Interact

Edited
ional by:

Linguist
ic

• Amatul Hadiy 181010600376

• Nurmala Sari 181010600338
• Putri Erizky Kamilia Sukarno 181010600507
• Siti Dzulharistha 181010600353
• Titi Rahayu Agusstin 181010600333

06SIGM002
Sastra Inggris
Fakultas Sastra
Universitas Pamulang
“… language and context co-constitute one another: language contextualizes and is contextualized, such
that language does not just function ‘in’ context, language also forms and provides context. One particular
context is social interaction. Language, culture, and society are grounded in interaction: they stand in a
reflexive relationship with the self, the other, and the self-other relationship, and it is out of these
mutually constitutive relationships that discourse is created.”

D. Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse

A. The main concept and methods in Interactional Linguistics

The interactional sociolinguistic approach to discourse analysis is multidisciplinary: it concerns the study
of the relationships between language, culture and society and has its roots in Anthropology, Sociology
and Linguistics. In spite of the diversity of disciplines upon which this approach is based, there is a
consensus as to the basic beliefs about language, context and the interaction of self and other.
Interactional sociolinguists view discourse as a social interaction in which the emergent construction and
negotiation of meaning is facilitated by the use of language, thus, they always resort to naturally
occurring interactions as a source for data. They consider situated behavior to be the site where societal
and interactive forces merge and they focus on how such interaction depends on culturally-informed but
situated inferential processes, which play a role in the speakers’ interpretative constructions of the kind of
activity they are engaged [Link] Gumperz (1982) develops an interpretative sociolinguistic approach to
the analysis of real time processes in face-to face interactions. Gumperz emphasizes the fact that
cognition and language are affected by social and cultural forces. What we thus need to understand and
analyze the effects of society and culture on language is a “general theory of verbal communication which
integrates what we know about grammar, culture and interactive conventions into a single overall
framework of concepts and analytical procedures” (1982: 4)

B. The methodology used by Interactional Sociolinguist

The distinctive methodological feature of Sociolinguistics is to analyze language elements in the speech
communities with qualitative and quantitative approaches ．In the earlier studies ，sociolinguists paid
much more attention on spoken forms because these forms could be analyzed in the speech communities
and be easily explained from the relationship between language variables and sociolinguistic variables
such as ethnic group ，age ，social class and gender ．On the contrary ， the study of written forms got
inattention because they could not be researched as fully as spoken forms ． Collecting data from the
literatures ， which is the traditional method used in exploring written forms in sociolinguistic ， had
restricted it form further development ．Corpus and corpus‐based approach has turned out to be useful in
the study of written language since they emerged ．
The development of Sociolinguistics has been qualitatively and quantitatively outstanding within
Linguistic Science since its beginning in the 1950s, with a steady growth in both theoretical and
methodological developments as well as in its interdisciplinary directions within the spectrum of language
and society. Field methods in sociolinguistic studies have been motivated by the various research
objectives pursued: sociological, sociolinguistic, or linguistic goals. The aim of this paper is twofold: (i)
to provide a review of the theoretical movements within Sociolinguistics, and, on the basis of this review,
(ii) to explore their consequences and implications on the research methods used in the field. This will be
achieved by conducting both a retrospective synthesis of past developments and achievements, and an
exploration of the current situation and of potential future developments.
C. Theory of politeness
According to Lakoff (1990) that stated by Eelen (2014: 2), he defines politeness as a system of
interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and
confrontation inherent in all human interchange. Therefore, politeness leads people to respect each other.
Then, the quotation by Yule, (1996:60) is that:
It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of polite social behavior within a culture.
It is also possible to specify a number of different general principles for being polite in social interaction
within a particular culture. Some of these might include being tactful, generous, modest, and sympathetic
toward others. Politeness, in interaction can then be defined as the means employed to show awareness of
another person‟s face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or
closeness.
The first type might be found in a student’s question to his teacher, shown as (a), and a second type in the
friend’s question to the same individual, as in (b). as the utterances are illustrated by Yule, (1996:60):
a) Excuse me, Mr. Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute
b) Hey, Bucky, got a minute?
From the above examples the researcher knows that example (a) contains politeness utterance, because
politeness utterance is related to social distance and the word “Excuse me” in English is a polite word to
open conversation. While the example (b) does not display politeness utterance because there is no any
social distance that is shown by politeness word.

