LANGUAGE IMPOLITENESS OF MALE AND FEMALE
STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION
AT SMP NEGERI 1 BERINGIN
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Magister Humaniora
By:
SITI RAHMI
Registration Number: 8126112035
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
ABSTRACT
Rahmi, Siti. Registration Number: 8126112035. Language Impoliteness of Male and Female Students in Classroom Interaction at SMP Negeri 1 Beiringin. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. 2017
The objectives of the study were to find out: (1) the types of language impoliteness which are uttered by the male and female students to the teacher in the classroom interaction and (2) the reasons of using language impoliteness which are uttered by the male and female students to the teacher in the classroom interaction. The study was descriptive qualitative. The subjects of the study were the male and female students of class IX-7 of SMP Negeri 1 Beringin. The data of the study were the students’ impolite utterances to the teacher recorded from the conversations in the classroom interaction. The data were identified, analyzed, and
categorized based on Culpeper’s theory (1996, 2003). The findings of the study show that: (1) There were 4 types of language impoliteness used by the male students in the classroom interaction, namely 1) bald on record impoliteness, 2) positive impoliteness, 3) negative impoliteness, and 4) withhold politeness and there were two types of language impoliteness used by the female students namely (1) positive impoliteness and (2) withhold politeness. Positive impoliteness was the most dominant strategies used by male and female students in the classroom interaction and the least strategy was withhold politeness, and (2) The use of language impoliteness in the classroom interaction by the students have some reasons. From the students’ point of view, they spoke impolitely to their teacher because they wanted (a) to vent negative feeling, (b) to show disagreement, (c) to mock others, (d) to show power, and (e) to clarify something. To vent negative feeling was the most dominant reason used by the students and the least was to
clarify something. From the teacher’s point of view, the male students uttered
more of language impoliteness than female students because a) the teachers realized that the male students were still in adolescence who still are unstable, and b) the female students are more sensitive and had more shame feeling than male students. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the students used language impoliteness to their teachers intently to cause disharmony between them. Some suggestions are directed to those who are interested in understanding language impoliteness as found in the practice.
ABSTRAK
Rahmi, Siti. NIM : 8126112035. Ketidaksantunan Bahasa oleh Siswa Laki-laki dan Perempuan pada Interaksi Kelas di SMP Negeri 1 Beringin. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2017.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan: (1) Jenis ketidaksantunan bahasa yang digunakan oleh siswa laki-laki dan perempuan kepada guru dan (2) alasan menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa oleh siswa laki-laki dan perempuan kepada guru. Penelitian ini adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Subjek data penelitian ini adalah siswa-siswi kelas IX-7 SMP Negeri 1 Beringin. Data dari penelitian ini adalah ujaran tidak santun siswa-siswa kepada guru yang direkam dari percakapan dalam interaksi kelas. Data tersebut diindetifikasi, dianalisis, dan dikelompokkan berdasarkan teori Culpeper (1996, 2003). Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (1) ada empat jenis ketidaksantunan bahasa yang digunakan siswa laki-laki ke guru yaitu: bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, dan withhold politeness; dan ada dua jenis ketidaksantunan bahasa digunakan oleh siswa perempuan yaitu positive impoliteness dan withhold politeness, Positive impoliteness adalah strategi paling dominan digunakan oleh siswa laki-laki dan perempuan dan strategi yang paling sedikit adalah withhold politeness, dan (2) alasan mengapa siswa menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa ke guru; dari perspektif siswa, mereka menggunakan bahasa tidak santun kepada guru mereka karena mereka ingin: (a) untuk melampiaskan perasaan negatif, (b) untuk menunjukkan ketidaksetujuan, (c) mengejek yang lain, (d) untuk menunjukkan kekuasaan, dan (e) untuk mengklarifikasi sesuatu; untuke melampiaskan perasaan negative adalah alasan yang paling dominan digunakan oleh siswa dan yang paling sedikit adalah untuk mengklarifikasi sesuatu; dan dari perspektif guru, siswa menggunakan bahasa tidak santun ke mereka karena (a) guru menyadari bahwa siswa laki-laki sedang berada dimasa remaja yang masih labil, dan (b) siswa perempuan lebih sensitive dan lebih memiliki rasa malu dibandingkan dengan siswa laki-laki Berdasarkan temuan, dapat disimpulkan bahwa siswa menggunakan ketidaksantunan bahasa ke guru secara sengaja untuk menciptakan perselisihan diantara mereka. Saran ditujukan kepada siapa saja yang tertarik dalam memahami ketidaksantunan berbahasa sebagaimana seperti praktik yang telah ditemukan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
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. It has also shown the
responsibility and capability of the writer as an academician to be able to conduct
a research which would contribute to the development of scientific knowledge.
