Sabtu, 27 April 2013

Sociolinguistic


SOCIOLINGUISTICS

“Solidarity and Politeness”





                                                                 By:

                                     Hany Khoirotun Nikmah              ( 3213103071  )




CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
When we speak, we must constantly make choices of many different kinds: what we want to say, how we want to say, and the specific sentence type, words, and sounds. The linguistic choices available for a speaker to address another are influenced by three social variables: kinship, age and gender. These variables set up hierarchical relations between interact ants. The kinship system gives people in some kin positions certain rights and privileges over others in other kin positions. Older persons have a higher status than younger persons, and wives are subordinate to their husbands. These hierarchical relations are expressed and reinforced through different socio-cultural institutions and practices including linguistics forms and behavior.
It means that a communication needs some rules. The rules were used when we have a talk in our society. We all know that there are many kinds of dimensions in our society based on age, gender, or social status. We should know how to use the language in where and to whom we want to have an interaction.  How we say something is at least as important as what we say; in fact, the content and the form are quite inseparable, being but two facets of the same object. In this paper, our group will discuss about the solidarity and politeness in sociolinguistics. In each case we will see the certain linguistic choices a speaker makes indicate the social relationship that the speaker perceives to exist between him or her and the listener to listener.
The purpose of this paper is to consider the aspects of solidarity and politeness including face-threatening acts from the point of view of their linguistic components, relevance for social interaction and their usage in male/female discourse.



CHAPTER II
A.   SOLIDARITY
Another type of social relations encoded in language is social distance or closeness between individuals, or relations of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’. Brown and Gilman (1960) argue that in some European languages, beyond the deictic functions of the second person pronouns tu (T) or vous (V), there are in the choice of either pronoun, signals of relationships of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’, where ‘power’ reflects relative superior status, social distance unfamiliarity, and deference, and ‘solidarity’ reflects closeness, familiarity, common experiences  and shared intimacies. [1]
In sociolinguistics, the T (tu) and V (vous) distinction are a contrast, within one language, between second-person pronouns that are specialized for varying levels of politeness, social distance, courtesy, familiarity, or insult toward the addressee. The expressions T-form (informal) and V-form (formal) were introduced by Brown and Gilman (1960), with reference to the initial letters of these pronouns in Latintu and vous. In Latintu was originally the singular, and vous the plural.[2]
Share relationship of solidarity or differences in power relationships are reflected in reciprocal or non-reciprocal use of the T/V pronouns in address (Brown and Gilman 1960, Chaika 1982, Trudgill 1983). According to Hudson (2001) every language has some way of signaling relationships of power and solidarity, and languages that do not show the T/V distinction may have other devices to signal these relations, as in English, where speakers have the choice between first name only and title plus family name (Hudson, 2001: 123).
Reciprocal V usage became ‘polite’ usage. This polite usage spread downward in society and it became expected between husband and wife, parents and children, and lovers. Reciprocal T usage was always available to show intimacy. Solidarity has tended to replace power, so that now mutual T is found quite often in relationship e.g. father and son, and employer and employer.
A book published in France entitled Savoir-vivre en France (Vigner,1978) gives the following advice to foreigners on the current use of tu and vous there. Tu should be used between spouses, between brothers, and sisters regardless of age, between parent and children, between close relative, between young people or between adults who have a friendship of long standing. Vous should be used between strangers, between those who have no ties in any kind, and between inferior and superior.
Establishing social relationship between individuals is perhaps the first step to every communicative event. One important issue in studying communication is to learn how individuals manage to open conversations or how people may address one another in a given language. Forms of address have their roots in sociocultural context of a society. Oyetade (1995) defines address terms as words or expressions used in interactive, face-to-face situations to designate the person being talked to. Afful (2006) "terms of address constitute an important part of verbal behavior through which the behavior, norms and practices of a society can be identified. Address terms in different speech communities are worth study. They are likely to be different because different languages have different linguistic resources to express what is culturally permissible and meaningful.
B.   POLITENESS
Politeness is taking account of sense: feelings of others, making others feel comfortable. Linguistically is speaking appropriately to the relationship between speaker and hearer. Linguistic politeness requires understanding how language works in variety of social contexts.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 46) ‘the most conspicuous intrusion of social factors into language structure’ is deference phenomena. They observe that deference is realized under the general theory of politeness and involves paying attention to the ‘face want’ of the addressee. ‘Face’ is described as the ‘public self image’ that all rational adult members have when engaged in spoken interaction. Face consists of two related aspects; positive face and negative face.[3]
Positive face includes the want that one’s self image be appreciated and approved, whilst negative face is the claim of every ‘competent adult member’ to personal preserves, non-distraction and freedom from imposition, and to the desire that their actions be unimpeded by others. Both negative and positive face needs of participants in interaction are constantly under threat by various acts or omissions of other participants. Face is therefore highly valued; it can be lost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantly adhered to in interaction.

