LANGUAGE IMPOLITENESS AND POWER IN CLASSROOM
INTERACTION AT SMK SWASTA PAB
(PERSATUAN AMAL BAKTI)
LUBUKPAKAM
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ADINDA ZORAYA ALVIN Registration Number: 8136111003
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
ABSTRACT
Alvin, A.Z. Registration Number: 8136111003. Language Impoliteness and Power in Classroom Interaction at SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. 2015
ABSTRAK
Alvin, A.Z. NIM :8136111003. Ketidaksantunan Bahasa dan Kekuatan pada Interaksi Kelas di SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2015.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of ALLAH SWT, the Most gracious and merciful, all praise
for His mercy, guidance, and loving care which have been given to the writer so
this thesis could be completed.
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; Postgraduate School, State
University of Medan.
However, without the assistance of the following numbers of people who
have given valuable suggestions and useful influences on the writing of this
thesis, it would be much more difficult for the writer to finish her work. She is
then deeply thankful to these people and would like to express her sincere thanks.
The writer would like to deliver her grateful appreciation to her first
advisor Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and her second advisor Dr.Zainuddin,
M.Hum. for their patient guidance, excellent advices, and precious time in guiding
her to complete this thesis.
Her gratefulness also goes to the Head of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, Dr.Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., and to Prof. Dr. H. Abdul Muin
Sibuea, M.Pd. as the Director of Postgraduate School at State University of
Furthermore, the writer would like to thank Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A.,
Ph.D., Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D., and Dr.Syahron Lubis, M.A. for their
constructive comments and suggestions in advancing the thesis quality.
Her deepest gratitude and incredible appreciations are presented to her
beloved parents, Drs.Alifuddin and Yenny Aswina Siregar, S.Pd. who always
support, pray, and motivate her in education. To all her siblings, Alvina Eka
Hayati, S.Pd., Rio Alvin Kurniawan, S.Pd, and Ari Alvin Rizkiawan, S.Kom. who
always pour her with all their kindness.
Last but not least, the writer would like to thank her beloved friends at
LTBI A2 class: Eka Rejeki, Eka Surya Fitriani, Dewi Sinaga, Decy Anggraini,
and Vista Simanungkalit; her friends at LTBI B4 class who always help the
writer, Yeni Purtika S.Pd., M.Hum., Ersika Puspita Dani S.Pd., M.Hum., and Siti
Marlina, S.Pd., M.Hum; the teachers of SMK Negeri 1 Beringin: Rista Saragih,
Elly Agustina, Suci Ramadayani, Mona Faulina, Ririn Wulandari, Nurul Tyas,
Sastra Hudaya, and Fil Erwin Lubis; and the other friends whose names cannot be
mentioned here. Thank you very much for their time to discuss and exchange
ideas while working on the thesis as well as their prayers, encouragement, and
support.
Medan, November 2015 The writer,
Adinda Zoraya Alvin
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 3.1 The types of impoliteness strategies and the reasons for using language
impoliteness ……….32
Table 3.3 The reasons why the students utter the impolite languages to the teacher ...32
Table 4.1 The types of impoliteness strategies used by the students to the teacher ...….55
Table 4.2 The students’ reasons for using language impoliteness to teacher in the
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages Appendix 1 The Students-Teacher Conversation in the Classroom ……….. 68
Appendix 2 The Data Display of Language Impoliteness, and The Reasons of Using
Language Impoliteness ……….. 95
Appendix 3 The Interview to the Teacher ……….……… 128
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of the Study
Teacher is a person who educates the students; it is a necessity for the students to
respect her/him. As what Pasal 12 ayat 2 Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No.20
about National Education System states that all students are obliged to maintain the
educational norms to ensure the process and the success of education itself. Ideally, the
students have to speak politely to the teacher. Language politeness is needed in every
situation, included in the classroom interaction, because it will maintain the harmony of
relationship between teacher and students and to avoid the conflict.
However, one can be impolite if s/he cannot identify the context of situation. In
the classroom interactions, the students have to avoid of using such an impolite
language to the teacher because it can cause disharmony between them. The
communicative behavior intending to cause the ‘face losses’ of a target or perceived by
the target to be so is involved in impoliteness. The phenomenon of impoliteness is to do
with how offense the language is communicated and taken. As what Culpeper (2005:
38) defines impoliteness is communicative strategies designed to attack face, and
thereby cause social conflict and disharmony.
Power, which often express through language, seems to have a close relationship
with impoliteness. It is the same as what Culpeper (2007:25) argues that impoliteness
always involves power. Fairclough (1989:43) states that power exists in various
modalities, including the concrete and unmistakable modality of physical force. He
refers to the exercise of power in the language, whilst power behind discourse concerns
the constitution of social institution and societies through power relations. Power itself
cannot be explained without contextualization. It connects with impoliteness in a
number of different ways. It includes the performance/ perception of impoliteness in
language and the broader context within which it is performed/perception.
On the other hand, the fact shows that power in and power behind the discourse is
not always linear. One aspect of power behind discourse is the participant status. A
person who has a power can speak more impolitely in one situation rather than a less
powerful person. As what Culpeper (1996:350) states that impoliteness is more likely to
occur in situation where there is an imbalance power is reflected in its relatively
frequent appearance.
In a classroom interaction, a teacher is a powerful participant who has a power to
ask, command, or even forbid something to the students in the classroom. Moreover, it
might be possibly happened if a teacher speaks impolitely to the students since he/she is
a powerful participant to do that.
It shows that in some situations, the students speak impolitely to the teacher
despite of the fact that they are the less powerful participants. It can be seen in one
situation which was happened in the classroom observed by the researcher on 9th March
2015 at class XI TKJ (Teknik Komputer dan Jaringan) SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan
Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam,
An IPA teacher (FD) asked the students to finish their assignment. She realized that one of her students doing nothing and preferred disturbing his friends. Then the teacher walked to his seat and asked this question,
Student (MY) :”Capek lo BUK! Ibuk ini lalap ngasi tugas banyak kurang banyak.” (I am so tired Ma’am! You always are giving us the tasks more and more.)
Based on the context, a student speaks impolitely to the teacher despite of the fact
that a teacher must be respected. Those student’s utterances make it impolite referring to
the context. The social context in the classroom make the teacher should be respected.
In that context, the student seeks disagreement to his teacher. Seeking disagreement is
one of the output strategies of positive impoliteness. Positive impoliteness is one of five
strategies of impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996:356) which means to damage the
addressee’s positive wants.
Another language impoliteness uttered by student to the teacher can be seen in this
example observed by the researcher on 13th March 2015 at class XI TKJ (Teknik
Komputer dan Jaringan) SMK Swasta PAB (Persatuan Amal Bakti) Lubukpakam
A Social teacher (JS) asked the students to collect their homework. She realized that there were some students who hadn’t finished their homework yet. She came to the students’ seats and asked one of them,
Teacher (JS) : “Mana PR mu nak?” (Where’s your homework?)
Student (MF) : “Belom siap aku buk.” (I haven’t finished it Ma’am.)
Teacher (JS) :”Kenapa pulak gak kamu kerjakan?(Why haven’t you done it?) Then the teacher said to all the students,
Teacher (JS) :“Yang gak ngerjain PR, silahkan kerjakan diluar. Nunggu abis pelajaran saya baru boleh masuk lagi.” (For those who haven’t finished the homework, please do it outside. After I finish my teaching then you can come in again.)
Then some students went outside. That student (MF) also went outside and said, Student (MF) :”E… lapet..lapet…. mau disamakan pulak negri sama swasta. Ya
jelas beda lah buk!”(E… lappet..lapet…. you want to equal the state school with the private school. It is clearly different Ma’am!)
In that situation, the student did negative and positive impoliteness strategies. He
did a negative impoliteness strategy since he uttered the pronoun “Aku/I” to his teacher.
the output strategy of negative impoliteness. In addition, that student also used a taboo
word when he said “e….lapet…lapet….” to his teacher. The word “lapet” is a taboo
word since it is profane language to be said to the older person. It should be noted that
the situation is formal (he is a student and spoke that sentence to the teacher in the
classroom while the teaching learning process happened, not with his friends in the bar),
and that the use of taboo word is unilateral. Using taboo word is one of the output
strategies of positive impoliteness proposed by Culpeper (1996: 357). The positive
impoliteness strategy means to damage the addressee’s 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.
These phenomena of language impoliteness in the classroom context are
necessary to be studied since the application of impolite language in the classroom can
show clearly the discrepancy of power in and power behind discourse as suggested by
Fairclough (1989:43).
