THE LANGUAGE OF APOLOGIES IN LAMPUNGNESE AND SUNDANESE:
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is a multicultural and multilingual country. There are hundreds of ethnical groups living in this country. Sundanese and Lampungnese are two ethnic groups from two different islands. Even both of them are united in a nation, each ethnic has its own unique culture and language. Further, despite of the truth that most of local languages in Indonesia are derived from Malay as their lingua franca and most of local cultures are closely bounded by Eastern culture each of local language and culture has its own view and characteristics which are different from each other.It is commonly believed that those ethnics have different cultures and believes, as in Sundanese and Lampunese. All this time, Sundanese people are considred to be friendly, polite, (Aziz, 1996) and Lampungnese people are considered to be direct and firm (http://supriliwa.wordpress.com/adat-istiadat-lampung/). Therefore, it is interesting to find out the pattern of their communication.
The cross-cultural comparison of speech behavior has always attractive. The basic assumption is that speech acts as apologies is translatable from language to language and that was needed to discover the set of linguistic realization performed by the same specific function in each language.
The speech act of apologizing is intended to restore equilibrium between speaker and hearer (Leech, 1983, p. 125) after the speaker did some offence to hearer. The offender must take what Goffman (1971) has called remedial work (cf. also Fraser, 1981). According to Oshltain (cf. Blum-Kulka, 1987) two main choices are available for apologizing in any language: the use of an IFID (illocutionary force indicating device) and /or the expression of responsibility. The choice of apologizing strategy also reveals the politeness strategy of the speakers, whether the speakers apply positive or negative politeness strategy in their utterances.
This study will investigate the apologizing strategies used by Sundanese and Lampungnese respondents then relates their apologizing strategy with their politeness strategy, within the seven apology situation in DCT and follow-up interview.
Research Questions
This study is intended to answer these following questions:
a) What are the strategies used by Lampungnese and Sundanese in the realization of apologies speech acts?
b) What are main features of language politeness principles in Lampungnese and Sundanese speakers?
Aims of the Study
a) The strategies used by Lampungnese and Sundanese in the realization of apologies speech acts. b) The main features of language politeness principles in Lampungnese and Sundanese speakers.
Scope of the Research
This study focuses only on politeness strategies used by Lampungnese and Sundanesein their realization of apology speech acts.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for two aspects:
1. For theoretical aspect, the result of this study is expected to give enrichment to the literature of the realization of apologies speech acts.
2. The result of the study hopefully will build more thoroughly understanding and consideration to the realization of apologies speech acts.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
There are some theories underpinning the research. Most of them are related to the cultures of Lampungnese and Sundanese, apologies speech acts, and politeness theory.
The Culture of Lampungnese and Sudanese
Sundanese is one of the biggest ethnic groups in Java. According to Aziz (2000) Sundanese is considered to have positive attitudes, such as friendly, polite, tolerant, gentle etc. The effect of being tolerant is easily to detect in the way Sundanese people communicate with others. They tend to be indirect, and try to prevent their hearer from losing face. They tend to hide their feeling and beat around the bush. Aziz (2000)also confirms that Sundanese tend to choose a softer way, unconfrontative, and there is string attached in their conversational patterns.In short Sundanese tend to believe in positive politeness.
in PiilPesenggiri, such as prestige, achievement, honour, cooperation and equality. In other words, Lampungnese people are considered follow negative politeness (http://supriliwa.wordpress.com/adat-istiadat-lampung/).
Apologies Speech Acts
In general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses a regression. As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed (Austin, 1975 cited in Levinson, 1983).
Speech acts are not just acts of producing certain sounds. Austin) identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of utterance itself. He distinguishes the act of saying something, what one does insaying it, and what one does by saying it, and dubs these the 'locutionary', the 'illocutionary' and the 'perlocutionary' act, respectively (Austin, cited in Levinson 1983, p.836).
The speech act of apologizing aims to restore equilibrium between speaker and hearer (Leech, 1983, p. 125) after some offence has been committed by S against H. The offender must take what Goffman (1971) has called remedial work (cf. Vollmer &Olshtain, 1989).
Further, Olstain and Cohen (1983) suggest the notion of an apology speech act set to encompass the potential range of apology strategies. The main categories include the following:
An IFID (be sorry: apologize; regret; excuse etc);
An expression of the speaker’s responsibility for the offence (Taking on responsibility);
An explanation or account of the cause which brought about the violation;
An offer of repair;
A promise of forbearance;
An intensification and
A downgrading.
