THE ROLE OF LINGUISTICS POLITENESS IN THE PROCESSING OF MEETING IN MTS

NEGERI 1 DELI SERDANG

Ersika Puspita Dani

Administasi Perkantoran

Politeknik Trijaya Krama Medan, Jl. Iskandar Muda No. 1 Medan, Sumatera Utara 20154, Indonesia
ersikapuspitadani@gmail.com

Abstract
The objectives of this descriptive qualitative study were to find out the strategies which is used by the
members of meeting in expressing their idea in the meeting. The data were collected by recording the
utterances spoken by the members of the meeting of MTs Negeri 1 Deli Serdang on April 14, 2018. Then,
they were transcribed the data, and identified all utterances which express role of linguistic. In analyzing
the data, it categorized by referring to the discursive struggle values theory and deals with the
explanation of the linguistic politeness which is classified in five categories; minimizing the conflict and
confrontation, minimizing imposition, asserting reciprocity, claiming common ground, and bringing
forwards accurate arguments and data (Minda, 2013:64). The findings of the study showed that the role
of linguistic politeness can be occurred in the school meeting at MTs Negeri 1 Deli Serdang in which it
showed discursive struggle that there are politeness value occurred in the setting, such as minimizing
imposition, asserting reciprocity, claiming common ground, and bringing forward accurate arguments
and Data.

Keywords: linguistic politeness, meeting

1
1. INTRODUCTION This study explores certain aspects of the behaviour but rather
the role of linguistics critical thinking were when the hearer
The role of occurred in the present in the field since evaluates that
chairpersons in co- processing of school much earlier but they behaviour” (Eelen,
operative meetings meeting. It will focus received considerably 2001: 109).
includes tasks such as on the discursive less attention (see e.g. Furthermore, the
leading discussions and struggle over the value Watts, 1989). The label discursive ‘trend’ makes
facilitating decision- of terms occur in school ‘discursive’ is a kind of a difference between the
making by controlling meeting for purposing ‘ragbag’, which interactants’ and the
turns and topics. As find out the strategies includes various researcher’s
Hanak, I (1998) stated which is used by the insightful interpretations of
that there are two members of meeting in conceptualizations of politeness, labeling the
agricultural co- expressing their idea in linguistic politeness that former as ‘first-order’
operatives occurred in the meeting. often have not much in and the latter as
the roles and verbal common. Nevertheless, ‘second-order’
contributions of 2. METHODOLOGY throughout this work I politeness – though
chairwomen in rural refer to discursive there is no agreement in
Zanzibar. In the first co- The data were theorizations as a the field as to whether
operative, the collected by recording ‘field’, though some this difference can be
chairwoman controls the utterances spoken might find this implemented as a
the meeting through the by the members of the definition inadequate methodology or not (cf.
allocation of turns and meeting of MTs Negeri since discursive ideas Mills, 2003 vs. Watts,
topics, as well as the 1 Deli Serdang on April are rather diverse, 2003). Theoretically,
use of her position and 14, 2018. Then, the because discursive discursive scholars
its privileges to writer transcribed the research shares some argue that researchers
persuade others of her data, and identified all related basic concepts are inherently
opinion by using of utterances which (see also Christie, influenced by their own
passive voice, express role of 2009), which experience and
subjunctive forms, linguistic. In analyzing differentiate it from stereotypes when
hedges, the choice of the data, it categorized other approaches to analysing politeness.
pronouns and address by referring to the politeness. Thus, in order to avoid
forms. In the second co- discursive struggle The discursive subjectivity at the level
operative presents in the values theory and deals approach is an of analysis and the
meeting interferes, with the explanation of interaction-based one, exclusion of certain
practically taking over the linguistic politeness that is, it analyses views about politeness,
the task of chairing the which is classified in politeness occurring in researchers need to
meeting by expressing five categories; longer chunks of focus on the lay
several characteristics minimizing the conflict authentic discourse. interpretation of
of a powerless speech and confrontation, This is in contrast with politeness, by exploring
style. minimizing imposition, previous Brown and the hearer’s evaluation
In addition, Murni, asserting reciprocity, Levinsonian (along with that of the
S. M (2013: 59) stated claiming common (henceforth B & L) speaker) in longer
that there are some ground, and bringing research, which was fragments of discourse,
phenomenon occurred forwards accurate predominantly based on and reach theoretical
in the process of arguments and data brief examples. Within second-order
democratizing (Minda, 2013:64). longer discourse conclusions by means
Indonesia especially in fragments, discursive of analysis of data.
showing discursive 3. THEORITICAL researchers aim to put
struggle values such as FRAMEWORK focus not only on the b. Classifying the
minimizing conflict and speaker’s production of Discursive Struggle
confrontation, a. ‘The discursive’ certain utterances but There are five
minimizing imposition, ‘Discursive’ refers also on the hearer’s categories in classifying
asserting reciprocity, to the post-2000 critical evaluation of them. As the discursive struggle.
claiming common turn in politeness Eelen notes, “in These categories are
ground, and bringing studies, which perhaps everyday practice taken from many
forward accurate began with Eelen’s (im)politeness occurs researchers like:
arguments and data. (2001) groundbreaking not so much when the
monograph––though speaker produces

