THE IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY FEMALE LODGERS IN BOARDING HOUSE INTERACTION.

(1)

THE IMPOLITENESSSTRATEGIES USED BY FEMALE

LODGERS INTERACTION IN BOARDING HOUSE

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

MARITA SARI SITANGGANG

Registration Number: 8136112051

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2016

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

Sitanggang M. S. Registration Number: 8136112051. The Impoliteness Strategies Used by Female Lodgers in Boarding House Interaction. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. 2016.

The objectives of the study were to find out: (1) the types of impoliteness strategies used by female lodgers in boarding house interaction, (2) the pattern of responses used by mother lodgers and lodgers in boarding house interaction, and (3) the reasons of using language impoliteness in boarding house interaction. The study was descriptive qualitative. The subject of the study was female lodgers 8-9 stay in Peratun Ujung Medan State which had been choosen randomly. The data of the study is the impolite utterances of transcripts which is recorded from the conversation in the boarding house 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 female lodgers and mother lodger 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; and 3) The use of language impoliteness in boarding house interaction used by female lodgers and mother lodger 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 female lodgers and mother lodger in the boarding house 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 female lodgers and mother lodger had equal chance to perform impoliteness in boarding house interaction. Some suggestions are directed to those who are interested in understanding impoliteness strategy as found in practice.

(6)

ii ABSTRAK

Sitanggang, M. S. NIM: 8136112051. Strategi Ketidaksantunan Yang Digunakan Oleh Wanita Penghuni Kos di dalam Interaksi Rumah Kos. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan: (1) jenis stategi ketidaksantunan yang digunakan oleh wanita penghuni kosdi dalam interaksi rumah kos, (2) pola respon yang digunakan oleh wanita penghuni kos dan pemilik kos di dalam interaksi rumah kos, dan (3) alasan menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa dalam interaksi dirumah kos. Penelitian ini adalah deksriptif kualitatif. Subjek data penelitian ini adalah wanita penghuni kos 8-9orang di peratun ujung medan Estate yang telah dipilih secara acak. Data dari penelitian ini adalah percakapan ketidaksantunan dari transkripsi yang diambil dari hasil rekaman dan interview percakapan di dalam interaksi rumah kos. 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 penghuni kos dan pemilik kos 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. dan 3) Penggunaan ketidaksantunan bahasa di rumahkos interaksi yang digunakan oleh wanita penghuni kos dan ibu pemilik kos 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 dirumah kos, yaitu: untuk menunjukkan ketidaksetujuan, untuk mengklarifikasikan sesuatu dnegan jelas, untuk menunjukkan ketidakpuasan, dan untuk memberikan nasihat. Alasan yang paling sering digunakan oleh ibu pemilik kos dan penghuni kos di dalam interaksi dirumah kos adalah untuk mendapatkah atau menunjukan adanya kekuatan, dan alasan yang paling sedikit adalah untuk memberikan nasihat. Berdasarkan temuan, dapat disimpulkan bahwa secara keseluruhan, pemilik kos dan wanita penghuni kos memiliki kesempatan yang sama untuk melakukan ketidaksantunan dalam interaksi diruma kos. Saran ditujukan kepada siapa saja yang tertarik memahami strategi ketidaksantunan seperti praktik yang telah ditemukan.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise and thank to the Almighty God Jesus Christ, 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 followingnumber of people who have given valuable suggestions and useful influences on the writing ofthis thesis, it would be much more difficult for the writer to finish her work. She is thendeeply 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.SitiAisyahGinting,M.Pd, and her second adviser Dr.RahmadHusein, M.Ed. 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, Dr. RahmadHusein, M.Ed. andDr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Humfor 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. BornokSinaga, M.Pd, 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, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Sri MindaMurni, M.S., and Dr. RahmadHusein, M.Ed. for their constructive comments and suggestions in advancing the thesis quality.

Her deepest gratitude and tremendous appreciations are presented to her parents, AIPTU Eli SitanggangandMasry Br. Manik ,S.Pdfor their never ending support,pray, 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 sisters and brother EwitaSurumintangBr Sitanggang,S.Pd, RissaAyu Roma Ito Br. Sitanggang, S.Pd, AdriHasiholanSitanggang, S.Kom, Vivi Silvia Br. Sitanggang. To her beloved daughter especially;Eiffelyn Canada TyoLan and Jessica Margareth Queen Leeta Br. Gultom.

