THE POLITENESS STRATEGY OF
7 YEARS OLD CHILDREN
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
CANRA SITUMEANG Reg. No: 8106111046
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
ABSTRACT
Situmeang, Canra. Registration Number: 8106111046. The Politeness Strategy of 7 Years Old Children. A thesis. Postgraduate School, English Applied Linguistics Study Program. The State University of Medan. 2013.
This study deals with The Politeness Strategy of 7 Years Old Children. It employs qualitative research design with an observational case study. This study is aimed to describe: (1) the types of politeness strategy used by seven-years-old children at school, (2) the process of using politeness strategies by seven-years-old children at school, and (3) the reasons of using politeness strategies by seven-years-old children at school. The subjects are 3 children of 7 years old of SD RK. Makmur, Budi Murni 7 Medan. The instrument used in this study is observational and taking notes is used in collecting the data. All the utterances relate to politeness strategy produced by the subjects written down in book then 30 conversations are chose to be analyzed. The data are analyzed by using Miles and Hubberman’s data analysis. Among four types of politeness strategy based on Brown and Levinson’s theory: 1) bald
on-record, 2) positive politeness, 3) negative politeness, and 4) off-on-record, the only one type
which is not used by the three subjects. It was negative strategy while the other three types are used by them in their communication and the dominant type used is bald on-record
strategy. In producing politeness strategy, the three children of seven years old of SD Budi
ABSTRAK
Situmeang, Canra. NIM: 8106111046. Strategi Kesopanan Berbahasa oleh Anak Usia 7 Tahun. Tesis. Pasca Sarjana, Program Study Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2013.
Penelitian ini merupakan kajian tentang Strategi Kesopanan Berbahasa oleh Anak Usia 7 Tahun. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan desain penelitian studi kasus observasi, yang mengkaji: 1) Jenis-jenis strategi kesopanan yang digunakan anak usia 7 tahun di sekolah, 2) Proses penggunaan strategi kesopanan oleh anak usia 7 tahun di sekolah, 3) Alasan-alasan penggunaan strategi kesopanan oleh anak usia 7 tahun di sekolah. Subjek penelitian ini adalah anak usia 7 tahun di SD RK. Makmur, Budi Murni 7 Medan. Penelitian ini menggunakan instrumen berupa observasi dan membuat catatan digunakan dalam pengumpulan data. Semua data-data yang berhubungan dengan strategi kesopanan yang dihasilkan oleh subjek ditulis di buku kemudian 30 percakapan dipilih untuk dianalisis. Data dianalisis berdasarkan analisis data Miles dan Hubberman. Diantara empat tipe strategi kesopanan berdasarkan teori Brown dan Levinson: 1) bald on-record (disampaikan secara langsung tanpa dipoles), 2) kesopanan yang positif, 3) kesopanan yang negatif, dan 4)
off-record (disampaikan secara tidak langsung), hanya satu yang tidak digunakan oleh ketiga
subjek. Itu adalah strategi yang negative sementara ketiga jenis yang lain digunakan oleh mereka dalam berkomunikasi dan tipe yang paling dominan digunakan adalah strategi bald
on-record (disampaikan secara langsung tanpa dipoles). Dalam menghasilkan strategi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, the writer would like to praise and thank the Almighty
God for His never ending love in my life and His mercy in giving full patient and
strength that has enable me to accomplish this thesis in order to fulfill one of
requirements in obtaining the degree of Magister Humaniora from the English
Applied Linguistics, Postgraduate Program from the State University of Medan.
The writer realized that this thesis will not finished without support,
motivation, guide, and contribution, and so on of others, therefore the writer
would like to deliver her special thanks and appreciation to the persons who have
mention below:
Special thanks are conveyed to her beloved husband, Fredy Rusdi A.
Sianipar for his always support mentally and financially, motivation and endless
praying. To her little son, Andrew Septiano Sianipar, for his support and
understanding.
The deepest thanks are conveyed to her beloved parents, A. Situmeang and
M. Sipahutar, to her beloved father and mother in law, S. A. Sianipar and L.
Nababan for their support, motivation and endless praying. To her beloved all
brothers and sisters for their endless praying and support during her study and
finishing this thesis.