This study aims at examining the model of ‘impoliteness’, as first proposed by
Culpeper (1996) and revised by Culpeper et al. (2003) and Culpeper (2007). In line with
Culpeper’s (1996) theory of impoliteness, the researcher is very much interested in
conducting a study on types of impoliteness strategies namely Bald on Record
Impoliteness, Positive Impoliteness, Negative Impoliteness, Sarcasm, and Withhold
1.2The Problem of the Study
The problems of the study are formulated as the following:
a. What types of language impoliteness are used by the students to their
teacher in the classroom interaction?
b. Why do the students do it the way they do?
1.3The Objective of the Study
This research is aimed at examining the language impoliteness done by the
students to their teacher in the classroom interaction. The objectives of the study are
elaborated as followed:
a. To find out the types of language impoliteness which are used by the
students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.
b. To describe the reasons of using language impoliteness which are used by
the students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.
1.4The Scope of the Study
The main aspect of this study is to describe the language impoliteness used by the
students to the teacher in the classroom interaction. In this study, the researcher only
focuses on the student’s reaction to the teacher in (a) instruction (teaching and learning
process) and (b) classroom management. The researcher also scope the location of the
1.5The Significance of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically.
a. Theoretically, the findings of this study will expand and enrich the application of
the impoliteness theory as proposed by Culpeper (1996) specifically the spoken
language uttered by the students in the classroom. Impoliteness theory supports
some disciplines as the subfield of Linguistics study such as Pragmatics and
interactional Sociolinguistics.
b. Practically, the findings of this study will be useful as a reference for lecturers,
teachers, and students in communicating which lead towards how to deal with
impoliteness, how impoliteness may potentially be countered, controlled, and
managed.
For those who want to conduct further in depth study in language
impoliteness, the findings of the research would be their valuable related findings
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This study focused on the language impoliteness used by the students to the
teacher in classroom interaction. It was aimed to find out the types of impoliteness
strategies and to explain the reason why language impoliteness used by the
students to their teacher in the classroom interaction. After analyzing the data,
conclusions are drwan as the following.
1) There were 4 types of language impoliteness used by the students in the
classroom interaction, namely 1) bald on record impoliteness, 2) positive
impoliteness, 3) negative impoliteness, and 4) withhold politeness.
Positive impoliteness was the most dominant strategies used by the
students in the classroom interaction and the least strategy was withhold
politeness.
2) The use of language impoliteness in the classroom interaction used by the
students have some reasons. From the students’ perspective, they spoke
impolitely to their teacher 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 was the most dominant reason used by the students and the least
was to show power. From the teacher’s perspective, the students uttered
ignored the power which they actually had, b) the students tend to use
impolite languages because of their social environment around home and
from the students’ 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
REFERENCES
Bogdan, Robert C., & Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education, An Introduction to Theory and Method. Needham Heights: 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
Brown,P., & Levinson, C.S.1987.Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2007.Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power. University of Lancaster
Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Emmer, E.T., & Strough, L. 2001. Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, with Implication for Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist, 36 (2), 103-112
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power, Language in Social Life Series. Essex: Longman Group UK
Fujiki, M., Brinton & Clarke, D. 2002. Emotion Regulation in Children with Specific Lanugage Impairment. Language, Speech, and Theory Services in Schools, 33, 102-111
Halliday, M.&Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspect of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria Deakin University Press
Hussein, Ashatu. 2009. The Use of Triangulation in Social Science Research: Can Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Be Combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work. 1, 3-5
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.
Mak, Bernie Chun Nam & Hin Leung Chui. 2013. Impoliteness in Facebook Status Updates: Strategic Talk among collegues outside the workplace”. De Gruyter Mouton DOI 10.1515/text-2013-0042.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publication.
Pianta et.al. 2012. Teacher Student Relationships and Engagement: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Improving the Capacity of Classroom Interactions. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7-17, Springer Science+ Business Media
Saragih, Amrin. 2014. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan, Unimed Press.
Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 tahun 2003. 2003. Accessed on March, 10th 2015. www.hukumonline.com
Terkourafi, M. 2008. Toward Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rudeness in Bousfield, D & Locher. Impoliteness in Language-Studies on Its Interplay with Power and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Upadhyay. 2010. Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-Mediated Reader Responses. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2010), 105-127 DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.006
Wijayanto, Agus 2014. Ketidaksantunan Berbahasa: Penggunaan Bahasa Kekerasan di Sinetron Bertema Kehidupan Remaja, in Markamah et al. Ketidaksantunan Berbahasa
dan Dampaknya dalam Pembentukan Karakter. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University
