THE IMPOLITENESSSTRATEGIES USED BY FEMALE
LODGERS INTERACTION IN BOARDING HOUSE
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
MARITA SARI SITANGGANG
Registration Number: 8136112051
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
ABSTRACT
Sitanggang M. S. Registration Number: 8136112051. The Impoliteness Strategies Used by Female Lodgers in Boarding House Interaction. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. 2016.
ii ABSTRAK
Sitanggang, M. S. NIM: 8136112051. Strategi Ketidaksantunan Yang Digunakan Oleh Wanita Penghuni Kos di dalam Interaksi Rumah Kos. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise and thank to the Almighty God Jesus Christ, for the blessings and
guidance to the writer so that the writing of this thesis can finally be accomplished
as it should be. This thesis is a scientific writing that has to be completed in order
to fulfill one of the academic requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora
at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program; Post Graduate School, State
University of Medan. It has also shown the responsibility and capability of the
writer as an academician to be able to conduct a research that would contribute to
the development of scientific knowledge.
However, without the assistance of these followingnumber of people who have
given valuable suggestions and useful influences on the writing ofthis thesis, it
would be much more difficult for the writer to finish her work. She is thendeeply
indebted to these people and would like to express her sincere thanks.
The writer would like to deliver her grateful appreciation and gratitude to her
first adviser Dr.SitiAisyahGinting,M.Pd, and her second adviser
Dr.RahmadHusein, M.Ed. for their great care, patient guidance, excellent
advices, and precious time in guiding her in the process of completing this thesis.
Her gratefulness also goes to the Head and Secretary of the English Applied
Linguistics Study Program, Dr. RahmadHusein, M.Ed. andDr. Anni Holila
Pulungan, M. Humfor their kind support toward the prerequisites of the thesis
submission as well as the encouragement to work hard toward the thesis proposal.
Her sincere gratitude is also given to Prof. Dr. BornokSinaga, M.Pd, as the
Furthermore, the writer would like to thank Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.
Pd, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Sri MindaMurni, M.S., and Dr. RahmadHusein, M.Ed.
for their constructive comments and suggestions in advancing the thesis quality.
Her deepest gratitude and tremendous appreciations are presented to her
parents, AIPTU Eli SitanggangandMasry Br. Manik ,S.Pdfor their never
ending support,pray, care and love to encourage her to learn and pursue her
education to the master degree. To all her beloved families who always pour her
with all their compassion; especially to her sisters and brother
EwitaSurumintangBr Sitanggang,S.Pd, RissaAyu Roma Ito Br. Sitanggang,
S.Pd, AdriHasiholanSitanggang, S.Kom, Vivi Silvia Br. Sitanggang. To her
beloved daughter especially;Eiffelyn Canada TyoLan and Jessica Margareth
Queen Leeta Br. Gultom.
Last but not least, the writer would like to thank all of her beloved friends in
B4 Class, Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School at State
University of Medan,Maida M.Hum, Lestari RumahHorbo, IkaCwantika, Mia
FitriTinambunan, KakLisnaRifka Diana,NurulHidayahAzmi,
KakFriska,Rozy,KakMuvidah,BukElmariyanti, PakKaryanto.
And my beloved Man,Brigadir Roy MarulySimamora in
SamosirPangururan North Sumatera. Thank you very much for the time to discuss
and exchange ideas, suggestion, laugh and love while working on the thesis as
well as their prayers, encouragement and support.