She would also like to deliver a special thanks, appreciation, and gratitude
Minda Murni, M.S who have given her guidance, support, and valuable input in
process of writing this thesis, and also for their precious time in discussing, giving
idea and suggestion since the beginning until completing this thesis. To the
second advisor, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, she would like to express her
deepest thanks for her guidance, advice, analytic inputs, and her professional
support. She spends the precious time in giving suggestion and command in
contents to her thesis that help her to shape this thesis. For without their help and
generosity in sharing their knowledge, she would not be able to complete this
thesis.
She also would like to thanks to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Dr.
Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum, and for their positive contribution and
suggestions in enriching the quality of this thesis.
She also would like to deliver her appreciations and gratitude to the Head
of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd
and to Dr. Sriminda Murni, M.S as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistic
Study Program, for their suggestion and administrative assistance during her study
and completed this thesis as well as complete her Master degree in English
Applied Linguistic Study Program, Postgraduate School State University of
Medan. She also would like to deliver special thanks to Prof. Dr. H. Abdul Muin
Sibuea, as the Director of Postgraduate School Study Program of State University
Furthermore, she would also like to take this opportunity to give thanks to
all lecturers of LTBI, Reguler class, who have shared their precious time and
knowledge to all the students.
The writer would also like to thanks to all of her beloved friends in LTBI
class of XIX; Ira, Elvi, Eka, Maria Ulfa, Nova, Zikra, Mita, Enni, Kak Nurlia,
Aisyah, Ulfa Salha, Meisa, Yuni, Mulki, Kak Khairiah, Bayu, Nasir, Bang Mulia,
Syafiq, and Ismed. Thanks for their support, pray, and motivation in finishing her
study. May God bless you all. Amin.
The last but not least, the writer would like to thanks to the Headmaster of
SD Katolik Makmur, Budi Murni 7 Medan who has given the opportunity to
observed the students and to maam M. Siringo-ringo as the teacher of grade two.
And special thanks to the researcher’s respondents, Aveni Saulina Nainggolan,
Nadya Gracya Nainggolan, and Jonathan Shavcenko for their participation.
Finally, this thesis is still far from being perfect in spite of fact that the
writer has done her best in completing her work. For this reason, it is suggested
for other researchers to make further study related to this topic and subject.
. Medan, September, 2013 The writer,
CANRA SITUMEANG
x
x
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSIONS ……… 48
4.1 Data ……… 48
4.2 Data Analysis ………. 48
4.2.1 Types of Politeness Strategies used by Children of Seven Years Old ……….. 49
4.2.1.1 Politeness Strategies in Bold on Record used by Children of Seven Years Old ………... 51
4.2.1.2 Politeness Strategies in Positive Politeness used by Children of Seven Years Old ……….... 62
4.2.1.3 Politeness Strategies in Negative Politeness used by Children of Seven Years Old ……… 67
4.2.1.4 Politeness Strategies in Off-Record used by Children Of Seven Years Old ……… 67
x
4.2.2.1 Direct Speech Acts ………. 71
4.2.2.2 Indirect Speech Acts ………... 73
4.2.3 The Reasons of Using Politeness Strategies ……… 77
4.2.3.1 Cognitive Development of Concrete Operation Stage ……… 77
4.2.3.2 Psychosocial Development of Concrete Operation Stage ………. 82
4.3 Research Findings ……….. 86
4.4 Discussions ………. 87
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ………. 89
5.1 Conclusions ……… 89
5.2 Suggestions ……… 89
REFERENCES ……… 91
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Positive Politeness ………... 19
Table 2. The Developmental Stages of Learners ………... 33
Table 3. The Occurrence of Different Types of Politeness Strategies of the Children
of 7 Years Old ………... 50
Table 4. The Occurrence of Process of Politeness Strategies by the Children of 7 Years
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Possible strategies for doing FTAs ……….. 14
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix I Politeness Strategies Produced by Seven Years Old Children
……… 94
Appendix II Politeness Strategies Produced by the First Subject ………. 104
Appendix III Politeness Strategies Produced by the Second Subject .……… 109
Appendix IV Politeness Strategies Produced by the Third Subject ………... 114
Appendix V Types of Politeness Strategy Produced by the Third Subjects ……… 117
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of the Study
Language – as an absolute needs – is used for communication to convey
one‟s intention to each other in their social interactions. In conveying the
intention, people use strategies in their communication as it is a part of the
language user‟s communicative competence. The speakers communicative
competence deals with Pragmatics (Traugott and Pratt, 1980: 226). Pragmatics
determines our choice of wording and our interpretation of language in different
situations. Just as rules exist for creating grammatical sentences, linguistic
conventions guide the appropriate use of language in various contexts. For
instance, the awareness of how we modify conversation when addressing different
types of listeners. A greeting such as, “Hi, sweety! What‟s up?” is more likely to
be uttered to your little sister, while a greeting such as, “Hey Rud! How are you?”
is used to greet your friend. Such greetings called as knowledge of pragmatics.
