The Role of Adjacency Pairs to Create Politeness Strategies in Students’ Phatic Utterances

Ratna Padmi Trihartanti, Seldie Julyana Septian

Abstract


Adjacency pair is one of the language features to make utterances more polite as it creates turn-taking, which means that none of participant dominates. Adjacency pairs also create functions of phatic communication as stated by Padilla Cruz(2005). According to Levinson (1983), there are nine patterns of adjacency pairs, and most could be found in utterances. The data were taken from 24 students’ phatic utterances, and they were chosen because all participants are classmates. Covid-19 pandemic has forced them not to meet each other for almost 2 semesters, yet they show their closeness and solidarity. After all the data were analyzed using the qualitative method, it can be concluded that there are 7 adjacency pairs: Question-Answer, Offer-Accept, Taking leave-Taking leave, Summons-Answer, Request for information-Grant, Request-Apology, and Greeting-Greeting, and most of them have phatic functions of communication. By using adjacency pairs, it employs politeness strategies, negative and positive politeness strategies from Brown & Levinson (1987). Negative politeness strategies found are: Be conventionally indirect, Question, hedge and Quality-hedges, while positive politeness strategies found are: Offer, promise, Include both S and H in the activity, and Give gifts to H. One of adjacency- pairs, and phatic utterances’ functions is to maintain politeness though the students are classmates with close social distance and equal power, they perform politeness strategies to keep their social relations. The appearance of politeness strategies shows that no matter how informal utterances are, closeness and politeness must stay together.

Keywords: adjacency-pairs, phatic utterances, politeness, strategies


References


Bagheri, H., Ibrahim, N. A., & Habil, H. (2012). ‘aha, ok, alright’ as Phatic Talk: An Analysis on Opening in Multilingual and Multicultural Clinical Consultations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.242

Beltrán-Planques, V., & Querol-Julián, M. (2018). English language learners’ spoken interaction: What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System, 77, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.008

Blitvich, P. G. C., & Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.015

Blutner, R. (2016). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-1989-0124

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bühler, K. (1918). Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Charles W. Kreidler. 1998. Introducing English Semantic. London: Routledge.

Coates, J. (2014). Women, Men and Language. Women, Men and Language. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835778

Daniels, P. T., & Crystal, D. (1992). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Language, 68(2), 422. https://doi.org/10.2307/416962

Ghilzai, S. A. (2015). Conversational Analysis of Turn taking Behavior and Gender Differences in Multimodal Conversation Shazia Akbar Ghilzai December 2015. Perspectives in Language, Linguistics and Media, 1(December), 1–13.

Gradinaru, C. (2018). Small talk in our digital everyday life: The contours of a phatic culture. Meta, 10(2), 459-472.

Haradhan, M. (2018). Qualitative Research Methodology in Social Sciences and Related Subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23–48.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. Style in language, 350-357.

Jumanto, Jumanto. (2006). Phatic Communication among English Native Speakers. University of Indonesia Dissertation.

Jumanto, Jumanto. (2014). Phatic Communication: How English Native Speakers Create Ties of Union. American Journal of Linguistics,3(1),9–16. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.linguistics.20140301.02 Determining. 3(1), 30–43.

Kádáar, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. In UnderstandingPoliteness. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717

Karimnia, A. (2018). Patterns of Politeness in Teacher-Student Interaction : Investigating an Academic Context Patterns of oPolitenesss in Teacher-Student t Interactio n : ng an Acad text. October.

Kazemi, A., & Azimifar, F. (2019). A conversation analytic study of virtual vs. CALL language classes: With reference to adjacency pairs. International Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), 37–60.

Kulkarni, D. (2014). Exploring Jakobson’s “phatic function” in instant messaging interactions. Discourse and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313507150

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Societies Language and Societies. 637–657.

LoCastro, V. (2013). Pragmatics for Language Educators. Pragmatics for Language Educators. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850947

Malinowski,Bronislaw. (1923). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. In The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296–336).

Maros, M., & Rosli, L. (2017). Politeness strategies in twitter updates of female english language studies Malaysian undergraduates. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 23(1), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-10

Morris, C. H. (1938). Foundation of the theory of signs. In International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2(1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Mudra, H. (2018). Adjacency Pairs As Uttered in the Conversations of Sofia Coppola’S Lost in Translation Movie Script. Humanus, 17(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.24036/humanus.v17i1.8050

Padilla Cruz, M. (2005). On the phatic interpretation of utterances: A complementary relevance-theoretic proposal. Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses, No. 18 (Nov. 2005); pp. 227-246.

Padilla Cruz, M. (2007). Phatic Utterances and the Communication of Social Information: a Relevance-Theoretic Approach. Studies in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, July, 114–131.

Purnomo, B. (2016). Politeness Strategies and Levels In Tourism-Service Language in Surakarta Residency. Register Journal, 3(2), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v3i2.447

Qi, X. (2017). Reconstructing the concept of face in cultural sociology: in Goffman’s footsteps, following the Chinese case. Journal of Chinese Sociology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-017-0069-y

Rahardi, R. K. (2019). Extralinguistic context roles in determining meanings of javanese phatic expression ‘mboten’: A sociopragmatic perspective. International Journal of Humanity Studies. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.2019.030103

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835

SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E. A., & JEFFERSON, G. (1978). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation**This chapter is a variant version of “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation,” which was printed in Language, 50, 4 (1974), pp. 696–735. An e. Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 7–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of

language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shakouri, N. (2014). Qualitative research: incredulity toward metanarrativeness. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 671–680. http://jehdnet.com/journals/jehd/Vol_3_No_2_June_2014/40.pdf

Shen, Q., & Xia, T. (2010). Conversation Analysis as Discourse Approaches to Teaching EFL Speaking. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6(4), 90–103.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1989). Beyond the adjacency pair*. Language in Society, 18(4), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013907

Wang, J. (2018). Qualitative Research in English Language Teaching and Learning. Indonesian EFL Journal: Journal of ELT, Linguistics, and Literature, 4(2), 116–132. http://ejournal.kopertais4.or.id/mataraman/index.php/efi

Wennerstrom, A., & Siegel, A. F. (2003). Keeping the Floor in Multiparty Conversations: Intonation, Syntax, and Pause. In Discourse Processes (Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 77–107). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3602_1

Yan, X. (2010). Politeness Strategies in English Adjacency Pairs. Analysis.

Žegarac, V., & Clark, B. (1999). Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226799007628




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v14i2.%25p

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2021 Ratna Padmi Trihartanti, Seldie Julyana Septian

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

English Education Department, State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga, Indonesia 1979-8903 (Print) and 2503-040X : (Online)

In the aim of improving the quality of the Journal since 19th October 2016 this journal officially had made cooperation with ELITE Association Indonesia (The association of Teachers of English Linguistics, Literature & Education). See The MoU Manuscript.


Creative Commons License
REGISTER JOURNAL : http://journalregister.iainsalatiga.ac.id/ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License