When the speaker decides to express an apology verbally, he or she may choose one of the above-specified strategies or any combination of them.
Politeness Theories
value a person effectively claims for himself by the lines others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself.
Goffman idea that human possesses positive and negative faces is further developed by Brown & Levinson (1987). According to Brown & Levinson, in every speech act especially in face-threatening acts, every interlocutor should pay attention to both kinds of faces. Specifically, Brown & Levinson refer to three social aspects that would influence politeness realization in speech acts. Those aspects are social distance (D), relative power (P), and ranking of imposition, (I). Those three aspects depend on the environment and circumstance where the utterances take place. In the formula hey developed, the weight of politeness realization of a speech act is determined by the value of Wx in the following equation:
Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx
The formula assumes that each of variables can be measured at the scale 1 to n, and this n is a small number between 1 to 7 (cf. Miller 1967; Goodenough 1969).
In a different form Brown & Levinson, Grice (1975) said that politeness level of an utterance is defined by the ability of both interlocutors to understand each other and build cooperation through a principle called Cooperative Principle (CP). There are some maxims that should be followed by both interlocutors in CP. He formulates the maxim as follow:
a. Maxim of Quantity:
Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
b. Maxim of Quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
Do not say what you believe to be false.
c. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
d. Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous
Avoid obscurity of expression.
Avoid ambiguity.
Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
Be orderly.
(Grice 1975: 45-46).
Grice believes that if both interlocutors do not violate the maxims the communication will run politely. However, Grice himself doesn’t close any chances of possibility of violation to a certain maxim, and it might be covered by considering social factors as it is signaled by Brown & Levinson. Further, Brown and Levinson sum up human politeness behavior in four strategies, which correspond to these examples: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record-indirect strategy.
1. The bald on-record strategy does nothing to minimize threats to the hearer's “face”.
2. The positive politeness strategy shows you recognize that your hearer has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity.
3. The negative politeness strategy also recognizes the hearer's face. But it also recognizes that you are in some way imposing on them. Some other examples would be to say, “I don't want to bother you but...” or “I was wondering if...”
4. Off-record indirect strategies take some of the pressure off of you. You are trying to avoid the direct FTA of asking for a beer. Instead you would rather it be offered to you once your hearer sees that you want one.
Review of the Related Studies
There are some previous and related studies about the realization on speech act, including the research in a certain language and also across languages. The most frequent speech acts to be observed are requesting, apologizing, (Blum-Kulka et.al, 1989), complimenting, complaining and refusing. Aziz (1996, 2000) has conducted research to reveal the politeness realization of politeness among Sundanese people when they are faced to situations required them to do refusing speech acts. The study utilized DCT and interview to several focal respondents based on a certain criteria for collecting data. The study showed that Sundanese people tend to use softer, avoid conflict, and be followed by conforming expression. Vollmer and Olshtain (1989) also conducted a research on the language of apologies in German. They found that the most explicit realization of an apology, in any language including German, is clearly effected through the use of anIFID (illocutionary force indicating device). The apology data were collected via DCT of the CCSARP project comprising seven apology situations. This study focused on strategy types and on cross-cultural and interlanguage perspectives. Speakers’ preferences were found to interact with situational features far more than with social features that are external to the immediate context.
RESEARCH DESIGN
As previously discussed, the study seeks the answer to the following questions: (1)What are the strategies used by Lampungnese and Sundanese in the realization of apologies speech acts? (2) What are main features of language politeness principles in Lampungnese and Sundanese speakers?
This study employed a qualitative study method. This method can maintain close association with both participants and activities within the setting; so that the researcher gained an insider’s view of the field (Burns, 1994). Qualitative description can play an important role of suggesting possible relationship(s), causes, effect, and even dynamic processes in setting.
Research Site and Participant
The study was conducted in two different settings; Lampung and Kuningan. Sampled purposively, 10 Lampungnese and 10 Sundanese were involved in this study— they consisted of 10 college students of State Politechnic of Lampung and10 college students of Kuningan University.