2
1) Minimizing the linguistic politeness or Terhitung dari 10 Hal terpenting
Conflict and polite behavior in a menit sebelum saat ini, kita
Confrontation community of practice masuk kelas. jalankan masa
As Lakoff (1990: requires prior studies Namun, hari ini training kita
34) and Zimmermann in and formulation on smeua guru wajib ini, kita mulai
Held (2005: 132) what is accessed as ada dari jam 7.15- bulan ini. Dan
suggest that linguistics politic behavior in that 13.35. kita landingkan
politeness is a system of particular community. ditahun ajaran
interpersonal relation Politic behavior Kepala sekolah: Oke baru.
which is designed to comprises all buk. Tidak
facilitate an interaction expression of linguistic berbeda. Sama- From the
by minimizing potential politeness which is sama membahas conversation above, we
conflict and socially stricted. In masalah jam. Yang can see that the speaker
confrontation. addition, the politic berbeda hanyalah (Mariani) imposes her
2) Minimizing behavior is formulaic. perhitungan jamnya idea by using the
Imposition Polite behavior Itulah keputusannya. negating after hearing
As Brown and comprises all linguistic Kamilah yang KTU’s utterances. So,
Levinson (1987) stated politeness which are memutuskan karena we can concluded that
that minimizing strategically chosen by kita tidak bisa hanya the hearer refuses to
imposition is one of individuals. Polite berada 4 jam di accept term. Another
negative politeness behavior is semi- sekolah ini, sungguh utterance which is
strategies. And Fraser formulaic which means melanggar peraturan showed the minimizing
and Nolen (1981: 93- the use goes beyond the yang telah imposition that the
109) shows stricted norm. dtetapkan. Makanya hearer needed more
conversation between According to Watts, this kita adakan rapat. time to explain the
the speaker and the is the kind of linguistic b) Mariani: Pak, context, and it will be
hearer and suggest as politeness to study. kami akan presented below:
face-saving-act. In this melaksanakan c) Pak Jamal : Pak,
case, the hearer does it c. Findings kewajiban kami bagaimana dengan
for himself; i.e. by After transcribing sebagai guru, tapi saya,
criticizing and the data, this study tolong jangan setiap
protesting inaccurate found out the discursive tahan hak-hak hari
evaluation imposed on struggle occurred in kami. Jum’a
him by the speaker. processing of school KTU : saya tidak t saya
3) Asserting meeting in MTs Negeri pernah menahan hak- selalu
Reciprocity 1 Deli Serdang. It can hak berkh
As Brown and be seen below: Bapak/Ibuk guru utbah
Levinson (1987: 101- Mariani: Itu sama jum’a
128) suggested as 1) Minimizing dengan Bapak t.
saving the hearer’s Imposition menahan Apak
positive face is In meeting, there are uang makan ah
asserting reciprocity in some utterances which kami. tidak
which there are showed the minimizing KTU : Tidak buk, ada
cooperation between imposition, it can be tidak, saya tolera
speaker and hearer is seen below: hanya ingin nsi
claimed by giving a) Mariani : Maaf pak, melihat untuk
evidence of reciprocal saya ingin bertanya. kedisplinan saya,
rights or obligations Saya rasa hasil dan karen
obtained between keputusan yang perubahan a gak
speaker and hearer. Bapak jelaskan sekolah kita mung
4) Claiming Common semalam sangat ini saja, kin
Ground berbeda dengan masalah uang sampa
5) Bringing Forwards yang Bapak makan ibuk i 6
Accurate Arguments bicarakan tidak usah jam
and Data sekarang. Semalam takut, akan saya
As watts (2000) guru PNS wajib segera kita berad
writes that analyzing berada di sekolah selesaikan dan adisek
and interpretating selama 4,5 jam. segera keluar. olah

