dan alasan yang paling sedikit adalah untuk memberikan nasihat. Berdasarkan temuan, dapat disimpulkan bahwa secara keseluruhan, guru dan murid memiliki kesempatan yang sama untuk melakukan ketidaksantunan dalam interaksi kelas. Saran ditujukan kepada siapa saja yang tertarik memahami strategi ketidaksantunan seperti praktik yang telah ditemukan.

(7)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin. Praise and thank to the Almighty Allah SWT, for the blessings and guidance to the writer so that the writing of this thesis can finally be accomplished as it should be. This thesis is a scientific writing that has to be completed in order to fulfill one of the academic requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program; Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. It has also shown the responsibility and capability of the writer as an academician to be able to conduct a research that would contribute to the development of scientific knowledge.

However, without the assistance of these following numbers of people who have given valuable suggestions and useful influences on the writing of this thesis, it would be much more difficult for the writer to finish her work. She is then deeply indebted to these people and would like to express her sincere thanks.

The writer would like to deliver her grateful appreciation and gratitude to her first adviser Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S. and her second adviser Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed.,TESP. for their great care, patient guidance, excellent advices, and precious time in guiding her in the process of completing this thesis.

Her gratefulness also goes to the Head and Secretary of the English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd. and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S. for their kind support toward the prerequisites of the thesis submission as well as the encouragement to work hard toward the thesis proposal. Her sincere gratitude is also given to Prof. Dr. H. Abdul Sibuea, as the Director of Postgraduate School at State University of Medan.

(8)

Furthermore, the writer would like to thank Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Dr. I Wayan Dirgayasa Tangkas, M. Hum., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum. for their constructive comments and suggestions in advancing the thesis quality.

Her deepest gratitude and tremendous appreciations are presented to her parents, Drs. Suliano and Dra. Sutiah for their never ending support, care and love to encourage her to learn and pursue her education to the master degree. To all her beloved families who always pour her with all their compassion; especially to her sister, Latifah Hilmiy, Amd, to her beloved brother, Erick Bangun S. Ikom.

Last but not least, the writer would like to thank all of her beloved friends in B4 Class, Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School at State University of Medan, Yeni Purtika Simanjuntak, Siti Marlina, Ika Swantika, Lisna Rifka Diana Sirait, Muhammad Hasril Fakhrurozi, Mia Fitri Tinambunan, Maida, Fitri Erawati, Adinda Zoraya Alvin, Muvidah as a chairman of B4, and the other friends which did not mentioned yet. Thank you very much for their time to discuss and exchange ideas while working on the thesis as well as their prayers, encouragement and support.

Medan, August 2015 The Writer,

Ersika Puspita Dani

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

ABSTRACT ... i

ABSTRAK ... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF TABLE ... vii

LIST OF FIGURE ... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of the study ... 1

1.2 The Problem of the Study ... 8

1.3 The Scope the Study... 8

1.4 The Objective of the Study ... 9

1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 9

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Theoritical Framework ... 10

2.1.1 Impoliteness ... 10

2.1.1.1 The Concept of Impoliteness ... 10

2.1.1.2 The Definition of Impoliteness ... 18

2.1.2. The Types of Impoliteness Strategy ... 20

2.1.2.1 Bald on Record Impoliteness ... 21

2.1.2.2 Positive Impoliteness ... 22

2.1.2.3 Negative Impoliteness ... 24

2.1.2.4 Sarcasm or Mock Politeness ... 25

2.1.2.5 Withhold Politeness ... 26

2.1.3. Responding to Impoliteness ... 28

2.1.4. The Reasons of Using Impoliteness ... 31

2.1.5. Conversation Analysis ... 33

2.1.6. Classroom Interaction ... 34

2.1.6.1 Teacher to Student Interaction ... 34

2.1.6.2 Student to Teacher Interaction ... 35

2.1.6.3 Student to Student Interaction ... 35

2.1.7 The Rules in the Classroom ... 36

2.2 Previous Studies ... 37

2.3 Conceptual Framework ... 42

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 44

3.2 Population and Sample ... 44

3.3 The Data and Source of the Data ... 45

3.4 The Technique of Data Collection ... 45

(10)

