POLITENESS PRINCIPLE IN INTERRUPTIONS IN INDONESIA LAWYERS CLUB.

POLITENESS PRINCIPLE IN INTERRUPTIONS

IN INDONESIA LAWYERS CLUB

A Thesis

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

Magister Humaniora

By :

SOFIA IDAWATI LUBIS

Registration Number : 8136111054

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2015

ABSTRACT

Lubis, Sofia Idawati. Politeness Principle in Interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School. State University of Medan. 2015.

This study was aimed at examining the politeness principle in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club. The objectives of this study were 1) to find out the types of politeness principle occurred in the talk show, 2) to find out the dominant type of politeness principle occurred, and 3) to find out the reasons of those types of politeness principle occurred the ways they were. This research was conducted by qualitative method. The source of data were Indonesia Lawyers Club. They were chosen randomly. The technique of data collection was documentary technique. The instrument of data collection was observation from the video recordings of four episodes of Indonesia Lawyers Club. They were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. The findings showed that 1) there were five types of politeness principle occurred, namely: tact maxim (obedience 3.13%, violation 51.56%), generosity maxim (obedience 23.44%, violation 0.00%), approbation maxim (obedience 1.04%, violation 2.08%), modesty maxim (obedience 1.04%, violation 0.00%), agreement maxim (obedience 11.98%, violation 5.73%), and sympathy maxim (obedience 0.00%, violation 0.00%). 2) The violation of tact maxim was dominantly occurred in interruptions. 3) The reasons for obeying and violating of politeness principle were to reduce competition between addressee’s purpose and what politeness claimed, to find out affable, to cause offence, to tease others, and to make a joke or humorous interruptions.

ABSTRAK

Lubis, Sofia Idawati. Prinsip Kesantunan dalam Interupsi di Indonesia Lawyers Club. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2015.

Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui prinsip kesantunan yang digunakan dalam interupsi (penyelaan) di Indonesia Lawyers Club. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah 1) untuk mengetahui jenis-jenis prinsip kesantunan, 2) untuk mengetahui jenis prinsip kesantunan yang dominan terjadi, dan 3) alasan prinsip kesantunan tersebut terjadi dengan cara seperti itu. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode kualitatif. Sumber data adalah Indonesia Lawyers Club. Sumber data tersebut dipilih secara acak. Teknik pengambilan data adalah teknik dokumenter. Instrument pengambilan data adalah observasi dari empat episod rekaman video Indonesia Lawyers Club. Data tersebut dianalisa dengan analisa isi kualitatif. Penemuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa 1) ada lima tipe prinsip kesantunan yang terjadi yaitu maksim kebijaksanaan (pematuhan 3.13%, pelanggaran 51.56%), maksim kedermawanan (pematuhan 23.44%, pelanggaran 0.00%), maksim penghargaan (pematuhan 1.04%, pelanggaran 2.08%), maksim kerendahan hati (pematuhan 1.04%, pelanggaran 0.00%), maksim permufakatan (pematuhan 11.98%, pelanggaran 5.73%), dan maksim simpati ( pematuhan 0.00%, pelanggaran 0.00%). 2) Pelanggaran maksim kebijaksanaan adalah jenis prinsip kesantunan yang paling dominan terjadi dalam interupsi . 3) Alasan-alasan pematuhan dan pelanggaran prinsip kesantunan adalah untuk mengurangi persaingan antara orang yang dituju dengan apa yang disarankan dalam prinsip kesantunan, untuk mencapai kerukunan, untuk menyerang orang lain, untuk menggoda orang lain, untuk membuat lelucon atau interupsi yang bersifat jenaka.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, all praises and thanks to Allah, the Lord of universe who has given us His uncountable graces. Shalawat and Salam always blessed and poured down upon our beloved prophet Muhammad S.A.W.

In the completion this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge her deepest gratitude for all generous guidance and assistence which has been given to her by a lot of people.

The highest appreciation goes to her two advisers, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd as her first adviser and Dr. I. Wayan Dirgayasa T, M.Hum as her second adviser for all of their guidance through the completion of this thesis.

