6
when the intention of the speaker or author to offend threaten damage face must be comprehend by the listener.
Culpeper 1996 proposed five-point model of offensive su
perstrategies impoliteness inspired by Brown and Levinson’s politeness superstategies. The impoliteness classifications were adapted by
Bousfield 2008. These are impoliteness strategies combined from Culpeper 1996 and Bousfield 2008, namely: bald on record
impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock politeness or off
– record impoliteness, and withhold impoliteness.
2 METHODS
2.1 Participants
The researcher recruited post-graduate students of language studies in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta to be respondents in this
research. They are EFL learners ranged 22-28 years old and had been exposed English in a long time. They were consisted of 25 respondents
who taken from the first, the second, and the third semester students.
2.2 Data collection
The data had been collected in two ways. The first one was by using discourse completion task DCT. This technique had become familiar
technique of data collection in interlanguage pragmatics research. The second one was interviews that built the information toward the EFL
learners’ understanding on politeness impoliteness in the interlanguage pragmatics of complaint by recording the students’ statements.
The discourse completion task DCT were provided as related as possible to the EFL learners socio-cultural situations. It consisted of nine
nine scenarios that relevant with the EFL learners’ behavior. Each of them reflected various status level high- equal- low and social distances lose
– familiar – unfamiliar. The second method of colecting data is interview. The writer
conducted interview with 25 respondents. One session of interview need 15 up to 20 minutes. The questions in interview investigate the EFL
leaners’ comprehension about politeness impoliteness based on three research variables, namely pragmalinguistics forms, context situations, and
7
complainers- complainees’ relationship. The writer asked the respondents
to explain more about their judgement on DCT scenarios by emphasizing their comprehension on politeness and impoliteness.
2.3 Data Analysis
The writer researcher analyzed the data by using following steps: 2.3.1
analyzing the students’ comprehension of politeness impoliteness based on pragmalinguistic forms using Brown
Levinson’s 1987 politeness strategies, Lakoff’s 1960 R1: Don’t impose
politeness strategies and Culpeper 1996 impoliteness strategies, 2.3.2
analyzing the students’ comprehension of politeness impoliteness based on context situation using Brown Levin
son’s 1987 politeness strategies and socio-cultural variable, namely the
imposition of degree Rx, and Grice’s 1975 maxim of relation. Meanwhile, Culpeper’s 1996 impoliteness strategies used to
analyze the students’ comprehension of politeness impoliteness
based on context situation, 2.3.3
analyzing the students’ comprehension of politeness impoliteness based on complainers-
complainees’ relationship using Brown Levinson’s 1987 politeness strategies and socio-cultural
variables, namely distance D and power P and Culpeper 1996 impoliteness strategies.
3 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Research Findings