However, without the assistance of those 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 and gratitude to
her first advisor Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., and her second advisor Prof.
Amrin Saragih, M.A.,Ph.D 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. Bornok Sinaga,
Furthermore, the writer would like to thank to Dr. I Wy Dirgeyasa,
M.Hum., Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed.,TESP., and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed. for their
constructive comments and suggestions in advancing the thesis quality.
Her deepest gratitude and incredible appreciations are presented to her
beloved parents, Aming and Zarhaniah who always support, pray, and motivate
her in education. To her beloved husband, Roni Irawan,S.E., who always support
and give tenderly care. To all her siblings, Aliyah, SH., Saniah,S.Pd., Zuraidah,
S.E., Amanah, S.Pd.M.Hum and Jafar Siddik, SE.,M.Si who always pour her with
all their kindness.
Last but not least, the writer would like to thank to the headmaster of SMP
Negeri 1 Beringin, Pitoyo,S.Pd for his kindness. To her beloved friends
Delfina,S.Pd,M.Hum., and Adinda Zoraya Alvin, S.Pd,M.Hum who always help
the writer and also to the teachers of SMP Negeri 1 Beringin: Rita Wastuti, S.Pd.,
Sabaria Nasution, S.Pd., Syahri Fitriani,S.Pd., Ayu Hariani Tambunan,S.PdI., and
Rohanna Harahap, S.PdI., and the other friends who did not mention yet, 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, February 2017 The writer,
Siti Rahmi
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Theoretical Framework ………... 8
2.1.6.1 Teacher-Students Interaction ……….... 20
2.1.6.2 Students-Teacher Interaction ………... 21
2.1.6.3 Student-Students Interaction ……… 21
2.2 Relevant Studies ………... 22
3.4 The Instrument of Data Collection ……….. 29
3.5 Trustworthiness of the Study ………...… 29
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Data Analysis ……….. 35
4.1.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used by Students to Teacher……... 35
4.1.1.2 Positive Impoliteness (PI) ………….……… 39
4.1.1.3 Negative Impoliteness (NI) ……….. 42
4.1.1.4 Withhold Politeness (WP) ……… 44
4.1.2 The Reasons for Using Language Impoliteness…..………..……….. 45
4.1.2.1 To vent negative feeling ……….45
4.1.2.2 To mock others ……….……… 47
4.1.2.3 To show disagreement ……….. 48
4.1.2.4 To show power ……….. 49
4.1.2.5 To clarify something ………. 47
4.2 Findings……… 51
4.2.1 Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used by the Students to Teacher in the Classroom Interaction ….………. 52
4.2.2 The Students’ Reasons for Using Language Impoliteness to Teacher in the Classroom Interaction ………..…… 54
4.3 Discussion ………... 55
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGETIONS 5.1 Conclusions………. 60
5.2 Suggestions ……… 61
REFERENCES ……… 62
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 4.1. Bald on Record Impoliteness Strategy.. ...……… 36
Table 4.2. Positive Impoliteness Strategy ...……… 39
Table 4.3. Negative Impoliteness Strategy...……… 42
Table 4.4. Withhold Impoliteness Strategy...……… 34
Table 4.5. The First Reason of Using Language Impoliteness ……… 46
Table 4.6. The Second Reason of Using Language Impoliteness …... ……… 47
Table 4.7. The Third Reason of Using Language Impoliteness ……… 48
Table 4.8. The Fourth Reason of Using Language Impoliteness ……… 49
Table 4.9. The Fifth Reason of Using Language Impoliteness ……… 50
Table 4.10. Types of Impoliteness Strategies Used by Students to Teacher in the Classroom Interaction ....………... 52
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1 The Students-Teacher Conversation in the Classroom ……….. 65
Appendix 2 The Data Display of Language Impoliteness, and The Reasons of Using
Language Impoliteness ……….. 106
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.Background of the Study
Interaction has an important role in communicating in human life. The
interaction in society determines the harmonious relationship among people.