Then, her appreciation also goes to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd as the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program who have assisted her in the requirement of administration process during the study in the Post Graduate Program of State University of Medan.

The writer’s great thanks also goes to her reviewers or examiners, Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, Ph.D., and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S for their suggestions, criticisms, opinions, and improvements to this thesis. The writer also would like to express her thankfulness for all lectures who teach her during the academic years of LTBI.

Then, her gratitude goes to her friends as well (Atiqah, Novita, Gewin, Vista, Eka, Ade), and all friends in LTBI A3 XXIII who had given encouragement in writing this thesis. Her thank also dedicated to Bang Farid for his kindness at helping administration of LTBI.

A special gratitude is given for her beloved husband and children: Ari Romianda, Ricca Safina, Soraya Mayori, Sarah Safira, Syalaisha Shakira, and Naurah Shafiyyah, her beloved parents: H. Sofyan Efendi Lubis, Hj. Siti Ida Murniati, and also her beloved sisters for their sincere prayers, love, and support during her academic years in completing her study. May Allah SWT always blesses them.

Finally, may this thesis be useful for every one who needs it, and the construction criticism are expected from the readers.

Medan, June 2015 The writer,

Sofia Idawati Lubis Reg.Num.8136111054

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

ABSTRAK ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Background of the Study ... 1

1.2. Problem of the Study ... 7

1.3. Objective of the Study ... 8

1.4. Scope of the Study ... 8

1.5. Significance of the Study ... 9

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 10

2.1 Theoretical framework... 10

2.1.1. Pragmatics ... 10

2.1.2. Politeness ... 11

2.1.3. Speech Acts ... 19

2.1.4. Turn Taking ... 21

2.1.5. Interruptions ... 22

2.1.6. Television Talk Show... 23

2.1.6.1. The Differences of Natural conversation and talk show conversation ... 24

2.1.6.2. Indonesia Lawyers Club Talk Show 25

2.1.7 The Reasons of Obeying or Violating Politeness Principle in Interruptions ... 26

2.2. Relevant Studies ... 27

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 33

3.1 Research Method ... 33

3.2 Data and Source of Data ... 33

3.3 Instrument of Data Collection ... 33

3.4 Techniques of Data Collection ... 34

3.5 Trustworthiness of the Study ... 34

3.6 Techniques of Data Analysis ... 36

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DICUSSIONS 38

4.1 Data Analysis ... 38

4.1.1 Types of Politeness Principle Occurred in Interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club ... 38

4.1.1.1 Tact Maxim ... 38

4.1.1.2 Generosity Maxim ... 40

4.1.1.3 Approbation Maxim ... 42

4.1.1.4 Modesty Maxim ... 44

4.1.5 Agreement Maxim ... 45

4.1.6 Sympathy Maxim ... 47

4.1.2 Types of Politeness Principle Dominantly Occurred in Interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club ... 47

4.1.3 The Reason of Obedience and Violation of Politeness Principle ... 48

4.2 Findings ... 53

4.3. Discussions ... 54

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 57

5.1 Conclusions ... 57

5.2 Suggestions ... . 58

LIST OF TABLES

Pages Table 3.1 Matrix Form of Data Analysis ... 37 Table 4.1 The Occurrence of Obedience and Violation of Tact maxim .. 40 Table 4.2 The Occurrence of Obedience and Violation of Generosity

Maxim ... 42 Table 4.3 The Occurrence of Obedience and Violation of Approbation

Maxim ... 44 Table 4.4 The Occurrence of Obedience of Violation of Modesty

Maxim ... 45 Table 4.5 The Occurrence of Obedience and Violation of Agreement

Maxim ... 47 Table 4.6 The Percentage of types of Politeness Principle occurred

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix 1: The Transcription of Indonesia Lawyers Club ... 62 Appendix 2 : Matrix Form of Data Analysis ... 211

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Conversation is to exchange information, thoughts, ideas, and emotions. There are rules which control among participants in doing conversation. One of them is turn-taking rule, the rule between the speaker and the hearer to exchange the information. A speaker gives a chance to other speakers to comment or respond to his or her utterance, and it is repeating during the conversation. But in fact, it is broken by the interruptions. Interruption is an intrusion, a trampling on someone else’s right to the floor, an attempt to dominate (Tannen, 1990).It is signaled by the act of second speaker who cuts off the first speaker’s words and does not give the chance to finish his/her words.