Pragmatics concerns with some fields and politeness is one of them.
Politeness strategies are very important to investigate as it is used by people in
their social interactions and in specific contexts, knowing what to say, how to say,
when to say, and how to be with other people. Politeness involves talking account
of the feelings to others (Brown, 1987: 296). Being polite is a complicated
business in any language. It is difficult to learn because it involves understanding,
(Brown: 1987). Besides, politeness strategies are important in avoiding or
minimizing the threat of addressee‟s face.
Politeness strategies are ways to convey the utterances as polite as
possible. To achieve that, there are some strategies that can be applied in specific
contexts used by an individual in certain society. It also relates to the speakers and
hearers age, status, and power. Brown and Levinson in Goody (1978: 74) divided
politeness strategies into two, namely: 1) „bald on-record strategy‟ and 2) „
off-record strategy‟. „Bald on-record strategy‟ could be divided also into two: (3)
„positive politeness strategy‟ and (4) „negative politeness strategy‟. „Bald
on-record strategy‟ is a strategy used to say or act something in a direct way, for
example: “Give me your pen”, means that the speaker say the intention directly
that one‟s need a pen. However, „off-record strategy‟ is the opposite one, a
strategy used to say or act something in an indirect way, for example: “I forgot my
pen”, means that the speaker did not say directly what he wants but he actually
has the same intention as the „Bald on-record strategy‟ that he needs a pen.
„Positive politeness strategy‟ means being complimentary and gracious to the
addressee, for example: “Why don‟t we go out for the seminar?” Meanwhile,
„Negative politeness strategy‟ is to minimize requests without using the indirect
forms by mitigating the imposition, for example: “Would you mind if I asked you
to close the window?” In short, all people use politeness strategies in their
communication that is why the researcher chooses politeness strategies to be
The process of politeness strategies cannot be divided with speech acts.
Speech acts are bits of speech produced as part of bits of social interaction.
Gleason and Ratner (1998: 285) said that politeness strategies can be performed
by two ways: „direct speech acts‟ and „indirect speech acts‟. Direct speech acts are
defined as those that use common syntactic forms to encode the common
linguistic functions for which they are specifically designed to inform listeners.
The form which frequently used is declarative. For instance, a witness might
declare that, “The body was cold when I arrived.” Typically, speakers use
interrogative forms to request information. For example, the lawyer in the opening
excerpt asks, “Who put them on the floor?” Imperative forms are the most direct
way of commanding someone to do something such as, “Put your hand on the
Bible and swear to tell the truth.” Indirect speech acts are speech acts in which the
literal meaning of a sentence is not what speakers intend to communicate. For
example, the lawyer says, “I‟m sorry?” not to genuinely apologize to the witness,
but to command the witness to clarify his previous statement to make it clearer.
Indirect speech acts can be performed by a question, for instance, “Could you pass
the salt, please?
The phenomena dealing with politeness strategies come from different
language users such as adults, teenagers, or children and it can also relates to
culture. In this research, children specifically children of seven years old will be
the focus. It is in line with different subjects with different ages investigated and
At the age of seven years, the children begin to pay attention to others in
communication. They need to play and to share with their friends. In this stage,
intelligence is demonstrated through logical and systematic manipulation of
symbols related to concrete objects. They have mastered their first language as
they are categorized as school-aged-child (6-13 years old) or in other words they
are called as learners. Just as what Gleason and Ratner (1998: 472) said that a
child requires 10-12 years to achieve full control over oral and literate uses of a
first language; starting somewhat later means somewhat faster acquisition, but
nonetheless it is quite normal for school-aged children to take as long as 6 or 7
years to function like first language speakers, though some manage the first
language in only 2 or 3 years. Piaget in Owens (1988: 127), gave additional
statement to support Gleason and Ratner ideas about language mastery, he said
that the concrete operational stage occurs in the age of 7-11 years old, and the
characteristics which are found in this stage are the children thought characterized
by conservation (the protection of the natural environment or the act of preventing
something from being lost, wasted, damaged, or destroyed), decentration (honest
and fair or treating people with respect), and reversibility (a process, an action, or
a disease that can be changed so that something returns to its original situation).