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,Maida M.Hum, Lestari RumahHorbo, IkaCwantika, Mia FitriTinambunan, KakLisnaRifka Diana,NurulHidayahAzmi, KakFriska,Rozy,KakMuvidah,BukElmariyanti, PakKaryanto.

And my beloved Man,Brigadir Roy MarulySimamora in SamosirPangururan North Sumatera. Thank you very much for the time to discuss and exchange ideas, suggestion, laugh and love while working on the thesis as well as their prayers, encouragement and support.

Medan, September 2016 The Writer,

Marita Sari Sitanggang

(9)

Pages

ABSTRACT...i

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………..ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...iii

LIST OF TABLES...vii

LIST OF FIGURES...viii

LIST OF APPENDICES...ix

CHAPTERIINTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of The study...1

1.2 The Problemof The Study ...10

1.3 The Objective ofTheStudy ...11

1.4The Scope of TheStudy ...11

1.5 The Significance of The Study ...12

CHAPTERIIREVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1.1The Concept of Impoliteness ...13

2.1.2The Definition of Impoliteness ...15

2.2. The Types of Impoliteness Strategy ...17

2.2.1 Bald on Record Impoliteness ...17

2.2.2 Positive Impoliteness ...19

2.2.3 Negative Impoliteness ...20

2.2.4 Sarcasm or Mock Politeness ...22

(10)

2.3.Responding to Impoliteness ...23

2.4. The Reasons of Using Impoliteness ...25

2.4.1 The way of Using Impoliteness ...26

2.5. Language and Gender ...30

2.5.1.Female and Male Differences ...30

2.51.1Female ...30

2.5.1.2 Male ...32

2.6Power ...33

2.6.1Power in Discourse ...34

2.6.2 Power Behind Discourse ...35

2.7 Boarding House ...36

2.7.1 Definition of Boarding House ...36

2..7.2Function of Boarding House ...37

2.8 The Relevant of Study. ...38

2.9 The Conceptual Construct ...43

CHAPTER IIIRESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 45

3.2 The Source of Data ... 46

3.3 The Subject and Object of The Study ... 46

3.4 The Technique of Data Collection ... 46

3.5The Instrument of Data Collection ... 47

3.6 The Technique of DataAnalysis ... 47

3.7 The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 50

(11)

3.6.2 Confirmability ... 51

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 Data Analysis ... 53

4.1.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used By Female Lodgers ... 53

4.1.2 Bald On Record Impoliteness ... 53

4.1.1.2Positive Impolitenes ... 56

4.1.2.1 Negative Impoliteness ... 58

4.1.2.2 Withhold Politeness ... 60

4.2.1 The Reasonfor Using Language Impoliteness ... 61

4.2.1.1 To mock other ...62

4.2.1.1 To Vent Negative Feelings... 63

4.3.1.1To Show Powet...63

4.4.1.1 To Show Dissagrement...65

4.4.5.1 To Clarify Something...66

4.1.2.5 To Show Dissatification...67

4.1.3 The Process of Impoliteness Strategies...69

4.1.3.1 Direct Speech Act …. ………...…...…69

4.1.3.2 Indirect Speech Acts ………...……71

4.2 Findings………..72

4.2.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used By Female Lodgers ……...73

4.2.2 The Pattern Of Responses Use by Female ... 75

4.2.3 The Reasons Of Using Impoliteness Strategies ... 76

(12)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion ………...78

5.2 Suggestion………..…….79

REFERENCES………..8

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 Types of the impoliteness strategies used by mother lodger and female lodgers

in the House Interaction………...69

4.2 The process impoliteness used by female lodgers ………...………..70

4..2.1Indirect speech table ………71

(14)

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

(15)

LIST OS APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. The Transcription Impoliteness Strategies Produced By Female

In Boarding House Interaction ……… …88 2. Impoliteness Strategy Produced By The Five Subjects ………108 3. The Data Display Of The Types Impoliteness Forms and Responses…118 4. The Process of Impoliteness strategies used by Female Lodgers……...118 5. The Reason of Using Impoliteness Strategies used by Female…………118

(16)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of The Study

In interaction impoliteness is one such rule. As a human being impolite is the way to make communication with other people because of one of them doesn‟t like or something happen who make them really rudeness. The phenomena dealing with impoliteness strategies come from different language users such as adults, teenagers, or children, and lodgers also actually used by female. In Indonesian language, for instance, the word „keluarlah‟ (go out), „kau‟(you),„tolol‟(stupid) are often added to the request sentences in order to indicate the impoliteness.