Types of Politeness
a. Negative Politeness
Yule (1996:62) states that a face saving act which is oriented to the person’s negative face will tend to
show difference, emphasize the importance of the other’s time or concerns, and even include an apology
for the imposition or interruption. This is called negative politeness. Therefore, negative politeness is
often showed by a negative face. Mostly negative politeness is used in a question containing a modal
verb as utterances are illustrated by Yule (1996:64):
1. Could you lend me a pen?
2. I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something?
3. I know you’re busy, but might I ask you if-em-if you happen to have extra pen that I could, you know-
eh-maybe borrow?
From above examples the researcher understands that negative politeness is typically used in form of
modal verb.
b. Positive politeness
A face saving act which is concerned with the person’s positive face will tend to show solidarity,
emphasize that both speakers want the same thing, and they have a common goal. This is also called
positive politeness (Yule, 1996: 64). Finally, when the speaker intends some solidarity or same goals the
researcher knows that this is the identification of positive politeness.
According to Yule (1996:64), a positive politeness leads the requester to appeal to a common goal, and
even friendship, via expression such as those in example below:
(1) How about letting me use your pen?
(2) Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me use your pen?
(3) Hi. How’s it going? Okay if I sit here? We must be interested in the same crazy stuff. You take a lot
of notes too, huh? Say, do me a big favor and let me use one of your pens.
These expressions give explanations to the researcher that the speaker needs a pen also his friend is doing
something the same that his friend uses the pen and perhaps he brings double pen. From the above
examples, the researcher knows that unfortunately positive politeness can be used in a question, but it is
different with negative politeness. It does not contain a modal verb.
c. Self and Other Say Nothing
Yule (1996:62) states one way to see the relevance of the relationship between these politeness concepts
and language use is to take a single speech event and map out the different interpretations associated with
different possible expressions used within that event. Therefore, researcher understands that this
politeness concept shows different expression between the speakers and listeners.
Yule (1996:62) states:
For example, you arrive at an important lecture, pull out your notebook to take notes, but discover that
you don‟t have anything to write with. You think that the person sitting next to you may provide the
solution. In this scenario, you are going to be ‘Self’, and the person next to you is going to be ‘Other’.
Your first choice is whether to say something or not. You can, of course, rummage in your bag, search
rather obviously through your pockets, go bag into your bag, without uttering a word, but with the vague
intention that your problem will be recognized. This ‘say nothing’ approach may or may not work, but if
it does, it’s because the other offers and not because the self ask.
From above explanation the researcher understands that self and other say nothing may happens when
speakers say something and listeners express the answer by gesture not by a word or it’s opposite.
Example are illustrated by Yule (1996:62) as follow:
Self: (looks in bag)
Other: (offers pen) Here, use this
The researcher gets more understand from example above that Self and Other say nothing happens in
different expression. The speakers may say the language and listeners express his language by gestures or
it’s opposite.
Yule (1996:62) adds that many people seem to prefer to have their needs recognized by other without
having to express those needs in language. When those needs are recognized as example above, then
clearly more has been communicated than was said.
Therefore, by this politeness concept the researcher knows that the needs of speakers or listeners can be
more communicated than what is said just like the example above.
d. Off the record
Yule (1996:63) states even if you decide to say something, you do not actually have to ask for anything.
Therefore, when the speakers want to say something, they needless to address like what they want to say.
You can (perhaps after your search through your bag) simply produce a statement of the type as
examples illustrated by Yule (1996:63):
a) Uh, I forgot my pen.
b) Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.
These examples show the researcher that when the speakers need something they do not always say what
they need. Perhaps they can say like the examples above with the expectation that the listeners lend them
what they need.
Yule (1996:63) gives addition that:
These and other similar types of statement are not directly addressed to the other. The other can act as if
statements have not even been heard. They are technically described as being off record. In casual
descriptions, they might be referred to as ‘hints’. An off record statement may or may not succeed (as a
means of getting a pen), but if it does, it will be because more has been communicated than was said.
Unfortunately, when the speakers use this type of statement, it may success and may not success. It’s
success is depends on the listener weather they understand what the speaker’s mean. When the listeners
understand what the speakers mean and give answer as the speaker’s want, so this type of statement may
success.
e. Bald on Record
Yule (1996:63) states that in contrast to such off record statements, you can directly address the other as
a means of expressing your needs. These direct address forms are technically described as being on
record. Therefore, bald on record is speakers express their needs directly to the listeners. Yule (1996:63)
adds that the most direct approach, using imperative forms such as those examples below is known as
bald on record. The researcher knows the bald on record use imperative words. Imperative words are like
direct command and etc. The other person is directly asked for something. Please consider examples
illustrated by Yule (1996:63) below:
a. Give me a pen.
b. Lend me your pen.
Above examples are the imperative sentences which consist of a command showed by V1 form. The
Verb one are ‘give’ and ‘lend’.
 D. Different approaches and perspectives on politeness

