POWER DIFFERENCES IN DETERMINING POLITENESS IN ENGLISH.

POWER DIFFERENCES IN DETERMINING POLITENESS IN

ENGLISH

A Thesis

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

Magister Humaniora

By:

ASRIANI HASIBUAN Registration Number : 8136112004

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, the writer would like to thank Allah SWT, the most gracious and the most merciful for blessing him to write this thesis. This study is concerned with power differences in determining politeness in English. It is submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program of the Postgraduate School, the State University of Medan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora. In particular, the writer would like to address her deep thankfulness to the Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A., PhD., her first Adviser for her time spent in guiding, correcting, and supporting her to complete this thesis, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., her second Adviser for her super attention in giving the support, suggestions, comments and ideas from the beginning of writing of this thesis until the present. The writer also expresses her great gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Farid Ma’ruf, Head, Secretary and Staff of the English Applied Linguistics Study Program for their assistance in completing the administrative procedures. She is deeply grateful to lecturers who have given the valuable knowledge and experiences during her study in this university. Special thanks are expressed to her examiners: Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd. and Dr. Syahron Lubis, M.A for their criticisms and suggestions in improving this thesis.

A very special gratitude is given for her beloved husband and son : Husni MB. Rambe, S.Pd and Aditya Naufal Rambe, for sincere prayers love, support, permission and chance for continuing and completing postgraduate study, her beloved parents: Aswin Hasibuan and Rita Jerni Pane, Roslina Pane, her beloved parents in law : Pasti Merdeka Rambe, B.A and Pesta Siagian, her beloved sister and brother: Benny Iswanto Hasibuan and Linda Nora Rambe, for their sincere prayers, love and support during her academic years in completing her study. May Allah SWT always bless us. Then, thanks to the principal of STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidipuan, located in Padangsidimpuan, and all participants for giving her permission and time to conduct a research in that place.

Finally, she would like to thank to head of Al- Iman foundation, all friends in English Department of STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan, classmates and those whose name can not be mentioned here for giving the valuable support in finishing this thesis.

Medan, 11 June 2015 The writer,

Asriani Hasibuan

Dedicated to

Beloved Parents Alm. Aswin hasibuan Almh. Rita Jerni Pane Almh. Roslina Pane Pasti Merdeka, B.A

Pesta Siagian

Beloved Husband and Son Husni MB. Rambe, S.Pd

Aditya Naufal Rambe

Beloved Brother Benny Iswanto Hasibuan

ABSTRACT

Asriani Hasibuan: Power Differences in Determining Politeness in English. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Study Program. Postgraduate School. State University of Medan. 2015

This descriptive qualitative research deals with politeness strategies used by students in expressing expressive speech acts to lecturer’s power differences. It specifically focused to describe the types of politenss strategies which were used by students in expressing expressive speech acts, to explain how those types were realized the way they were and to find out the reason why the types are realized as the way they are. The data were taken from written Dicourse Completion task (wDCT) and interview. It was taken by administrating the questionnare and by using recorder in STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan. The findings showed that all types of politeness strategies were applied in expressive speech acts to the female lecturers. However, off record was not used by students to male lecturer. The studnts used negative politeness frequently to female lecturers. It was used because the students want to save lecturer’s face, to pay respect to the way of female lecturers speak. While, they used positive politeness fequently to male lecturer because the students want to bulid close relationship to the lecturer. All these happened because they really adapted with t he personality’s of the lecturers. This personality tends to gender. So gender becomes the dominant factor in determining politeness strateies in expressing expressive speech acts.

ABSTRAK

Asriani Hasibuan: Power Differences in Determining Politeness in English. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Study Program. Postgraduate School. State University of Medan. 2015