3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 46

3.6.1 Credibility ... 46

3.6.2 Confirmability ... 47

3.7 The Technique of Data Analysis ... 47

CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Data Analysis ... 49

4.1.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used by Teacher and Students in ... 49

4.1.2 Pattern of Responses Used by Teacher and Students ... 69

4.1.3 Reason of Using Impoliteness ... 78

4.2 Findings ... 86

4.2.1 The Types of the Impoliteness Strategies Used by Teacher and Student in the Classroom Interaction ... 86

4.2.2 The Pattern of Responses Used by the Teacher and Student in the Classroom Interaction ... 89

4.2.3 The Reasons of Using Language Impoliteness Used by Teacher and Student in the Classroom Interaction ... 90

4.3 Discussions ... 91

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions ... 97

5.2 Suggestions ... 98

REFERENCES ... 99

(11)

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Pages

Table 2.1. The Defense Strategies... 30 Table 4.1. Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used by Teacher and Student in the Classroom Interaction ... 86

(12)

viii

LIST OF FIGURE

Page

(13)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix I. The Transcription of the First Teacher and Students’

Utterances in the Classroom Interaction ... 103 Appendix II. The Transcription of the Second Teacher and Students’

Utterances in the Classroom Interaction ... 122 Appendix III. The Transcription of the Third Teacher and Students’

Utterances in the Classroom Interaction ... 134 Appendix IV. The Data Display of the Types of Impoliteness Strategies, The Responses, and The Reasons of Using Language Impoliteness . 154

(14)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of the Study

Brown (2001: 165) stated that interaction is the heart of communication. In this case, interaction has important role in communication in human life. It can be seen that the interaction is a kind of action that occurs between two or more objects that give effect between each other where they mutually share information and establish social relations.

Interaction in society is a condition which determines the harmonious relationship among them (Soemarjan, 1999). It shows that the harmony in society is a condition in which the social institutions truly serve and complement one another. A harmony condition will give peace to every individual in the community because there is no a conflict of norms and values in society. Therefore, interaction should optimize the politeness strategies in order to create harmonious relationship among them.

A good model of interaction could lead to the development of society which is moving to a more advanced and modern one. Actually a good interaction can be done through education and should be started from school, as ideally school, spesifically classroom, is the setting where politeness is educated and where the relationship between teachers and students, and students to students should be well established. It must be effective and polite. If the class interaction goes well, the knowledge that is given by the teachers will be received well by the students. As Dagarin (2004: 128) stated that the function of the interaction in the

(15)

teaching learning process is to establish a pleasant atmosphere in the classroom with friendly relationship of students and encourage the students to become effective communicators especially in second language learning.

Then, Rivers (1987: 9) states that through the interaction, the students can improve their language store as they listen to 'authentic linguistic material' or even the output of their fellow students in discussions, joint problem solving tasks, or dialogue. Through interaction, the students can use any language they have. It will also help students have competent role in critical thinking and share their views among the peers. Beside that, if the teacher interacts politely to her students, the students will do the same thing as the teacher does. As students need to imitate the teacher can and should serve as role models who teach character and moral virtues in the classroom (Lumpkin, 2008: 46).

However, the fact does not occur that way. Nowdays there seems to be a disruption in classroom interaction where impolite utterances are more likely to be used. This phenomenon can be found in daily classroom interaction where teachers perform impolite speech events. This is unfortunate due to the role of teacher as a good model for the students.

Furthermore, Kuriake in Alia (2008) said that Indonesia has a lot of teachers that still use the violence as the effective way to control students. It showed that teacher produced impoliteness. This kind of impoliteness in the classroom can be defined as negative attitudes in-context-behaviors which are associated, along with the participants who give rise to them Culpeper (2011: 31). In utilizing the impoliteness, the teacher applied impoliteness strategies that

(16)

Culpeper (1996) proposes, namely: bald on record impoliteness (strategy performed as clearly and boldly as possible), positive impoliteness (a strategy designed to damage the addressee’s positive face wants), negative impoliteness (a strategy designed to damage the addressee’s negative face wants), sarcasm or mock impoliteness (a strategy performed with the use of obviously insincere strategies), and withhold politeness (the absence of politeness in situations where it is expected).