3
 semen itu yang mela
tara sendir meng por
terkad i. urus kepa
ang Tapi, itu da
saya saya semua saya
berkh rasa , dan dala
utbah biar saya m
jauh, saya berha masa
ke yang k Train
meda menj menc ing
n, ke adi oba ini.
perba penga di Dala
ungan wasn masa m hal
. Saya ya traini ini
moho dulu, ng saya
n kita kita yang
tolera buat ini. berha
nsiny ini 2. KTU : oke buk, k
a semac tentu ada buk. Kita meng
untuk am akan evalu
saya traini bahas asiny
pak ng itu a.
dihar sampa sekara
i i ng ini. From the
Jum’ menu Jika conversation above, we
at. nggu ada can see that KTU
From the examples tahun guru asserted his belief that
above, we can ajaran yang he has the right to
concluded that there are baru. tidak determine when he
some utterenaces which Ditah melak were speaking in which
is showed the un sanak he showed that himself
minimizing imposition ajaran an has right to correct get
occurred in the meeting, baru, jam the decision.
and it also showed that baru yang
the role of linguistic kita telah 3) Claiming Common
politeness especially in landin diteta Ground
discursive struggle is gkan pkan, For claiming the
polite in that setting. peratu maka common ground, it also
ran uang can be foud in the
2) Asserting ini. maka meeting, like:
reciprocity Jadi, n a) KTU : Saya rasa itu
The next category is masa tidak kurang buk,
asserting reciprocity. It sekara akan cobal
also can be seen in this ng dihitu ah
case, like: kita ng. ibuk
1. KTU : Oke. Bu ema, buat Jadi, beda
memang masa jika kan
benar. traini mema jam
Semu ngnya ng kerja
a . tidak kanto
butuh Sumarni : bisa r
orang Kenapa harus Bapak hadir denga
yang yang dikare n jam
meng jadi nakan kerja
awasi pengawasnya? hal, kita
kehad KTU : Karna selama maka selam
iran ini tidak ada diwaj a ini.
guru ibkan Sung

4
 guh 4) Bringing Forwards f jika m
enak Accurate kita satu
nya Arguments and lakuk hari 4
kita. Data an orang
Saya For the final tanpa guru,
rasa category is bringing the ada bisa
selam forwards accurate yang kita
a ini arguments and data also meme ambil
sudah can be found in the riksa dari
banya meeting, we can see keha guru
k from their utterances diran yang
leluas below: /abse mem
a a) Ema : Maaf pak, n puny
kepad saya hanya guru? ai
a seked karen jam
Bapak ar a meng
/ Ibu memb sepert ajar
guru, erikan i yang koson
tidak saran kita g.
ada dan ketah Jadi,
konse solusi ui guru
kuens atas sekola piket
i jika apa h kita yang
guru yang belum akan
tidak telah memp meng
datan diteta unyai awasi
g, jika pkan alat nya
guru sebelu teknol demi
hanya mnya. ogi jalan
datan Sepert absen nya
g pas i yang (chec perat
jam telah klock) uran
meng Bapak dan itu,
ajaran katak guru Pak.
ya an piket. Itu
saja, tadi, Untu saja
sudah bahw k itu, saran
selsai a jam alang dari
jam kerja kah sya,
meng itu lebih Assal
ajar meny baikn ammu
langs angku ya alaiku
ung t jika m.
pulan peratu dibua b) Bu emi :
g…… ran. t Saya rasa, supaya
…. Jika guru tidak
Based on the kita piket terlal
conversation showed mem yang u
above, we can see that ang akan berat,
the speaker tried to ingin meng mung
claim common ground menj awasi kin
to get the fact. In this alank keha lebih
case, he tried to show nan diran baik
the other fact which perat guru. seper
occurred in our society uran, Cont ti
to claim his truth. apak ohny keput
ah a, usan
efekti dala semal