Based on linguistically, politeness is speaking appropriately to the relationship between speaker and hearer. Linguistic politeness requires understanding how language works in variety of social contexts.
Some languages seem have to have built into them very complex systems of politeness. Javanese, one of the principal languages in Indonesia, is a language in which, as Geertz (1960, p. 248) says “it’s nearly impossible to say anything without indicating the social relationship between speaker and the listener in terms of status and familiarity. Before one Javanese speaks to another, he or she must decide on an appropriate speech style: high, middle or low.

But, there is still another level of complication. Javanese has a set of honorifics, referring to such matters as people, body parts, possessions, and human actions. There are both high honorifics, e.g. dahar for eat, and low honorifics, e.g. neda for eat. Only high honorifics can accompany high style, but both high and low honorifics can accompany low style. Neda is found in the high style with no honorifics, the middle style (which cannot have honorifics) and the low style with low honorifics. Dahar for eat always signals high honorifics in either high and low honorifics.
Level in Javanese
Speech Level                                                                     Example
                                                                              Eat                   now
3a  high style, high honorifics                               dahar               samenika
3    high style, no honorifics                                  neda                samenika
2    middle style                                                    neda                saniki
1b  low style, high honorifics                                dahar               saiki
1a  low style, low honorifics                                 neda                saiki
1    low style, no honorifics                                   mangan            saiki
Level name : 3a krama inggil
                      3  krama biasa
2 krama madya
1b ngoko sae
1a ngoko madya
1 ngoko biasa

The Japanese are also always described as being an extremely “polite” people. Martin (1964) has summarized some of the ways in which Japanese use language to show this politeness: honorific forms incorporating negatives (analogues to English); “Wouldn’t you like to……?” are more polite than those without negatives. Martin is of the opinion that there are four basic factors at work here and that, in choosing the proper, or polite, address term of another, a Japanese considers out-groupness, social position, age difference, and sex difference in that order.[4]

We can turn to a European language, French, to show still another aspect of politeness. In Savoir-vivre en France (Vigner,1978) we find some examples that clearly illustrate how longer utterances are considered to be more polite than shorter ones in certain circumstances.

e.g.:
‘At three o’clock, with your car’
‘You should come and get me at three o’clock with your car’
‘Could you come and get me at three o’clock with your car?’

In using language, we make use of the devices that the language employs to show certain relationship to others and our attitudes toward them. In using French, we cannot avoid the tu-vous distinction; in communicating English, we must refers to others and address them on occasion; in speaking Javanese or Japanese, we must observe the conventions having to do with the correct choice of speech level and honorifics





















CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION

Expressing the same speech act /speech function may differ markedly from culture to culture. They reflect social values and attitudes of societies. Being polite involves knowing expression of a range of speech functions in a culturally appropriate way. Learning another language means / involves more than just learning literal meaning of words, how to put them together, etc. Learners also need to know what they mean in the cultural context, so they need to understand cultural and social norms of their users. This makes sociolinguistic competence, important component of communicative competence

Talking solidarity and politeness, those are related each other. Before we apply the politeness, we have to consider solidarity toward the addressee. We have known that there are many kinds of dimension in our society, such as lower classes and upper classes, we consider to use high honorifics language. For the example, when we talk with our father, we should use high honorifics style. It is different when we talk with our friends, we should not use high honorifics style.














REFERENCES
1.      Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Fifth Edition. Blackwell Publishing: Australia. Pages 268

2.      Salifu, Nantogma Alhassan, http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/de-gruyter/politeness-sociolinguistic-theory-and-language-chance-hYKfn6i,  downloaded on Monday March 11th 2013 at 10.00 a.m.

3.      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TandVdistinction,downloaded on Monday, March 11th 2013 at 09.50 a.m.




[1] Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Fifth Edition. Blackwell Publishing: Australia
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction, downloaded on Monday, March 11th 2013 at 09.50 a.m.

[3] Salifu, Nantogma Alhassan, http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/de-gruyter/politeness-sociolinguistic-theory-and-language-chance-hYKfn6iTQv,  downloaded on Monday,March 11th 2013 at 10.00 a.m

[4] Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Fifth Edition. Blackwell Publishing: Australia. Pages 268

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar