IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY SUPPORTERS AND DETRACTORS OF AHOK IN THEIR ONLINE COMMENTS BY GENDER
), Hamzah Hamzah(2), Delvi Wahyuni(3), (1) English Department, FBS, Universitas Negeri Padang
Indonesia
(2) English Department, FBS, Universitas Negeri Padang
Indonesia
(3) English Department, FBS, Universitas Negeri Padang
Indonesia
Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2018 E-Journal English Language and Literature
DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/ell.v7i1.9915
Full Text:
Language : en
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find impoliteness strategies used by supporters and detractors of Ahok differed by their gender in their online comments based on Culpeper’s theory (1996). This research was descriptive qualitative research based on impoliteness strategies phenomena in written language. The data on this research were words, phrases, and sentences in online comments that contained impoliteness strategies found in social media, Facebook and Instagram, collected from January to October 2017. The instruments of this research were Wi-Fi, laptop, writing equipment, and indicators of impoliteness strategies. The results of analysis showed that from 300 comments collected, there were 584 impoliteness strategies found. The reason why number of strategies found bigger than the data collected is because the commentators mostly performed more than one strategy in one utterance. Four by five strategies found in this research were bald on record, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, and sarcasm or mock politeness. The strategies that were not found was withhold politeness because it only occurred in spoken language. The most used strategies was positive impoliteness. The highest user of positive impoliteness was male detractors (52%).
Keywords
References
Brown, P,.and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, Men and Language a Sociolinguistics Account of Gender Differences In Language 3rd edition. Harlow: Longman.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards An Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25:349-367.
Culpeper, J., Derek B., and Anne W. (2003). Impoliteness re-visited: With special Reference To Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545-1579.
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link, Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 1:35-72.
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalized impoliteness formula. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 42, 3232-3245.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1989). “The limits of politeness.”Multilingua 8: 101-129.
Haggerty, K. (2000). Conversation Analysis: A Study of On-line Chatrooms vs. Oral Communication. Unpublished Thesis. Western Connecticut State University.
Hamzah. (2013). Pengembangan Topik Di Dalam Cet Menggunakan Bahasa Inggris. Lingua Didactia Volume 7 No 1, Desember 2013. Universitas Negeri Padang.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman
Omar, Z., and Wahid S. (2010). “Pragmatic Analysis of Impoliteness in Some of Harold Pinter’s Plays”. Iraq Academic Scientific Journal, 8 :189-210
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 639–656.
John Suler (2004). CyberPsychology & Behavior. 7(3): 321-326
Vanderstoep, S.W., and D. Johnston. 2009. Research Method of Everyday Life. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. London: Cambridge University Press.
Article Metrics
Abstract Views : 1706 times
PDF Downloaded : 890 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 E-Journal English Language and Literature
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
