Tourism Practitioner’s Language Politeness Model in Kota Tua Jakarta
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
PDF
Submitted Feb 2, 2023
Published Mar 7, 2023
Published Mar 7, 2023
DOI
Abstract viewed = 91 times
Issue
Section
Articles
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
This study aims to describe the politeness model of tourism practitioners in Kota Tua Jakarta. This research method uses a qualitative research design. The source of research data is the speech of tour guides and tourism officers in Kota Tua Jakarta. Data collection techniques were carried out through field observations, interviews, FGDs, and document review. The data analysis technique adopted the qualitative data analysis technique developed by Miles and Huberman, namely the interactive model of analysis. The results showed that from the speech data which amounted to 74 dialogues, it was found that the generosity maxim was 4 utterances or 6%, the tact maxim was 6 utterances or 8%, the approbation maxim was 15 utterances or 21%, the modesty maxim was 1 utterance or 1%, Obligation Speaker to Other maxim is 6 utterances or 8%, Obligation Other to Speaker maxim is 1 utterance or 1%, Agreement maxim is 13 utterances or 18%, Opinion reticence maxim is 14 utterances or 19%, Sympathy maxim is 8 utterances or 11%, The feeling ritincence maxim is 5 utterances or 7%. The dominance of the use of approbation maxim, opinion reticence maxim, and agreement maxim, it can be said that to show politeness in language, tourism practitioners apply the rules of indecision. The use of grammatical and lingual markers in the speech of tourism practitioners such as the use of the word mungkin, terima kasih, iya, bagus, boleh, seperti itu, nah jadi … (maybe, thank you, yes, good, may, like that, well so ...) become a model of politeness in the language of tourism practitioners in the Kota Tua Jakarta.
Keywords: language politeness, tourism practitioner, Kota Tua Jakarta
References
Ado, M. A., & Bidin, S. J. (2016). Socio-pragmatics of code switching and code mixing in reconciliation case proceedings: shariah courts of Northern Nigeria. ASIAN TEFL Journal of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 131–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/asiantefl.v1i2.19
Afghari, A. (2007). A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech communication, 49(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003.
Bababayli, Isgandar., Kiziltan, Nalan. (2020). A comparative sociopragmatic analysis of the dialogues in Turkish and Azerbaijani B1-B2 EFL textbooks. Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803869.
Chaer, A. (2010). Kesantunan Berbahasa [Language Politeness]. Jakarta: Reneka Cipta.
Ekwelibe, Regina. (2015). Sociopragmatic competence in English as second language (ESL). Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 10 (2), 87–99. https://doi 10.5829/idosi.hssj.2015.10.2.1158.
Emzir. (2018). Metodelogi Penelitian Kualitatif Analisis Data [Data Analysis Qualitative Research Methodology]. Rajawali Press.
Gunawan, F. (2013). Wujud kesantunan berbahasa mahasiswa terhadap dosen di STAIN Kendari: Kajian Sosiopragmatik [Forms of student politeness towards lecturers at STAIN Kendari: A Sociopragmatic Study]. JURNAL ARBITRER. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.1.1.8-18.2013.
Gündüz, N. (2016). Sociopragmatic elements and possible failure in EFL teaching. Dil Dergisi, 1(167), 49–65. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=549434.
Kumari, N. (2015). A survey of studies on sociopragmatic use of linguistic politeness with special focus on Hindi and Japanese. International Journal of Languages, Literature, and Linguistics, 2(4), 267–274. http://www.ijlll.org/vol1/51-CL00049.pdf.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatic. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: University Press.
Mahsun. (2014). Metode Penelitian Bahasa. [Language Research Methods]. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
Matiki, A. J., & Kgolo, N. N. (2017). A Socio-pragmatic analysis of compliment responses among students at the University of Botswana. Journal of Humanities, 25(2), 62–89. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jh/article/view/165527.
Marlina Maros. (2017). Politeness strategies in twitter update of female English language studies Malaysian undergraduates. 3L. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23(1), 132–149. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144263945.pdf.
Mikayla Jenkins, M. D. (2013). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. SAGE journal, 40(4), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136.
Miles, M.B, &Huberman, A. M. (1992). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book. Thousant qaks CA. Sage Publication Inc.
Mirzaei, A., et.al. (2012). Exploring pragma linguistic and sociopragmatic variability in speech act production of L2 learners and native speakers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS),4 (3), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2012.622.
Nugroho, R. A., & Setyaningsih, N. Interjections in Semarangan Javanese: A Sociopragmatic Approach. Humanika, 26(2), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.14710/humanika.v26i2.22184.
Prayitno, H. J., Ngalim, A., & Jamaluddin, N. (2018). Pergeseran realisasi tindak kesantunan direktif mereduksi nilai kesantunan positif dan karakter di kalangan peserta didik. [The shift in the realization of directive politeness acts reduces the value of positive politeness and character among students]. BAHASTRA, 38 (2), 85–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.26555/bahastra.v38i2.9689.
Rahardi, Kunjana. (2005). Pragmatik Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia [Indonesian Imperative Politeness Pragmatics] Yogyakarta: Airlangga.
Saputro, M. Y., Tarmini, W., & Hikmat, A. (2020). Model kesantunan berbahasa siswa tionghoa di sekolah Pah Tsung Jakarta: Kajian Etnografi Komunikasi. [Politeness models for Chinese students at the Pah Tsung school in Jakarta: an ethnographic study of communication], Widyaparwa, 48(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.26499/wdprw.v48i2.646.
Shahrzad Eshginejad and M. Raouf Moini. (2016). Politeness strategies used in text messaging: pragmatic competence in an asymmetrical power relation of teacher-student. SAGE journal. https:// 10.1177/2158244016632288.
Sheila Agustina & Bambang Yudi Cahyono. (2016). Politeness and power relation in efl classroom interactions: A Study on Indonesa Learners and Lecturers. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(2). 92–100. http://ijllnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_2_June_2016/11.pdf.
Stadler, W. (2018). Teaching and testing sociopragmatics in the Russian language classroom. Athens Journal of Philology, 2(3), 149–162. https://www.athensjournals.gr/philology/2015-2-3-1-Stadler.pdf.
Tarmini, Wini., & Safi’i, Imam. (2018). Kesantunan berbahasa civitas Academica Uhamka : Kajian sosio-pragmatik. [Politeness in the language of the Uhamka academic community: A socio-pragmatic study]. Imajeri, 01(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.22236/imajeri.v1i1.5060.
Tüm, Gülden., Emre Gülşah Parmaksız. (2017). Comparison of speaking activities in Turkish and English language teaching coursebooks regarding self-assesment grid of CEFR. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 367–378. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1159131.
Wa Ode Nurjamily. (2015). Kesantunan berbahasa indonesia dala lingkungan keluarga: Kajian sosiopragmatik. [Indonesian politeness in the family environment: A sociopragmatic study] Unismuh. 15 (3), 1–18. http://ojs.uho.ac.id/index.php/HUMANIKA/article/view/608.
Zamzani, Hari Wijaya, & Purwadi. (2010). Kajian Sosiopragmatik [Sociopragmatic Studies] Yogyakarta: Cipta Pustaka.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite
Tarmini, W., Safi’i, I., & Nurhikmah, T. (2023). Tourism Practitioner’s Language Politeness Model in Kota Tua Jakarta. European Journal of Language and Culture Studies, 2(2), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejlang.2023.2.2.77
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
