i ELITISM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF HIGH SOCIAL STATUS AMONG ACHIEVER GROUPS IN SASAK COMMUNITY:
A SOCIOPRAGMATIC STUDY EKSPRESI ELITISME
KELOMPOK STATUS SOSIAL TINGGI PEROLEHAN DALAM KOMUNITAS SASAK:
SEBUAH STUDI SOSIOPRAGMATIK
DISSERTATION
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Doctoral Degree at Hasanuddin University under the Concentration of Linguistics
BY
Lalu Santana P0300313404
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
DOCTOR PROGRAM OF LINGUISTIC STUDY HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY
MAKASSAR 2018
ii
iii STATEMENT OF THE ORICIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this dissertation has not been previously submitted for a degree at any other education institution.
To the best of my knowledge, this dissertation contains no materials previously published by another person. Would, in the future, be found anything untrue in this statement, I am ready to accept any sanction from Post Graduate School of Hasanuddin University.
The under signee : Lalu Santana Reg. Number : P0 300313404
Makassar 2018
The researcher
Lalu Santana
iv Kao, popitn tetegal
Manusie, raosn tetegal Buffalo is held on its string Human is held on his words (Sasak Proverb)
v This disSertation is dedicated to:
Inaq Buana, my mother The late Mamiq Imran, my father
Siti Zaenab, my wife And my children Lalu Wadzir Alfarrabi
Lalu Galih Linui Baiq Lubna Sain
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillah, the researcher expresses his high gratitude to Allah SWT, the Almighty for blessing him, so that the researcher could begin and finish the writing of this dissertation.
From the beginning to the final processing of this dissertation, the researcher has got generous help, support, guidance, and prayers from many individuals to whom he is greatly indebted.
First of all, his sincere gratitude goes to his promotor Prof. Dr. Abd.
Hakim Yassi, Dipl. TESL., M.A. and co-promotors Prof. Dr. H. Hamzah A.
Machmoed, M. A. and Dr. Mustafa Makkah, M.S, from whom he has benefited enormously for their expertise and valuable encouragement. In spite of their extremely tied schedule, they more than willing go through the drafts, gave helpful comments and corrections.
Likewise, he would like to express his gratitude to Prof. Dr. H.
Zainuddin Taha (External Examiner), Prof. Drs. H. Burhanuddin Arafah, M.
Hum., PhD, Dra. Nasmila, M. Hum., PhD, and Dr. Hj. Sukmawaty, M. Hum (the internal examiner), who served their valuable and constructive criticism during the proposal, result seminar, and final examination.
Researcher believes that without their generous help, this work would hardly have come to its final form.
A deepest gratitude also goes to Rector of Mataram State Islamic University (UIN Mataram), Dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah, Syariah and Dakwah of UIN Mataram, and all lecturers at Mataram State Islamic University (UIN Mataram) for their help, advice, and moral support
The researcher feels grateful to Prof. Dr. Dwia Aries Tina Pulubuhu, MA, Rector of Hasanudddin University, UnHas, Prof. Dr. Akin Duli, MA, the Dean of FIB, UnHas, Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ali, S.E., M.S. Dean of Post Graduate School of UnHas, and Dr. Ikhwan M. Said, M.Hum, the Head of Linguistic Study of Doctoral Program of Post Graduate School of Hasanuddin University for their assistances extended to the writer. He also
vii expresses his grateful to lecturers of Linguistic Study of Doctoral Program and staffs who have done all their best during the period of study.
The researcher also wishes to express his special thanks to Drs. H.
Tammasse, M.Hum, Dr. dr. Jumraini T. Sp.S and all their family for their help and support since the beginning and the final processing of his study at Post Graduate School program of the Faculty of Culture Scien6ces of Hasanuddin University. For such an excellent deepest togetherness, he serves the honorable respect to his friends at Linguistic Study of Doctoral Program of Post Graduate School of Hasanuddin University for their support and friendliness.
At last, he would like to express his thanks to his beloved family; his parents the late Mamiq Imran and his beloved Inaq Buana, his brothers and sisters, for their prayers and moral supports. He deeply expresses thanks to his wife, Siti Zaenab and to all his children Lalu Wadzir Alfarrabi, Lalu Galih Linui and Baiq Lubna Sain, for all their patience in supporting him to finish his study.
Makassar, 2018
Lalu Santana.
viii ABSTRACT
Lalu Santana, Elitism Acknowledgement of High Social Status among achiever Groups in Sasak Community: A Sociopragmatic Study, under guidance of Abdul Hakim Yassi, Hamzah A. Machmoed and Mustafa Makkah.
The objectives of this research are: (1) to determine elite expressions of high social status among achiever groups using honorific Base Alus. (2) to determine the honorific level of Base Alus of high status level among achiever groups. (3) to indicate differences of Base Alus speech level of achieved elite social status among achiever groups regardless their social status. This research applied the qualitative method for language approach, ideology, language and culture using indexicality analysis. The respondents were the elite social status achievers who used Base Alus in their daily exchanges
The research results indicate that: (1) not all of the elite high social status achievers comply with the principle rules of honorific Base Alus. They tend to use verbal politic, show arrogance, create pride. (2) Generally the use honorific expressions related to five senses or sight sense in particular and disobey honorofic for speaker and honorific for interlocutor.
Achiever group’s elitism acknowledgement for instance religious titles are conscious of honorific principle but still being careless and inconsistent.
Government or state employers are unconscious of honorific principle;
they are being politic verbal such as filming and arrogant. They expressed
which refer to himself that the same with what is used for addressee.
(2) The level of speech of Base Alus/honorific that used among achieved social status are related to the five senses. (3) The alteration differences of honorific of speech exchange among achiever groups regardless of their social status consist of agreement enggih “yes” for agreement and tiang
“what” for a reply. As for demonstrative pronouns niki “this” and nike “that”
and for address form tiang “I” and pelunguhm “you” are considered polite.
Based the result of this research, the researcher assumes that there will be a new variant of Base Alus Lampak (BAL). BAL is a new variant of Base Alus used by extraordinary people in their daily communication or in unofficial occasions. The elite high social status achievers, in general, express honorific refers or reflects to himself as speaker and use to refer to the addressee and disobey the rule of Base Alus honorific.
Key Words: Elitism, achieved High social status, honorific principle.
ix ABSTRAK
Lalu Santana, Ekspresi Elitisme Kelompok Status Sosial Tinggi Perolehan Dalam Komunitas Sasak: Sebuah Studi Sosiopragmatik, (di bawah bimbingan Bapak Abdul Hakim Yassi selaku promotor, Hamzah A.
Machmoed and Mustafa Makkah selaku ko-promotor).
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk: (1) menentukan ekpresi elitisme kelompok status sosial tinggi perolehan dengan Base Alus / honorific. (2) menentukan jenis kata Base Alus / honorific dalam kelompok satus sosial tinggi perolehan. (3) menunjukkan perbedaan kata Base Alus yang terjadi antara kelompok status sosial tinggi perolehan tanpa memperhatikan status sosial. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode kualitatif diskriptif dengan pendekatan bahasa dan ideology, bahasa dan budaya dan dengan teori analisa indeksikalitas. Responden pada penelitian ini adalah Orang Sasak yang memiliki status sosial tinggi perolehan dalam percakapan sehari-hari dengan Base Alus.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) tidak semua orang yang status sosial tinggi perolehan menaati aturan Base Alus/honorific principle, mereka cenderung melakukan politic verbal, arrogan, membanggakan diri dan batis. (2) Status sosial tinggi perolehan umumnya menggunakan kata yang berhubungan dengan panca indra dan tidak memperhatikan honorofic ( untuk penutur dan Honorific ( ) untuk Petutur. (3) Perbedaan perubahan honorific yang terjadi di tengah penutur dan petutur dengan tidak memperhatikan status sosial yaitu kata setuju enggih “ya”
dan kata jawab tiang “apa”. Kata tunjuk niki “ini” dan nike “itu” dan kata sapa tiang “saya” dan pelungguhm “anda” dengan mengucapkan kata- kata ini maka seseorang dikatakan sopan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, maka peneliti menduga akan ada kememungkinan muncul varian baru Base Alus yaitu Base Alus Lampak (BAL). BAL adalah varian baru Base Alus yang digunakan oleh orang umum pada acara-acara tidak resmi dalam komunikasi sehari-sehari. Umumnya status sosial tinggi menunjukan dirinya dengan menggunakan Honorific ( ) sebagai petutur/addressee dan tidak memperhatikan aturan Base Alus.
Kata Kunci: Elitisme, Status Sosial Tinggi Yang Diperoleh, Base Alus.
x TABLE OF CONTENT
Title of Dissertation ...………..………..i
Approval ...………..……...ii
Statement of Originality ...………..……iii
Motto ...………..……iv
Dedication ...………..…….v
Acknowledge ...……….….vi
Abstract ...………..…..viii
Abstrak ...………..…ix
Table of Content ... ...x
The List of Table ...……...……….xiii
The Table of Abbreviation and Symbol …….……….xiv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...………..……….1
A. Background ...………...…..………..1
B. .Research Questions ...………...………....8
C. Objective of Study ...……….………..……...9
D. Scope of the Problem ...……….………...9
E. Significance of Study ...………...…..…10
F. Rationale ...………..…...11
G. Operational Definition ...………...………..…11
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...……….14
A. Previous Study ...……….………14
B. Theoretical Background ...…….…….………...23
1. Pragmatics ………...23
2. Honorific ………...29
xi
3. Linguistic Politeness ………...32
4. Language and Ideology ………...40
5. The Speech Community ………...45
6. Language and Culture ………...46
7. Sasak People ………...54
8. Sociopragmatics ………...60
9. Diglossia ………...63
10. Indexicality ………...65
C. Conceptual Framework ...………...………..75
CHAPTERIII: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………..………....…….78
A. Research Method ...……….78
B. Time and Location of Research ...……….79
C. Procedure of Data Collection ...……….79
D. Data analysis ...………..83
CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION...………..85
A. Finding ...……….85
1. Sasak Language and Ideology ……...………,,…....86
2. Sasak Language and Culture ....………..96
a. The Concept of Melaik ...……….96
b. Melaik or Elopement Process ………100
c. the Rule of Melaik and AjiKramaSuci………103
3. Everyday Exchanges ..………...130
xii
a. Public Service ..………...131
b. Commoner’s House ..………...156
c. Nobleman’s House ..………...171
B. Discussion ..………...182
1. Elite High Social Statuses ’Achiever Groups Acknowledge Their Elitism ………...………...195
2. Speech Level of Base Alus/Honorific ...220
3. The Differences ofHonorific Speech level among achiever groups (Regardless Social Status)....………...…………...222
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ………...227
A. CONCLUTION ……….227
B. SUGGESTION . ...………...229
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..………...232
Appendix 1: The Result of Interview ..………..….240
Appendix 2: INFORMANT IDENTITY ..………...255
Appendix 3: Photos ..………...256
xiii The List of Table
Table 2.1 Social Politeness ...……….…..34
Table 2.2 Referent of Honorific ...………..70
Table 4.1.1 Jawa Alus Language ...………..94
Table 4.1.2 Bali Alus Language ...………..95
Table 4.2.1 Sasak Language Numbering .………116
Table 4.2.2 Pronominal as Subject ...………118
Table 4.2.3 Pronominal as Object/Referent of H of Religious Title…..119
Table 4.2.4 Pronominal as Object/Referent of Hof Professional Title...120
Table 4.2.5 Possessive Pronoun ...………...121
Table 4.2.6 Noun or Parts of Body ...………...123
Table 4.2.7 Family Relation ...………...124
Table 4.2.8 Adverb of Frequency ...………...126
Table 4.2.9 Adverb of Manner ...………...126
Table 4.2.10 Adverb of Possibility ...…...127
Table 4.2.11 Adverb of Time ...………..127
Table 4.2.12 Demonstrative Pronoun ...……..………. 127
Table 4.2.13 Preposition ...………...128
Table 4.2.14 Verb ...………...128
xiv The Table of Abbreviation and Symbol
AdF Addressing Form
Adj Adjective
Adv Adverb
Aux Auxelary
BA Base Alus
BI Bahasa Indonesia
BI Tk Bahasa Indonesia Thanks BJ Base Jamaq
BJ Rp Base Jamaq Reply BR Base Rerumputan De/D Side/You
DmP Demonstrative Pronoun
Cmp Complement
E Expression
GA General Agreement H Honorific
HL High Level
LL Low Level
S Subject
O Object
P Predicate
V Verb
xv
k Aku/ I/my/mine
Honorific for Addresser Honorofic for Addressee Clause Honorofic of Clause NP Honorofic of Noun Phrase AdF Honorific of Addressing Form AdP Honorific of Adverb of Place Ag Honorific of Agreement Clause Honorific of Clause DmP Honorific of Demonstrative NP Honorific of Noun Phrase Pls Honorific of Please
Psp Honorific of Personal Pronoun Verb Honorific Verb
Verb Clause Honorific of Verb Clause Verb Honorofic Verb
Rp Honorific Reply HE Honorific Expression Hp Honorific Principle
HR Hadits Riwayat
IF Indirect Form NP Noun Phrase P Page
xvi PN Proper Name
PssP Possessive Pronoun
Prep Preposition
PT Profesional Title
RG Religious Greating
SPl Sasak People
SL Sasak Language
SpCom Speech Community
… Some missed words or sentences
“ “ Quotation mark
( ) Limited or Important thing, place and time / The choice of one of the Caunt.
- Reduplication
= Equal to or meaning of word or Phrase
2 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION A. Background
Elitism is an ism that delineates the social prestige of individual or high social status of achiever groups. In Sasak society, in particular there are two elites, heritage elite (menaq) and achieved elite (achieved high social status). High social status of achiever groups need the way to acknowledge or show up their elitism existence. They acknowledge their elitism through honorific expression.
Honorific is the speech level. a branch of sociolinguistic study which is based on the classification of human, animal, thing and through the use of word in semantic reference. Subject and object can be human and animal. Human and animal can be classified such as; sex, age and position. Lakoff (1986), mentioned that speech level is conducted based on some categories include ‘women, water, fire, fighting, dogs, and scorpions. This statement indicates the linguistic classification systems, though, share a common set of semantic principles of categorization, the main of which are animal and physical properties.
Linguistic classification features established the word choice or speech level. Craig (1986: 5), stated that “linguistic classifications mark humanness and animacy first, then shape, then use and consistency”.
Those criteria of the speech levels seem to be encoded by classifiers and most often is social status distance. Speech level is closely related to
1
2 speech communities which choose some codes to honor or respect another in honorific term.
Honorific is used by someone or some groups or speech community to appreciate the high prestige (elitism) of social status distance in everyday dialogues. In everyday dialogues, someone or groups of speech community certainly construct some codes or word level to honor/respect another. Fishman (1971: .28), put down “A Speech Community is a subtype of community, all of whose members share at least a single speech variety and the norms for its appropriate use”. In the reality, someone cannot live alone and cannot live among themselves without language as a medium of interrelation. Someone cannot also use variety or code by him/herself in a slapdash manner. He must be loyal to social conventional agreement. Sapir (Sapir 1956: 69), stated that
“Human beings do not live in the objective world alone or alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. ...The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation”.
Someone as a member of group in a community must be conscious to other by appreciating and addressing with certain code. Process of appreciating and addressing the other is inclusive the respecting.
Respecting the other in everyday dialogues means using language based on the word level which is closely related to the ranks of individual’s (elite)
3 prestige in society pragmatically to distinguish the hierarchical social status of individual.
Foley (1997:309) stated “the hierarchical ranking of individuals along with a dimension of social prestige”. The language used or speech level of speech community is used to express the social identity/status/dignity in the context sociopragmatics. Speech level as branch of sociolinguistics explains the relationship between language function and group/social status in a community. There are two social status structures of the society around the world; hierarchical and egalitarian status structures. European society constructed in hierarchical status structure (slave, commoner and King).
The former study of speech level conducted by Brown and Gilman ((1960) in Pride: (1972a): 232), which initiated the recent wave of address systems which was based on a study of Tus and Vous (you), the second person in European language (French). In English, there used to be similar alternation thou and ye (you) but they disappeared. Recent addressing form to the second person marked in you, Mr/Mrs, Sir and title of professional job and proper name which are considered either inferior or superior.
The system influenced the difference of speech level, and honorific acts. Asian honorific languages are very unique and interesting andare closely related to social distance, ideology and culture values. Kramsch (998: 3), states “language is the principle means whereby we conduct our
4 social lives. When it is used in of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways”. Culture values color the Indonesian honorific expression as Language Nations which has the addressing form kamu/anda (you) is similar with what happen in America.
Indonesian is also sustained by local languages as the one of its source. Almost all local languages have honorific at all speech levels. For instance; Javanese; kue, sampean, penjengan (you), Balinese; nai, nyai, nani, sige and ragane (you), Bugis language; iko, idik (you), Makassar language ikau, ikate (you), Embojo language of Bima enggomi, ita (you) and Sasak language; kamu, side, pelungguh (you) in dialects meriaq- meriqu. Sasak language according to Mahyuni: (2006:1-2), has five dialects “Sasak has been classified into five dialects ngeno’-ngene’
(central west coast and central east to north east coast), meno’- mene(around Praya, central Lombok), ‘ngeto’-ngete’ (Around Suralaga and Sembalun), kuto’-kute’ (around Bayan, north part of the island), meriaq-meriku (south central area around Bonjeruk, Sengkol and Pujut)”.
The explanation above indicates that Sasak People as bilingual or bidialectal have two level of Sasak Language. The two levels are Base Alus as High level (H) and Base Jamak as Low level (L). Sasak Language levels are chosen to respect and honor the others in honorific expression.
Honorific expression of Sasak Language is not only addressing form but all parts of speech such as verb, pronoun, possessive pronoun, adjective, and adverb. Honorific of local languages are influenced by social structure
5 and cultural values. Social structure and culture values have an effect on the language structure as stated by Duranti (1997: 46):
“The idea of culture as a system of participation is related to culture as a system of practices and is based on the assumption that any action in the world, including verbal communication, has an inherently social, collective, and participatory quality. This is a particularly useful notion of culture for looking at how language is used in the real world because to speak a language means to be able to participate in interactions with a world that is always larger than as individual speakers and even larger than what we can see and touch in any given situation”.
The social status distance and idea of culture values that colored local languages are different. As Javanese is constructed in hierarchical status structure influences the structure of Javanese language. The research of honorific was also conducted in Lombok Island resided by bidialectal Sasak People speak Sasak Language.
In this research, acknowledging self-referent (elitism) is analyzed based on dialogue of those has achieved elite high social status.
Commoners said that Base Alus (BA) basen dengan menak, (honorific is a noble language). When commoner achieved high social status, they turn to speak in Base Alus (BA), and they are active as actor in everyday dialogues.
Achiever groups who have achieved high social statuses are as objects in former researches. In this research, they were as actors or as subject and object that are active in using honorific (H) in everyday dialogues. Researcher supposed that they were an addresser and an addressees till being unconscious to the Honorific Principle (HP).They
6 were responding the other’s addressing form or utterance by showing their elitism up. Whether they are conscious or unconscious of budaya-tata- krama culture- rules and norms titi-tate-care (discipline and carefully to use the rules of speaking) and the self-humbling and exalting the others in social politeness context).
Researcher applied Watts’ theory (2005: 51) the ego’s standing which is divided into the politic verbal. Politic verbal is whether the actor of speaking keeps neither Honorific Principle (HP), filming/show up nor plain nor lies. Politic and polite have been justified by Local wisdom titi-tate-care (discipline of the rules and the way of speaking) in everyday dialogues.
Watts ( 2005: 51), stated “Two forms of marked behavior may now be posited, one leading to communicative breakdowns and the other to enhancement of ego’s standing with respect to alter, i, e., to making other people have a better Opinion” of one self. The first type of behavior is
“non-politic”, the second, I contend “polite”.
Watts’ theory of language politeness and politic verbal has been applied to investigate whether achieved high social statuses of Sasak People were being in the form of politic or polite. It is possible for Sasak People to be in politic in order his interlocutor would be happy. For example “enggih-enggih nenten kepanggih” (agree with some statements but never done anything) (it can be marked lie)).
The research mainly investigated the honorific in oral expression among the elite high social status achievers without regarding social status
7 as texts and social politeness in politic verbal as contexts. According to Ferdinand de Saussure, a text is langue and a context is parole. It is in line with Silverstein says that the relationship between text and context actually arises from the problems langue and parole, semantic and pragmatic, sentence and utterance; Chomsky: competence and performance.
Strengthening the research, the researcher has applied sociopragmatics study and supported by anthropolinguistics and semantic approaches. Qualitative descriptive analysis is more specifically using constant comparative method. Since this research is purely qualitative in nature, the data analysis has been done simultaneously with the data collection, interpretation, and narrated reporting.
The research result was expected to give new significance to the next sociolinguistics research and to enrich Sasak Language (SL) reference for next research that aim to gain full understanding for socio- cultural, historical and language context of Sasak People (SPl). For stakeholder (Government, parents, authoritarian, and teachers), the research result could be significant to sustain Local Wisdoms to young generations to pay more attention to budaya adat-tata-krama (culture, norms and rules) which are included in the way of Sasak People’s speaking. For tourists, local or foreign is able to honor and respect Sasak People. In order they will not cause discursive dispute among local people.
Sasak Language is one of hundreds of local languages in Indonesia, is hoped to be a source for Indonesian or Language Nation.
8 B. Research Questions
Sasak People (SPl) have assigned and achieved social statuses (achieved elite) instead of ascribed social status (heritage elite). The entire of social statuses are inherent in budaya, adat Tata-Krama (culture, norms and rules) or titi-tate-care (the discipline of rules and way) of Sasak People’s speaking which included in Base Alus (BA)/Honorific (H). Jajar Karang said that they are the lowest status and use Base Jamak (BJ) is low level. They also said Base Alus (BA) is the language of the heritage elite (menak) or Basen Dengan Menak (nobleman’s language). In everyday dialogues, their statement caused discursive dispute among of them. Based on the discursive dispute, Sasak People have afforded to increase or to achieved high social statuses such as religious title, education, and government employer to gain honor and respect. These phenomena would be some extent to deviate group of community to honor and respect one another.
Based on the problem above, researcher formulated his research questions as follows:
1. How do the elite high social statuses achiever groups acknowledge their elitism through Base Alus/honorific expression in everyday dialogues?
2. What are honorific speech levels of Base Alus usually used among elite high social statuses achiever groups?
9 3. What are the differences of honorific speech level used by achiever
group (regardless of social status)?
C. Objective of Study
Based on the research questions above, the researcher limited his objective research, such as follows;
1. To describe the elite high social statuses of achiever group acknowledge their elitism through Base Alus/honorific expression in everyday dialogues.
2. To determine the Base Alus/honorific speech levels that are usually used among elite high social statuses of achiever group?
3. To determine differences of Base Alus/honorific speech level those are usually used among social statuses of achiever group.
D. Scope of the Problem
Researcher has conducted meta research (investigated some books, journals, research results, dissertations and the other reading materials) which are dealing with this dissertation theme. There are some social statuses that influence Sasak Commoner to use other form of honorific. The first is because of the attitude and statement of Sasak Commoner to the Base Alus (BA)/Honorific (H). They say that Base Alus (BA)/honorific is Basen Dengan Menak (nobleman’s language) which is full of titi-tate-care (discipline of the rules and the strict way of speaking). The second that there are some elite high social status of achiever groups and
10 assigned social statuses among Sasak people who are unconscious of honorific principle.
E. Significance of Study
Researcher realized that his research is very important for those who would like to get knowledge about Sasak Language (SL) especially Base Alus (BA)/Honorific Principle (HP) in Lombok Island. In addition, this research is also significant for next researchers who are interested in conducting next research in some Sasak culture products. The implication of this research results are also very useful for sustaining budaya, adat- tata-krama (culture, norms and rules) or titi-tate-care (discipline of the rules and way) of Sasak Community’s speaking in all speech contexts.
Researcher categorized the significance of his research such as follows:
1. The research results are expected to give significant contribution to sociolinguistics study, especially for honorific principle which can be a reference for the next relevant research.
2. The research result can be a reference and the material for local language teaching and learning process.
3. The implication of this research is also very useful for Sasak Speech Community as their reference in sustaining Sasak ppeople’s high/achieved statuses to obey budaya, adat tata- krama (culture, cultural values) of conventions, titi-tate-care (discipline of the rules and the way) of speaking.
11 4. Honorific principle can be guidance for the tourist who visits
Lombok Island, so they will be welcome by local people.
F. Rationale
The rationale of this research is to improve researcher’s better understanding of Base Alus (BA)/Honorific Principle (HP) of Sasak Speech Community. Researcher focuses on discussing and explaining Base Alus (BA)/Honorific Principle (HP). Honorific expression is used by Sasak speech community in everyday dialogues and in the social-culture contexts. This research is aimed todiscuss the way of Sasak People achieve high social statuses by using Base Alus (BA)/honorific principle (HP) in everyday dialogues.
The participant in dialogue is not only addresser but also addressee.
Addresser addresses the addressee and addressee responds the addresser. Both of them are termed in Actors who are expected to use Honorific Expression (HE). Addresser addresses and addressee responds the addressing form by acknowledging their elitism whether they were conscious or unconscious or speak in non-humble or are politicing or being polite in everyday dialogues among social status contexts. All data have been analyzed by using indexical analysis and a sociopragmatics as main theory and supported by anthropolinguistics and socio-psychological approaches.
G. Operational Definition
Researcher presented some operational definitions of terms which are closely related to this research, they are as follows:
12 1. Language use is the branch of linguistics concerned with language
and its existence and its use in socio-culture context.
2. Pragmatics is a branch of semiotics and linguistics which consulates and studies the ways of speaking which reference or meaning depend on the context.
3. Honorific is part of sociopragmatics which studies how to honor and respect the other in different social status, commonly attaches to membership in a recognized profession.
4. Sociopragmatics concerns itself with any aspect of social context that is specific to pragmatic meanings of particular language use 5. Language politeness is the expression of speaker’s intention to
mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward someone.
6. Diglossia is a situation in which two distinct varieties of a language are spoken within the same speech community and each with a distinct range of social function. Both variations are standardized to some degree.
7. Base Alus or honorific is called “Basen Dengan Menak” (noble man’s language) which is used by aristocrat in Java. In Lombok, it was used by Datu and Raden but unfortunately, both Datu and Raden, the highest of Sasak stratification who used to own kingdom disappeared among Sasak community, but nowdays their language still exists.