These impoliteness strategies applied by the teachers in the classroom will lead to the situation where they are attacking each other’s face. This will affect the harmony of the classroom interaction. In responding to the impoliteness, Culpeper (1996) mentions that there are four ways in responding the impoliteness, namely: not responding, accepting responding, countering offensively, and countering defensively.

Based on researcher's observation, some of teachers at MTS Negeri Tanjung Morawa also utilized these impolite strategies to attack the students’ face. Some of teachers interacted impolitely with their students, even though they should produce the formal one, impolite utterances as can be seen in the following excerpt.

Context : The teacher was angry to his students because their students did not finish the task given by the teacher.

T : memanglah kelen, peer gak dikerjain. Taik kelen semua.

(menampar siswa menggunakan buku) (‘You. Tasks were not

done. You all piece of shit.’ (slapping the students by using the book))

S : udah dikerjain pak, tinggal 2 lagi yang belum siap. (‘We’ve done, Sir, but two more that are not finished yet’)

T : gak ada alasan (‘No reason’)

(17)

From the conversation above, teacher was teaching in class VIII-1 on Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11.10 until 12.20 a.m. It can be seen that the teacher produced impolite utterances when he spoke to his students. The teacher was angry to his students because their students did not finish the task given by the teacher. The teacher should not have said utterance ‘taik kelen semua’to his students in the classroom because it was a taboo word. Then, he also ignored the students when the students responded the teacher by producing the impolite utterances ‘gak ada alasan’. All of the teacher’s utterances showed positive impoliteness where it was designed to damage the students positive face wants.

In this case, the students also utilized the impoliteness by responding ‘udah dikerjain pak, tinggal 2 lagi yang belum siap’ which showed the defensive counter strategies in which it was intended to show direct contradiction. However this defensive moved heightened the emotion of the teacher that he proceeded by saying gak ada alasan’. Then, the students did not respond the teacher, just silent after listening the teacher spoke. Related to the context in which the teacher was angry to the students because the students did not finish the task given by the teacher, the teacher produced impolite utterances to showhis anger. This case was produced to vent negative feelings.

As previously mentioned, this kind of behavior by the teacher can be imitated by the students. It can be seen in this following case where the student uses impoliteness during communication.

(18)

Context : In the teaching learning process, I tried to disturb the girl outside

I : suit suit ( melihat cewek diluar kelas) (‘Suit suit’ (looking at the

girl outside of class)) T : hei...

R : isss, udahlah ko kecil, jelek, gak pinter, mana adalah cewek

yang mau sama kau (‘Issss, you are small, ugly, stupid, no girl liked you’)

I : mana pulak (sambil ketawa) (‘Of course no’ ( laughing))

OS : hoooo(menyoraki I) (‘Hoooo ( cheering I))

T : (senyum) (smiling)

R : udahlah kau gendut, paok pulak, bisinglah (‘You’re fat, also

stupid, noisy’)

I : ihh

From the conversation above, Teacher was teaching in VIII-1 on Saturday, Tuesday, February 28th_{, 2015 at 09.05 until 10.45 p.m. R applied the negative}

impoliteness; condescend, scorn or ridicule, by saying udahlah ko kecil, jelek, oon, gak pinter, mana adalah cewek yang mau sama kau’ and ‘udahlah kau gendut, paok pulak, bisinglah’ when looking at I trying to disturb the girl outside. As Culpeper stated, the utterances above showed that R showed negative behavior and tried to damage the addressee’s negative face wants through condescend, scorn or ridicule. The R’s reason why she produced the impolite utterances wasto get the power in which it occurs when there is an imbalance of social structural power. Besides that, after R had attacked I by applying impoliteness strategy, I tried to respond R by using defensive strategies in showing his insincere agreement and ignorance of the attack. The application of impoliteness in classroom interaction can be worse if the teacher allows it to occur and supports the production of impolite utterances as occured in this phenomenon in which the teacher wasjust smilling when R attacked I.

(19)

The examples above show that impolite utterances often occur in classroom interaction from all aspects such as teacher to student, student to student, and student to teacher. This case could lead to disharmony among them. Besides that, it could cause psychological trauma, or students will hold a grudge, become more immune to punishment, and grow niche to vent anger and aggression against other students who areconsidered weak.