Research Instruments
between the participants and their status relative to each other, followed by an incomplete dialogue. Respondents were asked to complete the dialogue in their own language,Lampungnese or Sundanese, thereby providing the speech act aimed at. The questionnaire contains of 7 situations which elicit apologies (see Appendix,….. ). In the following examples of test items:
Situation #S3
Anda meminjam sebuah buku pada teman baik anda. Pada saat anda akan mengembalikan buku tersebut tanpa sengaja anda menumpahakn kopi padaa buku tersebut. Apa yang akan anda katakan pada teman anda?
Anda__________________________________________________________________:
In terms of content, since all the respondents are students, the situations depicted by dialogues reflect the students’ everyday life. The situations are as follows:
S1 A college student walks in a rush and bumps into someone
S2 Acollege student can’t pay the electricity bill.
S3 A college student spill some coffee on friend’s book.
S4 A college student misrecognize someone.
S5 A college student is late to meet his/her lecturer.
S6 A college student forgets his/her promise to have a dinner.
S7 A college student miscalls someone on the phone.
After all the questionnaires were gathered and analyzed. Some focal respondents were picked for interview. The interview consists of five questions to dig deeper information about the realization of apologize produced by the respondents in DCT (see Appendix…..).
DATA ANALYSIS
The frameworks employed in the analysis are the strategies of apologizes adapted from Blum-Kulka, House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989, pp. 19-21). All of the responses will be firstly divided based on the respondents’ ethnicity, and then based on the strategy used. Afterward, to investigate the politeness strategies performed by the respondents, Brown & Levinson (1978) politeness theory was utilized.
The Findings
1. Apologizing Strategies
This section presents the descriptions of the responses to 7 apologizing situation produced by 8 Sundanese and 8 Lampungnese college students. So, overall there are 56 samples data obtained in this research. To be noted that all of the respondents’ name in this paper are pseudonym.
Table E.1The Distribution of Lampungnese and SundaneseApolgising Strategies
Diagram E.1 The Distribution of Sundanese Response
Diagram E.2 The Distribution of Lampungnese Response
No Apologize Strategy Sundanese Lampungnese
Freq % R Freq % R
1 IFID 3 5,36 3 9 16 3
2 Taking on 3 5,36 3 1 1,8 6
3 Explanation 33 58,93 1 26 46 1
4 An offer of repair 3 5,36 3 8 14 4
5 A promise of forbearance 0 0,00 4 2 3,6 5
6 An intensification and 14 25,00 2 10 18 2
7 A downgrading. 0 0,00 4 0 0 7
TOTAL 56 100 56 100
16%
2%
46% 14%
2% 20%
Lampungnese Responses (Apologize)
Ifid
Taking on responsibility Explanation or account Offer of repair Promise of forbearance Intensification
Downgrading
5% 5%
59% 5%
25%
Sundanese Responses (Apologize)
Ifid
Taking on responsibility Explanation or account Offer of repair Promise of forbearance Intensification
IFID is one of the potential strategies of the apology speech act. It is coded by language specific realizations such as be sorry; apologize; regret; excuse etc. In this study, the words of apology appear in the two cultures are Punten in Sundanese and Mahap in Lampungnese. The table shows that IFIDstrategy has occurred 3 times (5.36%) in Sundanese responses, and 9 times (16%) in Lampungnese responses. It describes that Lampungnese respondents have used IFID more frequent than Sundanese respondents. The following are responses in which containing IFID strategy both in Lampungnese and Sundanese:
[E.1] NR( Lampungnese ): Nyakngilumahapyu. ( I’m sorry.)
[E.2] N (Sundanese): Duh neng/ceppuntenpisannya. ( Oh, I’m so sorry.)
(a response to Situation 1)
In this situation NR (Lampungnese) and N (Sundanese), they explicitly apologized by saying “…
mahap…” and “…punten...” .These respondents used the most explicit realization of an apology via an explicit illocutionary force indicating divice (IFID) (Searle, 1969, p. 64). Blum-Kulka (1989) stated IFID fulfills the function of signaling regret; the speaker asks for forgiveness for the violation that motivated the need to apologize, thereby serving to placate the hearer.
Taking on Responsibility (ToR).This study reveals that the use of ToR is 3 times (5.36%) in Sundanese responses and 1 time (1.8%) in Lampungnese responses. For ToR strategy, Sundanese respondents used it more frequent than Lampungnese respondents, as the following examples below:
[E.3] FA (Lampungnese): MahapWan,ikammaksengajo. Sekalilageikiluymahap. Sorry Wan, I don’t mean it. Once again, I’m sorry.
