POLITENESS STRATEGIES OF THE KARONESE FAMILIES IN DELITUA.

(1)

POLITENESS STRATEGIES OF THE KARONESE FAMILIES

IN DELI TUA

A Thesis

By:

LINDA ASTUTI RANGKUTI Registration Number: 809115011

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

Magister Humaniora

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2013

(2)

POLITENESS STRATEGIES OF THE KARONESE FAMILIES

IN DELI TUA

A Thesis

By:

LINDA ASTUTI RANGKUTI Registration Number: 809115011

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

Magister Humaniora

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2013

(3)

(4)

(5)

iii ABSTRACT

Rangkuti, Linda Astuti. Politeness Strategies of the Karonese Families in Deli Tua. A Thesis. Postgraduate School. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. The State University of Medan. 2013.

This research studies about politeness strategies of the Karonese Families in Deli Tua. The objectives of this study are: (1) to describe types of politeness strategies, (2) the process of expressing politeness strategies, and (3) factors that cause the Karonese families use those types of politeness strategies. The data were taken from the Karonese families. This study employs qualitative research design. The subjects were 3 Karonese families who live in Deli Tua. The subjects were divided into two groups; 3 subjects from parents group and 3 subjects from children group. The instruments used to gain the data were observation and interview. There are two ways relationships that were observed; first interaction parent to parent, and second interaction parent to child. The data were analyzed by using data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification. The findings show that the Karonese families used two types of politeness strategies which are (1) bald on record strategy and (2) positive politeness strategy, both interactions; parent to parent and parent to child at home. They expressed their politeness strategies by using kinship forms and pronoun. There are three reasons why they used bald on record strategy as the dominant type; first, social Distance (D) of the speaker and hearer, second, Power (P) between them, and third, the Rank of imposition (R).

(6)

iv ABSTRAK

Rangkuti, Linda Astuti. Strategi Kesopanan Pada Keluarga Suku Karo di Deli Tua. Sebuah Tesis. Sekolah Pascasarjana. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2013.

Penelitian ini mengkaji tentang strategi kesopanan pada keluarga suku Karo di Deli Tua. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: (1) untuk menggambarkan jenis-jenis strategi kesopanan (2) proses pengekspresian strategi kesopanan, dan (3) faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan keluarga suku Karo menggunakan jenis strategi kesopanan itu. Data penelitian diambil dari keluarga suku Karo. Penelitian ini menggunakan disain penelitian kualitatif. Subjek dari penelitian ini diambil dari 3 keluarga suku Karo yang tinggal di Deli Tua. Subjek dibagi menjadi dua kelompok, 3 subjek dari kelompok orang tua dan 3 subjek dari kelompok anak-anak. Alat penelitian yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data adalah pengamatan dan wawancara. Pada penelitian ini, ada dua cara interaksi hubungan yang diamati. Pertama, interaksi orang tua ke orang tua, kedua, interaksi orang tua ke anak. Data tersebut dianalisis dengan menggunakan pemilahan data, pemaparan data dan kesimpulan/verifikasi data. Temuan yang didapatkan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa keluarga suku Karo menggunakan dua jenis strategi kesopanan yaitu (1) bald on record strategi dan (2) positive politeness strategi, baik interaksi antara orang tua ke orang tua, dan orang tua ke anak di rumah. Mereka mengekspresikan strategi kesopanan mereka dengan menggunakan bentuk kekerabatan dan kata ganti. Ada tiga alasan mengapa mereka menggunakan bald on record strategi sebagai jenis yang dominan; pertama, Jarak Sosial (D) dari pembicara dan pendengar, kedua, Kekuasaan (P) di antara mereka, dan ketiga, tingkat Paksaan (R).

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin...the writer’s endless gratitude is addressed primarily to Allah SWT for His blessing and Mercy that she finally completed this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora.

This thesis could not have been accomplished without the guidance, suggestion and comment from several people, for which the writer would like to extend her sincere and special thanks to:

- Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, the writer’s first adviser. Her wide knowledge and her logical way of thinking have been a great value for the writer. Her understanding, encouraging and personal guidance have provided a good basis for the present study.

- Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D, the writer’s second adviser. His suggestions and corrections have made this thesis possible to be finished.

- Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, the head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and his secretary, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., who have assisted her in processing the administration requirements during the process of her study in the postgraduate program.

- The board of examiners, Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., who have given their valuable suggestions and criticisms to improve her thesis.

- All the lecturers throughout her academic years at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program who have shared their valuable knowledge.

(8)

- The writer’s beloved husband, M. Fadli Siregar, A.Md, and her parents; H. Asrul Sani Rangkuti & Hj. Darwani Lubis, and also her sister and brother; Asnida Rangkuti, S.Pd & dr. Zulkifli Rangkuti who have given their endless love, understanding, encouragement and full support to finish this study.

- All the Karonese families in Deli Tua for their kind hospitality during the data collection of the study.

- The writer’s colleagues in LTBI; especially Minda Mora, S.Pd., M.Hum., Nurhafni Siregar, S.Pd., M.Hum., Ira Ayu Delita, S.Pd, Fitrilia Brahmana, S.S and all friends that cannot be mentioned further for the stimulating discussion, for the exhausted days she was working together, and for all the fun she has had during the academic years at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program.

Finally, she must admit that the content of this thesis is far from being perfect, so she warmly welcomes any constructive ideas and criticism that may improve the quality of the thesis. She also hopes that this thesis would be useful for the readers, especially those who are majoring in English.

_{Medan, September 2013} The writer,

Linda Astuti Rangkuti

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 7

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 8

1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 8

1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 9

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 The Nature of Interaction... 10

2.1.1 Formal Interaction... 10

2.1.2 Informal Interaction... 11

2.2 Politeness... 11

2.2.1 Politeness Strategies... 14

2.2.2 Types of Politeness Strategies... 18

2.2.2.1 Bald On-Record Strategy... 18

2.2.2.2 Positive Politeness Strategy ... 20

(10)

2.2.2.4 Off-Record Indirect Strategy... 32

2.3 The Karonese... 38

2.3.1 Politeness in the Karonese... 40

2.4 The Expression of Politeness in the Karonese... 43

2.4.1 Using Kinship Forms ... 43

2.4.2 Using Pronoun... 46

2.5 Factors that Influence Politeness... 46

2.5.1 Social Distance... 47

2.5.2 Power... 48

2.5.3 Rank of Imposition... 48

2.6 Family... 49

2.7 Deli Tua... 50

2.8 Previous Research... 50

2.9 Conceptual Framework... 51

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 The Research Design... 53

3.2 The Subject of the Study... 53

3.3 The Instrument of Data Collection... 54

3.4 The Technique of Data Collection... 55

3.5 The Technique of Data Analysis... 56

(11)

vii

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 The Data and Data Analysis... 61

4.1.1 Types of Politeness Strategies Used by the Karonese Families... 62

4.1.1.1 Bald on Record Strategy... 62

4.1.1.2 Positive Politeness Strategy... 71

4.1.2 The Expression of Politeness by the Karonese Families... 75

4.1.2.1 Using Kinship Forms... 75

4.1.2.2 Using Pronoun... 77

4.1.3 The Factors that Caused the Karonese Families Using the Dominant Type... 79

4.1.3.1 Social Distance... 79

4.1.3.2 Power... 82

4.1.3.3 Rank of Imposition... 83

4.2 Findings... 84

4.3 Discussion... 85

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions... 87

5.2 Suggestions... 88

REFERENCES ... 89

(12)

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 4.1 Types of Politeness Strategies Used by the Karonese

Families at Home... 73 Table 4.2 The Percentage of Politeness Strategies Used by the Karonese

(13)

(14)

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Possible Strategies for Doing Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)... 15 Figure 2 Politeness Strategies Adapted From Brown and Levinson ... 16

(15)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix I Transcript of Reccorded Observation ... 93 Appendix II Transcript of Recorded Interview ... 105

(16)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of the Study

Batak ethnic consists of five parts namely; Batak Toba, Batak Simalungun, Batak Pak-Pak Dairi, Batak Angkola-Mandailing and Batak Karo. Batak Karo or the Karonese is an ethnic that inhabited the highlands of Karo, North Sumatra. The highlands of Karo consist of Karo Regency plus neighbouring areas in East Aceh Regency, Langkat Regency, Dairi Regency, Simalungun Regency and Deli Serdang Regency (Prinst, 2004:12).

The Karonese use Karo language in their daily life. In interacting with each other, they use polite language with soft intonation. Therefore, they are known as a polite ethnic. The Karonese call politeness with “mehamat”. They have a philosophy of life, that is being polite or praise to Kalimbubu or in a Karo language is called with “Mehamat man Kalimbubu”. Kalimbubu is a group of people which is very honored in the Karonese. In their daily life, they call Kalimbubu with „dibata ni idah‟ (God that can be seen). If they do not use these, they will be called „si la meteh adat‟ means someone who does not know the customs or an impolite person (Prinst, 2004: 51). But, nowadays this utterance has been changed, because religion has changed their culture. The Karonese do not use this utterance to praise their Kalimbubu as God, because they have believed that there is only one God who created them. So, it has broken the culture of the

(17)

Karonese which praise to Kalimbubu as God, but they still respect the Kalimbubu only as the honorable people.

The Karonese also has another philosophy of life to show their politeness in the society, that is “Ula kataken si tuhuna, tapi kataken sitengteng na”. It means do not say directly what is on your mind, but say a better word to save a

person‟s face. For example, if someone uses a red dress and that dress do not match to her skirt, the speaker in this case do not want to say directly to that person or hearer that she wears a bad dress, or her dress and skirt do not match each other. The speaker will say, it is better for you to wear a green dress than red, because your skirt are green too. It is done to make the speaker and hearer feel comfortable, so that the communication can run well.

Besides, in the Karonese there is also a norm or „taboo‟ to do and to say. It is known with „rebu‟ (pantang). Prinst (2004:157) says in „rebu‟ a certain speaker cannot do oral communication with a certain hearer directly; because of the status of the speaker and hearer. For example, a daughter in law (permain) cannot speak directly to father in law (bengkila) and mother in law (mami) also cannot speak directly to son in law (kela), if this is not obeyed they will get the punishment, and they will be categorized as an impolite person or „si la meteh adat‟. If they want to communicate they have to conduct through intermediaries, and the intermediaries can be either human or object. The human can be a close relative like grandson, son, wife, or husband.

(18)

The Karonese have their own culture and it differs from other ethnics. They have their own rule and policy so if someone comes out from the rule s/he will be judged as an impolite person. Sometimes, what is considered polite in one culture can be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context. For example, in the way to say something, the Javanese usually speak with a soft voice, so if they speak loudly, they will be categorized less or impolite. In contrast with the Bataknese, speaking in a loud voice is not related to the level of politeness. Another example is between two countries, Indonesia and United States of America, in Indonesia, it is not polite to call our parents by using their first names. However, in the United States, it is fine to call our parents by using their first names. All of this happen because every ethnics and countries have different culture even everyone also has different personal culture.

When people communicate, they do not only exchange information, but speaker and the listener consciously or unconsciously shape their interpersonal relationships at the same time. How the relationships develop, i.e.whether they are enhanced, maintained, deteriorated, or repaired, depends on many aspects. One factor that can influence the effect of a message brings out, and thereby contribute to determine the development of the relationships between the interlocutors, is the way people use a language. According to Coulmas (2005:84), “speakers make many choices when speaking, including the politeness level of their utterances”. Thus, every verbal utterance, since it is a use of language, bears with a certain degree of politeness. The degree of politeness in speaking is not the same in every people. It is influenced by some factors like age, sex, state of health, personality,

(19)

size, and emotional state. Besides, the way people talk is influenced by the social context in which they are talking. Moreover, social factors influence the choice of appropriate ways of speaking in different social contexts. Furthermore, the way people communicate is different in each ethnic and country. It is based on their culture and habit. Culture is the significant factor in politeness. Each culture influences the way its people talking because language is part of culture and vice versa. That is why, politeness and culture have a close relationship.

Politeness is employed to show awareness of another person‟s face, because every person has a face which identifies whether a person is socially distant or close. Face is the public self-image of a person and it refers to the

respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that “self

-esteem” in public or in private situations. By studying the politeness, people can be wise to determine the choice of words and phrases or linguistic variant in expressing the ideas or meaning in a given context.

Politeness is not something we are born with, but something we have to learn and be socialized into (Watts, 2003:9). He adds that human societies use communication strategies to avoid or minimize conflict and increase comfortable situation. In addition, Brown (1987) says being polite is a complicated business in any language. It is difficult to learn because it involves understanding, not only the language, but also the social and cultural values of the community. In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987) say that in order to enter into social relationships, all people must acknowledge the face of another people, because the utterances

(20)

through the language that they use will be a judgement whether they are polite or not. So, The utterances should be able to save the hearer‟s face.

Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that there are four types of politeness strategies, and the strategies are focus on saving the hearer‟s face. They are; (1) Bald on-record strategy, (2) Positive politeness strategy, (3) Negative politeness strategy, and (4) Off-record indirect srategy. Bald on record strategy is a strategy where the speakers do the act of saying directly. For example: “give me

that book”, means the speaker say the intention directly that s/he wants that book. Positive politeness strategy is a strategy where the speakers give any reasons or

explanation in their speech and attempt to do something. For example: “Is it ok, if I use that book?”. In this situation, the speaker recognizes that the hearer has a desire to be respected. Negative politeness strategy is a strategy which is almost similar to positive politeness, in that the speaker recognizes that the hearer wants

to be respected. For example: “I‟m sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to ask you if I could use that book?”. Off-record indirect strategy is a strategy where the speakers do not say directly what they want to say but with doing the obscure act.

For example: “I forgot my book”, the speaker does not say directly what s/he wants but s/he actually has the same intention as bald on record strategy, that is s/he needs that book and want to use it.

In Indonesia, where the society is bound to traditional values, politeness is regarded as a set of rules of proper conduct or manners that are determined and agreed by a group of society called as “tata krama” Muslich (2006:1). It is a conventional agreement that should be fulfilled by any members of society.

(21)

Politeness is not only reflect a person‟s manner or behavior as an individual, but it reflects also to the family honor. Politeness brings a huge impact on the honor of Indonesian family. For example, when a child is considered not to be polite to others, it is not the child his/herself as an individual that will be judged by other people but the parents will. People would not say for example “you‟re such an

impolite child” to a child for being impolite but very often people will say “who

is your dad/parents?” or extremely by asking “what is your marga?” towards

Bataknese child. In this case, politeness has a function of maintaining honor or

“good name” of family. Consequently, the politeness phenomena become not

only the responsibilities of a child as a member of society but also the responsibilities of the parents. Politenss is closely regarded as a means to maintain

family‟s honor.

In line with this, Byron (1990) in her paper “Language of Politeness”

outlines the importance of politeness in the development of children‟s language.

According to this author, the importance of politeness is that it forms a vital part of the socialization process during which the skills of adulthood are acquired. A child spends many years developing just this social competence or awareness,

aided by parents who say „what‟s the magic word?‟ when „please‟ or „thank you‟ is required, or „say bye-bye to auntie‟ when one of mummy‟s friends is leaving. It is in this way that the child is socialized in the types of behavior and language use sanctioned by and typifying his social group. Thus, politeness can be understood as a basic to the production of social order and a precondition of children interaction.

(22)

The reasons above make the writer chooses the family as the object of the study. Besides, the family is the core of any community. It provides the first models for social interaction, social security and assistance throughout a person's life. This fact has motivated the writer to conduct a study dealing with politeness strategies particularly in the Karonese families in their informal interaction in order to find out the politeness strategies which are used by native speakers of the Karonese families in Deli Tua.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

In relation to the background, the problems are formulated as the following:

1. What types of politeness strategies used by the Karonese families in Deli Tua at home?

2. How do the Karonese families in Deli Tua express politeness strategies at home?

3. Why do the Karonese families use those types of politeness strategies as the way they are?

(23)

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 Karonese families in Deli Tua at home.

2. to describe the process of expressing politeness strategies by the Karonese families in Deli Tua at home.

3. to explain the factors that cause the Karonese families use those types of politeness strategies as the way they are.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

The main aspect of this study is to describe politeness strategies used by the Karonese families when they express their utterances in everyday context of situation or in informal interaction at home. In this study, there are two ways relationship that were researched, first interaction parent to parent, and second interaction parent to child. The resarcher also scope the location of the research is in Deli Tua, Deli Serdang Regency.

(24)

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 Karonese. They are also expected to give the contribution as guiding information for sociolinguistics students who are interested in the study of politeness strategies.

Practically, the findings of this study are expected to be useful for teachers lecturers, and parents. firstly, for teachers and lectures, they can use the politeness strategies either in University or high school. Secondly, for the parents, the findings of this study can be made as the model in order to guide their children in using politeness strategies

(25)

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.

(26)

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

(27)

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.

(28)

Flores, H. 1999. Politeness Ideology in Spanish Colloquial Conversations: The Case of Advice. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (1): 37.

Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 2: 219-236. Fukada, A. & Asato, N. 2004. Universal Politeness Theory: Application to the

Use of Japanese Honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 1991-2002. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual, Essays on Face -to-Face Behavior . Garden

City, New York: Doubleday.

Goody, E.N. 1978. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gu, Y. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 237-257.

Hassal, T. 1999. Request Strategies in Indonesia. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (4): 585.

Held, Gudrun. 1999. Submission Strategies as an Expression of the Ideology of Politeness: Reflections on the Verbalization of Social Power Relations. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (1): 21.

Holmes, J. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Longman

Jary, M. 1998. Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 3: 30.

Kienpointer, M. 1999. Ideologies of Politeness: Foreword. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (1): 1.

Klotz, P. 1999. Politeness and Political Correctness: Ideological Implications. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (1): 155.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage Publication, inc.

Locher, M. A. & Richard, J. W. 2005. Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (5): 9-33.

(29)

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

Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murni, S. M. 2009. Kesantunan Linguistik Dalam Ranah Sidang Dewan

Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Unpublished Disertation, University of North Sumatra: Indonesia.

Muslich, M. 2006. Kesantunan Berbahasa: Sebuah Kajian Sosiolinguistik. Article submitted in Pendidikan Network:www.pendidikan.network.co.id [retrieved on June 2012).

Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B (Eds). 1979. Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

Odriscoll, J. 2007. What’s in an FTA? Reflections on a Chance Meeting With Claudine. Journal of Politeness Research. 3 (7): 243-268.

Prinst, D. 2004. Adat Karo. Medan: Bina Media Printis.

Putra, B. 1981. Adat Karo dari Jaman ke Jaman. Medan: Yayasan Massa.

Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Salom, L. & Monreal, C. 2009. Interacting With the Reader: Politeness Strategies in Engineering Research Article Discussions. International Journal of English Studies.

Sembiring, E. M. 2012. Politeness Strategies in Karonese Language “Cabur

Bulung”. Unpublished Master Thesis, State University of Medan,

Medan: Indonesia.

Sianturi, S. 2012. Politeness Strategies Used By Batak Toba Teenagers. Unpublished Master Thesis, State University of Medan, Medan: Indonesia.

Singarimbun, M. 1975. Kinship, Descent, and Alliance Among the Karo Batak. London: University of California Press, Ltd.

Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

(30)

Tanjung, N. K. 2008. Politeness Strategies in Apologizing by French Native Speakers. Unpublished Master Thesis, State University of Medan, Medan: Indonesia.

Terkourafi, Marina. 1999. Frames for Politeness: A Case Study. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (1): 97.

Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.

Watts, R. J. 1999. Language and Politeness in Early Eighteenth Century Britain. International Journal of Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9 (1): 5 Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.