The unconsciousness of teacher in producing impoliteness during communication can affect to the students' mental and attitude. It can break down their mental. Not to mention, there is a tendency that students would unconsciously consider that this kind of behavior is acceptable and therefore try to imitate. They tend to produce impolite utterances and it will lead to the decrease of their value. In further process, it can cause to the less effective classroom interaction and influence the students' achievement in communicative competence.

Based on the phenomena above, it is interesting to investigate the use of impoliteness strategies as this area of study still remains unknown. The previous impoliteness researches mostly deal with the occurrence of impoliteness in television programs as what Laitinen (2010) and Nasution (2014) conducted. Laitinen M. (2010) focused on the use of impoliteness strategies in the American TV- series House M. D which had the same culture context. He analyzed by using Culpeper’s strategies of impoliteness. Then, he found out that there were some impoliteness strategies which occurred in that case, they were bald on record, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness strategies, and withholding

(20)

politeness. Nevertheless, it would seem mock politeness was not found in this

study, while bald on record strategies and sarcasm were the impoliteness strategies that House used most frequently. In addition, it was found that the most of the patients completely ignored House’s impolite, sometimes extremely insulting, remarks.

In line with Laitinen, Nasution (2014) applied the impoliteness model by Culpeper’s strategies entitled “Language Impoliteness in Jakarta Lawyers Club

Talk Show”. In this case, Jakarta Lawyers Club had a similar community.

Nasution would like to figure out what impoliteness strategies, types of attacks and responses occurred during the show. She analyzed the participants’ utterances based on Culpeper’s theory (1996) of impoliteness strategies. She found out that all impoliteness strategies occured in the show with bald on record impoliteness as the most dominant strategy. Over four types of attacks, there were only two types appeared, quality and social identity face with the former as the most dominant one.

Based on the researches that have been studied by Laitinen (2010) and Nasution (2014), it can be seen that there are five impoliteness strategies developed by Culpeper found in those studies. Although five of the impoliteness strategies had been studied, American TV series House MD had different cultural contexts with Indonesian television shows and Jakarta Laywers Club Talk Show had the similar community, while the class has unequal community even though the same culture context. Therefore, it is expected that the realization of typical impoliteness strategies in the classroom interaction could be found.

(21)

Therefore, this area of the study is an intriguing academic inquiry and it will focus on the impoliteness strategies in classroom interaction used by the teacher and students in order to find out what types of impoliteness strategies, what pattern of responses used during the communication in the classroom, and why they occur.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study above, the researcher formulates the problems as in the following:

1. What are the types of impoliteness strategy used by teacher and students in classroom interaction?

2. What are the pattern of responses used by teacher and students in classroom interaction?

3. Why are the impoliteness strategies used by teacher and students in classroom interaction realized the way they are?

1.3 The Scope of the Study

This study investigates impoliteness strategies used by teacher and students in classroom interaction. The focus is on types of impoliteness strategies, namely bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness,

sarcasm or mock politeness, and withholds politeness. Further, investigation is on

what the pattern of responses used by teacher and students in classroom interaction, and why the impoliteness strategies are used by teacher and students in classroom interaction.

(22)

1.4 The Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are to find out the answer of the research problems. To be more specific the objectives of the study are:

1. To find out the types of impoliteness strategies used by teacher and students in classroom interaction

2. To find out the pattern of responses used by the teacher and students in classroom interaction

3. To explain the reason why the impoliteness strategies used by teacher and students are realized the way they are.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

Findings of the study are expected to give some relevant contribution both a) Theoretically, this study is considered to enrich the theories of pragmatics

and sociolinguistics, specifically to give a better understanding and new insight on how impoliteness strategies are related to the aspects of pragmatic study and it is usefully considered to provide the information of what type of impoliteness strategies, what pattern of responses used by teacher and students in classroom interaction, and why teacher and students use impoliteness strategy in classroom interaction.

b) Practically, the findings of the study are considered to contribute information about impoliteness language in classroom interaction for students, lecturers, researchers, and also the government. Then, the findings of the study can be a guidance for those who are interested to gain a deep insight especially in classroom interaction discourse analysis.

(23)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study focused on the language impoliteness used by teacher and student in classroom interaction. It was aimed to find out the types of impoliteness strategies used by teacher and student in classroom interaction, to describe how the process of responding the impoliteness used by teacher and students in the classroom interaction, and to explain the reason why the impoliteness startegies used by teacher and student are realized the way they are. After analyzing the data, conclusions are drwan as the following.