(a response to Situation 3)
[E.4] SD(Sundanese): Aduhnengpuntenteusengaja Aduhmaafgasengaja
(a response to Situation1)
might be viewed by the hearer as an apology. While in situation 6, SD (Sundanese) says, “ …
Aduhnengpuntenteusengaja…” asan expression of lack of intent.
Explanation or account (Ep). This strategy is found 26 of 56 Lampungnese responses (46,43%) and 33 of 56 in Sundanese responses (58,93%). This category covers any external (+/- human) mitigating circumstances offered by the speaker, i.e. “objective” reason for the violation at hand (Blum-Kulka: 1989). The examples are as follow:
[E.5] TR (Sundanese): hehMey, eehsugan the temenurang. Hehehe (hey, Mey, eehI think you’re my friend)
(a response to Situation 3)
[E.6] DS (Lampungnese): nyak haga mit kampus tapi ban motor pecah di jalan jadi nyak terlambat. maaf ya bu.
(i was on my way to campus when my motorcyclegot a flat tireso I came late. I’m sorry ma’am)
(a response to Situation 5)
The example [E.5] above shows how TR used Explanation or account strategy in her response. TR has firstly says “hehMey” and after she realized that the one who she greeted wasn’t her friend then she made a reason by saying “eehsugan the temenurang.” In line with the example [E.5], the example [E.6] presents how the Lampungnese (DS) used this strategy in his response. In explaining of being late he told the source of his offence, i.e. he got a flat tire and he got to take it to the repair shop first. Here he made the reason that his offence was caused by external factor which he had no control of it.
Offer of repair (OR).This strategy is used when speaker chooses to offer repair if the damage or the inconvenience which affected the hearer can be compensated for. In the Lampungnese responses are found 8 utterances (14, 29%) which contain OR strategy. While in Sundanese responses, there are 3 responses (5, 36%) which are containing OR strategy. The example is as follows.
[E.8] TA (Sundanese): Aduhneng, puntennya. Kadieudibantosan (ouch, sorry, let me help you.)
(a response to Situation1)
[E.9] AJ (Lampungnese): Rin buku mu cadang jeno kena kopi, ku gonti yo? (Rin the coffee has spoilt your book, let me change it ?)
(a response to Situation 3)
Promise of forbearance (Pf).Of all Lampungese responses, there are only 2 responses (3,57%) which are containing this strategy. Surprisingly, this strategy has not occurred in Sundanese responses (0%). The following is the example of Pf strategy which is applied in Lampungnese responses.
[E.10] NUR (Lampungnese): maaf atas kejadian semalem yu. Nyak lain mak nepatin janjiku, nyak janji semoga lain waktu mak ngulang kesalahan hinji.
(sorry for last night. I didn’t mean to break the promise and I promise not to do it again)
(a response to Situation 6)
Intensification. This strategy was found in both groups of respondents. There are 14 Sundanese respondents (29.17%) employed this kind of strategy to apologize, and in Lampungnese are 11 respondents (19.68%). Through this strategy, the respondent intensifies his/her apology usually by employing more than one kind of strategy. See [E.11] for example:
[E.11] RS (Sundanese): Mei, sorry pisanheh. Tong ngambeknya, bukutehkabanjurku kopi. Gantianwae?Hampurapisan.
Mei, sorry bangetya.Janganmarahya, bukukamutertumpahi kopi.Digantisaja?Maafbanget.
Mei, I’m so sorry. Please, don’t be mad at me, … so sorry. (A response to Situation 3)
Politeness Strategies Sundanese Lampungnese
Freq % R Freq % R
1 Bald on record 3 5,36 3 2 3,6 3
2 Positive 48 85,71 1 41 73 1
3 Negative 5 8,93 2 13 23 2
4 Off the record 0 0,00 4 0 0 4
TOTAL
56 100 56 100
Diagram E.3The Distribution of Lampungnese Politeness Strategies
4%
73% 23%
Lampungnese Responses (Politeness)
Bald on record Positive Politeness Negative politeness Off record
5%
86% 9%
Sundanese Responses (Politeness)
Bald on record (BR) is one of the four strategies of Politeness. A response is classified into BR because it contains the utterances of apologizing explicitly such “Sorry”, “forgive me”, and etcetera. The table shows that BR strategy has occurred in the same frequency in Lampungnese and Sundanese responses (5,36%). It describes that Lampungnese respondents have used direct apolozising as frequent as Sundanese respondents. The following is a response in which containing BR strategy.