Medan, September 2016 The Writer,
Marita Sari Sitanggang
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT...i
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………..ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...iii
LIST OF TABLES...vii
LIST OF FIGURES...viii
LIST OF APPENDICES...ix
CHAPTERIINTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of The study...1
1.2 The Problemof The Study ...10
1.3 The Objective ofTheStudy ...11
1.4The Scope of TheStudy ...11
1.5 The Significance of The Study ...12
CHAPTERIIREVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1.1The Concept of Impoliteness ...13
2.1.2The Definition of Impoliteness ...15
2.2. The Types of Impoliteness Strategy ...17
2.2.1 Bald on Record Impoliteness ...17
2.2.2 Positive Impoliteness ...19
2.2.3 Negative Impoliteness ...20
2.2.4 Sarcasm or Mock Politeness ...22
iv
2.3.Responding to Impoliteness ...23
2.4. The Reasons of Using Impoliteness ...25
2.4.1 The way of Using Impoliteness ...26
2.5. Language and Gender ...30
2.5.1.Female and Male Differences ...30
2.51.1Female ...30
2.5.1.2 Male ...32
2.6Power ...33
2.6.1Power in Discourse ...34
2.6.2 Power Behind Discourse ...35
2.7 Boarding House ...36
2.7.1 Definition of Boarding House ...36
2..7.2Function of Boarding House ...37
2.8 The Relevant of Study. ...38
2.9 The Conceptual Construct ...43
CHAPTER IIIRESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 45
3.2 The Source of Data ... 46
3.3 The Subject and Object of The Study ... 46
3.4 The Technique of Data Collection ... 46
3.5The Instrument of Data Collection ... 47
3.6 The Technique of DataAnalysis ... 47
3.7 The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 50
3.6.2 Confirmability ... 51
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 Data Analysis ... 53
4.1.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used By Female Lodgers ... 53
4.1.2 Bald On Record Impoliteness ... 53
4.1.1.2Positive Impolitenes ... 56
4.1.2.1 Negative Impoliteness ... 58
4.1.2.2 Withhold Politeness ... 60
4.2.1 The Reasonfor Using Language Impoliteness ... 61
4.2.1.1 To mock other ...62
4.2.1.1 To Vent Negative Feelings... 63
4.3.1.1To Show Powet...63
4.4.1.1 To Show Dissagrement...65
4.4.5.1 To Clarify Something...66
4.1.2.5 To Show Dissatification...67
4.1.3 The Process of Impoliteness Strategies...69
4.1.3.1 Direct Speech Act …. ………...…...…69
4.1.3.2 Indirect Speech Acts ………...……71
4.2 Findings………..72
4.2.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used By Female Lodgers ……...73
4.2.2 The Pattern Of Responses Use by Female ... 75
4.2.3 The Reasons Of Using Impoliteness Strategies ... 76
vi
CHAPTER V CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion ………...78
5.2 Suggestion………..…….79
REFERENCES………..8
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 Types of the impoliteness strategies used by mother lodger and female lodgers
in the House Interaction………...69
4.2 The process impoliteness used by female lodgers ………...………..70
4..2.1Indirect speech table ………71
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
LIST OS APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. The Transcription Impoliteness Strategies Produced By Female
In Boarding House Interaction ……… …88
2. Impoliteness Strategy Produced By The Five Subjects ………108
3. The Data Display Of The Types Impoliteness Forms and Responses…118
4. The Process of Impoliteness strategies used by Female Lodgers……...118
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of The Study
In interaction impoliteness is one such rule. As a human being impolite
is the way to make communication with other people because of one of them
doesn‟t like or something happen who make them really rudeness. The
phenomena dealing with impoliteness strategies come from different language
users such as adults, teenagers, or children, and lodgers also actually used by
female. In Indonesian language, for instance, the word „keluarlah‟ (go out),
„kau‟(you),„tolol‟(stupid) are often added to the request sentences in order to
indicate the impoliteness.
But,sometimes the different condition and background life of people create
the different way to produce their language. Language is the most significant and
colosal work that human spirit has envolved. Interaction is commonly defined as a
kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon another.
At the boarding house, here the position of lodgers that live in boarding
house, among them:, lecture, big boss( as an owner of boarding house). They all
have the duty and responsibility in the boarding house. And automatically it could
be affecting the level of impoliteness between them.
When a speaker wants to show his dislikes or critiques to someone, the
words spoken are not direct and threatening the hearer‟s face. These rules lives in
the society without being formally taught and by applying them, good social
2
relationships with other people would be established, which help in creating
friendships, getting jobs, and simply giving a good impression of oneself.
According to KBBI (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia) Dictionary is the
right word boarding house, whereas in English cost means the price or payment.
Boarding house is a place that is provided to facilitate women and men, from
students, college students, and workers in general to stay, and with the payment
per month, or as the owner (there are a few months per year). The function of this
boarding house as a residence, the current has moved the addition of activities and
means of support both on-site building (boarding house) and around the boarding.
For example there are boarding houses which provide facility cafe at the front of
the boarding house, which opened a day or a few hours to the public, then the
restaurant facility, facilities of health, and so on.