1) There were 5 types of impoliteness strategy used by teacher and student in the classroom interaction, namely 1) bald on record impoliteness, 2) positive impoliteness, 3) negative impoliteness, 4) sarcasm or mock politeness, and 5) withhold politeness. Sarcasm or mock politeness was the most dominant strategies used by teacher and student in the classroom interaction and the least strategies was withhold politeness. There was a new indicator which showed that the using of pronoun “I and You” could not be categorized as an indicator in applying the negative impoliteness becauce it was common case in Indonesia culture, especially in North Sumatera.

2) The pattern of responses used by teacher and student in the classroom interaction were mostly the same exceprt for the slight differences in the variation of response patterns. In responding the impoliteness, both teacher

(24)

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 wasto 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.

(25)

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 Children's Interaction in a Spanish/ English Bilingual Community of Practice. Journal of Politeness Research2: 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. (Im)Politeness 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

(26)

100

Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35,1545-1579.

Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture. 1: 35-72.

Culpeper, J. 2011a. Impoliteness:Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dagarin, M. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English As a Foreign Language. Lbjubjana: University Lbjubjana. Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. London: St Jerome Publishing. Ellis, R. and Foto, S. 1999. Learning a Second Language Trhough Interaction.

London: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Garcia, F. F. 2014. Impoliteness, Pseudo-Politeness, Strategic Politeness? On the Nature of Communicative Behaviour in Electoral Debates. University of Jaén.

Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. A Genre Approach to the Study of Impoliteness. International Review of Pragmatics 2. 46–94. Gasson, S. 2004. Rigor in Grounded Theory Research: An Interpretive

Perspective on Generating Theory from Qualitative Field Studies. In M. E. Whitman & A.B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of Information Systems Research(pp.79–102). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Goro, M. 2014. An Analysis of Impolite Language Used by Matatu Conductors: A Case Study of Matatus Plying Route 32 from Nairobi City Centre to

Dandora, Nairobi County. Nairobi: University of Nairobi. Harmer, J. 2009. How to Teach English. London: Longman.

Herman, V. 1995. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue As Interaction in Plays. London: Routledge.

Inagaki, N. 2007. Linguistic Politeness Beyond Modernity: A Critical Reconsideration of Politeness Theories. London: University of London Laitinen, M. 2010. “You’re Orange, You Moron!”: The Use of Impoliteness

(27)

101

Department ofEnglish. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201005121774 Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Lumpkin, A. 2008. Teachers as Role Models Teaching Character and Moral Virtues. JCPERD. Volume 79 No.2.

Miles, M. B. & Hubermasn, M. A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: Expanded Source Book. Sage Publication.

Naegle, P. 2002. The New Teacher’s Complete Sourcebook. USA: Scholastic Professional Book.

Nasution, M.F. 2014. Language impoliteness in Jakarta Lawyers Club talk show. Medan: UNIMED.

Peräkylä, A.2008. Conversation Analysis. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online

Rivers, W. M. (Ed.). 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rukmana, A & Suryana, A. 2006. Pengelolaan Kelas. Bandung: UPI PRESS. Simanjuntak, Y. P. 2015. Language Impoliteness and Gender in Indonesia Lawak

Klub (ILK) Comedy Program. Medan: UNIMED

Soemardjan, Selo. 1988. Steriotip Etnik, Asimilasi, Integrasi Sosial. Jakarta: Pustaka Grafika

Spencer-Oatey, H. 2002. Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the

Management of Relations. Journal of Pragmatics34(5): 529-545. Terkourafi, M. 2002. Journal of Greek Linguistik. 3: 179-201.

Terkourafi, M. 2008. Toward Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness and Rudeness in Bousfield, D & Locher (eds), M.Impoliteness ir. Language Studies on its Interplay with Power and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Thurmond, V. A. 2003. Examination of Interaction Variables as Predictors of Students’ Satisfaction and Willingness to Enroll in Future Web-based Courses while Controlling for Student Characteristics. USA: University of Kansas.

Watts, R.J., S. Ide, K. Ehrlich. 1992. Introduction. Politeness in language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-17.

