DISKUSI ONLINE INAPRA-PDF SERIES #20

 DISKUSI ONLINE INAPRA-PDF SERIES #20

Dear All INAPRA-PDF-LOVERS

INAPRA & Pragmatics Discussion Forum Proudly Presents

DISKUSI ONLINE INAPRA-PDF SERIES #20: 

"Refusal to Request: Studi Empiris terhadap Penolakan Ekspresi Perasaan Cinta di Kalangan Remaja Jawa"

PEMBICARA:

Dr. Drs. Edy Jauhari. M.Hum., Universitas Airlangga

Dr. Miftah Nugroho, M.Hum., Universitas Sebelas Maret

MODERATOR: 

Eka Margianti Sagimin, S.S., M.Pd., Universitas Pamulang

Pada Hari Sabtu, 28 Januari 2022, JAM 09.00-11.30

VIA ZOOM for 100 seats.

INAPRA Members will get free Access to this Webinar dan E-Certificate. 

For Non-INAPRA members for the-Certificate, the donation is Rp. 25,000,-

IMPORTANT NOTE:

E-Certificate is given ONLY for registered participants with full attendance and Donation.

Bank Account Number For Non-INAPRA members:  135-111-6463

Bank Name:     Bank BNI 46, Account Name:  Rahmanti Asmarani

Registrasi Gratis ke:

https://tinyurl.com/registrasiPDF20

Narahubung: Dian Rianita (0812-6628-233)

Impoliteness strategies

Impoliteness strategies
Culpeper J

Springer International Publishing, (2016), 421-445
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16
47Citations
100Readers
Add to libraryGet full text

Abstract

The “impoliteness strategy”, a kind of parallel to the “politeness strategy”, has dominated research for decades and is still current. However, the notion of a “strategy” is poorly understood and rarely defined. This chapter begins by critically examining this notion, as it is used in linguistics. It argues that in politeness studies it has been overly focused on the idea of a rational linguistic means of achieving certain ends or goals. That a strategy might also involve the coordination of communication through routine and shared linguistic means that are recognised within particular communities seems to have been largely overlooked. The next part of this chapter outlines Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy of impoliteness strategies, and follows with a critical review. It notes that most problems and controversies lie at the more abstract level of the “superstrategy”. Two particularly controversial areas are discussed. One is the relationship between directness and impoliteness strategies, and especially whether there is some correlation with the degree of offence caused. The other is the relationship between impoliteness strategies and context. The final part of the chapter outlines a more recent bottom-up framework of impoliteness strategies or triggers, and one that, echoing Terkourafi’s (e.g., 2001) work on politeness, places impoliteness conventionalized for particular contexts of use at the centre.

LIST ANGGOTA INAPRA BATCH 2

LIST ANGGOTA INAPRA BATCH 2

1.   I Made Suta Paramarta       Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Bali

2.   Eky Kusuma Hapsari, S.S., M.Hum.   Universitas Negeri Jakarta

3.   Monika Widyastuti Surtikanti     Universitas Katolik Santo Agustinus Hippo

4.   Antonius Setyawan Sugeng Nur Agung     Universitas Katolik Santo Agustinus Hippo

5.   Armeria Wijaya    Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya

6.  Hermina Sutami   Universitas Indonesia

7.  Christiana Sidupa Universitas Bina Nusantara

8.  Dwi Syukriady        Universitas Islam Makassar

9.  Siti Nur'Aini           Universitas PGRI Semarang

10.  Widyashanti Kunthara Anindita    Universitas Surakarta

11.  Muhammad Affan Ramadhana    Akademi Teknologi Industri Dewantara Palopo

12.  Titis Sugiyantiningtyas     Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Banyuwangi

13.   Dian Luthfiyati     Universitas Islam Lamongan

14.    Nike Puspita Wanodyatama Pasaribu     STBA YAPARI-ABA

15.   Bayu Aryanto    Universitas Dian Nuswantoro

16.   Liliek Soepriatmadji     Unisbank

17.   Alvons Habibie    IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo

18.   Dewi Rosaria Indah      STKIP Bina Insan Mandiri

19.   Yuliawati Dwi Widyaningrum    Universitas Gadjah Mada

20.   Siti Sudartini     Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

21.   Siti Mukminatun    Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

22.  Ignatius Tri Endarto   Universitas Kristen Duta Wacana

23.   Firqo Amelia   Universitas Abdurachman Saleh Situbondo

24.   I Gusti ayu Gde Sosiowati   Universitas Udayana

25.  Dyah Nugrahani             Universitas PGRI Semarang

26.  Intan Mustika Sari         Universitas Sebelas Maret

27.  Assa Rahmawati Kabul           Program Studi Cina FIB UI

28.  Nadirah        Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidenreng Rappang

LIST PENDAFTAR KEANGGOTAAN INAPRA BATCH 1

 LIST PENDAFTAR KEANGGOTAAN INAPRA BATCH 1 SESUAI DENGAN LIST 

di https://www.inapra.org/p/daftar-anggota-pdf.html


LIST PENGURUS INAPRA

1. Jumanto Universitas Dian Nuswantoro

2. Hanafi Universitas Andalas

3. Faizal Risdianto UIN Salatiga

4. Eka Margianti Sagimin Universitas Pamulang

5. Rahmanti Asmarani Universitas Dian Nuswantoro Semarang

6. Dian Rianita Universitas Lancang Kuning

7. Budi Purnomo Universitas Surakarta

8.      Ita Fitriana Universitas Jenderal Soedirman

9.    F.X. Rahyono Universitas Buddhi Dharma, Tangerang

10.    R. Kunjana Rahardi Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta

 11.   Prof. Dr. I Dewa Putu Wijana, S.U.,M.A   FIB UGM


LIST PENDAFTAR KEANGGOTAAN INAPRA BATCH 1 SESUAI DENGAN LIST 

di https://www.inapra.org/p/daftar-anggota-pdf.html


1. Syafryadin Universitas Bengkulu

2. Hilda Hilaliyah Universitas Indraprasta PGRI

3. Mariyatul Kiptiyah STKIP PGRI Bangkalan 

Politeness and Camaraderie

 Politeness and Camaraderie Considering the summary critique of politeness theories by Gino Eelen (Eelen, 2001), and apart from various theories of politeness (Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Spencer-Oatey, 1992; Lakoff, 1990; Fraser & Nolen, 1981; Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989; Blum-Kulka, 1992; Arndt & Janney, 1985; Watts, 1989; Thomas, 1996; Coupland, 2000) Jumanto is trying to define what politeness is (Jumanto, Pragmatics: Linguistic World is Broad, 2011b). Jumanto proposed a theory of politeness among Javanese speakers, advocating the theory of Gunarwan (Gunarwan, Implicatures of Linguistic Codes Selection in some dialogues of Ludruk, 2001). Many of the politeness theories above are the results of violating Grice’s Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975), though some proposed a new atmosphere. However, few have proposed a working definition of politeness. Jumanto tried to offer a definition that politeness is everything good that has been uttered as well as acted by the speaker to the hearer within a particular context, to maintain their interpersonal face as well as their social face (Jumanto, Pragmatics: Linguistic World is Broad, 2011b). The notion of face in politeness has come into high attention and importance since it was borrowed by Brown and Levinson (Brown & Levinson, 1987) from Goffman (Goffman, 1959, 1967). 

In Goffman’s grand theory, everyone in interaction has two faces, positive face, and negative face. Face refers to the will, intention, and other associations of ideas and values in the self of the speaker. In short, positive face refers to an appreciation of the speaker’s self and negative face refers to no depreciation of the speaker’s self. The elaboration of face by Brown and Levinson has resulted in face management for two major politeness strategies, positive politeness strategies (which refer to positive face) and negative politeness strategies (which refer to negative face). Under the light of this face management theory, Jumanto (Jumanto, Pragmatics and Character Language Building, 2011c) argues that the politeness theories in verbal interactions fall into or lead to two major poles, i.e. one is directed to distancing politeness and the other is directed to closeness politeness. Distancing politeness refers to Goffman’s negative face (Goffman, 1959), Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987), Renkema’s respect politeness (Renkema, 1993), and Jumanto’s politeness (Jumanto, Phatic Communication among English Native Speakers, 2008); (Jumanto, Pragmatics: Linguistic World is Broad, 2011b). Closeness politeness, on the other hand, refers to Goffman’s positive face (Goffman, 1959), Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987), Renkema’s solidarity politeness (Renkema, 1993), and Jumanto’s friendship or camaraderie (Jumanto, Phatic Communication among English Native Speakers, 2008); (Jumanto, Pragmatics: Linguistic World is Broad, 2011b). 

This tendency has been well-strengthened and highlighted by the results of Jumanto’s research on phatic communication among English native speakers (Jumanto, 2006). From the accounts above, with high gratitude to the former theorists and researchers, we can see clearly that distancing politeness and closeness politeness are in line with distant language and close language the writer has just proposed above. Here, so far so good, we can sum up that distant language brings politeness, and close language brings friendship or camaraderie. Distant language and close language to show politeness and camaraderie finally meet the demand of language as a means of communication, i.e. a real-life everyday use of language in all situations or pragmatic use of language in a diglossic situation. 3 An inspiring opinion given by Professor Asim Gunarwan, during his pragmatic classes, at University of Indonesia, in 2002-2006. 4 Types of hearer can be further seen in Brown and Gilman (1968) or Brown and Gilman in Jumanto (2011b).

Towards a Character Language: A Probability in Language Use (scirp.org)

LIST PENDAFTAR KEANGGOTAAN INAPRA BATCH 1 & 2



LIST PENDAFTAR KEANGGOTAAN INAPRA BATCH 1 SESUAI DENGAN LIST

di https://www.inapra.org/p/daftar-anggota-pdf.html

 

1.             Syafryadin             Universitas Bengkulu

2.             Hilda Hilaliyah       Universitas Indraprasta PGRI

3.             Mariyatul Kiptiyah               STKIP PGRI Bangkalan

4.             Akmal     Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen Informatika dan Komputer Royal

5.             Sigit Apriyanto      Institut Agama Islam An Nur Lampung

6.             Uzlifatul Masruroh Isnawati               Universitas Islam Lamongan (UNISLA)

7.             Chatarini Septi Ngudi Lestari             Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Bahasa Dan Sastra Satya Widya