Boarding house canalso be called home lodging. It is a house that people
use the team to stay for one day or more, and sometimes for a period of time
longer eg weekly, monthly or yearly. Formerly, the boarding house usually use
the bathroom or washing facilities, pantry and dining room together. But years
lately, the room turned into a boarding house room has a laundry room and the
bathroom facilities or pantry own and inhabited in the long term, for example
monthly or yearly. In addition, according to DKI PROVINCE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING JAKARTA notion of Boarding House is housing lodging /
boarding house is a house that use partially or entirely used as source income by
the owner to receive the occupant lodgement at least 1 (one) month by collecting
3
A boarding house is a house (frequently a family home) in which lodgers
rent one or more rooms for one or more nights, and sometimes for extended
periods of weeks, months, and years.This service is not free; lodgers have to pay a
number of specific payments for each period, which is usually calculated per
month or per weekafter the payment transaction before someone can stay alive in
the place he wants. In addition, lodgers have to obey the boarding house
management. Ideally, the lodgers have to speak well to the mother of boarding
house in conveying the message in daily communication, for instance, using the
language politeness. Language politeness is needed in every situation, included in
the boarding house situation, because it will maintain the harmony of relationship
between lodgers and mother of boarding house and to avoide the social conflict.
In fact, one can be impolite if she/he cannot understand the situation
happened. In the boarding house interaction, the lodgers have to avoid the
impolite langauge to the mother of boarding house as it will affect their
disharmony in communicating each other. As stated by Culpeper (2005: 38), the
impoliteness is communicative strategies designed to attack face, and thereby
cause social conflict and disharmony.
In boarding house interaction, the mother of boarding house is a powerful
participant who has a power to command, ask, or forbid something to the lodgers
in the boarding house. Therefore, it is might if the mother of boarding house
often produce the language impoliteness to the lodgers especially in remembering
4
In the other words, power seems to have a close relationship with
impoliteness. As Culpeper (2007: 25) states that the impoliteness always involves
power. It cannot be explained without contextualization. Therefore, power have to
connect with the impoliteness in different ways, includes the impolite
performance in language and the context. Besides that, Culpeper (1996: 350)
defines that the impoliteness is more likely to occur in situation where there is an
imbalance power is reflected in its relatively refuent appearance. Therefore, one
who has a power can speak more impoliteley in one situation rather than a less
powerfull person.
As researcher‟s observation in White Boarding house, it is found that there
is a lack of slack in which the mother of boarding house have less power than the
lodgers, especially female lodgers. This phenomenon can be found when the
lodgers try to produce the impolite utterances to the mother of boarding house.
In the morning 06.00 the female lodgers wake up and run to the
bathroom, because the condition of bathroom just have two rooms , and the
female lodgers must be quickly.
F1(DS) :Weeeii…..!!manusiacepatkanklenyangmandiitu!Sakbokeraku (gedorgedorpintukamarmandi)
(heii you Girl hurry up! I‟m headache ( knock the door) F2 (DF) : Barujugamasuklohkampret (I‟ve entered just now). F1(DS) : ihhtaiklah..(ohh Damn!)
F2 (DF) : (silent)
(ML) :Tolongjanganteriakya. (Don‟t make noise please) F1 (DS) : “CemanatakteriakBUK!! Orang ini pun BERAK
dihayatikale, udah tau kampusawakujungkulonsana.
5
Based on the context, F1 speaks impolitely to the mother lodgers (ML)
despite of the fact that a mother lodgers must be respected. Those the F1and F2
utterances make it impolite referring to the context. The social context in the
boarding house make the ML should be respected. In that context, the females
disagreement to her mother lodgers (ML). Seeking disagreement is one of the
output strategies of positive impoliteness. Positive impoliteness is one of five
strategies of impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996 :3356) which means to
damage the addressee‟s positive wants.
From the talking above, the case taken on Friday, December 12, 2015 at
6.00 a.m. It can be seen that the F1 produced impolite utterances when she spoke
to his friend F2. The F1was angry to herfriend because F2 take bath before her F2.
The F1 should not have saidutterance ”manusia” and sakbokeraku”toherfriends
in the boarding house because it was a taboo word. Then, she also ignored F2
when the F2 responded F1 by producing the impolite utterances
„barujugamasuklohkampret. All of the first females‟ utterances showed positive
impoliteness where it was designed to damage the F2 positive face wants.
In this case, the F2 also utilized the impoliteness by responding
„barujugamasuklohkampret’ which showed the defensive counter strategies in
which it was intended to show contradict directly. However this defensive moved
heightens the emotion of the F1 that she produced by saying‟‟ihtaiklah’’. Then,
the F2 did not respond the F1, just silent after listening the F1 spoke. If it related
6
not finish take a bath, the first female produced impolite utterances in showing her
anger. This case is produced to vent negative feelings.