But,sometimes the different condition and background life of people create the different way to produce their language. Language is the most significant and colosal work that human spirit has envolved. Interaction is commonly defined as a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon another.

At the boarding house, here the position of lodgers that live in boarding house, among them:, lecture, big boss( as an owner of boarding house). They all have the duty and responsibility in the boarding house. And automatically it could be affecting the level of impoliteness between them.

When a speaker wants to show his dislikes or critiques to someone, the words spoken are not direct and threatening the hearer‟s face. These rules lives in the society without being formally taught and by applying them, good social

(17)

relationships with other people would be established, which help in creating friendships, getting jobs, and simply giving a good impression of oneself.

According to KBBI (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia) Dictionary is the right word boarding house, whereas in English cost means the price or payment. Boarding house is a place that is provided to facilitate women and men, from students, college students, and workers in general to stay, and with the payment per month, or as the owner (there are a few months per year). The function of this boarding house as a residence, the current has moved the addition of activities and means of support both on-site building (boarding house) and around the boarding. For example there are boarding houses which provide facility cafe at the front of the boarding house, which opened a day or a few hours to the public, then the restaurant facility, facilities of health, and so on.

Boarding house canalso be called home lodging. It is a house that people use the team to stay for one day or more, and sometimes for a period of time longer eg weekly, monthly or yearly. Formerly, the boarding house usually use the bathroom or washing facilities, pantry and dining room together. But years lately, the room turned into a boarding house room has a laundry room and the bathroom facilities or pantry own and inhabited in the long term, for example monthly or yearly. In addition, according to DKI PROVINCE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING JAKARTA notion of Boarding House is housing lodging / boarding house is a house that use partially or entirely used as source income by the owner to receive the occupant lodgement at least 1 (one) month by collecting money lodgment.

(18)

A boarding house is a house (frequently a family home) in which lodgers rent one or more rooms for one or more nights, and sometimes for extended periods of weeks, months, and years.This service is not free; lodgers have to pay a number of specific payments for each period, which is usually calculated per month or per weekafter the payment transaction before someone can stay alive in the place he wants. In addition, lodgers have to obey the boarding house management. Ideally, the lodgers have to speak well to the mother of boarding house in conveying the message in daily communication, for instance, using the language politeness. Language politeness is needed in every situation, included in the boarding house situation, because it will maintain the harmony of relationship between lodgers and mother of boarding house and to avoide the social conflict.

In fact, one can be impolite if she/he cannot understand the situation happened. In the boarding house interaction, the lodgers have to avoid the impolite langauge to the mother of boarding house as it will affect their disharmony in communicating each other. As stated by Culpeper (2005: 38), the impoliteness is communicative strategies designed to attack face, and thereby cause social conflict and disharmony.

In boarding house interaction, the mother of boarding house is a powerful participant who has a power to command, ask, or forbid something to the lodgers in the boarding house. Therefore, it is might if the mother of boarding house often produce the language impoliteness to the lodgers especially in remembering them in their obligation in every cases because she/ he has power to do that.

(19)

In the other words, power seems to have a close relationship with impoliteness. As Culpeper (2007: 25) states that the impoliteness always involves power. It cannot be explained without contextualization. Therefore, power have to connect with the impoliteness in different ways, includes the impolite performance in language and the context. Besides that, Culpeper (1996: 350) defines that the impoliteness is more likely to occur in situation where there is an imbalance power is reflected in its relatively refuent appearance. Therefore, one who has a power can speak more impoliteley in one situation rather than a less powerfull person.

