A negative impoliteness strategy used by the judge

Dwi Santoso, Amy Alivia Fauzia

Abstract


When people communicate, people generally begin with a conversation or a statement that is delivered from the speaker to the interlocutor; the communication has many goals and purposes. A person might be considered decent, impolite, kind, educated, courteous, honest, and so on. One of these characteristics is the language someone employing in everyday life while communicating with other humans. Politeness and impoliteness strategies do not only occur in Indonesia but also can occur in any situation and anywhere in the country. In this study, the researcher wants to discuss the opposite of the politeness strategy, namely the impoliteness strategy used by judges in a court. The purpose of this study is to explore the types of negative impoliteness strategies and the motives behind the judges using the negative impoliteness strategies in a court. The subjects of this research include a recorded video of Richard Eliezer's trial as a witness via YouTube, and the objective of the study is how to communicate using impoliteness strategies, particularly negative impoliteness employed by the judges. The researchers found that there were 3 negative impoliteness strategies carried out by the judges in this trial, namely frightening, condescending and doubting.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Alakrash, H., Saad, E., Hussien, B. &, & Alakrash, M. (2020). An Analysis of Impoliteness Strategies Performed by Donald Trump Tweets Addressıng the Middle East Countries Challenges of Fourth industrial Revolution Towards Learning Oral Skills among Arab Students in Malaysia View project An Analysis of Impoliteness S. May.

Bakić-Mirić, N. (2018). Social Media: A Critical Introduction. European Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117753746

Boux, I. P., Margiotoudi, K., Dreyer, F. R., Tomasello, R., & Pulvermüller, F. (2023). Cognitive features of indirect speech acts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2077396

Brown & Levinson, S. (2011). Politeness ( Brown and Levinson 1987 ). Reading.

C Djisman, S. (2013). Segenggam Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Segenggam Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana.

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3

Dayama, P., Mokmas, N., Onouhn, P., & Manochphinyo, A. (2021). English Speaking Problems and Solutions between Employees and Customers in Workplaces. Jurnal Bahasa Inggris Terapan, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.35313/jbit.v7i1.3466

Katrina Larasati Utami. (2019). Strategi ketidaksantunan negatif dalam reality show 86 di net tv. 21(1), 1–23.

Keraf, G. (1997). Komposisi.

Leech, G. (2016). Principles of Pragmatics. In Principles of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835976

Liebrecht, C., Tsaousi, C., & van Hooijdonk, C. (2021). Linguistic elements of conversational human voice in online brand communication: Manipulations and perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.050

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. In Gender and Politeness. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238

Subroto, D. E. (1992). Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural. Sebelas maret University Press.

Wakslak, C. J., Smith, P. K., & Han, A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036626

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics by George Yule. In Spain: OUP Oxford.

Zhong, W. (2018). Linguistic Impoliteness Strategies in Sina Weibo Comments. International Journal of Linguistics & Communication, 6(2), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v6n2a4




DOI: https://doi.org/10.12928/sylection.v3i1.14381

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Contact person:
Mr. Thoyib +62 856 3015 058 
Mr. Resnery +62 852 7899 0181
Mrs. Tristanti +62 811 1773 473

Email:
muhammad.amali@comm.uad.ac.id