As previously mentioned, this kind of behavior by the female can be
imitated by the other female. It can be seen in this following case where the
female uses impoliteness during communication.
Indri : “samakitapigiwoy”(bekaca)
(don‟t leave me (looking the mirror)) Tina :”hei... tunggu”(hei, wait)
Rika :”isss, ygtobalan make up mu macamkunti” (Issss, your make up so ugly like ghost) Indri : “seriuskw??” (ketawa)
Rika : udahlahitu, bukancantikkaubermake up, bermake up, soksok an)
Indri : ihh (mukamutung)
Ibu Kos (ML) : “kalauudahmaupergi di tutupgerbangnyaya indri “
Indri : “ ihhjanganlahakubuk, taktolapakunarekgerbangnyabuk,
kauygnutupntiikong ”
From the conversation above, researcher is sit in living room on Saturday,
December12th, 2015 at 07.05 p.m. Rika appliedto the negative impoliteness;
condescend, scorn or ridicule, by saying: isss, yang tobalan make up mu
macamkunti’. As Culpeper stated, the utterances above showed that Rika showed
negative behavior and tried to damage the addressee‟s negative face wants
through condescend, scorn or ridicule. Rikas‟ produced the impolite utterances is
to get the power in which it occurs when there is an imbalance of social structural
power. Besides that, after Rika attacks Indri by applying impoliteness strategy,
7
agreement and ignore the attack. The application of impoliteness in the boarding
house interaction can be worse if she (female) allows it to occur and support the
production of impolite utterances as occured in this phenomenon in which the
others female just smilling when Rika attacked Indri.
The primary utterances above show that impolite utterances often occur in
the boarding house interaction from all aspects such as female 1 to female 2,
female 3 to female 4 or back to female 1, and feedback to f1 to f1. This case could
lead to disharmony among them.
The unconsciousness of females in producing impoliteness during
communication can affect to the others female mental and attitude. It can break
down their mental. Not to mention, there is a tendency that female lodgers would
unconsciously consider that this kind of behavior is acceptable and therefore try to
imitate. They tend to produce impolite utterances and it will lead to the decrease
of their value.
Another language impoliteness uttered by the female lodgers to the mother
lodgers can be seen in this example observed by the researcher on 1 December
2015 at Peratun boarding house.
When a mother lodgers asked t the her female lodgers to pay the coast of
the room, because here the case is one of the female of lodgers still not yet pay
the coast of the room. She came to the female and seats and asked to her.
Mother lodgers (ML) : “Oyaadek, kakakmaumintasiasauangkost mu” (
8
Female lodger (MY) ; “ Belomadauangakubuksekarang” ( I don‟t have
money now ma‟am .)
ML : “Ok, sayakasihwaktulahyadek“( pergimeninggalkan
tempatduduk)
MY e… monyong- monyong tau lagibokek pun!!
In that situation, the female lodger did negative and positive impoliteness
strategies. He did a negative impoliteness strategy since she uttered the pronoun “
AKU/I” to her mother lodgers. Culpeper ( 1996 356) states that personalize, use
the pronouns “ I “ and You‟, is one of the output strategy of negative
impoliteness. In addition, that female lodgers also used a taboo word when she
said“ e.. monyong-monyong” to her mother lodger. The word “monyong” is a
taboo word since it is profence language to be said to the older person. It should
be noted that the situation is formal (she is a female and spoke that sentence to the
mother lodger at boarding house ) and that use of taboo word is unilateral. Using
taboo word is one of output strategies of positive impoliteness proposed by
Culpeper (1996:357). The positive impoliteness strategy means to damage the
addresses positive wants. He attacked the teacher‟s positive face. The positive
face here means a desire from a person to be respected and needed by others.
The unconsciousness of females lodger in producing impoliteness during
communication can affect to the others female mental and attitude. It can break
down their mental. Not to mention, there is a tendency that students would
9
imitate. They tend to produce impolite utterances and it will lead to the decrease
of their value.
Based on the phenomena above, the researcher is interested in
investigating the use of impoliteness strategies as this area of study still remains
unknown. The previous impoliteness researches mostly deal with the occurrence
of impoliteness in classroom Interactionby Ersika (2015) and. She focused on
the use of impoliteness strategies in classroom interaction. She analyzed the data
by using Culpeper‟s strategies of impoliteness. Then, she found out that there are
some impoliteness strategies which occurred in that case, they are bald on record,
positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness strategies, and withholding
politeness. Nevertheless, it would seem mock politeness is not found in this study,
while bald on record strategies and sarcasm are the impoliteness strategies that
House uses most frequently. In addition, it is found that the most of the patients
completely ignore classroom‟s impolite, sometimes extremely insulting, remarks.
