LANGUAGE IMPOLITENESS AND POWER IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION AT SMK SWASTA PAB (PERSATUAN AMAL BAKTI) LUBUKPAKAM.

(1)

LANGUAGE IMPOLITENESS AND POWER IN CLASSROOM

INTERACTION AT SMK SWASTA PAB

(PERSATUAN AMAL BAKTI)

LUBUKPAKAM

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

ADINDA ZORAYA ALVIN Registration Number: 8136111003

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

Alvin, A.Z. Registration Number: 8136111003. Language Impoliteness and Power in Classroom Interaction at SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam. 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 language impoliteness used by the students to the teacher and (2) the reasons for using language impoliteness by the students to the teacher. The study was descriptive qualitative. The subjects of the study were the students of class XII TKJ (Teknik Komputer Jaringan) of SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam. The data of the study were the students’ impolite utterances to the teacher recorded from the conversations in the classroom interaction. The data were identified, analyzed, and categorized based on Culpeper’s theory (1996, 2003). The findings of the study show that: (1) there were four types of language impoliteness found in the students’ interaction to the teacher namely: bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, and withhold politeness, and (2) the reasons why the students used language impoliteness to the teacher; from the students’ perspective, they used language impoliteness to their teacher 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, and from the teacher’s perspective, the students used language impoliteness to the teachers because a) the teachers realized that they ignored the power which they actually had, b) the students tend to use impolite languages because of their social environment around home and from the students’ family background. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the students used language impoliteness to their teachers intently to cause disharmony between them. Some suggestions are directed to those who are interested in understanding language impoliteness as found in the practice.

(6)

ABSTRAK

Alvin, A.Z. NIM :8136111003. Ketidaksantunan Bahasa dan Kekuatan pada Interaksi Kelas di SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2015.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan: (1) Jenis ketidaksantunan bahasa yang digunakan siswa kepada guru dan (2) alasan menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa oleh siswa kepada guru. Penelitian ini adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Subjek data penelitian ini adalah kelas XII TKJ di SMK Swasta PAB (persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam. Data dari penelitian ini adalah ujaran tidak santun siswa-siswa kepada guru yang direkam dari percakapan dalam interaksi kelas. Data tersebut diindetifikasi, dianalisis, dan dikelompokkan berdasarkan teori Culpeper (1996, 2003). Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (1) ada empat jenis ketidaksantunan bahasa yang ditemukan pada interaksi siswa ke guru yaitu: bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, dan withhold politeness; dan (2) alasan mengapa siswa menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa ke guru; dari perspektif siswa, mereka menggunakan bahasa tidak santun kepada guru mereka karena mereka ingin: (a) mengejek yang lain, (b) untuk melampiaskan perasaan negatif, (c) untuk menunjukkan kekuasaan, (d) untuk mengklarifikasi sesuatu dengan jelas, (e) untuk menunjukkan ketidaksetujuan, dan (f) untuk menunjukkan ketidakpuasan; dan dari perspektif guru, siswa menggunakan bahasa tidak santun ke mereka karena (a) guru menyadari bahwa mereka mengabaikan kekuatan yang sebenarnya mereka miliki, (b) siswa cenderung menggunakan bahasa tidak santun disebabkan oleh lingkungan sosial di sekitar rumah dan dari latar belakang keluarga siswa tersebut. Berdasarkan temuan, dapat disimpulkan bahwa siswa menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa ke guru secara sengaja untuk menciptakan perselisihan diantara mereka. Saran ditujukan kepada siapa saja yang tertarik dalam memahami ketidaksantunan berbahasa sebagaimana seperti praktik yang telah ditemukan.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the name of ALLAH SWT, the Most gracious and merciful, all praise for His mercy, guidance, and loving care which have been given to the writer so this thesis could be completed.

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; Postgraduate School, State University of Medan.

However, without the assistance of the 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 thankful to these people and would like to express her sincere thanks.

The writer would like to deliver her grateful appreciation to her first advisor Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and her second advisor Dr.Zainuddin, M.Hum. for their patient guidance, excellent advices, and precious time in guiding her to complete this thesis.

Her gratefulness also goes to the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr.Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., and to Prof. Dr. H. Abdul Muin Sibuea, M.Pd. as the Director of Postgraduate School at State University of Medan.

(8)

Furthermore, the writer would like to thank Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D., and Dr.Syahron Lubis, M.A. for their constructive comments and suggestions in advancing the thesis quality.

Her deepest gratitude and incredible appreciations are presented to her beloved parents, Drs.Alifuddin and Yenny Aswina Siregar, S.Pd. who always support, pray, and motivate her in education. To all her siblings, Alvina Eka Hayati, S.Pd., Rio Alvin Kurniawan, S.Pd, and Ari Alvin Rizkiawan, S.Kom. who always pour her with all their kindness.