In addition, in doing interruption as a way to convey his intention, speaker shows his communicative competence. The speaker communicative competence deals with pragmatics (Glaser, 2009). Speaker use their knowledge of a language to convey and interpret meanings. This knowledge enables them to produce and understand utterances in relation to specific communicative purposes and specific context. For example the awareness of how to modify conversation when interrupting in different context, in formal and informal context, both are different. A speech act “Could I interrupt you?” before interrupting is considered polite rather than cutting one’ speech abruptly that can threat other’s face to show disagreement. Such speech act called as knowledge of pragmatics that covers politeness as one of its concern.

Politeness is considered as strategic conflicts avoidance, which can be measured in terms of degree of effort and put into the avoidance of conflict, situation, maintenance, and establishment of comity (Leech, 1983). As an effort to build the harmonious relationship in communication, there is the politeness principle must be applied in communication. A polite speech is a speech which is obeying the norm of maxim (politeness principle) and it is not violating the norm of maxim’s politeness. It basically involves the strategy of keeping the face in interaction, by minimizing the positive things in yourself and maximizing the positive things to others, which are generally based on four notions: cost and benefit, dispraise and praise, disagreement and agreement, and sympathy and antipathy (Leech, 1983).

In fact, turn taking violations (interrupting, ignoring selection of other speakers, not responding to prior turns) are all face threatening acts in themselves (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In addition, interruptions in ordinary conversation are generally considered inherently impolite (Leech, 1983; Brown and Levinson, 1987).Then, interruptions in political debates is also regarded impolite (Yemenici, 2001).

The fact of interruptions that threat the other face and considered impolite as previous explanations are found in ordinary conversation in daily life and political debates. There are still several setting of conversation in which politeness principle and interruptions also occur. For example conversation in the televisions program, namely talk show. Some of the talk shows programs are Indonesian Lawyers Club on TV One, Kick Andy, Mario Teguh Golden Ways, and Mata

Najwa on Metro TV, Hitam Putih, and Bukan Empat Mata on Trans 7, and many others. These programs perform information on current issues during the program among the participants involved. They invite the guests with different background in accordance with the topic discussed. A program where one person (or group of people) discusses various topics which are leaded by a talk show host named talk show or known as chat show (Timberg, 2002). TV One is an example of private television station that concerns on current issues. It performs many kinds of programs. One of them is talk show. Talk show program is considered the very interesting one due to it does not only perform information from one source but also clarifies the information from people who are in accordance to the problem discussed.

The participants of talk show usually want to get along with the person whom they are speaking to. But sometimes the content of conversation might change the situation, when they start a conversation could be different to later. It might be change from friendly to unfriendly, from cooperative to uncooperative. The way they deliver their opinions, ideas or thoughts to be impolite. When one participant in his/her turn of speaking, other participant cuts the current speaker’s words abruptly without considering the turn of conversation. S/he interrupts the others without caring the other’s face. So in this case, face threatening acts occurs.

During the conversation in talk show, among the participants, the host as interviewer or the guest as interviewee often obey or violate politeness principle for some reasons related to their illocutionary goal of his interruption. It is also occurred in political debates which their topics are specified just for political

topics that potentially threat other’s face, their reasons are also to find affable, to cause offence and to reduce competition between the addressee’ purpose and what politeness claimed. (Leech, 1983). Interrupting abruptly for disagreement on what have been explained by the current speaker causes violating politeness principle due to the aim of saving his face rather than presenting his self as polite conversationalist. The example of this phenomenon can be seen in Indonesian Lawyers Club program on TV One (episode: Anas Siap Digantung di Monas). RS : …Dari OC sudah pindah ke sahabat-sahabat saya ini. Lawyer-lawyer

yang canggih.

Dia jawab apa..,”tapi mereka gak dibayar kok bang”. Sedih gak saya dengar.Saya

HPH : [Itukan mulut kamu yang ngomong.Jangan asal menuduh dong..

From the example, RS as the guest was taking his turn. But before he finished it, HS as the other guest interrupted him. This interruption was done because HS did not agree with the explanation of RS. The interruption happened after the word saya. It happened because HS felt RS’ explanation is not appropriate with what happened. That’s why he cut RS’ explanation by giving the comment itukan mulut kamu yang ngomong. Jangan asal menuduh dong in order to RS did not continue his talk. In this case, HS violates two politeness principles at once. They are the tact maxim and the agreement maxim. HS violated tact maxim which expects to minimize the expression of cost to others and maximize

the expression of benefit to others because he did not give the chance to RS to complete his utterance as the answer from the interviewer meanwhile it was his turn to speak. Then, he violated the agreement maxim by directly showing his disagreement on RS’ explanation. Whereas the agreement maxim proposes to minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize agreement between self and other. Thus, in this case, HS was considered as impolite since he attacks the other’s face.

The other example of this phenomenon can be seen in Indonesian Lawyers Club program on TV One (episode: Syiah Diusir, Negara Kemana?).

For example:

Host : Ceritakan kronologinya dari awal sampai terjadi pengusiran.

IAM :Bismillahirrohmannirrahim. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Saya juga akan nganu..menjelaskan bahwa saya bukanlah tokoh tapi saya sebagai juru bicara teman-teman saya itu. Karena satu-satunya yang bisa bahasa Indonesia Cuma saya. Jadi saya ditunjuk sebagai juru bicara aja bukan tokoh. Kronologi kejadian saat kami keluar dari GOR itu, satu hari sebelum

Host : [Mungkin mulainya bukan dari GOR, dari….e..terusirnya dari kampung.

IAM : Kronologi itu terjadi pada 26..agustus…

From the example, the host interrupted IAM after the word sebelum, eventhough it was the turn of IAM to answer the question from the host. The host

interrupted IAM for disagreement on the explanation of IAM by saying mungkin mulainya bukan dari GOR, dari….e..terusirnya dari kampung. In this case the host obeyed the agreement maxim which aims to minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other and maximize agreement between self and other. Even though he showed his disagreement that breaks agreement maxim but he employs the word mungkin which mitigate disagreement on the guest’s explanation. So he is considered as a polite person. Since he had effort to minimize threat to other’s face.

From the example, it can be seen the politeness phenomena by performing the people who obeys and violates the politeness principle, even though the guest’s answer is not appropriate to the host’s question, the host tend to be polite in interrupting the guest for his disagreement and the other guest tends to be impolite for his disagreement on other’s explanation on the topic discussed.

In regarding to the phenomenon, Indonesian Lawyer’s Club on TV One guided by the host Mr. Karni Ilyas was observed because this program is one the famous talk shows in Indonesia. It was proved by the achievement of the best news and information talk show 2013 (http://www.m.okezone.com/read/2013/03/30/ 33/783835/ inilah-pemenang-panasonic-gobel-awards-2013) and by the achievement of the best news and information talk show 2014 (http://www.m.okezone.com/read/2014/04/06/ 533/966082/ daftar-pemenang-panasonic-gobel-awards-2014).The invited guests come from different background such as lawyers, advocates, representatives of political parties, political watch, common people, and many others. This program

brings all the latest hot news topic of the day in Indonesia, from politics, law, economy, education, and others. The discussion of topic is aimed to reveal the problem, give the information to public clearly. There are protagonist position of guest and antagonist one. Although antagonistic position are one of the characteristic of the TV interview (Lauerbach: 2007), the interviewer and the interviewee have to employ politeness to some extent, whether to mitigate a face threat that his/her question introduces or to soften the argumentativeness of his/her language in order not to perceived as “rude” by the audience. It means that they should manage their turn in terms of politeness to exchange their thought or idea in the talk show due to television as the media often serves a guidance for audiences.

Therefore, in line with the politeness phenomena in the talk show, the study tried to find out the occurrence of politeness principle in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club whether in interrupting someone, the host and the guests obey or violate them during interview in Indonesian Lawyer’s Club on TV One.

1.2 Problem of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated as the following

1. What are the types of politeness principle occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club?

2. What is type of politeness principle dominantly occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club?

1.3 Objective of the Study

This research is aimed at examining politeness principle in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club. The objectives of the study are elaborated as the following:

1. to find out the types of politeness principle occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club.

2. to find out the dominant type of politeness principle occurred in interruption in Indonesia Lawyers Club.

3. to find out the reason of the types of politeness principle occurred the way they are.

1.4 Scope of the Study

As stated in the previous explanations that interruptions and politeness principle can occur not only in the daily conversation but also in the talk show on the television. This study was attempted to investigate the politeness principle in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club on TV One which shown by the interaction among the host and the guests. The aspects observed were the occurrences of obeying and violating the politeness principle in interruptions, proposed by Leech (1983). The data collection was based on viewing Indonesia Lawyers Club talk show.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study have two general significances, they are theoretical and practical significances.

Theoretically, the research findings are useful for:

1. the enrichment the linguistics knowledge in the field of pragmatics especially in politeness principle.

2. add up references to further studies.

Practically, the research findings are useful for:

1. Teachers, lectures, and students of university as a reference performing politeness in their daily life especially in dealing with interruptions politely. 2. For speaker and listener in daily conversation, to follow the politeness

principle in order to build up harmonious communication in conducting interruption. In turn, they can create good relationship in daily

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

After analyzing and drawing all the politeness principle in interruptions Indonesia Lawyers Club, the researchers draws the conclusion as follows:

1. Five of six types of politeness principle occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club. They were tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, and agreement maxim.

2. The dominant type of politeness principle occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club was the violation of tact maxim. It was done as it was not appropriate employed in interruptions as a way to dig up the information accurately so the discussion can satisfy the audience’s curiosity and give clear information on the topic discussed during talk show’s time.

3. The reason for the occurrences of politeness principle are (1) to reduce competition between addressee’s purpose and what politeness claimed (2) to find out affable, (3) to cause offence. New criteria found namely (1) teasing others, (2) making a joke or humorous interruption.

5.2 Suggestions

Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer the suggestions as follows:

1. It is advisable for the people in conveying the opinion to be polite even though in interrupting someone to build harmonious communication. 2. It is suggested to other researcher and students of English Applied

Linguistics who are taking pragmatics or conducting research to find out more reason for the obedience and violation in politeness principle in other context.

3. It is suggested to producers TV program especially talk show to manage

their program. So the TV programs show the value of politeness to audience/viewers. It serves the education function of TV program that

REFERENCES

Alan, K & Burridge, K. 2006. Sweet talking and Offensive Language”. Forbidden Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things withWords. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bangerter, A, Eric Chevalley, & Sylvie Derouwaux. 2010. Managing Third-Party Interruptions in Conversation: Effects of Duration and Conversation Role. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol.29, No.2, pg. 235-244. Brown, Penelope. 1993. Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. In

Deborah Tannen (eds). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New

York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

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

Clayman, Steven E. 1988. Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews. Social Problems. Vol. 35, No. 4, pg. 474-492.

Coates, Jennifer. 1993. Women, Men, and Language. London: Longman Group

UK Limited.

Cook, G. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crowley, D., Mitchell, D. 1994. Communication Theory Today. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thoousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ferencik, M. 2009. ‘Doing Interrupting’ as A Discursive Tactic in Argumentation: A Post- Pragmatic Politeness Theory Perspective. Brno Studies in English. Vol 35, No. 2, pg. 145- 163.

Glaser, Karen. 2009. Acquiring Pragmatics Competence in a Foreign

Language-Mastering Preferred Speech Act. Chemnitz University of Technology: Germany.

Greatbatch, D. 1988. A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews. Language in Society. Vol. 17, No. 1, pg. 401-430.

Hasibuan, S. A. 2014. Teacher’s Politeness Strategies to Students’ Compliance. A Thesis. State University of Medan. Unpublished.

House,J. and Kasper, G. 1981. ‘Politeness Markers in English and German’, in Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: University Press.

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. 1999. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices, and Applications. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Inc.

2008. Conversational Analysis (2nd _{Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.}

Ilie, C. 2001. Semi-Institutional Discourse: the Case of Talk Shows. Journal of

Pragmatics 33.

Levinson, Stephen. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lauerbach, G. 2007. Argumentation in dialogic media genre- Talk shows and interviews.Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 39, No. 8, pg. 1333-1341.

Leech, G, N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

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

Newbury Park, CA.

Markel, N., Long, J., &Saine, T. 1976. Sex Effects in Conversational Interaction:

Another Look at Male Dominance. Human Communication Research.

Vol.2, No. 4, pg. 356-364.

Marrying, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social

Research.

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

Sage Publication.

Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, S,. O. 1985. “Towards a Model of Members’ Methods for Recognizing

Interruptions.Language in Society. Vol.14, No. 1, pg. 31-40.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: Sage. Peccei, J., S. 1994. Pragmatics. China.

Rahardi, R. K. 2005.Pragmatik: KesantunanImperatifBahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Searle, J. R. 2000. SozEdimleri. (R. LeventAysever. Trans). Ankara:

Sacks, H. Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974. The Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language. Vol. 50,. No.4 pg. 696-735.

Sugiyono. 2011. MetodePenelitianKuantitatif, Kualitatif. Bandung: AFABETA

CV.

Taavitsainen, Irma., and S. Fitzmaurice. 2007. Historical Pragmatics: What It Is and How To do It. In Susan M. Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.). Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11-36. Tanjung. 2010. Gender Differences in Expressing Politeness. A Thesis. State

University of Medan.Unpublished.

Tannen, D. 1990. You just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in

Conversation.New York: Quill.

Tennant, T. 2000. Talk Isn’t Cheap: A Brief History of the Talk Show.

Timberg, B. M. 2002. Television Talk: A History of the Talk Show. University of Texas Press.

Wadhaugh, R. 1985. How Conversation Work. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Yemenici, A. 2001. Analysis of the Use of Politeness Maxims in Interruptions in Turkish Political Debates. In Bayraktaroglu, A and Sfianou, M. Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish.. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://www.tvonenews.tv/programs/indonesia_lawyers_club, 2012. Accessed 25th

November 2014.

http://www.m.okezone.com/read/2013/03/30/33/783835/inilah-pemenang panasonic-gobel-awards-2013. Accessed on 25th November 2014.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study have two general significances, they are theoretical and practical significances.

Theoretically, the research findings are useful for:

1. the enrichment the linguistics knowledge in the field of pragmatics especially in politeness principle.

2. add up references to further studies.

Practically, the research findings are useful for:

1. Teachers, lectures, and students of university as a reference performing politeness in their daily life especially in dealing with interruptions politely.

2. For speaker and listener in daily conversation, to follow the politeness principle in order to build up harmonious communication in conducting interruption. In turn, they can create good relationship in daily

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

After analyzing and drawing all the politeness principle in interruptions Indonesia Lawyers Club, the researchers draws the conclusion as follows:

1. Five of six types of politeness principle occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club. They were tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, and agreement maxim.

2. The dominant type of politeness principle occurred in interruptions in Indonesia Lawyers Club was the violation of tact maxim. It was done as it was not appropriate employed in interruptions as a way to dig up the information accurately so the discussion can satisfy the audience’s curiosity and give clear information on the topic discussed during talk show’s time.

3. The reason for the occurrences of politeness principle are (1) to reduce competition between addressee’s purpose and what politeness claimed (2) to find out affable, (3) to cause offence. New criteria found namely (1) teasing others, (2) making a joke or humorous interruption.

5.2 Suggestions

Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer the suggestions as follows:

1. It is advisable for the people in conveying the opinion to be polite even though in interrupting someone to build harmonious communication. 2. It is suggested to other researcher and students of English Applied

Linguistics who are taking pragmatics or conducting research to find out more reason for the obedience and violation in politeness principle in other context.

3. It is suggested to producers TV program especially talk show to manage their program. So the TV programs show the value of politeness to audience/viewers. It serves the education function of TV program that

REFERENCES

Alan, K & Burridge, K. 2006. Sweet talking and Offensive Language”. Forbidden Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things withWords. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bangerter, A, Eric Chevalley, & Sylvie Derouwaux. 2010. Managing Third-Party Interruptions in Conversation: Effects of Duration and Conversation Role. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol.29, No.2, pg. 235-244. Brown, Penelope. 1993. Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. In

Deborah Tannen (eds). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

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

Clayman, Steven E. 1988. Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews. Social Problems. Vol. 35, No. 4, pg. 474-492.

Coates, Jennifer. 1993. Women, Men, and Language. London: Longman Group UK Limited.

Cook, G. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crowley, D., Mitchell, D. 1994. Communication Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thoousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ferencik, M. 2009. ‘Doing Interrupting’ as A Discursive Tactic in Argumentation: A Post- Pragmatic Politeness Theory Perspective. Brno Studies in English. Vol 35, No. 2, pg. 145- 163.

Glaser, Karen. 2009. Acquiring Pragmatics Competence in a Foreign Language-Mastering Preferred Speech Act. Chemnitz University of Technology: Germany.

Greatbatch, D. 1988. A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews. Language in Society. Vol. 17, No. 1, pg. 401-430.

Hasibuan, S. A. 2014. Teacher’s Politeness Strategies to Students’ Compliance. A Thesis. State University of Medan. Unpublished.

House,J. and Kasper, G. 1981. ‘Politeness Markers in English and German’, in Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: University Press.

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. 1999. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices, and Applications. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Inc.

2008. Conversational Analysis (2nd _{Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.}

Ilie, C. 2001. Semi-Institutional Discourse: the Case of Talk Shows. Journal of Pragmatics 33.

Levinson, Stephen. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lauerbach, G. 2007. Argumentation in dialogic media genre- Talk shows and interviews.Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 39, No. 8, pg. 1333-1341.

Leech, G, N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

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

Markel, N., Long, J., &Saine, T. 1976. Sex Effects in Conversational Interaction: Another Look at Male Dominance. Human Communication Research. Vol.2, No. 4, pg. 356-364.

Marrying, P. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

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

Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, S,. O. 1985. “Towards a Model of Members’ Methods for Recognizing

Interruptions.Language in Society. Vol.14, No. 1, pg. 31-40.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: Sage. Peccei, J., S. 1994. Pragmatics. China.

Rahardi, R. K. 2005.Pragmatik: KesantunanImperatifBahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Searle, J. R. 2000. SozEdimleri. (R. LeventAysever. Trans). Ankara: AyracYaymevi

Sacks, H. Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974. The Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language. Vol. 50,. No.4 pg. 696-735.

Sugiyono. 2011. MetodePenelitianKuantitatif, Kualitatif. Bandung: AFABETA CV.

Taavitsainen, Irma., and S. Fitzmaurice. 2007. Historical Pragmatics: What It Is and How To do It. In Susan M. Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.). Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11-36. Tanjung. 2010. Gender Differences in Expressing Politeness. A Thesis. State

University of Medan.Unpublished.

Tannen, D. 1990. You just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.New York: Quill.

Tennant, T. 2000. Talk Isn’t Cheap: A Brief History of the Talk Show.

Timberg, B. M. 2002. Television Talk: A History of the Talk Show. University of Texas Press.

Wadhaugh, R. 1985. How Conversation Work. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Yemenici, A. 2001. Analysis of the Use of Politeness Maxims in Interruptions in Turkish Political Debates. In Bayraktaroglu, A and Sfianou, M. Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish.. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://www.tvonenews.tv/programs/indonesia_lawyers_club, 2012. Accessed 25th

November 2014.

http://www.m.okezone.com/read/2013/03/30/33/783835/inilah-pemenang panasonic-gobel-awards-2013. Accessed on 25th November 2014.