POLITENESS STRATEGIES OF KARNI ILYAS ABOUT RUU HIP IN INDONESIA LAWYER CLUB ON TV ONE: BENARKAH MELUMPUHKAN PANCASILA?

Authors

  • Agung Pramujiono Universitas PGRI Adi Buana
  • Suhari Universitas PGRI Adi Buana
  • Tri Indrayanti Universitas PGRI Adi Buana

Keywords:

Politeness Strategies, Positive Face, Negative Face, Political Discussion, and Karni Ilyas.

Abstract

This research aims to expose how Karni Ilyas, the host of ILC, used politeness strategy through faces in communicating with political experts in ILC show episode RUU HIP: Benarkah Melumpuhkan Pancasila?. This research uses Brown’s and Levinson’s theory of Politeness Strategies. This research is qualitative research; the approach is thematic analysis, the data are fragmentations of Karni Ilyas’ utterances, and the data collection technique is documentation while the technique of data analysis is interpretation. This research exposes a result that Karni Ilyas used politeness strategies in hosting or moderating the show, but he used negative face to speak with speakers he has no intimate bond (in this case, they are Achmad Basarah, Aboebakar Al Habsyi, and Ali Mochtar Ngabalin) and he used positive face to speak with speaker he has familiar connection (in this case, it was Fadli Zon). Karni Ilyas used politeness strategies as a host or moderator in handling the political discussion in the ILC Show of the episode.

References

Alhojailan, M. I., & Ibrahim, M. (2012). Thematic Analysis?: A Critical Review of Its Process and Evaluation. WEI International European AcademicConference Proceedings.

Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1985). Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1985.23.1-4.281

Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214565.n17

Blum-Kulka, S. (2012). 10. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Politeness in Language. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.255

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1988). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. In Interactional Sociolinguistic.

Chilton, P. (1990). Politeness, Politics and Diplomacy. Discourse & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926590001002005

Clancy, B., & O’Keeffe, A. (2015). Pragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139764377.014

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Aproaches. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956

Diani, G. (2014). Politeness. In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.009

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223

Jorgensen, J. (1996). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4

Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. In The Pragmatics of Politeness. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001

Longcope, P. (1995). The universality of face in Brown and Lvinson-s politeness theory:A Japanese perspective. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics.

Roach, L. (2015). Feudalism. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.62005-6

Rose, J., & Sæbø, Ø. (2008). Establishing political deliberation systems: Key problems. 16th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2008.

Shappeck, M. (2004). Pragmatics: An Introduction (review). Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0045

Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and Psychological Distance: A Construal Level Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016960

Downloads

Published

2021-09-30