Last but not least, the writer would like to thank her beloved friends at LTBI A2 class: Eka Rejeki, Eka Surya Fitriani, Dewi Sinaga, Decy Anggraini, and Vista Simanungkalit; her friends at LTBI B4 class who always help the writer, Yeni Purtika S.Pd., M.Hum., Ersika Puspita Dani S.Pd., M.Hum., and Siti Marlina, S.Pd., M.Hum; the teachers of SMK Negeri 1 Beringin: Rista Saragih, Elly Agustina, Suci Ramadayani, Mona Faulina, Ririn Wulandari, Nurul Tyas, Sastra Hudaya, and Fil Erwin Lubis; and the other friends whose names cannot be mentioned here. 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, November 2015 The writer,

Adinda Zoraya Alvin

(9)

LIST OF TABLES

Pages Table 3.1 The types of impoliteness strategies and the reasons for using language

impoliteness ……….32 Table 3.3 The reasons why the students utter the impolite languages to the teacher ...32 Table 4.1 The types of impoliteness strategies used by the students to the teacher ...….55 Table 4.2 The students’ reasons for using language impoliteness to teacher in the

(10)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages Appendix 1 The Students-Teacher Conversation in the Classroom ……….. 68 Appendix 2 The Data Display of Language Impoliteness, and The Reasons of Using Language Impoliteness ……….. 95 Appendix 3 The Interview to the Teacher ……….……… 128 Appendix 4 The Interview to the students ……….……… 132

(11)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

Teacher is a person who educates the students; it is a necessity for the students to respect her/him. As what Pasal 12 ayat 2 Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No.20 about National Education System states that all students are obliged to maintain the educational norms to ensure the process and the success of education itself. Ideally, the students have to speak politely to the teacher. Language politeness is needed in every situation, included in the classroom interaction, because it will maintain the harmony of relationship between teacher and students and to avoid the conflict.

However, one can be impolite if s/he cannot identify the context of situation. In the classroom interactions, the students have to avoid of using such an impolite language to the teacher because it can cause disharmony between them. The communicative behavior intending to cause the ‘face losses’ of a target or perceived by the target to be so is involved in impoliteness. The phenomenon of impoliteness is to do with how offense the language is communicated and taken. As what Culpeper (2005: 38) defines impoliteness is communicative strategies designed to attack face, and thereby cause social conflict and disharmony.

Power, which often express through language, seems to have a close relationship with impoliteness. It is the same as what Culpeper (2007:25) argues that impoliteness always involves power. Fairclough (1989:43) states that power exists in various modalities, including the concrete and unmistakable modality of physical force. He makes a distinction between power in and power behind discourse. Power in discourse

(12)

refers to the exercise of power in the language, whilst power behind discourse concerns the constitution of social institution and societies through power relations. Power itself cannot be explained without contextualization. It connects with impoliteness in a number of different ways. It includes the performance/ perception of impoliteness in language and the broader context within which it is performed/perception.

On the other hand, the fact shows that power in and power behind the discourse is not always linear. One aspect of power behind discourse is the participant status. A person who has a power can speak more impolitely in one situation rather than a less powerful person. As what Culpeper (1996:350) states that impoliteness is more likely to occur in situation where there is an imbalance power is reflected in its relatively frequent appearance.

In a classroom interaction, a teacher is a powerful participant who has a power to ask, command, or even forbid something to the students in the classroom. Moreover, it might be possibly happened if a teacher speaks impolitely to the students since he/she is a powerful participant to do that.

It shows that in some situations, the students speak impolitely to the teacher despite of the fact that they are the less powerful participants. It can be seen in one situation which was happened in the classroom observed by the researcher on 9th_March 2015 at class XI TKJ (Teknik Komputer dan Jaringan) SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam,

An IPA teacher (FD) asked the students to finish their assignment. She realized that one of her students doing nothing and preferred disturbing his friends. Then the teacher walked to his seat and asked this question,

Teacher (FD) :”Kenapa belum juga dikerjakan tugasnya?” (Why haven’t you done your tasks?)

(13)

Student (MY) :”Capek lo BUK! Ibuk ini lalap ngasi tugas banyak kurang banyak.” (I am so tired Ma’am! You always are giving us the tasks more and more.)

Based on the context, a student speaks impolitely to the teacher despite of the fact that a teacher must be respected. Those student’s utterances make it impolite referring to the context. The social context in the classroom make the teacher should be respected. In that context, the student seeks disagreement to his teacher. Seeking disagreement is one of the output strategies of positive impoliteness. Positive impoliteness is one of five strategies of impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996:356) which means to damage the addressee’s positive wants.