8. Dengan Menak or Sasak nobleman or aristocrat is a community or a group of Sasak ppeople who are considered in the high level of
13 Sasak people’s stratification. Some of them are still the aristocratic stocks of Datu or King.
9. Speech Community is kind of social group whose speech characteristics are interesting and can be described in a coherent manner.
10. Sasak Speech Community is a part or group of Sasak People who speaks Sasak Language in different context, utterance the different word but different meaning in the same context.
11. Deixis is a technical terms (from Greek) its meaning is ‘pointing’ via language and constitute the most basic thing human do with language. It subsumes features of language which refers directly to the personal temporal or locational characteristics of the situation within which utterance takes place.
12. An utterance is an act that involves the use of token and typically the production of a new token, utterance can be spoken, written, typed, etc. It refers to a stretch of speech about which no assumptions have been made in terms of linguistic theory.
13. A statement is an utterance of a declarative or indicative sentence.
It is used in the classification of sentence function, and defined sometimes on grammatical, and sometimes on semantic or sociolinguistic grounds and syntactically as well.
14. An expression is type, either a word or longer phrase such as a sentence. It refers to a string of elements that reacted unit for the purpose of analysis and discussion as well. It has both grammatical and lexical characters are definable in terms of both.
14 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Study
Yatim (1983) identified honorific in his dissertation entitled Subsystem Honorific of Bahasa Makassar which focused on the development theory of generalization form which happens on traditional and modern societies in subsystem of honorific of Makassar language. In this research, the honorific is not only identified on sub system but the focused on high social status of achiever group’s consciousness in honorific in everyday dialogues.
Lucien Brown (1984), applied the interlanguage pragmatics study using mixed methodology to investigate the use of Korean honorifics by second-language (L2) speakers of Korean from "Western" backgrounds.
His research shown the speakers, despite their proficiency in Korean, often applied honorifics in ways that differed from local "norms: He set out to determine the extent to which these differences were due to deficiencies in knowledge per se, or otherwise the result of the speakers' identities as
"Westerners" and "foreigners': The competence of L2 speakers developed regarding honorifics was greatly influenced by ideologies pertaining to what it meant to "be polite" and "show respect'' and - more broadly - the differences between Korean and Western modes of politeness and social behavior.
15 This research analyzed eventhough the honorific expression that used by elite high social status of achiever groups to acknowledge their elitism or they indexed polite or politic. Politic means the strategy of achieved high social status in using Base Alus (BA)/honorific, whether they are true or have other tendency to express Base Alus (BA)/honorific,
Rabiana (1995) in her dissertation entitled The Respects Forms in Personal Pronoun Reference of Gorontalo languages which focus on typology analysis of personal pronoun reference of Gorontalo languages to gain whether there are forms, sameness, variation in takzim or respect system and whether there are dominant of personal and numeric system which indicated the domination of takzim or respectful of personal pronoun reference in Gorontalo language.
Those researchers analyzed the honorific as ideal form in Makassar and Gorontalo languages. In this research, researcher does not only focus on the ideal form of honorific but also on the use of Base Alus/honorific of Sasak Language in reality or in everyday dialogues among elite social status achiever and ascribed statuses in which the researcher treated the elite high social status of commoner (achiever group) as subject and object. Sasak Language (SL) also embedded the culture values of Sasak People (SPl) which released in honorific (H). Sasak culture and social stratification determined speech level and applied in Honorific Principle (HP). Honorific Principle (HP) in Sasak Language (SL) was not only
16 inherited in Addressing Form (AdF) but in all speech level as discussed in chapter four.
Ramsey, et al. (2000), stated that polite forms and rules of use of the system of honorifics are performed very differently by the culture of the country. Asian Honorific plays more significant role. The area of the world most known for its elaborate systems of person honorific is santansant – East Asia.
This research analyzed the way of speaking in structure of Sasak Language. Sasak People’s way of speaking is constructed by language, ideology and culture. Language, ideology and culture have a vital impact in everyday interaction among them. The speech levels to classify thing, human or to refer the other or himself constructed by language, ideology and culture in everyday dialogues.
Yule (2002: 5)stated that Sasak Language diexis Sasak Language level system consists of two sub-systems. Firstly, style system, which refers to three alternant forms Jajar Karang, madya, and utama (low, mid, and high) that concerned with the relation between addresser and addressee and marking an assessment of the relative social status and degree of familiarity between the discourse participants. Secondly, reference system, which marks deference to a person who may be the second or the third person of the discourse.
Yule was talking generally and formally about the system of Sasak language and about reference system(2002: 5). In this research the data
17 are gained through the formal event and the reality live or everyday dialogues, whether elite high social status of achiever groups are conscious in using honorific or having other tendencies which are constructed by ego-standing.
Akira Ishikawa (2003) conducted his research entitled “An Event Based Interpretation of Japanese Honorific Construction Using RRG Operators. He presented an analysis of subject honorific construction based on functioning analysis of existential and copulative verbs, and related them to adjectival verbs.
This research also sketched the possible background or the aim of elite high social status of achiever group in expressing honorific. The latest theoretical models of politeness that be implemented in this research is the theory that promoted by Watts (2003). This research focused on field of politeness; impolite, rude etc, are subject to discursive dispute in that participant in social interaction are to differ individuals, contribution to the interaction honorific expression.
Cynthia Dickel Dunn (2005) in her research result entitled “Japanese Honorific Use as Indexical of the Speaker’s Situational Stance: Towards a New Model”. She demonstrated traditional models of honorific use as rule- governed and obligatory cannot adequately account for the variation found in actual honorific use. Empirical evidence shows that speakers are not always consistent in their use of honorifics, even when talking about the same person in the same speech situation. Rather, speakers shift honorific
18 levels in order to index shifts in their situational stance and presentation of self. Such data challenge us to create a model of honorific use which can account for the interaction of sociolinguistic norms with speaker agency and volition rather than dichotomizing them. In the following sections, she first gave a general description of the Japanese honorific system and then provided an analysis of the use of humble verbs in speeches at Japanese wedding receptions. Rather than consistently using humble verbs for self- reference throughout the entire speech, speakers shifted between humble and non-humble forms to index shifts in their stance towards the speech situation. Humble forms were associated with the enactment of a formal, public role as “wedding speaker”, while shifts to non-humble verbs occurred when speakers momentarily stepped out of the wedding speaker role in order to comment on their own performance. The speeches provide evidence of both sociolinguistic norms and speakers’ ability to manipulate those norms to convey their stance towards the speech situation and social roles they enacted.