5
 am ralat tidak, yang
saja menja denga meng
Pak, di 6 n urus
berad jam. catat itu
a di Bagai an semua
sekol mana bagi , dan
ah 10 Bapa guru saya
menit k/Ibu PNS berha
sebel ? yang k
um Setuj tidak menc
masu u? meng oba di
k dan Bu Sutiah : Pak, ikuti masa
boleh bagaimana 5 jam saja perat traini
pulan kita uran ng
g jika ambil, jam kita
sudah Diant KBM ini.
3 jam ara 2 5 jam Sumarni : Saya
berad keput dala rasa saran dari Bu Ema
a di usan m 1 tadi
sekol semla hari, telah
ah. m, maka cocok
c) Bu ema : semal uang dibuat
Maaf Pak, tadi am 4 maka ,
bapak jam n mung
katak dan tidak kin
an 7 tadi 6 akan dapat
jam? jam. kelua memb
Saya Bagai r antu
rasa mana untuk kita,
mulai 5 jam hari kita
dari saja itu. buat
jam kita Bu Mariani : guru
07.15 tetap Saya setuju Pak. piket
- kan? nya
01.00 Kepala Sekolah: Kalau Based on the sebag
belu memang kita ingin utterances above, we ai
m 5 jam can see that the penga
menc 1 hari, participant of the was
apai ya meeting (Ema) tried to keha
7 bisa give her ideas or diran.
jam. kita arguments in solving Dan
Mung disku the problems which is saya
kin sikan discussed in the juga
dirala apak meeting. ingin
t pak ah In addition, there is mena
menj yang a participant who has nyaka
adi 6 lainn disagreement to the n
jam. ya other ideas and she apaka
Perhi setuj expressed her h ada
tunga u disagreement like: konse
n denga d) Sumarni : kuens
bapa n Kenapa harus i jika
k pend Bapak yang dalam
salah. apat jadi 1 hari
KTU : oya bu pengawasn guru
maaf, salah ngitung Sutia ya? tidak
saya. h KTU : Karna selama menja
Kita atau ini tidak ada lanka

6
 n jam arguments and data.
yang While in this study, the
telah writer did not found out
diteta all of the categories like
pkan? Minda’s. The
minimizing the conflict
Based on the context and confrontation is not
above, in showing her found out in the school
agreement (Sumarni), meeting in MTs Negeri
she also tried to give 1 Deli Serdang. There
her ideas by giving the are only four categories
reason why she occurred in that
disagreed with KTU’s meeting.
statement.
6. REFERENCES
4. CONCLUSION
[1] Hanak, I.1998.
After finding the Chairing meetings:
result, it can be turn and topic control
in development
concluded that the role
communication in
of linguistic politeness rural Zanzibar. In:
can be occurred in the Discourse and Society.
school meeting at MTs Amsterdam.
Negeri 1 Deli Serdang [2] Murni, S. M. 2013.
in which it showed Kesantunan Linguistik.
discursive struggle that Universitas Negeri
there are politeness Medan: Unimed Press.
value occurred in the
setting, such as
minimizing imposition,
asserting reciprocity,
claiming common
ground, and bringing
forward accurate
arguments and Data.

5. DISCUSSION

After finding out the

result this study, there is
a finding which is
contrarily with Minda’s
journal. Minda’s found
out that in the DPR-RI’s
meeting especially in
the processing of
democratizing
Indonesia, there were
five categories of role
politeness linguistics,
discursive struggle, are
minimizing the conflict
and confrontation,
minimizing imposition,
asserting reciprocity,
claiming common
ground, and bringing
forwards accurate