Brown (2001:165) states interaction is the heart of communication. It is expected
by having a good interaction; every individual in the community can avoid the
conflict and give a peace among them.
One way to optimize the interaction among societies is by using polite
language. It is is needed so that the harmonious relationship could be achieved.
Since a school is a place where normally found that people who are stakeholders
in a school, including students, teachers, headmaster, vice of headmaster and all
staffs must utter language politely. Moreover, a place where polite language is
really needed is in the classroom interaction of a school. Both teacher and students
are expected to utter polite language in order to maintain the harmonious
relationship among them moreover to avoid conflict. If the interaction goes well,
the knowledge which is transferred by the teacher will be received easily by the
students. The good interaction among them will create an enjoyable atmosphere in
the classroom with a friendly relationship so that the students become more
effective in studying the subjects.
In addition, if the teacher speaks politely to the students, those students
2
the teacher is hoped to speak politely and show the moral virtues in that
classroom.
Nowadays it seems to be disruption in the classroom interaction where
politeness is ignored and impoliteness is more likely to be used by the students.
Culpeper (2005:38) defines impoliteness as a communicative strategies designed
to attack face, and hereby cause social conflict and disharmony. The phenomenon
of impoliteness is to do with how offense is conducted upon the language. The
language impoliteness will cause the social conflict and disharmony between
teacher and students.
Language impoliteness which is uttered by male and female students is
different one to another based on the cultural and social attributes. Since gender,
which refers to cultural and social attributes among men and women, seems to
have a close relationship with impoliteness. Sometimes some utterances which
they utter convey language impoliteness. There must be differrent between male’s
utterances and female’s utterances. Even it is generally acceptable that women
talk more than men, it is showed that men lead to speak impolitely than women.
Lakoff (1975:45) states that women are more polite than men and powerlessness
of women is reflected in both the ways women are expected to speak, and are
spoken of”. In addition, it is also claimed that women are ‘better’ speakers than
men. They are more polite and less forceful.
Students who utter language impoliteness to their teacher happened in
classroom interaction. Classroom interaction plays an important role in teaching
3
and encourages students become effective communicators (Dagarin, 2004: 128).
In a classroom interaction, the communication of intra-gender is absolutely
happened. Even it is believed that men are more impolite than women. However,
the fact does not always occur like that. It might be possible for both male and
female students talk impolitely to their teacher. The same situation happens also
among students at SMP Negeri 1 Beringin, Kab. Deli Serdang. They utilize the
impolite language while interacting with their teacher. It can be seen by following:
An English teacher explained the rules of studying English at her class. Unfortunately, a female student did not agree with her rules.
Teacher: ”Jadi kalau sama saya, saya minta kalian semua ini aktif
However, one of female students interrupted her.
Student: : “Ya gak bisa gitu lah Ma’am, kami kan bukan orang Inggris, ga mungkin bisa dipaksa-paksa ngomong kayak gitu”. (Of course we can’t do that, Ma’am. We are not British, it is impossible for you to force us speaking like that one.)
Based on that context, it can be seen that the female student spoke
impolitely by stating disagreement to her teacher’s statement. That utterance
makes it become impolite referring to the context. The social context in the
classroom interaction makes the teacher should be respected. However, in that
context, the female student states her disagreement to her teacher. According to
Culpeper (1996:356), some output strategies of positive impoliteness are use
4
it could be stated that stating disagreement is one of output strategies of positive
impoliteness which means to damage the addressee’s positive face.
Another example of language impoliteness uttered by male student to the
teacher can be seen by the following:
A teacher entered the classroom informing that she couldn’t be with them for a few minutes teach the students because she had to meet one of the student’s parent.
Teacher : “Saya tinggal sebentar ya, ada orang tua siswa datang menunggu saya diruang BP. Kalian kerjakan saja dulu LKS kalian, lanjutkan tugas yang kemaren itu. Jangan ada yang keluar-keluar. Ketua kelas tolong catat siapa yang ribut.”(I’ll leave you for a while, ok. There is a student’s parent comes waiting for me at BP’s room. You please do your LKS, continue the last assignment. Don’t go outside. The class monitor please notice who makes a noisy)
One of male students made a joke to that teacher,
Student: ”Enak lah ibuk, ngajar gak ngajar tetap gajian.”