Meanwhile the subject of the speaker that analyzed in this research is the addressee and addresser (achieved high social status) of achiever who active in everyday dialogues. The speaker that analyzed in Dunn above is educated speaker who are speaking in formal context in ceremony wedding party and his reference of his expression is the second person. It is contradicted to the actors of the communication in this research are commoner (achiever group) who acknowledge their elitism
19 interaction in everyday dialogues. The references of their expressions are not only second person or third person but themselves or it can be called self-reference.
Shirado Tamotsu et al. (2007)conducted his research entitledSystem for Flexibly Judging the Misuse of Honorific in Japanese. They described the honorific levels; sonkeigo related to politeness status, kenjougo1 related to politeness that refer to object which involved in social politeness, kenjougo2 the relation of politeness with listener, and teinneigo is politeness related to person who is usually listener. They proposed a system that flexibly judges the misusage of honorifics in Japanese sentence. The system uses judgment rules whose degrees of validity in modern Japanese society were quantified by psychological experiments.
They focused their research formally on the expression of the speaker that refers to listener. In this research, the object of the study is the honorific expression which is used to acknowledged the elitism of achiever group which influenced by language and ideology language and culture. The honorific expression of addresser (elite) was not only referring to the addressee but also refers to him.
Kabaya (2009) carried out his research entitled KeigoHyougen. He investigated speech components; ba (place), ningenkamkei (participant relation), naiyou (content), ishiki/kimmeci (feeling), and keshiki/katachi (form) of Japanese. He considered sociolinguistics to investigate the sentence construction; linguistic factor (lexical / morphological), and
20 honorific language constitutes politeness as non linguistic aspects. His research analyzed the structure of Japanese speech components ideally /formally. In this research, researcher analyzed the honorific which is used to acknowledge the elitism by achiever group in reality dialogue of everyday dialogues. Kabaya gained the data syntactically formality, meanwhile in this research, the data gained syntactically, culturally as the ideal data and pragmatically from real communication or everyday dialogues.
Khalik (2009) conducted his research entitled “The Patterns of Sasak Code Choice”. This research concluded that Sasak people choose one code rather than another, the case that brings about the shifts from one code to another and the use of the code formed from two other codes by mixing the two in daily communication.
The reference of expression of the code that expressed by the addressee is to refer to addresser. Researcher analyzed the addressee expression which refers to addresser and to him. The addresser also expressed his expression when he responded the addressee address.
The focuses of the researches above are on the structure and the way of Honorific Principle (HP) used to acknowledge elitism by achiever group ranks ideally or formally.
The researcher has combined the linguistic factors with linguistic aspects of honorific in which addresser’s Honorific Expression (HE) refers to the addressee as object. The object of this research is achiever groups
21 of commoners who tend to respect each other by acknowledgement of elitism as much Base Alus as possible when they speak one another.
They are as object in Mahyuni (2004), Khalik (2009) and Austen (2010).
Sukarno (2010) explained the concept of culture in his research entitled “The reflection of Javanese Culture Concepts in the Politeness of Javanese”. Sukarno stated that Javanese is strongly influenced by the Javanese culture. Some concepts of the Javanese people, such as: tata krama, andhap-asor, and tanggap ing sasmita play the vital role in the politeness of Javanese. These concepts are clearly reflected in Javanese, especially as the devices of politeness.
He analyzed the honorific structure of Javanese which expressed by addresser that refers to the addressee, meanwhile this research analyzed the honorific expression of addressee that used by achiever group to acknowledge their elitism even though refers to addresser and also refers to himself. Addresser also active to respond the addressee’s addressing form and his respond also refer to himself.
Wong, Kit Ying. (2011), conducted his research entitled “The System of Honorific in Korean Language” (outstanding Academic paper by Students (OAPS). He States that “The System of Honorific in Korean are such follow; addressing seniority, social ranks, hierarchical culture, verbal inflection (subject-object honorific), reasons for honorific, system on difference speech level, and honorific acts”.
22 Ying research indicates that the position of (achiever group) addresser and addressee derived the honorific expression. The same also with this research talking about addressing form based on the concept of superior and inferior. The differences with this reseach are Sasak Language speech levels included in honorific. The expression of honorific does not only refer to the addresser but the addressee himself. The addresser respond the addressee addressing, the respond also refer to addresser himself.
Rahayu (2014) conducted her research entitled Comparison of Honorific Language in Javanese and Japanese speech community. He said that honorific language is a language expression to show respect given by speaker to the hearer. She focused on how the position of honorific language and the principles of using honorific language
She stated that Honorific language is manifested through diction containing honorific expression by taking social factors as the background of the utterance into account. She distinguished the levels of Javanese and Japanese Honorific such as; Javanese honorific ngoko and karma which are influenced by culture values nggahing base is language grammatical rule based the society. Japanese speech level (suphiichireberu); Futsuugo and Keigo, where Ngoko equal to futsuugo are their comparison is speech levels that is based on relation of horizontal dimension including pergroup. Krama equal to Keigo are level of language
23 which reflects relation of vertical dimension including old-young relation, honorific language social status etc.
In this research, instead of analyzing the honorific expression based on social factors (demography) the researcher also analyze the honorific expression based on the culturally (ethnography) which focused on the acknowledgement elitism by self-reference of the Actor (achiever groups) of communication in real live.
B. Theoretical Background 1. Pragmatics
The word pragmatics comes from Latin pragmaticus and the Greek language πραγματικός (pragmatikos), meaning amongst others "fit for action", which comes from πρᾶγμα (pragma), "deed, act", and that from πράσσω (prassō), "to pass over, to practice, to achieve”. Pragmatics is a branch of semiotics and Linguistic which consulates and studies the ways of speaking which referent or meaning depend on the context contribute.
Four cases become domain in pragmatics; speaker (society) referent (massage), meaning (goal, agreement) and context (situation, setting, events, and social relation). In such way that pragmatics involves speech acts theory, conversational and implicature or conversation analysis and other approaches to language behavior. Pragmatics delineates the transmission of meaning which is depending on structural of linguistic
24 knowledge and on the context of the utterance of the speaker and listener in any social-cultural factors.
The term of pragmatics firstly introduced by Charles Morris (1935) distinguished three distinct branches of inquiry: syntactic (or syntax), being the study of formal relation of signs to one another. Semantics is “the relationship of the signs to the objects to which the sign are applicable.
And pragmatic is the study of the relation of signs to the interpreters,”
(Levinsion, 1983: 1). It can be said that pragmatic is a science in linguistic and also as a competence of using language in appropriate context.
Suyono (1990: 3) also stated that pragmatics is a science as semantics and syntactic, and it is also as a competence or skill of using the language based on the determined communicative act like; who talk to whom, what is it about, when and how the communication is taking place.
The concept of pragmatic above is similar with Crystal (1985: 240) stated “pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constrain they encounter in using language as social interaction and affects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication. In other words, pragmatic is the study of communication in its social-cultural context”.