As researcher‟s observation in White Boarding house, it is found that there is a lack of slack in which the mother of boarding house have less power than the lodgers, especially female lodgers. This phenomenon can be found when the lodgers try to produce the impolite utterances to the mother of boarding house.

In the morning 06.00 the female lodgers wake up and run to the bathroom, because the condition of bathroom just have two rooms , and the female lodgers must be quickly.

F1(DS) :Weeeii…..!!manusiacepatkanklenyangmandiitu!Sakbokeraku (gedorgedorpintukamarmandi)

(heii you Girl hurry up! I‟m headache ( knock the door) F2 (DF) : Barujugamasuklohkampret (I‟ve entered just now). F1(DS) : ihhtaiklah..(ohh Damn!)

F2 (DF) : (silent)

(ML) :Tolongjanganteriakya. (Don‟t make noise please) F1 (DS) : “CemanatakteriakBUK!! Orang ini pun BERAK

dihayatikale, udah tau kampusawakujungkulonsana.

(20)

Based on the context, F1 speaks impolitely to the mother lodgers (ML) despite of the fact that a mother lodgers must be respected. Those the F1and F2 utterances make it impolite referring to the context. The social context in the boarding house make the ML should be respected. In that context, the females disagreement to her mother lodgers (ML). Seeking disagreement is one of the output strategies of positive impoliteness. Positive impoliteness is one of five strategies of impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996 :3356) which means to damage the addressee‟s positive wants.

From the talking above, the case taken on Friday, December 12, 2015 at 6.00 a.m. It can be seen that the F1 produced impolite utterances when she spoke to his friend F2. The F1was angry to herfriend because F2 take bath before her F2. The F1 should not have saidutterance ”manusia” and sakbokeraku”toherfriends in the boarding house because it was a taboo word. Then, she also ignored F2 when the F2 responded F1 by producing the impolite utterances „barujugamasuklohkampret. All of the first females‟ utterances showed positive impoliteness where it was designed to damage the F2 positive face wants.

In this case, the F2 also utilized the impoliteness by responding „barujugamasuklohkampret’ which showed the defensive counter strategies in which it was intended to show contradict directly. However this defensive moved heightens the emotion of the F1 that she produced by saying‟‟ihtaiklah’’. Then, the F2 did not respond the F1, just silent after listening the F1 spoke. If it related to the context in which the F1was angry to the F2 because the second female did

(21)

not finish take a bath, the first female produced impolite utterances in showing her anger. This case is produced to vent negative feelings.

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

Indri : “samakitapigiwoy”(bekaca)

(don‟t leave me (looking the mirror)) Tina :”hei... tunggu”(hei, wait)

Rika :”isss, ygtobalan make up mu macamkunti” (Issss, your make up so ugly like ghost) Indri : “seriuskw??” (ketawa)

(are u sure? ( laughing)) man : “hahaha “ (mentertawakan I)

hahaha( laugh of loud to I) Tina : (senyum)

(smiling)

Rika : udahlahitu, bukancantikkaubermake up, bermake up, soksok an)

Indri : ihh (mukamutung)

Ibu Kos (ML) : “kalauudahmaupergi di tutupgerbangnyaya indri “

Indri : “ ihhjanganlahakubuk, taktolapakunarekgerbangnyabuk,

kauygnutupntiikong ”

From the conversation above, researcher is sit in living room on Saturday, December12th_{, 2015 at 07.05 p.m. Rika appliedto the negative impoliteness;}

condescend, scorn or ridicule, by saying: isss, yang tobalan make up mu macamkunti’. As Culpeper stated, the utterances above showed that Rika showed negative behavior and tried to damage the addressee‟s negative face wants through condescend, scorn or ridicule. Rikas‟ produced the impolite utterances is to get the power in which it occurs when there is an imbalance of social structural power. Besides that, after Rika attacks Indri by applying impoliteness strategy, Indri tried to respond Rikabyusing defensive strategies in showing her insincere

(22)

agreement and ignore the attack. The application of impoliteness in the boarding house interaction can be worse if she (female) allows it to occur and support the production of impolite utterances as occured in this phenomenon in which the others female just smilling when Rika attacked Indri.