(How lucky you are, teaching or not you always get your salary)
In that situation, the student did negative impoliteness strategy since he
ridiculed his teacher. According to Culpeper (1996:356), some output strategies of
negative impoliteness are frighten, and condencend or ridicule. Therefore, based
on the student’s statement it could be stated that ridiculing the addressee is one of
the output strategies of negative impoliteness. Negative impoliteness is used to
damage the addressee’s negative face. The negative face is used by the speaker in
order to be not to be disturbed.
These phenomena of language impoliteness in the classroom context are
important to be studied. By doing the research on male and female students in
uttering language impoliteness; it can be known clearly whether male or female
5
In line with Culpeper’s (1996) theory of impoliteness, the researcher is very
much interested in conducting a study in the perspective of sociolinguistics on
types of five impoliteness strategies namely; bald on record impoliteness, positive
impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock impoliteness, and withhold
politeness.
1.2The Problem of the Study
The problems of the study are formulated as the following:
1. What types of language impoliteness are uttered by male and female
students to the teacher in the classroom interaction?
2. Why are the language impoliteness uttered by the male and female
students in classroom interaction realized the way they are?
1.3The Objective of the Study
This research is aimed at examining the language impoliteness uttered by
male and female students to their teacher in the classroom interaction. The
objectives of the study are elaborated as follows:
1. To find out the types of language impoliteness which are uttered by the male
and female students to the teacher in the classroom interaction.
2. To describe the reasons of using language impoliteness which are uttered by
6
1.4The Scope of the Study
The main aspect of this study is to describe the language impoliteness
uttered by male and female students to the teacher in the classroom interaction. In
this study, it will be focused on the student’s utterances to the teacher in (a)
instruction (teaching and learning process) and (b) classroom management.
1.5The Significance of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and
practically.
1. Theoretically, the findings of this study will be useful as a reference for
lecturers, teachers, and students in communication which lead towards
how to deal with impoliteness, how impoliteness may potentially be
countered, controlled, and managed.
2. Practically, 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 male-female students in the
classroom.
a. For students
Students both male and female are hope to be more polite in speaking
to their teachers. This will make enjoyable learning atmosphere. This
7
b. For teachers
Since students who are still young like to imitate the teacher, thus the
teacher is hope to speak polite to the students. This also can make
enjoyable learning atmosphere and can avoid conflict and disharmony
between and among them. Moreover, the teacher must be able to
manage and control the students in order to make the students speak
politely to their teacher.
c. For readers
For those who want to conduct further in depth study in language
impoliteness, the findings of the research would be the valuable related
findings in language impoliteness.
For those who want to conduct further in depth study in language
impoliteness, the findings of the research would be the valuable related findings in
62
REFERENCES
Appleyard, Nancy & Keith Appleyard. 2009. The Minimum Core for Language and Literacy: Knowledge, Understanding, and Personal Skills. Learning Matters
Allwright, R. 1984. The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied Linguistic Journal 5: 156-171.
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, D.H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Longman.
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, J., Bousfield D. & Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal of ragmatics 35, 1545-1579.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25.
_______________. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.
_______________. 2007. Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power. University of Lancaster
Dagarin, M. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English. Journal of Studies in the English language and Literature in Slovenia I: 1-2
63
Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harmer, J. 2009. How to Teach English. London: Longman.
Hussein, A. 2009. The Use of Triangulation in Social Science Research: Can Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Be Combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work. 1, 3-5
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Women’s Place. Language in Society, 2(01), 45-79.
Lincoln, Y and Guba, E, G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publication. Newbury Park, CA.
Kuntsi, P. 2012. Politeness-Impoliteness Strategies Used by Lawyers in Dover Trial. Unpublished. Thesis. New York
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, A.M. Saldana. J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded London: Sage Publication.. Sourcebook (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage
Mills, Sara. 2005. Gender and Politeness. Journal of Research 1: 263-280.
Naegle, P. 2002. The New Teacher’s Complete Sourceboo. USA: Scholastic Professional Book.
Nasution, Meisya. 2014. Language Impoliteness in Jakarta Lawyers Club Talk Show. Medan: Unimed
Pianta. 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
Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
64
Upadhyay. 2010. Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-Mediated Reader Responses. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2010), 105-127 DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.006
West, A.et.al. (2009). Students Facebook ‘friend’: Public and Private Sphares. Journal of Youth Studies, 12, 615-627