Seven-years-old typically display an unending thirst for knowledge and
will have an innate curiosity and excitement about things in the world. They often
ask questions about everything from why the sky is blue to where babies come
from. Seven-years-old children also take great pride in sharing their knowledge
themselves have mastered. For a 7-years-old, there will be a sense of confidence
at school that comes from being familiar with the ins and outs of being a student
in a classroom. The seven-years-old children will often feel a sense of pride about
having achieved basic math and reading skills, and may want to discuss what they
learned in school with parents, friends, and caregivers. Furthermore, the children
of seven years old sometimes are able to use politeness strategy such the
following:
Ibu: “Adek makan sayur ya!”
Mother: “Please, eat the vegetable, honey!”
Anak: “Bu, sayurnya ngga enak.”
Child: “The vegetable is not tasty, mom.”
The example of politeness strategy above comes from a seven years old
girl to refuse what her mom wants her to do. The mother or people around the girl
never teach the girl in saying such an utterance directly but the girl knows that
such a kind of utterance is polite that is why she uses it. She chooses to say “Bu,
sayurnya ngga enak.” (“The vegetable is not tasty, mom.”) rather than saying
directly “Aku ngga mau makan sayur.” (“I don‟t want the vegetable.”) or shaking
her head to refuse what her mom offered. The politeness strategy can also found
in the following conversation which produced by one of the subject of this
research.
A: “Bu, semalam kok ngak datang?”
A: “Why didn‟t you come yesterday, maam?”
Peneliti: “Semalam kan hari Minggu, de?”
The utterance, “Bu, semalam kok ngak datang?” (“Why didn‟t you come
yesterday, maam?”) is polite. Nevertheles, an adult never teach the girl about that
but she knows that it is a good way in asking such a question to the researcher.
The utterance as a whole showed that the girl wants to comraderie herself to the
researcher in which the researcher is a new comer in her school. And the used of
„bu‟ here shows respect used at school in common in Indonesia. So, she conveys it
that way. A child‟s ability in saying such both examples above is contributed by
her on going cognitive development.
However, the children of seven years old sometimes are not able to use
politeness strategy in their communication naturally so they should be taught how
to use it properly as their psychosocial still also develops, for example:
Child : “Mommy, I want an ice cream.”
Mother : “Is that the way to ask?”
Child : “Please!”
Mother : “Please what?”
Child : “Please buy me an ice cream.”
Mother : “No.”
Child : “Please . . .”
Mother : “Please, may I buy an ice cream?”
Child : “Please, may I buy an ice cream?”
The example above showed that the adult particularly parents took a part
It seemed obvious that children mastered polite forms as a part of
politeness strategies partly as a result of their increasing cognitive capacities and
partly because they were motivated or even forced to be polite, and hence socially
accepted by people around them (Gleason and Ratner, 1998: 376).
For that reason, the researcher chose three children of seven years old as
her subject as the children at the ages never investigated yet by other researchers.
Another reasons in choosing three children were because the thing to investigate
was not the number of the children but the strategies used by the children in their
communication. Beside that, although there were some children of seven years old
in the school, not all parents permited their children to be observed. That was why
she chose three of them to be analyzed.
The children of seven years used politeness strategies in their daily
activities, such as: at school, at home, in playing game, or wherever they were and
whatever they did. The children of seven years were categorized as learners that
was why the researcher decided to investigate the three children at school, SD RK.
Makmur, Budi Murni 7 which located in Jl. Durung No. 178 Medan, whether
inside the classroom when they follow the teaching learning process and outside
the classsroom for instance when they play games with their friends in resting
time, when the three subjects talk with their teachers, their parents, or their
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background above, the researcher formulated the problems as
in the following:
1. What types of politeness strategy used by seven-years-old children at
school?
2. How children of seven-years-old used politeness strategies at school?
3. Why do children of seven-years-old used the politeness strategies at school
as they are?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems above, the objectives of this study are:
1. To find out the types of politeness strategy used by seven-years-old
children at school.
2. To find out the process of using politeness strategies by seven-years-old
children at school.
3. To find out the reasons of using politeness strategies by seven-years-old
children at school.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
There are a lot of ways in analyzing the chillldren‟s speech by looking at
their ways in communication. In this thesis, the researcher focuses on politeness
The researcher will use politeness strategies theory proposed by Brown and
Levinson.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
This research was expected to benefit theoretically and practically.