The primary utterances above show that impolite utterances often occur in the boarding house interaction from all aspects such as female 1 to female 2, female 3 to female 4 or back to female 1, and feedback to f1 to f1. This case could lead to disharmony among them.

The unconsciousness of females in producing impoliteness during communication can affect to the others female mental and attitude. It can break down their mental. Not to mention, there is a tendency that female lodgers 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.

Another language impoliteness uttered by the female lodgers to the mother lodgers can be seen in this example observed by the researcher on 1 December 2015 at Peratun boarding house.

When a mother lodgers asked t the her female lodgers to pay the coast of the room, because here the case is one of the female of lodgers still not yet pay the coast of the room. She came to the female and seats and asked to her.

Mother lodgers (ML) : “Oyaadek, kakakmaumintasiasauangkost mu” ( where‟s half the cost of your room rent, dear ?)

(23)

Female lodger (MY) ; “ Belomadauangakubuksekarang” ( I don‟t have

money now ma‟am .)

ML : “Ok, sayakasihwaktulahyadek“( pergimeninggalkan

tempatduduk)

MY e… monyong- monyong tau lagibokek pun!!

In that situation, the female lodger did negative and positive impoliteness strategies. He did a negative impoliteness strategy since she uttered the pronoun “ AKU/I” to her mother lodgers. Culpeper ( 1996 356) states that personalize, use the pronouns “ I “ and You‟, is one of the output strategy of negative impoliteness. In addition, that female lodgers also used a taboo word when she said“ e.. monyong-monyong” to her mother lodger. The word “monyong” is a taboo word since it is profence language to be said to the older person. It should be noted that the situation is formal (she is a female and spoke that sentence to the mother lodger at boarding house ) and that use of taboo word is unilateral. Using taboo word is one of output strategies of positive impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996:357). The positive impoliteness strategy means to damage the addresses positive wants. He attacked the teacher‟s positive face. The positive face here means a desire from a person to be respected and needed by others.

The unconsciousness of females lodger in producing impoliteness during communication can affect to the others female 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

(24)

imitate. They tend to produce impolite utterances and it will lead to the decrease of their value.

Based on the phenomena above, the researcher is interested in investigating 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 classroom Interactionby Ersika (2015) and. She focused on the use of impoliteness strategies in classroom interaction. She analyzed the data by using Culpeper‟s strategies of impoliteness. Then, she found out that there are some impoliteness strategies which occurred in that case, they are bald on record, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness strategies, and withholding politeness. Nevertheless, it would seem mock politeness is not found in this study, while bald on record strategies and sarcasm are the impoliteness strategies that House uses most frequently. In addition, it is found that the most of the patients completely ignore classroom‟s impolite, sometimes extremely insulting, remarks.

Marlina (2015) applied the impoliteness model by Culpeper‟s strategies entitled “The Impoliteness strategies by use children of 3 years old”. In this case, Marlinawould like to figure out what impoliteness strategies, types using children of 3 years old. She analyzed the participants‟ utterances based on Culpeper‟s theory (1996) of impoliteness strategies. She found out that all impoliteness strategies occur in the show with bald on record impoliteness as the most dominant strategy.

Based on the researches that have been studied by Ersika (2015) and Marlina (2015), it can be seen that there are five impoliteness strategies of

(25)

Culpeper can be found in those studies. Although five of the impoliteness strategies have been studied, classroom interaction have different cultural contexts with impoliteness using children of 3 years old. Therefore, the researcher expects to find out the realization of typical impoliteness strategies in the boarding house interaction.

Based on the phenomena above, the researcher is interested in investigating the use of impoliteness strategies in boarding house still remains unknown. Therefore, the researcher expects to find out the realization of typical impoliteness strategies in the boarding house interaction. Therefore, this area of the study is an intriguing academic inquiry and it will focus on the impoliteness strategies in boarding house interaction used by the female lodger to the mother of boarding house female in order to find out what types of impoliteness strategies and why they occur (have a power )

1.2 The Problems of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated as the following:

a. What types of impoliteness strategies arerealized by female lodgers of boarding house in boarding houseinteraction?

b. How are the types of impoliteness strategies realized by female lodgers in boarding house interaction?

c. Why are the types of impoliteness strategies realized by female lodgers in boarding house interaction?