Politeness as a linguistic phenomenon has been researched by looking at it from wider

perspectives than those attached to the everyday use of the term, but there is not a uniform
criterion to define and identify politeness phenomena. Georgia Green explains that when we talk
about politeness within pragmatic studies we refer to strategies for maintaining or changing
interpersonal relations (1989: 141). The goals of the speakers when using these strategies may be
ends in themselves (purely social conversation or “small talk”) or they may be a link in a chain
of goals whose ultimate end is to influence someone’s behavior or attitude. Bruce Fraser (1990)
analyzes the different points of view through which the phenomenon of politeness has been
researched and studied in Linguistics, and he finds four main perspectives, to which we now
[Link] to the phenomenon of politenessIn his famous article “Perspectives on
politeness”, Bruce Fraser (1990a) points to the fact that there is not a common understanding of
the concept of politeness and he reviews four of the best-known approaches to the phenomenon:
1) the social-normview;
2) the conversational-maxim view;
3) the face-saving view; and
4) the conversational-contract view.
Let us now present an overview of the four of them: The social-norm view reflects the
understanding of politeness embraced mainly by the English-speaking world in a general way. It
assumes that each society has certain rules and norms that prescribe a particular behavior or way
of thinking in a [Link] explains that politeness concerns a relationship between two
participants, but speakers also show politeness to third parties who may or may not be present in
the speech situation. In order to show politeness, the participants in a speech situation observe
the following Maxims (Leech, 1983: 132):Leech distinguishes between “Relative Politeness”
and “Absolute Politeness.” The former refers to politeness vis-á-vis a specific situation, and the
latter to the degree of politeness inherently associated with specific speaker actions. Therefore,
some illocutions (like orders, for instance) are inherently impolite and others (like offers) are
inherently [Link] Leech’s view, Negative Politeness consists in minimizing the impoliteness of
impolite illocutions, and Positive Politeness consists in maximizing the politeness of polite
illocutions. Some possible examples are:
Negative Politeness:
“If it would not trouble you too much, could you Lend me your car?”
Positive Politeness:
“I am delighted to inform you that you are theWinner of the award” - Fraser(1990: 227)
Observes that Leech’s conclusions seem too strong, for he asserts, for example, that to order is
inherently conflictive, reduces comity and requires negative politeness on the part of the speaker,
but that, on occasions, this is not the case, as, for example, if a teacher ordered a student to put
her prize-winning solutionon the board for the class (in which case to order would not be
conflictive at all and would not require negative politeness). Lakoff defines Politeness as “a
device used in order to reduce friction in Personal interaction” (1979: 64) and proposes two
Rules of Pragmatic Competence (1973: 296):
1)Be clear (this rule is in agreement with Grice’s rules or Maxims of conversation (1967))
2)Be polite
She explains that these two rules are at times reinforcing and at other times in conflict With each
other. In general, when clarity is in conflict with politeness, politeness Supersedes: it is
 considered more important in a conversation to avoid offense than to Achieve clarity. In
addition, she posits three Rules of Politeness (1973: 300):
1)Don’t Impose (used when Formal/Impersonal Politeness is required)
2)Give Options (used when Informal Politeness is required)
3)Make A Feel Good –Be Friendly (used when Intimate Politeness is required)These three rules
are applicable depending on the type of politeness required as Understood by the speaker.
For instance, if a participant assesses the situation as Requiring Formal Politeness (Don’t
Impose), he could ask the hearer about his Personal life by saying:Would you mind if I ask you a
personal question?If the speaker were in a situation requiring Informal Politeness, s/he might ask
the personal question without asking for permission, but s/he would probably use hedges and/or
an indirect question to mitigate the act as in:I guess you have a boy-friend, don’t you?If the
speaker wants the hearer to feel good, to feel like a friend, Intimate Politeness is needed, and
therefore he might say:Come on, tell me about your boy-friendOne of the criticisms made of
Lakoff’s politeness framework is the fact that “the reader is never told how the speaker or hearer
is to assess what level of politenessis required” (Fraser, 1990a: 224)