All explanations of pragmatic above discuss the ability of language users to match utterances with contexts. Pragmatics is the study of linguistics acts and the contexts in which they are performed. Pragmatic rules for language use are often neglected or disobeyed. Even some
25 members of society are often unaware of pragmatic rules until they destroy the communicative norms and rules like breaking the communicative intimacy communication. Affecting hurt feelings, arising odd acts, and offense condition which all points may hinder the communication process.
Bachman’s model of communicative competence in Kasper (1994:
1) refers to model of language competence which is subdivided into two competences; ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’.
Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic units and roles of joining them together at the level of sentence (grammatical competence) and discourse (textual competence), while pragmatic competence comprises of illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence. Illocutionary competence can be glossed as knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out, and sociolinguistic competence comprises the ability to use linguistic appropriately according to context. It includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending on the current
‘conversational contract’.
Conversational is an oral language event performed by two or more participants in enjoyable condition. Here, the participants are joined together building conversational cooperative principles to yield functional language events. To support the creation of functional language events, according to Suyono (1990: 17), there are five principles of conversation should be taken into account, (i) how to attract the participants attention,
26 (ii) how to start the conversation, (iii) how to end conversation, (iv), how to interrupt or cutting the conversation, and (v) how to correct the errors in the conversation. All of these statements were applied in teaching for language acquisition but specific in sociopragmatic whose meaning
‘pointing’ via language is called diexis.
Deixisis a technical terms (from Greek) whose meaning is ‘pointing’
via language and constitute the most basic thing human do with language.
In addition, any linguistics form used to accomplish this ‘pointing’ is called a deictic expression or indexical, Yule (2002:9). Proximal terms indicate
‘near speaker’. For example, ‘now’ referring to some point or period in time by the speaker’s utterance occurs at its center. Distal terms can purely indicate ‘away from speaker’. In Sasak language, diexis is quietly similar like what occurs in Japanese, the pronunciation of ‘that’ will make out between that near speaker ‘iyak’ /Iyak/, near addressee ‘iku’ /IkU/ and distant from both speaker and addressee ‘tauh’ /taUh/.
In many languages, these deictic categories of speaker, addressee, and other (s) are distinguished by markers of relative social status.
Expressions that indicate higher social status are described as honorifics, Yule (2002:12-3). The social status in term of respect, the deictic categories as referring expression also contribute to the selection of reference used by speaker to addressee or vice versa.
There are two aspects which build up the deixis in social status expression or honorific are cooperation and implicature. Cooperation is the
27 accessing point for making sense of what is communicated, by mean that cooperation is the only way for communication becomes successful, Yule (2002:35). Saying fact is only a starting point for making what is said. For example, I have a laptop (in fact, I have a laptop). Otherwise, it will give different presupposition when I say ‘laptop is laptop’ or ‘business is business’ or ‘my brother will be my brother’ and so forth. This is
‘tautologies’, what speaker wants to communicate in this expression must be more than what is uttered. In view of the interlocutor or listener, that something must be more than just what the expressions are always true, no matter which situation you utter them in words. If there is an additional meaning of what is being communicated is called implicature, it occurs only in view of listener interpretation. In relation to that, there are some basic cooperative principles.
Implicature is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker's utterance without being part of what is said. What a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and understood. Speaker tacitly exploits pragmatic principles to bridge this gap and counts on hearer to invoke the same principles for the purposes of utterance interpretation (see Horn (2007) in Implicature: The Handbook of Pragmatics: Blackwell Reference Online). In communication we sometimes infer or conclude
28 based not only on what said, but also on assumptions about what speaker is trying to achieve.
Presupposition on word ‘drawer’ is true for both of them. However, when Takeshi asks Vivian with ‘Can I see inside your drawer?’ and Vivian slaps her hand in his face is unexpected thing occurs for Takeshi. From Vivian’s perspectives, Takeshi is impertinent. While Takeshi himself, does not accept on Vivian’s action in responding his question. Socio-cultural must be on account. In Vivian’s understanding, Takeshi wants to see something inside her panties she wears at the present. She thinks that Takeshi has just done sexual harassment. Moreover, the expressions of
“drawer” cannot be accepted in her culture if it is uttered in front of a female.
Based on the explanations above, in communication there will principle; cooperative principle must be regarded. Communicative principle at least elaborated into sub-principles called maxims. These sub- principles make our conversational contribution such as is essential, at the stage at which it occurs, by accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which we are engaged (Grice (1975), the maxims (hedges) overwhelm; Quantity: Contribution must be as informative as is required (for current purpose of the exchange). Qualityis making our contribution one that is true. Relation (Be relevant) and Manner (be perspicuous);
avoid obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity or to the point, be orderly.
29 2. Honorific
Conferring or showing honor or respect; honorific is part of sociolinguistics-Pragmatics (sociopragmatics). Honorific studies how to honor and respect the other in different social status, commonly attaches to membership in a recognized profession. Fillmore described the aspect of sentences in his theory social deixis “the aspect of sentences which reflect or establish or are determined by certain realities of the social situation in which the speech acts occurs,” Fillmore(1972: 76). Meanwhile, Brown and Levinson explained “those aspect of language structure that encoded the social identities of participants (properly, incumbents of participants-roles), or the social relationship between them, or between one of them and persons and entities referred to” Brown and Levinson (1978: 183). Honorific is relevant to the topic of social deixis in so far their grammatical. The examples of such grammatical are “polite” pronouns and titles of address form.
Steven C. Levinson (1983: 90)classified honorific in two kinds of socially deictic information that seem to encode in language around the world: “rational and absolute”. Relational variety is the most important which typically get expressed are those between: 1. Speaker and referent (e.g. referent honorifics). 2. Speaker and addressee (e.g. addressee honorifics). 3. Speaker and bystander (e.g. bystander or audience honorifics. 4. Speaker and setting (e.g. formality levels).
30 Levinsion (1983: 90) stated that we can talk of honorific just where the relation in (1) and (2) concerns relative rank or respect; but there many other qualities of relationship that may be grammaticalized, e.g. kinship relations, totemic relations, clan membership, etc., as made available by the relevant social system. His book distinguishes the first three kinds of honorific traditional descriptions have often confused (1) and (2): the distinction is that respect, whereas in (2) it can be conveyed without necessarily referring to the target. Thus the familiar tu/voustype of distinction in singular pronoun of address (which following Brown and Gilman (1960), we shall call T/V pronouns) is really a referent honorific system, where the referent happens to be the addressee. In Korean, Japanese and Javanese, it is possible to say some sentences glossing as
‘The soup is hot’ and by the choice of a linguistic alternate (e.g. for ‘soup’) encode respect to the addressee without referring to him, in which case we have an addressee honorific. The third kinds of relational information between speaker and bystander are more rarely encoded in bystander honorifics. The term bystander here does duty as a cover term for participants in audience role and for non-participating overhears. In this research, researcher emphasized the speaker and referent. Referent in this research can be speaker (addresser and addressee) as actor in dialogue or some things that belong to him.