Another language impoliteness uttered by student to the teacher can be seen in this example observed by the researcher on 13th_{March 2015 at class XI TKJ (Teknik} Komputer dan Jaringan) SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam

A Social teacher (JS) asked the students to collect their homework. She realized that there were some students who hadn’t finished their homework yet. She came to the students’ seats and asked one of them,

Teacher (JS) : “Mana PR mu nak?” (Where’s your homework?)

Student (MF) : “Belom siap aku buk.” (I haven’t finished it Ma’am.)

Teacher (JS) :”Kenapa pulak gak kamu kerjakan?(Why haven’t you done it?) Then the teacher said to all the students,

Teacher (JS) :“Yang gak ngerjain PR, silahkan kerjakan diluar. Nunggu abis pelajaran saya baru boleh masuk lagi.” (For those who haven’t finished the homework, please do it outside. After I finish my teaching then you can come in again.)

Then some students went outside. That student (MF) also went outside and said, Student (MF) :”E… lapet..lapet…. mau disamakan pulak negri sama swasta. Ya

jelas beda lah buk!”(E… lappet..lapet…. you want to equal the state school with the private school. It is clearly different Ma’am!) In that situation, the student did negative and positive impoliteness strategies. He did a negative impoliteness strategy since he uttered the pronoun “Aku/I” to his teacher. Culpeper (1996: 356) states that personalize, use the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘You’, is one of

(14)

the output strategy of negative impoliteness. In addition, that student also used a taboo word when he said “e….lapet…lapet….” to his teacher. The word “lapet” is a taboo word since it is profane language to be said to the older person. It should be noted that the situation is formal (he is a student and spoke that sentence to the teacher in the classroom while the teaching learning process happened, not with his friends in the bar), and that the use of taboo word is unilateral. Using taboo word is one of the output strategies of positive impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996: 357). The positive impoliteness strategy means to damage the addressee’s 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.

These phenomena of language impoliteness in the classroom context are necessary to be studied since the application of impolite language in the classroom can show clearly the discrepancy of power in and power behind discourse as suggested by Fairclough (1989:43).

This study aims at examining the model of ‘impoliteness’, as first proposed by Culpeper (1996) and revised by Culpeper et al. (2003) and Culpeper (2007). In line with Culpeper’s (1996) theory of impoliteness, the researcher is very much interested in conducting a study on types of impoliteness strategies namely Bald on Record Impoliteness, Positive Impoliteness, Negative Impoliteness, Sarcasm, and Withhold Politeness used by the students to their teacher in the classroom interaction.

(15)

1.2The Problem of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated as the following:

a. What types of language impoliteness are used by the students to their teacher in the classroom interaction?

b. Why do the students do it the way they do?

1.3The Objective of the Study

This research is aimed at examining the language impoliteness done by the students to their teacher in the classroom interaction. The objectives of the study are elaborated as followed:

a. To find out the types of language impoliteness which are used by the students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.

b. To describe the reasons of using language impoliteness which are used by the students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.

1.4The Scope of the Study

The main aspect of this study is to describe the language impoliteness used by the students to the teacher in the classroom interaction. In this study, the researcher only focuses on the student’s reaction to the teacher in (a) instruction (teaching and learning process) and (b) classroom management. The researcher also scope the location of the research is at SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam.

(16)

1.5The Significance of the Study

The findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically. a. Theoretically, the findings of this study will expand and enrich the application of

the impoliteness theory as proposed by Culpeper (1996) specifically the spoken language uttered by the students in the classroom. Impoliteness theory supports some disciplines as the subfield of Linguistics study such as Pragmatics and interactional Sociolinguistics.

b. Practically, the findings of this study will be useful as a reference for lecturers, teachers, and students in communicating which lead towards how to deal with impoliteness, how impoliteness may potentially be countered, controlled, and managed.

For those who want to conduct further in depth study in language impoliteness, the findings of the research would be their valuable related findings in language impoliteness.

(17)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study focused on the language impoliteness used by the students to the teacher in classroom interaction. It was aimed to find out the types of impoliteness strategies and to explain the reason why language impoliteness used by the students to their teacher in the classroom interaction. After analyzing the data, conclusions are drwan as the following.

1) There were 4 types of language impoliteness used by the students in the classroom interaction, namely 1) bald on record impoliteness, 2) positive impoliteness, 3) negative impoliteness, and 4) withhold politeness. Positive impoliteness was the most dominant strategies used by the students in the classroom interaction and the least strategy was withhold politeness.