(26)

1.3 The Objective 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 which are used by the female lodger to the mother of boarding house in boarding house interaction?

2. To explain the reasons of using the impoliteness strategies which are used by the female lodger to the mother of boarding house in the boarding house?

3. To explain the impoliteness strategies become dominant used by female lodgers in boarding house interaction are realized the way they are.

1.4 The Scope of The Study

The scope of this study is to investigate the impoliteness strategies used by female lodgers interaction in boarding house. Further, investigation is on what the pattern of responses used by females and mother of lodger in boarding house interaction, and why the impoliteness strategies are used by female lodgers andmother lodger in boarding house interaction.

1.5 The Significance of The Study

The findings of the study are expected to This study investigates impoliteness strategies used by female lodger to the mother of boarding house. The focus is on types of impoliteness strategies, namely bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock

(27)

politeness, and withholds politeness. Further, it focuses on the reason why the impoliteness strategies are used by female lodger in boarding house interaction. The researcher expects this study can give some relevant contribution both:

a) Theoretically, this study is considered to enrich the theories of pragmatics and sociolinguistics, specifically 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 and why the female lodgers use impoliteness strategy in boarding house interaction.

b) Practically, the findings of the study are considered to contribute information about impoliteness language in boarding house interaction for female, 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 boarding house interaction discourse analysis.

(28)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study focused on the language impoliteness used by female lodgers to the mother lodger in the boarding house interaction. It was aimed to find out the types of impoliteness strategies and to explain the reason why language impoliteness used by the lodgers to their mother lodgerin the boarding house interaction. After analyzing the data, conclusions are drawn as the following.

1) There were four types of language impoliteness used by the female lodgers in the boarding house interaction, namely 1) bald on record impoliteness, 2) positive impoliteness, 3) negative impoliteness, and 4) withhold politeness. Bald on record impoliteness was the most dominant strategies used by thefemalein the boarding house interaction and the least strategy was negative impoliteness politeness.

2) The use of language impoliteness in the boarding house interaction used by the female lodgers have some reasons.From the females’ perspective, they spoke impolitely to their mother lodger because they wanted (a) to mock others (b) to vent negative feeling, (c) to show power, (d) to clarify something, (e) to show disagreement, and (f) to show dissatisfaction. To vent negative feeling and mock was the most dominant reason used by the students and the least was to show power. From the mother’s lodger

(29)

perspective, the females uttered language impoliteness to them because a) the mother lodger realized that they ignored the power which they actually had, b) the lodgers tend to use impolite languages because of their social environment around home and from the female lodgers’ family background.

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 boarding house interaction.

3) To the lecturers teaching sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics; it is suggested to conduct, elaborate, and perform deep research in the study

(30)

REFERENCES

Beebe, L. M.1995Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In: Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan, Robert C., &Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education, An Introduction to Theory and Method. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 2010. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Struggle for Power in Bousfield, D. &Locher (eds,) Impoliteness in Language. Studies on Its Interplay with Power and Practice.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bousfield, D. 2007. Beginnings, middles and ends. A Biopsy of the Dynamics of ImpoliteExchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 39, 2185-2216. Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Bousfield, D &Locher.ImpolitenessIn Language-Studies on Its Interplay with

Power and Practice.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

Bryman, A. (2004). Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods.Retrieved September 8, 2014 from http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Trustworthypaper.pdf Brown,P.andS.C.Levinson.1987.Politeness: Some Universals in LanguageUsage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Company.

Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy.

Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-131.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25.

(31)

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television

QuizShow: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2007.Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power. University of Lancaster.

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

Textto Context. London and NewYork: Routledge

Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited:

WithSpecialReference to Dynamic and ProsodicAspects.Journal of

Pragmatics35,1545-1579.

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:CambridgeUniversity Press.

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

Learning English As a Foreign Language. Lbjubjana: University

Lbjubjana.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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, Norman. 1989. Language and Power, Language in Social Life Series. Essex: Longman Group UK

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

(32)

Perspective on GeneratingTheory from QualitativeFieldStudies. In M.