E. Different politeness strategies as presented by Brown and Levinson

The strategy is on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record but researchers
found only on-record, positive politeness, and negative politeness,here are a few different
politenis strategies.
- By Brown Davinson

 Bald on-Record
This strategy provides no effort by speaker to reduce the impact of FTA’s, the speaker will most likely
the person whom he or she is speaking to, embarrass them, or make them feel a bit uncomfortable. The
situation when person directly address the other as a certain expression such as ask something, please, or
commands. In addition, the use of direct command is usually happened in the emergency situation. This
strategy is tending to show in urgent situation, emphasize maximum efficiency, non-cooperation from
hearer, speaker cares about hearer, granting permission for the hearer, and even imperative .

1. Strategy 1 urgent situation Brown and Levinson (1987: 95-96) state that strategy 1 is employed
when both of speaker and hearer are in urgency condition. In case of great urgency, redress
would actually decrease the communicated urgency, for example
Hey! Come here!

2. Strategy 2 maximum efficiency Brown and Levinson (1987: 96-97) state that strategy 2 is
employed when efficiency is very more important than saving other's face, for example
Tell me...Did the two kids miss me?

3. Strategy 3 Satisfying the hearer’s face is small Brown and Levinson (1987: 97) state that strategy
3 is used when thespeaker’s want to satisfy hearer’s face is small, because the speaker is more
powerful or doing non-cooperation, e.g.
Put the gun down. Please
4. Strategy 4 speakers care to hearersBrown and Levinson (1987: 98) state thatin strategy 4, a
speaker conveys that he/she cares about hearer,
for example
you have to forgive yourself. You're gonna have to confront her. But you don’t have to
to that alone.

5. Strategy 6 imperative Brown and Levinson (1987: 100) state that strategy 6 explored about
imperative including offers. The writer explains more about the imperative in which the
imperative not only an offer but also a request in the form of imperative. This following
exampleis about bald on-record of a request in the form of imperative including an
offer
But you'd have to buy out the entire cabin.

 Positive Politeness
Based on the data, the writer only found strategy 5 (assert speaker’s knowlege of and concern
for hearer’s wants) and strategy 6 (include both speaker and hearer in the activity). The writer
classified them based on the elements of politeness: social distance, power, and degree of
imposition.

1. Strategy 5 asserting speaker’s knowlege of and concern for hearer’s wants Brown and Levinson
(1987: 125) states that strategy 5 explores about asserting speaker’s knowledge of and
concerning for hearer’s wants, for example
Run interference. I'll meet you downstairs in the bar in, say, in half an hour (0375/
PS/PP/ST5).

2. Strategy 6: including both speaker and hearer in the activityBrown and Levinson (1987: 127-
128) state that strategy 6 include both speaker and hearer in the activity, for example
We need the heir of a major corporation to dissolve his father's empire. Wait, whose
subconscious are we going into exactly?

 Negative Politeness
The writer only finds the data which are strategy 1 (be conventionally indirect: assuming the
hearer is unlikely to be able to do any acts) and strategy 2 (give deference). The writer applies
politeness strategy of Brown and Levinson politeness strategy and classified them based on the
levelof politeness: social distance, power, and degree of imposition.
1. Strategy 1 be conventionally indirectBown and Levinson (1987: 132) state that strategy 1 tended
to be conventionally indirect means being pessimistic in which the speaker assumes the hearer
not doing any act or unlikely to be willing to do any acts, for example.
Can you get me access to this man here?

2. Strategy 2 giving deference Brown and Levinson (1987: 178-187) states that strategy 2 explains
about giving deference when speaker asked the hearer to do the act,
for example
I need you to work with me, Mr. Fischer.
EXERCISE!

1. Give 3 example for each negative politness and positive politness!

2. What is definition of negative politness and positive politness? Explain!

3. What is the function of the interactional sociolinguistic that you know?