Penelitian deskriptif kualitatif ini berhubungan dengan strategi kesantunan yang digunakan dalam tindak tutur ekspresif terhadap dosen- dosen dengan yang memiliki kekuasaan yang berbeda. Penelitian ini secara khusus bertujuan untuk mengkaji jenis strategi kesantunan yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa ketika mengungkapkan tindak tutur ekspresif terhadap dosen yang memiliki kekuasaan yang berbeda, untuk menjelaskan bagaimana jenis- jenis strategi tersebut direlisasikan dan untuk menemukan alasan mengapa jenis- jenis strategi tersebut direalisasikan seperti itu. Data dalam penelitian ini adalah ujaran ujaran mahasiswa yang tertulis dalam kuesioner yang berbentuk written Discourse Completion Task(wDCT) dan interview dengan mahasiswa/i yang memiliki ujaran yang berbeda terhadap tiga dosen yang memiliki kekuasaan yang berbeda, yang diperoleh dengan menggunakan perekam di STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa semua jenis strategi kesantunan digunakan dalam tindak tutur ekspresif untuk dosen perempuan. Namun, off record tidak digunakan oleh mahasiswa untuk dosen laki- laki. Negative politeness digunakan terhadap dosen perempuan karena mahasiswa ingin menjaga wajah dosen, untuk menunjukkan rasa hormat terhadap cara dosen tersebut berbicara. Sementara, positive politeness digunakan terhadap dosen lak- laki karena mereka ingin membangun rasa keakraban dan ingin membuat hubungan yang akrab dengan dosen tersebut. Strategi kesantunan tersebut merupakan strategi yang dominan karena mereka sangat beradapatsi dengan keribadian dosen. Kepribadian cenderung dengan gender, sehingga gender merupakan faktor dominan dalam menentukan strategi kesantunan dalam mengungkapkan tindak tutur ekspresif.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement ... i

Abstract ...iii

Table of Contents ... v

List of Tables ... ix

Listof Figures ... x

List of Appendices ... xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of Study ... 1

1.2 Problems of Study ... 6

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 6

1.4 The Scope of Study ... 6

1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 7

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 8

2.1 Politeness Strategies ... 8

2.1.1 Types of Politeness Strategies ... 11

2.1.1.1Bald on Record Strategy ... 11

2.1.1.2Positive Politeness Strategy ... 12

2.1.1.4 Off Record Strategy ... 13

2.1.2 Realization of Politeness Strategies in Language ... 13

2.1.2.1Realization of Bald on Record Strategy ... 13

2.1.2.2Realization of Positive Politeness Strategy ... 14

2.1.2.3 Realization of Negative Politeness Strategy... 20

2.1.2.4Realization of Off Record Strategy... 23

2.1.3 The Reason for Using Politeness Strategies ... 26

2.1.3.1The Reason for Using Bald on Record ... 26

2.1.3.2The Reason for Using Positive Politeness ... 27

2.1.3.3The Reason for Using Negative Politeness ... 27

2.1.3.4The Reason for using Off Record ... 27

2.2 Power ... 27

2.3 Power in Politeness ... 29

2.4Speech Act Theory ... 31

2.4.1 The Speech Act of Complaint ... 32

2.4.2The Speech Act of Refusal ... 33

2.4.3 The Speech Act of Apology ... 33

2.5Politeness Strategies in Expressive Speech Acts ... 33

2.6 Power Differences ... 35

2.6 The Relevant Studies ... 36

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 41

3.1 Location and Place ... 41

3.2The Research Design ... 41

3.3The Subject of The Study... 41

3.4 The Instrument of Data Collection ... 42

3.5The Technique of Data Collection... 42

3.6The Technique of Data Analysis ... 43

3.7 TheTrustworthiess ... 43

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .. 45

4.1 The Data Analysis ... 45

4.1.1 Types of Politeness Strategies Used by Students ... 45

4.1.1.1 Bald on Record ... 46

4.1.1.2 Positive Politeness Strategy ... 46

4.1.1.3 Negative Politeness Strategy ... 47

4.1.1.4 Off Record ... 48

4.1.2 The Realization of Politeness Strategies in Students- Lecturers Interaction ... 49

4.1.3The Reason of Politeness Strtegies Used by Students to Male Lecturer ... 59

4.1.3.1 Reason for Using Bald on record ... 59

4.1.3.3 Reason for Using Negative Politeness ... 61

4.1.3.4 Reason for Using Off record ... 62

4.2 Findings ... 63

4.3 Discussion ... 64

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION ... 5.1 Conclusions ... 66

5.2 Suggestions... 66

i List of Tables

Table 4.1 4 The Comparison of Politeness Staretgies Used by

All participants ... 45 Table 4.2 The Occurrence of Politeness Strategies Used by Students

to Female Lecturers ... 48 Table 4.3 The Occurrence of Politeness Strategies Used by Students

to Male Lecturers ... 48 ... 49 Table 4.4 The Realization of Politeness Strategies in

List of Figures

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Politeness Strategies to Female Lecturer ... 71 Appendix 2. Politeness Strategies to Female Lecturer ... 75 Appendix 3. Politeness Strategies to Male Lecturer ... 79 Appendix 4. Interview with Students who have Different

Politeness Strategies ... 83 Appendix 5. The Data of Informants ... 87 Appendix 6. Written Discourse Completion Task (wDCT) ... 88

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of the Study

Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) is a branch of second language acquisition research. One of its aims is to study how non-native speakers perform a particular speech act in a target language. Research in interlanguage pragmatics has shown that English language learners‟ performance of speech acts is often different from that of native English speakers because the learners have limited knowledge of L2‟s pragmatic rules and transfer their native pragmatic rules into their L2 communication. Zegarac and Pennington‟s definition on pragmatic transfer is the influence of newly learned second language knowledge by the existing native language knowledge in mind. Such pragmatic transfer is shaped by culture-specific knowledge (Zegarac and Pennington, 2000). When people from different cultures communicate with each other without perceiving their different culture, miscommunication may probably happen and pragmatic transfer may probably occur.

Since Indonesian language and English language belong totwo different language systems, evidence of pragmatic transfer of Indonesia into English by Indonesian learners of English is most likely to be identified in their intercultural communication.One pragmatic transfer which can possibly occur inthe intercultural communication of Indonesian learners ofEnglish is expressing expressive speech act. Expressives are speech acts whose illocutionary content is the expression of a psychological state about oneself or the world (Searle and Vanderveken, 1985).

Put it more simply, expressives speech act which consist of complaint, refusal, apology. Complaint is seen as an illocutionary actin which the speaker expresses negative feelings toward the hearer. The speaker does so because s/he thinks that the hearer should be responsible for a socially unacceptable past event.

A refusal is a speech act by which a speaker refuses “to engage in an action proposed by the interlocutor” (Chen, Ye, & Zhang, 1995: 121). Apology has been defined as regretful acknowledgement of fault or failure.

Since Indonesian and English speakershave different perceptions of how expressive speech act should be conducted, it is more likely that pragmatic transfer of Indonesian will occur in the their intercultural communication of Indonesian learners of English. According to Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory (1987), this speech act is regarded as a face threatening act since the speaker is insome way intruding into the hearer‟s world by performing an act that concerns what the latter should do.

Since pragmatic transfer in expressive speech act by Indonesian learners of English can cause the breakdowns in their intercultural communication, it is needed to investigate Indonesian learners‟ pragmatic transfer in expressive speech act strategies in order to know how learners‟ culture-specific backgrounds affect their pragmatic competence in English. In so doing, the pedagogical implications can be brought forth and inspire both language teachers and language learners.

Speech act and politeness are two unseparated things, they have close relationship in term of communication. Due to the terms of communication, when people want to interact with others of course s/he uses a language and s/he has to consider the way they interact, they have to consider the term of politeness in expressing speech act. Since speech act and politeness become an interesting topic to be learned, it is considered that social distance, formality of issue and power difference would play important roles in determining the strategies in doing politeness. Brown and Levinson ( 1987: 74 ) consider a number of variables which might affect the politeness strategies, such as power, distance, and rank of imposition. Whereas according to Holmes ( 1995 ), there are three dimensions which have proved useful in analysing linguistic politeness, namely “ solidarity- social dimension, the power dimension, and the formality dimension. Therefore, power, distance, and rank of imposition are important in determining politeness strategies.

One person may be said to have power over another to the degree that he or she is able to control the behaviour of the other. Power is a relationship between at least two persons, and it is nonreciprocal in the sense that both cannot have the same power in the same area of behaviour. One of the factors influencing power differences is the age differences. Conversations between people of different ages frequently show different strategy of politeness. Mizutani and Mizutani (1987:4) affirm that differences in age will influence the formality of speakers and hence the degree of politeness. It has become a rule in Japan that older people talk in a familiar way toward younger people, and younger people talk politely to older people. In contrast, people of the same age commonly use familiar speech styles in conversation.

Another aspect of power is the notion of status, which is derived from the Latin term for „standing‟ and relates simply to one‟s position in society, conferring „rights and obligations upon a person as a citizen within a political community‟ (Turner, 1988:2). According to Bonvillain (1993:145-146), status differences may be based on „combinations of income, occupation, education, and resulting differences in access to social, economic, and/or political power and this reflect inequalities among sectors of a population‟. Such aspects of power relations determine the low or high level of conversations. Brown and Levinson‟s idea in this case is that „the more powerful a person, the more influential he is in the conversations‟. His level of politeness may even decrease to less polite speech. Another factor relating to differences in communicative styles is gender, based on the idea that men and women are different in their language.One of the differences is that women are said to be more polite than men. According to Speer (2002:347), women have a higher tendency than men to apply politeness strategies in their speech such as the use of more compliments and more apologies. Hobbs (2003:243) notes that when talking with same sex peers, women will use many positive politeness strategies. On the other hand, men in similar circumstances do not show this tendency.

Beside the above factors, being familiar between the interlocutors will influence the ways to be polite. Brown and Levinson (1987:74) called this „social

distance‟ and referred it as „the degree based on stable social attributes the reflex of social closeness‟. This suggests that how familiar speakers are with each other will determine how politely they behave. The closer they are, the less polite they need to be. Situation or speech situation, either formal or informal, is also an influential factor in communication. Normally, people talking in formal situations will use more polite speech whereas in informal situations, speakers tend to use a more familiar style of speech. In addition, people also change levels of speech depending on the situation, even when talking with the same person. Holmes (1995:17) refers to this as the „formality dimension‟, which concerns the situational factors that influence people to be polite or not.

Thus, from the elaboration above it can be concluded that the politeness is affected of three essential variables, namely power/ power dimension, distance/ solidarity- social distance dimension, and rank of imposition/ the formality dimension.

This study is necessary to be conducted because through this study, it can give information to the reader generally and to the students especially in order to make them know how to communicate with the lecturers well. Therefore, Students- lecturers interaction are necessary to be noticed, because in teaching and learning program, they will have interaction in expressing something, it can be requesting, refusing, complaining and so on. Researcherwas really interested to make a research in this study because in their daily language, they have different politeness strategies to different lecturers. It is proved in the preliminary data which resesarcher did, it was by administering wDCT. This example is one of their utterances which researcher found in wDCT.

Case : refusal

“You are a student who arrives half an hour late to class because you had to go to the doctor for an important health issue. The course policy states that late arrivals are not permitted, except for serious documented excuses.

The lecturer tells you that your behaviour is disruptive and asks you to

You refuse your lecturer by saying:

For female lecturer

Student: “ Sorry mam, I have to go to the hospital first because I have tocheck my health. This is not my want to come late. ( positive politeness)

For male lecturer

Student: “Sorry sir, I didn‟t intend for coming late at your class. I also didn‟t want this is happened..”( bald on record)

For female lecturer

Student: “ Sorry mam, I come late. But, I didn‟t want this is happened. Please allow me to join the class mam. For the next I will not do it anymore.” ( positive politeness)

From the examplesabove, it can be seen that students o STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan have different politeness strategies to different lecturers. They prefer to use bald on record strategy to oldermale lecturer and prefer to use positive politeness strategy to younger female lecturers. It means there is possibility that not all of four types of politeness strategies stated by Brown and Levinson occur in an interaction and not all male lecturerswill get more polite language than others.

The facts above motivated the researcher to conduct a study dealing with politeness strategies used in expressive spech acts in classroom interaction to know whether students of university especially of STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan use the four typesof politeness strategies stated by Brown and Levinson in their expressive speech acts.

1.2 Problems of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated as in the following.

1. What types of politeness strategies are used by the students of STKIP

Tapanuli SelatanPadangsidimpuan in class interaction with different power of lecturers in expressing complaint, refusal, and apology?

2. How are those types of politeness strategies realized by the students of

STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan in expressing complaint, refusal and apology?

3. Why are the types of politeness strategies realized the way they are?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are :

1) to describe the types of politeness strategies used by the students of STKIP

Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan in expressing complaint, refusal and apology.

2) to explain how those types of politeness strategies are realized by students

in expressing complaint, refusal and apology by the students of STKIP Tapanuli Selatan Padangsidimpuan.

3) to find out the reason why the types of politeness strategies are realized as

the way they are. 1.4 The Scope of the Study

In this study, the discussion focus on power differences in determining politeness strategies . The power tends to be reflected to age and gender. Ages influence the formality of speakers and speech styles in conversation. Further, gender plays important roles in some speech acts of human communication. Therefore, this study is limited on different power of lecturers in determining politeness in English which case consists of complain, refusal and apology. The researcher limit these three cases because it potential for Face Threathening Acts.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

This study is expected to have both theoretical and practical significance for the readers. Theoretically, the findings of this study are expected to enrich the theories of politeness strategies especially in the classroom interaction. They are also expected to give the contribution as guiding information for sociolinguistics students who are interested in the study of politeness.

Practically, the findings of this study are expected to be useful for students and readers. Firstly for students, they can use the politeness strategies either in the university and in the society. Secondly for the readers, the findings of this study can be made as the model in order to guide the readers in expressing and using politeness in their daily communication.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5. 1

Conclusions

After analyzing the data in written Discourse completion Task (WDCT) which administered to the sixth semester students of STKIP Tapanuli Selatan, Some conclusions are drawn as the following:

(1) All types of politeness were applied in students-lecturers interaction,

they are bald on record,positive politeness, negative politeness and off record. (2) Negative politeness was used to female lecturers in four ways, namely be pessimistic and apology, be conventionally indirect and go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H. However for male lecturer, positive politeness frequently occu in three ways, namely offer, promise, give/ ask for reason and use ingroup identity marker.

(3) Negative politeness was used because of the students really wants to

save lecturer’s face, and they also need to recognize the character of lecturer who attend their class. While positive politeness was used because of the gender and character of lecturer, if they speak with easy going and humorous lecturer. So they use this strategy when they interact with the lecturer.

5. 2Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions, suggestion are offered. They are:

(1) It is suggested to the lecturer of sociolinguistics to introduce the theory of politeness strategies in the classroom, so that it can be trigger for the students to conduct a research related to the field.

(2) It is suggested to other researchers to conduct for the research in other campus to compare the use of politeness strategies used by students to the lecturers to enrich the theory of politeness strategy.

REFERENCES

Allwright, 1984.The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning.

Applied Linguistic Journal 5 : 156- 171

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL Refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.),

Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp.

55-73). New York: Newbury House.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Bonvillain, N. 1993. Language, culture, and communication: the meaning of

messages. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

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

Usage.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language (pp. 119-163).

Hawai‟i: University of Hawai‟i Press.

Cheng, S. W. (2005). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment of expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English.Unpublished PhD dissertations. The University of Iowa.

Dewi, Khairina. 2014.Politeness Strategies Used in Directive Speech Acts in

Classroom Interaction. Medan: Unimed Press.

Edmonson, Willis. 1981. On saying you’re sorry. In Florian Coulmas (ed.),

Conversational routine: Explorations in Standardized

Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, 273–286. New

York: Mouton.

E. Goffman, 1971.Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, New

York: Basic Books.

Ellis, R& Fotos, S.1999.Learning a Second Language through Interaction.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fang-Lin, Ming. 2014. An Interlanguage Pragmatic Study on Chinese EFL Learners’ Refusal: Perception and Performance. Journal of Teaching and Research Vol.5, No.3, pp.642-653.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2158-2187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.004

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on face to face behavior.

New York: Doubleday.

Golato, A. 2003. Studying Compliment Responses: A comparison of DCTs and

recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics,24(1), 90-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90.

Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. New York: St. Martin’s Press

Inc.Herring, S. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication. New

York: John Benjamins Publishing Company

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

Hinkel, E. 1997. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data.

Applied Linguistics, 18, 1-26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.1.1

Hobbs, P. 2003. The medium is the message: Politeness strategies in men's and

women's voice mail messages. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 243-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00100-5

Holmes, J. 1995. Women, men, and politeness. London and New York: Longman.

House, Juliane & Gabriele Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and

German. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations

in standardized communication situationsand prepatterned speech, 157– 186. New York: Mouton.

Hoza, J.2007. It’s not what you sign, it’s how you sign it: Politeness in American

sign language. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press.

Hussein, Jumma Qadir. 2014. The Speech Act of Complaint: A Contrastive Study of Iraqi and Chinese EFL Learners of English. Anbar University Journal of Language & Literature, 13, 65-81.

Jane, J.W. 1989. The Power of Politeness in the Classroom- Cultural Codes taht

Create and Constrain Knowledge. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 14 (4): 298-231.

Kwon, Jihyun. 2004. Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23, 339-364.http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339.

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York : Harper & Row.

Mahmud, Murni. 2013. The Roles of Social Status, Age, Gender, Familiarity, and Situation in Being Polite for Bugis Society. Canadian Center of Scienece

and Education, Asian Social Science and Education, Asian Social Science: Vol.9 No.5.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. California:

Sage Publication.

Mizutani, O., & Mizutani, N. 1987. How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo, Japan:

The Japan Times.

Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka(Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.108-122). New York: Oxford University Press. Saragih, Amrin. 2014. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan:

Unimed Press.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax

and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82).

Searle, J.R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundation of illocutionary logic.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seran, Dogancay, Aktuna, & Sibel, Kamisli.1997. Pragmatic transfer in

interlanguage development: A casestudy of advanced EFL learners. Paper presented at the National Linguistics Conference (11th Ankara,Turkey, May 1997).

Speer, S. A. 2002. Sexist Talk: gender Categories, Participant' Orientations and

Irony. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(3), 347-377.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00192

Turner, B. S. 1988. Status. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Wagner, E. D. 1984.In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The

American Journal of Distance Education 8 (2), 6- 26.

Watts, R., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.). 1992. Politeness in Language (2nd ed.). New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wijayanto, Agus. et.al. 2013. Politeness in Interlanguage pragmatics by

Indonesian learners of English. Canadian Center of Science and Education, English Language Teaching: Vol.6 No.10.

Xiaoning, Z. 2004. Politeness Strategies Used in English Requests and Refusals

by Chinese College EFL Learners. Published M. A Thesis. China : English Department, School of Foreign Studies, Nanjing University.

Yanfen, L. & Yuqin, Z. 2010. A Study of Teacher talk in Interaction in English

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Yule, George. 2002. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Zegarac, V, & Pennington, M. C. 2000. Pragmatic Transfer in Intercultural

Communication. In H. Spencer-Oatey(Ed.), Cultural Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures , 165-190. New York: Continuum.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

This study is expected to have both theoretical and practical significance for the readers. Theoretically, the findings of this study are expected to enrich the theories of politeness strategies especially in the classroom interaction. They are also expected to give the contribution as guiding information for sociolinguistics students who are interested in the study of politeness.

Practically, the findings of this study are expected to be useful for students and readers. Firstly for students, they can use the politeness strategies either in the university and in the society. Secondly for the readers, the findings of this study can be made as the model in order to guide the readers in expressing and using politeness in their daily communication.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5. 1 Conclusions

After analyzing the data in written Discourse completion Task (WDCT) which administered to the sixth semester students of STKIP Tapanuli Selatan, Some conclusions are drawn as the following:

(1) All types of politeness were applied in students-lecturers interaction, they are bald on record,positive politeness, negative politeness and off record. (2) Negative politeness was used to female lecturers in four ways, namely be pessimistic and apology, be conventionally indirect and go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H. However for male lecturer, positive politeness frequently occu in three ways, namely offer, promise, give/ ask for reason and use ingroup identity marker.

(3) Negative politeness was used because of the students really wants to save lecturer’s face, and they also need to recognize the character of lecturer who attend their class. While positive politeness was used because of the gender and character of lecturer, if they speak with easy going and humorous lecturer. So they use this strategy when they interact with the lecturer.

5. 2Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions, suggestion are offered. They are:

(1) It is suggested to the lecturer of sociolinguistics to introduce the theory of politeness strategies in the classroom, so that it can be trigger for the students to conduct a research related to the field.

(2) It is suggested to other researchers to conduct for the research in other campus to compare the use of politeness strategies used by students to the lecturers to enrich the theory of politeness strategy.

REFERENCES

Allwright, 1984.The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied Linguistic Journal 5 : 156- 171

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL Refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bonvillain, N. 1993. Language, culture, and communication: the meaning of messages. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

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

Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language (pp. 119-163). Hawai‟i: University of Hawai‟i Press.

Cheng, S. W. (2005). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment of expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English.Unpublished PhD dissertations. The University of Iowa. Dewi, Khairina. 2014.Politeness Strategies Used in Directive Speech Acts in

Classroom Interaction. Medan: Unimed Press.

Edmonson, Willis. 1981. On saying you’re sorry. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, 273–286. New York: Mouton.

E. Goffman, 1971.Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, New York: Basic Books.

Ellis, R& Fotos, S.1999.Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fang-Lin, Ming. 2014. An Interlanguage Pragmatic Study on Chinese EFL Learners’ Refusal: Perception and Performance. Journal of Teaching and Research Vol.5, No.3, pp.642-653.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2158-2187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.004

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York: Doubleday.

Golato, A. 2003. Studying Compliment Responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics,24(1), 90-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90.

Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. New York: St. Martin’s Press Inc.Herring, S. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication. New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company

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

Hinkel, E. 1997. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics, 18, 1-26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.1.1 Hobbs, P. 2003. The medium is the message: Politeness strategies in men's and

women's voice mail messages. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 243-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00100-5

Holmes, J. 1995. Women, men, and politeness. London and New York: Longman. House, Juliane & Gabriele Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and

German. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situationsand prepatterned speech, 157– 186. New York: Mouton.

Hoza, J.2007. It’s not what you sign, it’s how you sign it: Politeness in American sign language. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press.

Hussein, Jumma Qadir. 2014. The Speech Act of Complaint: A Contrastive Study of Iraqi and Chinese EFL Learners of English. Anbar University Journal of Language & Literature, 13, 65-81.

Jane, J.W. 1989. The Power of Politeness in the Classroom- Cultural Codes taht Create and Constrain Knowledge. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 14 (4): 298-231.

Kwon, Jihyun. 2004. Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23, 339-364.http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339. Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York : Harper & Row. Mahmud, Murni. 2013. The Roles of Social Status, Age, Gender, Familiarity, and

and Education, Asian Social Science and Education, Asian Social Science: Vol.9 No.5.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. California: Sage Publication.

Mizutani, O., & Mizutani, N. 1987. How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Times.

Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka(Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.108-122). New York: Oxford University Press. Saragih, Amrin. 2014. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan:

Unimed Press.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82).

Searle, J.R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundation of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seran, Dogancay, Aktuna, & Sibel, Kamisli.1997. Pragmatic transfer in interlanguage development: A casestudy of advanced EFL learners. Paper presented at the National Linguistics Conference (11th Ankara,Turkey, May 1997).

Speer, S. A. 2002. Sexist Talk: gender Categories, Participant' Orientations and Irony. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(3), 347-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00192

Turner, B. S. 1988. Status. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Wagner, E. D. 1984.In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 8 (2), 6- 26.

Watts, R., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.). 1992. Politeness in Language (2nd ed.). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wijayanto, Agus. et.al. 2013. Politeness in Interlanguage pragmatics by

Indonesian learners of English. Canadian Center of Science and Education, English Language Teaching: Vol.6 No.10.

Xiaoning, Z. 2004. Politeness Strategies Used in English Requests and Refusals by Chinese College EFL Learners. Published M. A Thesis. China : English Department, School of Foreign Studies, Nanjing University. Yanfen, L. & Yuqin, Z. 2010. A Study of Teacher talk in Interaction in English

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Yule, George. 2002. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Zegarac, V, & Pennington, M. C. 2000. Pragmatic Transfer in Intercultural Communication. In H. Spencer-Oatey(Ed.), Cultural Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures , 165-190. New York: Continuum.