CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This study is aimed to describe the utterances used by the Karonese families in Deli Tua at home, or in their informal interaction. Based on the
analysis, the conclusions are drawn as the following: 1.
The Karonese families used two types of politeness strategies in their informal interaction both interaction parent to parent and parent to child.
The two types are bald on record strategy and positive politeness strategy. Bald on record strategy is dominantly used by the Karonese families.
2. The Karonese families expressed their politeness by using kinship forms
and pronoun in their informal interaction, both interaction parent to parent and parent to child.
3. Bald on record strategy is dominantly used by the Karonese families
because of three factors. They are social distance D of the speaker and hearer, power P between them, and the rank of imposition R. Parents
and children know each other very well and have very close relationship, so the politeness is not generally expected.
87
5.2 Suggestions
Dealing with the findings of the research, some constructive ideas are suggested as the following:
1. It is suggested to the Karonese families especially for all the parents to be
the real model of practicing politeness to their children from the beginning, in order to be polite in communicating to others.
2. It is suggested that the Karonese researchers should be more concerned
with the research of the Karonese since it is still very rarely conducted. 3.
It is suggested to the expert of the Karonese to write more books or references of politeness strategies in the Karonese families.
REFERENCES
Arundale, Robert. 1999. An Alternative Model and Ideology of Communication for an Alternative to Politeness Theory. International Journal of
Pragmatics Association IprA, 9 1: 119.
Bangun, T. 1952. Adat Istiadat Karo. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Bates, E. 1976. Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New
York: Academic Press. Bayraktaroglu, A. And Sifianou, M. 2001. Linguistic Politeness: The case of
Greek and Turkish. USA: John Benjamins B. V. Benelli, B. Marchesini, G. 1988. Cognitive and Linguistic Factors in the
Development of Word Definitions. Journal of Child Language, 15 3: 620.
Blum, Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?. Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 131-146.
Bogdan, R. C. Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, P. Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byron, S. 1990. The Language of Politeness. University of Hongkong. Coulmas, F. 2005.
Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speaker’s Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dlali, M. 2001. Negative Politeness and Requests in Sixhosa South African. Journal of African Languages, 21: 366-377.
Eelen, Gino. 1999. Politeness and Ideology: A critical Review. International Journal of Pragmatics Association IprA, 9 1: 163.
Erikson, E. H. 1995. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton. Fishman, J. A. 1972. The Sociology of Language. Massachusetts: Newburry
House Publication.
89
Kategori