E.Whitman& A.B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of InformationSystemsResearch(pp.79–102). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Halliday, M.&Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspect of languagein

a social semiotic perspective. Victoria Deakin University Press.

Hussein, Ashatu. 2009. The Use of Triangulation in Social Science Research:

CanQualitativeand Quantitative Methods Be Combined?Journal of

Comparative Social Work. 1, 3-5.

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.

Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

Kuntsi, P. 2012. Politeness-Impoliteness Strategies Used by Lawyers in Dover

Trial.Unpublished M.A Thesis. New York.

Lincoln, Y and Guba, E, G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry.Sage Publication. Newbury Park, CA.

Laitinen, M. 2010. “You’re Orange, YouMoron!”: The Use of ImpolitenessStrategies in the American TV-Series House M.D.

UniversityJyväskyläDepartmentofEnglish.http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201005121774.

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

Miles, M. B. & Hubermasn, M. A. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: Expanded Source Book.

Marlina, S.2015. The Impoliteness strategies by used children of three years

ol.Medan :UNIMED Sage Publication.

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

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

(33)

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

Watts, R.J., S. Ide, K. Ehrlich. 1992. Introduction. Politeness in language: Studiesin its History, Theory and Practice.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Wardaugh, R. 1992.An Inroduction to Sociolinguistics. Second

edition.Oxford:Blackwell.

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

(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 boarding house interaction.

3) To the lecturers teaching sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics; it is suggested to conduct, elaborate, and perform deep research in the study

(3)

REFERENCES

Beebe, L. M.1995Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In: Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan, Robert C., &Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education, An Introduction to Theory and Method. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 2010. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Struggle for Power in Bousfield, D. &Locher (eds,) Impoliteness in Language. Studies on Its Interplay with Power and Practice.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bousfield, D. 2007. Beginnings, middles and ends. A Biopsy of the Dynamics of ImpoliteExchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 39, 2185-2216. Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Bousfield, D &Locher.ImpolitenessIn Language-Studies on Its Interplay with

Power and Practice.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Company.

Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy.

Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-131.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25.

(4)

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television

QuizShow: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2007.Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power. University of Lancaster.

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

Textto Context. London and NewYork: Routledge

Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited: WithSpecialReference to Dynamic and ProsodicAspects.Journal of Pragmatics35,1545-1579.

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:CambridgeUniversity Press.

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

Learning English As a Foreign Language. Lbjubjana: University

Lbjubjana.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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, Norman. 1989. Language and Power, Language in Social Life Series. Essex: Longman Group UK

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

(5)

Perspective on GeneratingTheory from QualitativeFieldStudies. In M. E.Whitman& A.B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of InformationSystemsResearch(pp.79–102). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Halliday, M.&Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspect of languagein

a social semiotic perspective. Victoria Deakin University Press.

Hussein, Ashatu. 2009. The Use of Triangulation in Social Science Research: CanQualitativeand Quantitative Methods Be Combined?Journal of Comparative Social Work. 1, 3-5.

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.

Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

Kuntsi, P. 2012. Politeness-Impoliteness Strategies Used by Lawyers in Dover

Trial.Unpublished M.A Thesis. New York.

Lincoln, Y and Guba, E, G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry.Sage Publication. Newbury Park, CA.

Laitinen, M. 2010. “You’re Orange, YouMoron!”: The Use of ImpolitenessStrategies in the American TV-Series House M.D. UniversityJyväskyläDepartmentofEnglish.http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201005121774.

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

Miles, M. B. & Hubermasn, M. A. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: Expanded Source Book.

Marlina, S.2015. The Impoliteness strategies by used children of three years

ol.Medan :UNIMED Sage Publication.

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

Simanjuntak, Y. P. 2015. Language Impoliteness and Gender in Indonesia Lawak Klub (ILK) Comedy Program. Medan: UNIMED.

(6)

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

Watts, R.J., S. Ide, K. Ehrlich. 1992. Introduction. Politeness in language: Studiesin its History, Theory and Practice.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Wardaugh, R. 1992.An Inroduction to Sociolinguistics. Second

edition.Oxford:Blackwell.

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

THE IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY FEMALE LODGERS IN BOARDING HOUSE INTERACTION.