(28)

102

Wardaugh, R. 1992. An Inroduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wagner, E. D. “In Support of a Function Definition of Interaction.” The American Journal of Distance Education, 1994, 8 (20), 6–29.

Yanfen, L. And Yuqin, Z. 2010. A study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English Classes. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33 (2), 76-86.

(1)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

(2)

5.2 Suggestions

Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to the readers as provided in the following items.

2) To all the readers, it is suggested to use the study as references for understanding the application of impoliteness in classroom interaction.

(3)

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 Children's Interaction in a Spanish/ English

Bilingual Community of Practice. Journal of Politeness Research2: 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. (Im)Politeness 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

(4)

Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35,1545-1579.

Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show:

The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture. 1: 35-72.

Culpeper, J. 2011a. Impoliteness:Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Dagarin, M. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in

Learning English As a Foreign Language. Lbjubjana: University Lbjubjana.

Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. London: St Jerome Publishing.

Ellis, R. and Foto, S. 1999. Learning a Second Language Trhough Interaction.

London: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.

London: Routledge.

Garcia, F. F. 2014. Impoliteness, Pseudo-Politeness, Strategic Politeness? On the

Nature of Communicative Behaviour in Electoral Debates. University of Jaén.

Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. A Genre Approach to the Study of

Impoliteness. International Review of Pragmatics 2. 46–94.

Gasson, S. 2004. Rigor in Grounded Theory Research: An Interpretive

Perspective on Generating Theory from Qualitative Field Studies. In M. E. Whitman & A.B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of Information

Systems Research(pp.79–102). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Goro, M. 2014. An Analysis of Impolite Language Used by Matatu Conductors: A

Case Study of Matatus Plying Route 32 from Nairobi City Centre to Dandora, Nairobi County. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.

Harmer, J. 2009. How to Teach English. London: Longman.

Herman, V. 1995. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue As Interaction in Plays.

London: Routledge.

Inagaki, N. 2007. Linguistic Politeness Beyond Modernity: A Critical

Reconsideration of Politeness Theories. London: University of London

Laitinen, M. 2010. “You’re Orange, You Moron!”: The Use of Impoliteness

(5)

Department ofEnglish. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201005121774

Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Lumpkin, A. 2008. Teachers as Role Models Teaching Character and Moral

Virtues. JCPERD. Volume 79 No.2.

Miles, M. B. & Hubermasn, M. A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: Expanded

Source Book. Sage Publication.

Naegle, P. 2002. The New Teacher’s Complete Sourcebook. USA: Scholastic

Professional Book.

Nasution, M.F. 2014. Language impoliteness in Jakarta Lawyers Club talk show.

Medan: UNIMED.

Peräkylä, A.2008. Conversation Analysis. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Sociology Online

Rivers, W. M. (Ed.). 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Rukmana, A & Suryana, A. 2006. Pengelolaan Kelas. Bandung: UPI PRESS.

Simanjuntak, Y. P. 2015. Language Impoliteness and Gender in Indonesia Lawak

Klub (ILK) Comedy Program. Medan: UNIMED

Soemardjan, Selo. 1988. Steriotip Etnik, Asimilasi, Integrasi Sosial. Jakarta:

Pustaka Grafika

Spencer-Oatey, H. 2002. Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive

Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations. Journal of Pragmatics34(5): 529-545.

Terkourafi, M. 2002. Journal of Greek Linguistik. 3: 179-201.

Terkourafi, M. 2008. Toward Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness and

Rudeness in Bousfield, D & Locher (eds), M.Impoliteness ir. Language Studies on its Interplay with Power and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Thurmond, V. A. 2003. Examination of Interaction Variables as Predictors of

Students’ Satisfaction and Willingness to Enroll in Future Web-based Courses while Controlling for Student Characteristics. USA: University of Kansas.

Watts, R.J., S. Ide, K. Ehrlich. 1992. Introduction. Politeness in language: Studies

(6)

Wardaugh, R. 1992. An Inroduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wagner, E. D. “In Support of a Function Definition of Interaction.” The

American Journal of Distance Education, 1994, 8 (20), 6–29.

Yanfen, L. And Yuqin, Z. 2010. A study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in

THE IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY TEACHER AND STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION.