CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Previous Study
Yatim (1983) identified honorific in his dissertation entitled Subsystem Honorific of Bahasa Makassar which focused on the development theory of generalization form which happens on traditional and modern societies in subsystem of honorific of Makassar language. In this research, the honorific is not only identified on sub system but the focused on high social status of achiever group’s consciousness in honorific in everyday dialogues.
Lucien Brown (1984), applied the interlanguage pragmatics study using mixed methodology to investigate the use of Korean honorifics by second-language (L2) speakers of Korean from "Western" backgrounds.
His research shown the speakers, despite their proficiency in Korean, often applied honorifics in ways that differed from local "norms: He set out to determine the extent to which these differences were due to deficiencies in knowledge per se, or otherwise the result of the speakers' identities as
"Westerners" and "foreigners': The competence of L2 speakers developed regarding honorifics was greatly influenced by ideologies pertaining to what it meant to "be polite" and "show respect'' and - more broadly - the differences between Korean and Western modes of politeness and social behavior.
15 This research analyzed eventhough the honorific expression that used by elite high social status of achiever groups to acknowledge their elitism or they indexed polite or politic. Politic means the strategy of achieved high social status in using Base Alus (BA)/honorific, whether they are true or have other tendency to express Base Alus (BA)/honorific,
Rabiana (1995) in her dissertation entitled The Respects Forms in Personal Pronoun Reference of Gorontalo languages which focus on typology analysis of personal pronoun reference of Gorontalo languages to gain whether there are forms, sameness, variation in takzim or respect system and whether there are dominant of personal and numeric system which indicated the domination of takzim or respectful of personal pronoun reference in Gorontalo language.
Those researchers analyzed the honorific as ideal form in Makassar and Gorontalo languages. In this research, researcher does not only focus on the ideal form of honorific but also on the use of Base Alus/honorific of Sasak Language in reality or in everyday dialogues among elite social status achiever and ascribed statuses in which the researcher treated the elite high social status of commoner (achiever group) as subject and object. Sasak Language (SL) also embedded the culture values of Sasak People (SPl) which released in honorific (H). Sasak culture and social stratification determined speech level and applied in Honorific Principle (HP). Honorific Principle (HP) in Sasak Language (SL) was not only
16 inherited in Addressing Form (AdF) but in all speech level as discussed in chapter four.
Ramsey, et al. (2000), stated that polite forms and rules of use of the system of honorifics are performed very differently by the culture of the country. Asian Honorific plays more significant role. The area of the world most known for its elaborate systems of person honorific is santansant – East Asia.
This research analyzed the way of speaking in structure of Sasak Language. Sasak People’s way of speaking is constructed by language, ideology and culture. Language, ideology and culture have a vital impact in everyday interaction among them. The speech levels to classify thing, human or to refer the other or himself constructed by language, ideology and culture in everyday dialogues.
Yule (2002: 5)stated that Sasak Language diexis Sasak Language level system consists of two sub-systems. Firstly, style system, which refers to three alternant forms Jajar Karang, madya, and utama (low, mid, and high) that concerned with the relation between addresser and addressee and marking an assessment of the relative social status and degree of familiarity between the discourse participants. Secondly, reference system, which marks deference to a person who may be the second or the third person of the discourse.
Yule was talking generally and formally about the system of Sasak language and about reference system(2002: 5). In this research the data
17 are gained through the formal event and the reality live or everyday dialogues, whether elite high social status of achiever groups are conscious in using honorific or having other tendencies which are constructed by ego-standing.
Akira Ishikawa (2003) conducted his research entitled “An Event Based Interpretation of Japanese Honorific Construction Using RRG Operators. He presented an analysis of subject honorific construction based on functioning analysis of existential and copulative verbs, and related them to adjectival verbs.
This research also sketched the possible background or the aim of elite high social status of achiever group in expressing honorific. The latest theoretical models of politeness that be implemented in this research is the theory that promoted by Watts (2003). This research focused on field of politeness; impolite, rude etc, are subject to discursive dispute in that participant in social interaction are to differ individuals, contribution to the interaction honorific expression.
Cynthia Dickel Dunn (2005) in her research result entitled “Japanese Honorific Use as Indexical of the Speaker’s Situational Stance: Towards a New Model”. She demonstrated traditional models of honorific use as rule-governed and obligatory cannot adequately account for the variation found in actual honorific use. Empirical evidence shows that speakers are not always consistent in their use of honorifics, even when talking about the same person in the same speech situation. Rather, speakers shift honorific
18 levels in order to index shifts in their situational stance and presentation of self. Such data challenge us to create a model of honorific use which can account for the interaction of sociolinguistic norms with speaker agency and volition rather than dichotomizing them. In the following sections, she first gave a general description of the Japanese honorific system and then provided an analysis of the use of humble verbs in speeches at Japanese wedding receptions. Rather than consistently using humble verbs for self-reference throughout the entire speech, speakers shifted between humble and non-humble forms to index shifts in their stance towards the speech situation. Humble forms were associated with the enactment of a formal, public role as “wedding speaker”, while shifts to non-humble verbs occurred when speakers momentarily stepped out of the wedding speaker role in order to comment on their own performance. The speeches provide evidence of both sociolinguistic norms and speakers’ ability to manipulate those norms to convey their stance towards the speech situation and social roles they enacted.
Meanwhile the subject of the speaker that analyzed in this research is the addressee and addresser (achieved high social status) of achiever who active in everyday dialogues. The speaker that analyzed in Dunn above is educated speaker who are speaking in formal context in ceremony wedding party and his reference of his expression is the second person. It is contradicted to the actors of the communication in this research are commoner (achiever group) who acknowledge their elitism
19 interaction in everyday dialogues. The references of their expressions are not only second person or third person but themselves or it can be called self-reference.
Shirado Tamotsu et al. (2007)conducted his research entitledSystem for Flexibly Judging the Misuse of Honorific in Japanese. They described the honorific levels; sonkeigo related to politeness status, kenjougo1 related to politeness that refer to object which involved in social politeness, kenjougo2 the relation of politeness with listener, and teinneigo is politeness related to person who is usually listener. They proposed a system that flexibly judges the misusage of honorifics in Japanese sentence. The system uses judgment rules whose degrees of validity in modern Japanese society were quantified by psychological experiments.
They focused their research formally on the expression of the speaker that refers to listener. In this research, the object of the study is the honorific expression which is used to acknowledged the elitism of achiever group which influenced by language and ideology language and culture. The honorific expression of addresser (elite) was not only referring to the addressee but also refers to him.
Kabaya (2009) carried out his research entitled KeigoHyougen. He investigated speech components; ba (place), ningenkamkei (participant relation), naiyou (content), ishiki/kimmeci (feeling), and keshiki/katachi (form) of Japanese. He considered sociolinguistics to investigate the sentence construction; linguistic factor (lexical / morphological), and
20 honorific language constitutes politeness as non linguistic aspects. His research analyzed the structure of Japanese speech components ideally /formally. In this research, researcher analyzed the honorific which is used to acknowledge the elitism by achiever group in reality dialogue of everyday dialogues. Kabaya gained the data syntactically formality, meanwhile in this research, the data gained syntactically, culturally as the ideal data and pragmatically from real communication or everyday dialogues.
Khalik (2009) conducted his research entitled “The Patterns of Sasak Code Choice”. This research concluded that Sasak people choose one code rather than another, the case that brings about the shifts from one code to another and the use of the code formed from two other codes by mixing the two in daily communication.
The reference of expression of the code that expressed by the addressee is to refer to addresser. Researcher analyzed the addressee expression which refers to addresser and to him. The addresser also expressed his expression when he responded the addressee address.
The focuses of the researches above are on the structure and the way of Honorific Principle (HP) used to acknowledge elitism by achiever group ranks ideally or formally.
The researcher has combined the linguistic factors with linguistic aspects of honorific in which addresser’s Honorific Expression (HE) refers to the addressee as object. The object of this research is achiever groups
21 of commoners who tend to respect each other by acknowledgement of elitism as much Base Alus as possible when they speak one another.
They are as object in Mahyuni (2004), Khalik (2009) and Austen (2010).
Sukarno (2010) explained the concept of culture in his research entitled “The reflection of Javanese Culture Concepts in the Politeness of Javanese”. Sukarno stated that Javanese is strongly influenced by the Javanese culture. Some concepts of the Javanese people, such as: tata krama, andhap-asor, and tanggap ing sasmita play the vital role in the politeness of Javanese. These concepts are clearly reflected in Javanese, especially as the devices of politeness.
He analyzed the honorific structure of Javanese which expressed by addresser that refers to the addressee, meanwhile this research analyzed the honorific expression of addressee that used by achiever group to acknowledge their elitism even though refers to addresser and also refers to himself. Addresser also active to respond the addressee’s addressing form and his respond also refer to himself.
Wong, Kit Ying. (2011), conducted his research entitled “The System of Honorific in Korean Language” (outstanding Academic paper by Students (OAPS). He States that “The System of Honorific in Korean are such follow; addressing seniority, social ranks, hierarchical culture, verbal inflection (subject-object honorific), reasons for honorific, system on difference speech level, and honorific acts”.
22 Ying research indicates that the position of (achiever group) addresser and addressee derived the honorific expression. The same also with this research talking about addressing form based on the concept of superior and inferior. The differences with this reseach are Sasak Language speech levels included in honorific. The expression of honorific does not only refer to the addresser but the addressee himself. The addresser respond the addressee addressing, the respond also refer to addresser himself.
Rahayu (2014) conducted her research entitled Comparison of Honorific Language in Javanese and Japanese speech community. He said that honorific language is a language expression to show respect given by speaker to the hearer. She focused on how the position of honorific language and the principles of using honorific language
She stated that Honorific language is manifested through diction containing honorific expression by taking social factors as the background of the utterance into account. She distinguished the levels of Javanese and Japanese Honorific such as; Javanese honorific ngoko and karma which are influenced by culture values nggahing base is language grammatical rule based the society. Japanese speech level (suphiichireberu); Futsuugo and Keigo, where Ngoko equal to futsuugo are their comparison is speech levels that is based on relation of horizontal dimension including pergroup. Krama equal to Keigo are level of language
23 which reflects relation of vertical dimension including old-young relation, honorific language social status etc.
In this research, instead of analyzing the honorific expression based on social factors (demography) the researcher also analyze the honorific expression based on the culturally (ethnography) which focused on the acknowledgement elitism by self-reference of the Actor (achiever groups) of communication in real live.
B. Theoretical Background