LANGUAGE IMPOLITENESS IN JAKARTA LAWYERS CLUB TALK SHOW 2014

Meisa Fitri Nasution

Abstract


The objectives of this descriptive qualitative study were to discover: (1) the types of impoliteness strategy, (2) types of attacks, and (3) how the responses to the impolite attack in Jakarta Lawyers Club (JLC) Talk Show on TVOne. The source of data were the participants’ utterances in JLC Talk Show from the topics of Talk Show namely Badai Demokrat Menerjang Kemana–Mana, Anas Siap Digantungdi Monas, and Dibalik Bungkamnya Nazaruddin in order to find out therecurrences and the pattern of the data based on the problem of the study. The data were identified, analyzed and categorized based on Culpeper’s (1996) theory. The findings of the study shows that: 1) there were four types of impoliteness strategies appeared in JLC Talk Show, namely Bald On Record Impoliteness (37.5%), Positive Impoliteness (27.5%), Negative Impoliteness (25.0%), and Sarcasm (10%), 2) there were two types of attacks appeared in JLC Talk Show namely Attacks on Quality Face (92.5%) and Attacks on Social Identity Face (7.5%), and 3) in responding to the impolite attacks, there were three ways appeared in JLC Talk Show namely not responding (52.5%), countering defensively (32.5%), and countering offensively (15.0%). The findings shows that JLC Talk Show was a formal context of Talk Show in which its participants were educated people who mostly use a direct strategy of impoliteness (Bald On Record Impoliteness) in attacking on the other participants’ personal quality (Quality Face) but the attacks dominantly were not responded by them. Therefore, it can be concluded that in communication, everyone may convey his or her opinions, arguments, and feelings but he or she should express the good attitude to communicate. Some suggestions are directed to those who are interested in understanding impoliteness strategy as found in practice.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 2010. Qualitative Research

forEducation: An

Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching: FifthEdition.

New York: Pearson Education.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1978. Universals in Language Usage: PolitenessPhenomena.

In E. N. Goody. Question and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56311.

Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Bousfield, D. 2007. Beginnings, Middles and Ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite

exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (12), 2185–2216.

Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Struggle for Power in Bousfield, D & Locher (eds.),

M. Impoliteness in Language–Studies on its Interplay with Powerand Practice. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards An Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume

, Issue 3, 349-367.

Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited: With Special

Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal ofPragmatics, 35, 1545–1579.

Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show:

The Weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 35–72.

Culpeper, J. 2008. Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power in Bousfield,

D & Locher (eds.), M. Impoliteness in Language–Studies onits Interplay with Power and

Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fasold, R. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.36987/ecobi.v4i2.89

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Lisensi Creative Commons

ECOBISMA (Journal of Economics, Business and Management) [p-ISSN: 2477-6092] [E-ISSN: 2620-3391] managed by the Faculty of Economics and Business, Labuhanbatu University is disseminated under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Based on work at http://jurnal.ulb.ac.id/index.php/ecob.