Marlina (2015) applied the impoliteness model by Culpeper‟s strategies
entitled “The Impoliteness strategies by use children of 3 years old”. In this case,
Marlinawould like to figure out what impoliteness strategies, types using children
of 3 years old. She analyzed the participants‟ utterances based on Culpeper‟s
theory (1996) of impoliteness strategies. She found out that all impoliteness
strategies occur in the show with bald on record impoliteness as the most
dominant strategy.
Based on the researches that have been studied by Ersika (2015) and
10
Culpeper can be found in those studies. Although five of the impoliteness
strategies have been studied, classroom interaction have different cultural contexts
with impoliteness using children of 3 years old. Therefore, the researcher expects
to find out the realization of typical impoliteness strategies in the boarding house
interaction.
Based on the phenomena above, the researcher is interested in
investigating the use of impoliteness strategies in boarding house still remains
unknown. Therefore, the researcher expects to find out the realization of typical
impoliteness strategies in the boarding house interaction. Therefore, this area of
the study is an intriguing academic inquiry and it will focus on the impoliteness
strategies in boarding house interaction used by the female lodger to the mother of
boarding house female in order to find out what types of impoliteness strategies
and why they occur (have a power )
1.2 The Problems of the Study
The problems of the study are formulated as the following:
a. What types of impoliteness strategies arerealized by female lodgers of
boarding house in boarding houseinteraction?
b. How are the types of impoliteness strategies realized by female lodgers in
boarding house interaction?
c. Why are the types of impoliteness strategies realized by female lodgers in
11
1.3 The Objective of The Study
The objectives of this study are to find out the answer of the research
problems. To be more specific the objectives of the study are:
1. To find out the types of impoliteness strategies which are used by the
female lodger to the mother of boarding house in boarding house
interaction?
2. To explain the reasons of using the impoliteness strategies which are used
by the female lodger to the mother of boarding house in the boarding
house?
3. To explain the impoliteness strategies become dominant used by female
lodgers in boarding house interaction are realized the way they are.
1.4 The Scope of The Study
The scope of this study is to investigate the impoliteness strategies used by
female lodgers interaction in boarding house. Further, investigation is on what the
pattern of responses used by females and mother of lodger in boarding house
interaction, and why the impoliteness strategies are used by female lodgers
andmother lodger in boarding house interaction.
1.5 The Significance of The Study
The findings of the study are expected to This study investigates
impoliteness strategies used by female lodger to the mother of boarding house.
The focus is on types of impoliteness strategies, namely bald on record
12
politeness, and withholds politeness. Further, it focuses on the reason why the
impoliteness strategies are used by female lodger in boarding house interaction.
The researcher expects this study can give some relevant contribution both:
a) Theoretically, this study is considered to enrich the theories of pragmatics
and sociolinguistics, specifically give a better understanding and new insight on
how impoliteness strategies are related to the aspects of pragmatic study and it is
usefully considered to provide the information of what type of impoliteness
strategies and why the female lodgers use impoliteness strategy in boarding house
interaction.
b) Practically, the findings of the study are considered to contribute
information about impoliteness language in boarding house interaction for female,
lecturers, researchers, and also the government. Then, the findings of the study
can be a guidance for those who are interested to gain a deep insight especially in
84
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This study focused on the language impoliteness used by female lodgers to
the mother lodger in the boarding house interaction. It was aimed to find out the
types of impoliteness strategies and to explain the reason why language
impoliteness used by the lodgers to their mother lodgerin the boarding house
interaction. After analyzing the data, conclusions are drawn as the following.
1) There were four types of language impoliteness used by the female
lodgers in the boarding house interaction, namely 1) bald on record
impoliteness, 2) positive impoliteness, 3) negative impoliteness, and 4)
withhold politeness. Bald on record impoliteness was the most dominant
strategies used by thefemalein the boarding house interaction and the least
strategy was negative impoliteness politeness.