2) The use of language impoliteness in the classroom interaction used by the students have some reasons. From the students’ perspective, they spoke impolitely to their teacher 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 was the most dominant reason used by the students and the least was to show power. From the teacher’s perspective, the students uttered language impoliteness to them because a) the teachers realized that they

(18)

ignored the power which they actually had, b) the students tend to use impolite languages because of their social environment around home and from the students’ 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

(19)

REFERENCES

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

Brown,P., & Levinson, C.S.1987.Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.

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

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

Emmer, E.T., & Strough, L. 2001. Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, with Implication for Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist, 36 (2), 103-112

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

Fujiki, M., Brinton & Clarke, D. 2002. Emotion Regulation in Children with Specific Lanugage Impairment. Language, Speech, and Theory Services in Schools, 33, 102-111

Halliday, M.&Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspect of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria Deakin University Press

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

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

(20)

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.

Mak, Bernie Chun Nam & Hin Leung Chui. 2013. Impoliteness in Facebook Status Updates: Strategic Talk among collegues outside the workplace”. De Gruyter Mouton DOI 10.1515/text-2013-0042.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publication.

Pianta et.al. 2012. Teacher Student Relationships and Engagement: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Improving the Capacity of Classroom Interactions. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7-17, Springer Science+ Business Media

Saragih, Amrin. 2014. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan, Unimed Press.

Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 tahun 2003. 2003. Accessed on March, 10th 2015. www.hukumonline.com

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

Upadhyay. 2010. Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-Mediated Reader Responses. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2010), 105-127 DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.006 Wijayanto, Agus 2014. Ketidaksantunan Berbahasa: Penggunaan Bahasa Kekerasan di

Sinetron Bertema Kehidupan Remaja, in Markamah et al. Ketidaksantunan Berbahasa

dan Dampaknya dalam Pembentukan Karakter. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University

(1)

1.2The Problem of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated as the following:

a. What types of language impoliteness are used by the students to their teacher in the classroom interaction?

b. Why do the students do it the way they do?

1.3The Objective of the Study

This research is aimed at examining the language impoliteness done by the students to their teacher in the classroom interaction. The objectives of the study are elaborated as followed:

a. To find out the types of language impoliteness which are used by the students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.

b. To describe the reasons of using language impoliteness which are used by the students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.

1.4The Scope of the Study

(2)

1.5The Significance of the Study

The findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically. a. Theoretically, the findings of this study will expand and enrich the application of

For those who want to conduct further in depth study in language impoliteness, the findings of the research would be their valuable related findings in language impoliteness.

(3)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

(4)

ignored the power which they actually had, b) the students tend to use impolite languages because of their social environment around home and from the students’ 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.

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

(5)

REFERENCES

Bogdan, Robert C., & Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education, An

Introduction to Theory and Method. Needham Heights: 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

Brown,P., & Levinson, C.S.1987.Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

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

Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.

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

University of Lancaster

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

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Emmer, E.T., & Strough, L. 2001. Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational

Psychology, with Implication for Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist, 36

(2), 103-112

Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power, Language in Social Life Series. Essex:

Longman Group UK

Fujiki, M., Brinton & Clarke, D. 2002. Emotion Regulation in Children with Specific

Lanugage Impairment. Language, Speech, and Theory Services in Schools, 33,

102-111

Halliday, M.&Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspect of language in a social

semiotic perspective. Victoria Deakin University Press

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

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Be Combined? Journal of Comparative Social

Work. 1, 3-5

Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.

(6)

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.

Mak, Bernie Chun Nam & Hin Leung Chui. 2013. Impoliteness in Facebook Status

Updates: Strategic Talk among collegues outside the workplace”. De Gruyter Mouton

DOI 10.1515/text-2013-0042.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage

Publication.

Pianta et.al. 2012. Teacher Student Relationships and Engagement: Conceptualizing,

Measuring, and Improving the Capacity of Classroom Interactions. DOI

10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7-17, Springer Science+ Business Media

Saragih, Amrin. 2014. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan, Unimed Press.

Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 tahun 2003.

2003. Accessed on March, 10th 2015. www.hukumonline.com

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

Bousfield, D & Locher. Impoliteness in Language-Studies on Its Interplay with Power

and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Upadhyay. 2010. Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-Mediated Reader Responses.

Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2010), 105-127 DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.006 Wijayanto, Agus 2014. Ketidaksantunan Berbahasa: Penggunaan Bahasa Kekerasan di

Sinetron Bertema Kehidupan Remaja, in Markamah et al. Ketidaksantunan Berbahasa

dan Dampaknya dalam Pembentukan Karakter. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University

LANGUAGE IMPOLITENESS AND POWER IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION AT SMK SWASTA PAB (PERSATUAN AMAL BAKTI) LUBUKPAKAM.