[E.12] TA (Sundanese): Duh neng/ceppuntenpisannya (Ups, I’m so sorry.)
(a response to Situation 1)
[E.13] NUR (Lampungnese): nyakngilu map yu (I’m sorry)
(a response to Situation 1)
In the responses from TA [4.a] and NUR [4.h], they explicitly apologized by saying “…I’m sorry”.
Positive (Pos).The study unfolded that the use of positive politeness strategy in Sundanese is 48 times (85.71%) and in Lampungnese is 41 times (73%). Brown and Levinson say that positive politeness usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA). The use of politeness strategy in both ethnical groups of respondents is almost similarly high, but Sundanese uses it more frequent than Lampungnese. In this study the use of positive strategies can be seen in the example below:
[E.13] AJ(Lampungnese): Rin buku mu cadang jeno kena kopi, ku gonti yo?
Rin your book was spoiled by coffee, I change it, okay? (a response to Situation 3)
[E.14] SD (Sundanese): Hehpuntennyakamarihilapeuy. Abijadingajajapibuabi.Kedintenminggu we amenganna
I’m sorry, yesterday I forget that I had an appointment with you because I took my mom to hospital. How if we go again this Sunday?
In those expressions above, both respondents use positive politeness strategy of attending the hearer (his interest, wants, deeds, goods). In AJ expression, “….kugontiyo?” means the speaker pays attention to the interest, wish, and the ownership of the interlocutor by offering a change for the spoiled book. This strategy is also used in SD expression, “ …Kedintenmingguwe amenganna.” This occurs when the speaker focuses on the condition of the interlocutor that includes physical and psychological changing and the ownership of certain goods.
Negative Politeness.This strategy was placed in the second position as the most frequent politeness strategy produced by the respondents (both Sundanese and Lampungnese). Of all Sundanese responses there are only 5 responses which are containing this kind of politeness (8.93%). However, this strategy occurred 13 times in Lampungnese responses or 23.21 in percentage. The following is one of negative politeness realization in Lampungnese response:
[E.14] MAL (Lampungnese): Kilumahappaihinji, bung. Kekhemanjakuluntuhamangkungtogok.Khepakisayaba yakhnesetengahpai?Sayawatsegok-ancutik.
Sayamintamaafterlebihdahulu, bung
(panggilanuntukwanita yang lebihtua).Kirimandari orang
tuabelumsampai.Bagaimanajikasayabayardulusetenga hnya? Sayaadasimpanansedikit.
First, I have to say sorry Mam. ….from my parents hasn’t arrived yet. How if I pay a half of the bill first? I have a little saving.
(A college student can’t pay the electricity bill – Situation 2)
MAL response is considered as negative politeness because of several reasons. First, the speaker encoded much distance between him/herself and the addressee by addressing her as “Bung” or “Mam”, a formal form in Lampungnese to address older woman. Second, went on record as incurring a debt (Grundy 2008, p. 199) at the first of the speaker utterance “First, I have to say sorry Mam…” Then, explaining reason was added to strengthen his/her statement, and was ended by asking a pessimist question “bagaimanajikasayabayardulusetengahnya? or how if I pay a half of the bill first?”
and lampungnese response. This phenomenon shows that the pragmatic competence of the respondents in performing the off-record strategy of politeness is considered not good.
Discussion
1.
The realization of apologizing in Sundanese and Lampungnese
From the findings, there are lots of interesting facts about the realization of apologizing speech act and politeness in both ethnical groups;Sundanese and Lampungnese. In the term of apologizing strategy, the most frequently used strategy is explanation or account. However, Sundanese uses explanation more often than Lampungnese. It shows that both ethnical groups realize that when a speaker offends or does a mistake, he needs to apologize by explaining the source of the offence as caused by external factors over which the speaker has no control. This strategy is also as self-justification. From the data analysis, there are many examples of the use very specific and relevance explanations such as:
”Say, hapuntennyakamaritehhilap da dipiwarangngajajapibukadokter.”
(Hun, so sorry, yesterday I forgot our appointment, I was asked to take my mother to the doctor).