1. Theoretically, this study was expected to contribute as useful references
for those who want to make a further research on the same area with
different focus and object.
2. Practically, this study could be made as the model for parents, teachers,
and readers who directly touch this area in order to be able to guide the
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data, the conclusions were stated as follows:
1. The three children of 7 years old in Budi Murni 7 Medan were used three
of four types of politeness strategies at school, they were: (1) bold on
record, (2) off-record, and (3) positive politeness. And the dominant type
of politeness strategy used was bold on record.
2. The three children of seven years old of SD Budi Murni 7 Medan used
direct speech acts and indirect speech acts in producing politeness
strategies.
3. The children of seven years old of SD Budi Murni 7 Medan used
politeness strategies in their interaction because of two things, cognitive
development and psychosocial development.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this research has some suggestions
to the readers, especially parent who have important role in teaching their child to
acquire and master politeness strategies as follows:
1. It is suggested to parents who almost be with children every time and
in order to make them acquire and master the politeness strategies quickly.
Eventhough, cognitive capacities of the children have increased as they
grow up they should be taught about many things include politeness
strategies because manythings should be taught to the children.
2. In order to make the children are able in requiring and easier in mastering
the politeness strategies, it is suggested to the teachers to use the strategies
in teaching their students especially to early students of Elementary School
as they can motivate their students.
3. In relation with the findings of this research, it is suggested to other
researchers to use the typology of politeness strategy by Brown and
Levinson in classifying politeness strategy since it can be found in any
REFERENCES
Akiyama, M. Michael and Wilkox, Sharon A. 1993. Naming as as Function of Linguistic form-class and object categories: Journal of Child
Language, 20 (2), 419.
Bastable, S.B. & Dart, M.A. 2008. Developmental stages of the learner. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Benelli, B., Arcuri, L., and Marchesini, G. 1988. Cognitive and Linguistic Factors in the Development of Word Definitions. Journal of Child Language,
15 (3), 620.
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. 1994. Becoming a Native Speaker. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A
crosslinguistic developmentral study (pp. 611-643). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bogdan and Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to
Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching: Fifth
Edition. New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness, Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elfrida, R. 2012. Pragmatics. Medan: Universitas HKBP Nomensen.
Elkind, D. 1984. Teenage Thinking: Implications for Health Care. Pediatric
Nursing, 10 (6), 383 – 385.
Erikson, E. H. 1995. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Gleason and Ratner. 1998. Psycholinguistics. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Holmes, J. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Longman.
Goody, E. N. 1978. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janney, Richard W. and Horst Arndt. 1993. Universality and Relativity in Cross-Cultural Politeness Research: A Historical Perspective. Multilingual, 12 (1): 13-50.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln and Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publication.
Locher, Mriam A. and Richard J. Watts (2005). Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (5): 9-33.
Macnamara, J. 1982. Names for Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blacwell Publisher.
Miles and Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publication.
Mills, S. 2003.Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2007. What’s in an FTA? Reflections on a Chance Meeting with
Claudine. Journal of Politeness Research. 3.7: 243 – 268.
Owens, Robert. E. Jr. 1998. Language Development An Introduction Second
Edition. Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.
Phillips, Sarah. 1993. Young learners. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International University Press.
Pinter, Annamaria. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Santrock, J. W. 2006. Life-Span Development (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Scott, Wendy A. and Ytreberg, Lisbeth H. 1990. Teaching English to children. New York : Longman.
Sembiring, Puan Suri Mira Annisa. 2009. Politeness Strategies in Javanese. Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan.
Silva, M. J. & McGabe, A. 1996. Vignettes of the continuous and family ties: Some Latino American Traditions. In A. McGabe (Ed.), Chameleon
readers: Teaching children to appreciate all kinds of good stories (pp. 116-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Snowman, J., and Biehler, R. 2006. Psychology Applied to Teaching. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sugiono. 2005. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif,
dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Švecová, Lenka. 2011. CLIL in Very Young Learners. Brno: Masaryk University.
Terkourafi, Marina. 1999. Frames for Politeness: A Case Study. Quarterly
Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 97.
Traugott, E. & Pratt, M. 1980. Communicative Competence. New York: London.
Vander Zanden, J. W., Crandell, T. L., and Crandell, C. H. 2007. Human
Development (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Whitener, et, al. 1998. Use of theory to guide nurses in the design of health messages for children. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(3), 21 – 35.