Levinson (1983: 92) noted “nominal predicates tend to agree with actual number and person, finite verbs with morphological person and
31 number encoded in polite form of the pronoun, with language-specific decisions on predicates of intermediates kind”. He also described “the other way in which addressee are referred to, namely by title of address, also causes agreement problem – a decision has to between second or third agreement, and, where relevant, between titles of address can co- occur with degree of respect encoded in verbal agreements,” (1979b).
Another theory of honorific also promoted by Levinson(1983: 92) is “In Languages with honorific, honorific concord can thus become an intricate aspect of morphology, which cannot always be treated formally without reference to the socially deitic values of particular morphemes”.
Levinson (1979b), furthermore gave the example, honorific to children, argues for the existence of prior and well-established meanings independent of rules of usage. He also explained the Social deixes which is concerned with the meaning and grammar (e.g. the problems of honorific concord) of certain linguistic expressions, while sociolinguistics is also concerned, inter alia, with how these items are actually used in concrete social contexts classified with reference to the parameters of relevant social system. He emphasized that “social deixis” can be systematically restricted to the study of facts that lie firmly within the scope of structural studies of linguistic systems, leaving the study of usage to another domain.
Dunn describes the honorific expression “The use of distal forms indexes a more “public” and socially governed self-presentation, while
32 direct forms index a more intimate and spontaneous side of the self,”
(Cook, 1996; Dunn, 1999). In this research, actors (addresser and addressee) are expected to use these forms when responding addressing form that refers to them. And then they are suspected of being conscious or unconscious while they are speaking on non-humble in dialogue of everyday exchanges among social politeness contexts.
All languages have addressing form reference including Sasak Language. Sasak Language addressing form references are; references Base Jamak are personal pronoun: 1st person; aku I (singular) aku+mesak, aku+ bedua…. Aku selapuq/selapuq kepenn I am alone, we are both, we are all, all use own(plural), 2sd person; kamu, side you (singular) kamu pade, side pade you/you are all (plural), 3th person; nie or proper name (singular) nie pade they are all (plural). Referent in Base Alus (high level/honorific) are; 1st person deweq tiang“I” (singular), dewek tiang selapuq “I” and all (plural), 2sd person pelungguhm/pelinggihm you (singular), pelungguhm/pelinggihm same you are all (plural), 3th person den + proper name, attitude and physical condition den boling Imran, den ayah Katok (singular) and + sareng + proper name den ayah katoksareng den boling ImranDen Ayah Katok with den boling Imran (plural). Reference for 3th person/natural arePanjaq and Kaule slave and servant.
3. Linguistic Politeness
Rhicard Janney Watts, et al. (2005) effuse their idea to give a view of politeness that focus on four areas. 1.The historicity of the concept of
33 politeness, and the history of politeness research in Europe and elsewhere. 2. The fundamental of theoretical problems of a notion of linguistic politeness. 3. The examples of the kind of empirical research being carried out within the framework of a notion of politeness. 4. Giving examples of some of the theoretical and empirical problem in a non- Western oriented conceptualization of politeness. In the former case, politeness was a too weakly positive message may be interpretive as insincere, ironic, or sarcastic; i. e., “damning by faint praise”. In the latter case, a too strongly negative message may be interpreted as aggressive, unfriendly, or hostile, (Watts, 2005: 36).
They stated the idea of linguistic politeness from a socio - psychological point of view. According to them, “politeness is not a static logical concept, but a dynamic interpersonal activity that can be observed, described, and explained in functional interactional terms. Within a given culture, almost any normal adult can be polite in impolite ways or can be impolite in polite ways, (Watts,2005: 22)”. For example: in Base Jamak
“Amak yakm mangan” will be polite if is uttered in appropriated intonation and a way of expression.
Watts also conducted the research with Arndt about the politeness from a social point of view, and later is politeness from an interpersonal point of view (Arndt and Janney 1985a, 1985b, 1987b). Both types of politeness - social and interpersonal - are culturally acquired, and are interrelated in speech; but they are quite different, and it is important for
34 investigators of politeness to distinguish between them. Watts and Arndt gave the strategy to avoid confusion in the following discussion; they will refer to the former as “social politeness” and to the latter as “tact” such as table below;
Table 2,1 Social Politeness
Social Politeness Tact
Focus The group: socially appropriate communicative forms, norms, routines, rituals, etc.
The partner: interpersonally supportive communicative techniques, styles and strategies.
Frame Interactional: people’s need for efficient, uncomplicated interaction with other members of their group,
Interpersonal: people’s need to preserve face and maintain positive relationships with their partners.
Functi on
Regulative: facilitates the coordinated exchange of routine conversational roles and responsibilities.
Conciliative: helps avoid threats to face, and facilitates the peaceful negotiation of interpersonal affairs
Based on the figure above, there are two main points that must be obeyed when conducting the linguistic politeness research such as;
1. Social Politeness
Social politeness is rooted in people’s need for smoothly organized interaction with other members of their group. As member of groups, people must behave in more or less predictable ways in order to achieve social coordination and sustain communication. One of their main means of doing this is to follow conventions of social politeness (Bennett 1976:
35 177, Griffin and Mehan (1981: 199). Various terms have been invented in recent years for such conventions: e. g., “convertional routines” (Coulmas, 1981), “Politeness formulas” (Ferguson:1976).“Compliment formulas”
(Manes and Wolfson: 1981), “Politeness Conventions” (Lewis 1969;
schiffer:1972), “Formulaic expressions” (Tannen and Oeztek: 1981), and so on.
They give the function of social politeness is mainly to provide a framework of standardized strategies for getting gracefully into, and back out of, recurring social situations such as: initiating conversation (e.g., greeting people, introducing oneself and others, responding to greetings and introductions, introducing topics), maintaining conversation (e. g., ending topics, ending conversations, bidding farewell), and so on.
2. Tact
Meanwhile, tact is rooted in people’s need to maintain face, in their fear of losing it, and in their reluctance to deprive others of it (Goffman:
1967). As partners in social interaction, people are more or less dependent on each other to cooperate in maintaining the fragile balance of respect and consideration necessary for the preservation of face (Brown and Levinson: 1978).one of their main means of doing this, and avoiding conflicts, is to be tactful (Arndt and Janney: 1987b). Being tactful is not simply a matter of behaving in a socially “Correct” way - i.e., following rules of social usage; rather, it is a matter of behaving in an interpersonally supportive way (Arndt and Jenney: 1985a, 1985b). It involves empathizing