2) The use of language impoliteness in the boarding house interaction used
by the female lodgers have some reasons.From the females’ perspective,
they spoke impolitely to their mother lodger because they wanted (a) to
mock others (b) to vent negative feeling, (c) to show power, (d) to clarify
something, (e) to show disagreement, and (f) to show dissatisfaction. To
vent negative feeling and mock was the most dominant reason used by the
84
perspective, the females uttered language impoliteness to them because a)
the mother lodger realized that they ignored the power which they actually
had, b) the lodgers tend to use impolite languages because of their social
environment around home and from the female lodgers’ family
background.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to
the readers as provided in the following items.
1) To the other researchers, it is suggested that this study could be further
expanded, elaborated and explored in other field in order to contribute the
development of impoliteness theories such as the use of impoliteness in
other application or literary works.
2) To all the readers, it is suggested to use the study as references for
understanding the application of impoliteness in boarding house
interaction.
3) To the lecturers teaching sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics; it is suggested
83
REFERENCES
Beebe, L. M.1995Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In: Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bogdan, Robert C., &Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education, An Introduction to Theory and Method. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 2010. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Struggle for Power in Bousfield, D. &Locher (eds,) Impoliteness in Language. Studies on Its Interplay with Power and Practice.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bousfield, D. 2007. Beginnings, middles and ends. A Biopsy of the Dynamics of ImpoliteExchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 39, 2185-2216.
Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Bousfield, D &Locher.ImpolitenessIn Language-Studies on Its Interplay with Power and Practice.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
Bryman, A. (2004). Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods.Retrieved September 8, 2014 from http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Trustworthypaper.pdf
Brown,P.andS.C.Levinson.1987.Politeness: Some Universals in LanguageUsage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Company.
Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy.
Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-131.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25.
84
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television
QuizShow: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2007.Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power. University of Lancaster.
Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards An Anatomy of Impolitness. Journal of Pragmatics.Volume 25, Issue 3, 349-367.
Culpeper, J. 1998. (Im)Politeness in Dramatic Dialogue. In Culpeper, J., Short,
M., and Verdonk,P. (eds.),Exploring the Language of Drama: From
Textto Context. London and NewYork: Routledge
Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited:
WithSpecialReference to Dynamic and ProsodicAspects.Journal of
Pragmatics35,1545-1579.
Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show:
The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language,
Behaviour,Culture. 1: 35-72.
Culpeper, J. 2011a. Impoliteness:Using Language to Cause Offence.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Dagarin, M. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English As a Foreign Language. Lbjubjana: University
Lbjubjana.
Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A theoretical Introduction to Sociological
Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. London: St Jerome Publishing.
Ellis, R. and Foto, S. 1999. Learning a Second Language Trhough Interaction. London:Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power, Language in Social Life Series. Essex: Longman Group UK
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.London: Routledge.
85
Perspective on GeneratingTheory from QualitativeFieldStudies. In M.
E.Whitman& A.B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of InformationSystemsResearch(pp.79–102). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Halliday, M.&Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspect of languagein a social semiotic perspective. Victoria Deakin University Press.
Hussein, Ashatu. 2009. The Use of Triangulation in Social Science Research:
CanQualitativeand Quantitative Methods Be Combined?Journal of
Comparative Social Work. 1, 3-5.
Garcia, F. F. 2014. Impoliteness, Pseudo-Politeness, Strategic Politeness? On the Nature of Communicative Behaviour in Electoral Debates. University of Jaén.
Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. A Genre Approach to the Study of Impoliteness. International Review of Pragmatics 2. 46–94.
Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Kuntsi, P. 2012. Politeness-Impoliteness Strategies Used by Lawyers in Dover
Trial.Unpublished M.A Thesis. New York.
Lincoln, Y and Guba, E, G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry.Sage Publication. Newbury Park, CA.
Laitinen, M. 2010. “You’re Orange, YouMoron!”: The Use of ImpolitenessStrategies in the American TV-Series House M.D.
UniversityJyväskyläDepartmentofEnglish.http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201005121774.
Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Miles, M. B. & Hubermasn, M. A. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: Expanded Source Book.
Marlina, S.2015. The Impoliteness strategies by used children of three years
ol.Medan :UNIMED Sage Publication.
Nasution, M.F. 2014. Language impoliteness in Jakarta Lawyers Club talk show. Medan: UNIMED.
Simanjuntak, Y. P. 2015. Language Impoliteness and Gender in Indonesia Lawak
86
Terkourafi, M. 2008. Toward Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rudeness.
Watts, R.J., S. Ide, K. Ehrlich. 1992. Introduction. Politeness in language: Studiesin its History, Theory and Practice.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Wardaugh, R. 1992.An Inroduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition.Oxford:Blackwell.