Another interesting fact is that in the use of IFID, Lampungnese respondents use it more frequent compared to Sundanese. It showed that Lampungnese respondents are more direct in their apologizing strategy. Many expressions only consist of mahap without any more explanation While in Sundaneserespondents, they prefer to add more explanation after the word
punten. From the interview (seeattachment G), both Sundanese and Lampungnese also believe that it is important to use the word mahap and punten in their apologizing realizations. They also think that in apologizing it is necessary to consider PDI in determining which apologizing strategies they will use.
2. The politess strategy
[F.1] FA (Lampungnese): MahapWan,ikammaksengajo. Sekalilageikiluymahap.Jamoikamngucapterimakasihkakdijuknginjambuk usekam.
I’m sorry Wan, it’s an accident. Once again, I’m so sorry. Thanks for borrowing me your book.
(a response to situation 3)
[F.2] NS(Sundanese): Eh, punten de, urangburu-buru. Sinikedibatuanmeresana
Eh, I’m really sorry, I’m in a hurry. Let me help you to fix it.
(a response to a situation)
The fact that most of Sundanese respondents apply positive politeness strategy confirms the assumption that Sundanese people believe on positive politeness. This politeness principle is not only applicable among Sundanese people but it is also universally accepted. Even Lampung people who believe in PiilPasenggiri, which is perceived as self-pride and values negative politeness, but they are still applying positive politeness more than negative politeness. This study shows that even Sundanese and Lampungnese have different culture, especially in speech directness and also the conception of self-pride but they similarly used positive politeness strategy more than other politeness strategies. Both cultures value tolerance or social face among each other and concern on their interlocutors’ feeling. Harmonious relationship between interlocutors very influences the politeness strategy both in Sundanese and Lampungnese.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has revealed 6 strategies of apologizing among Sundanese and Lampungnese students because the last proposed strategy (Downgrading) is not found in any DCT responses. The 6 strategies of apologizing to love relationship requests which are proved being used by the respondents are: IFID, expression of the speaker’s responsibility, explanation of the account, an offer of repair, a promise of forbearance, and an intensification.
This paper also revealed that for politeness strategies, both Lampungnese and Sundaneseused three out of four politeness strategies proposed by Brown Levinson (1987: 20-22) in apologizing. Those three strategies include: bald on record, positive and negative politeness. The last category, off the record, was not used by all of respondents.
Finally, it can be said that the realizations of apology in Lampungnese and Sundanese are very much similar, even though their culture and values are different from each other. The politeness strategy implied from the apologizing strategy between the two cultures is also similar. Both of them are applying positive politeness strategy that concerns more to interlocutors’ social face (Brown & Levinson: 1987).
References
Allan, K. 1991. Cooperative principle. In W. Bright (ed.). Oxford International Encyclopedia of linguistics, vol.1.NY.: Oxford University Press.
Aziz, E. A. 1996. The language of refusals in Sundanese society: a workplace case. Tesis MA, tidakditerbitkan. Department of Linguistics, Monash University.
_______. 2000a. Refusing in Indonesian: strategies and politeness implications. Tesis Ph.D. tidakditerbitkan. Department of Linguistics: Monash University.
_______. 2000b. “Usia, jeniskelamin, danmasalahkesantunandalamberbahasa Indonesia”.Dalam A. ChaedarAlwasilah& Khalid A. Harras (eds.).
ProsidingKonferensiInternasionalPengajaranBahasa Indonesia bagiPenuturAsing (KIPBIPA) III.Bandung: Andira.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P & S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodenough, W. 1969.“Rethinking ‘status’ and ‘role’: toward a general model of the cultural organization of social relationships”.Dalam S.A. Tyler (ed.). Cognitive anthropology.NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3: speech acts. NY.: Academic Press.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Fraser, B. 1981.On apologizing. In. F. Coulmas (Ed.). Conversational Routine (pp. 259-271). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Hill, B., S. Ide, S. Ikuta, A. Kawasaki & T. Ogino. 1986. “Universals of linguistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English”. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371.
Ide, S. 1989. “Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness”.
Multilingua, 8, 223-248.
Lebra, Takie S. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics.London: Longman.
Mao, L.R. 1994. “Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed”. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
Matsumoto, Y. 1988. “Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Miller, R.A. 1967. The Japanese language.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[1]MakalahdisajikanpadaKonferensiInternasionalBudayaSunda (KIBS) I, di Bandung, Desember 2001.
Shttp://supriliwa.wordpress.com/adat-istiadat-lampung/ supriyanto.
