NEGATING AND AFFIRMING A PROPOSITION IN MAKASSARESE :REVISITING THE UNIVERSALITY OF BROWN & LEVINSON’S POLITENESS

THEORY

By. Abdul Hakim YassiCultural Science Faculty of Hasanuddin University of Makassar, Indonesia

ABSTRACTOne of the basic challenges for research in cross-cultural communication is the issue of universality: to what extent is it possible to determine the degree to which the rules that govern the use of language in context vary from culture to culture and from language to language? The present study is an attempt to revisit the universality of Brown and Levinson model theory on politeness (1978, 1987) in the context of Makassarese culture. In particular, it has been designed to find out the way Makassarese people in negating and affirming a proposition in five speech functions; responding to (1) questions, (2) statements, (3) requests, (4) commands, and (5) offers.The data are 39 dialogues drawn purposively from two Makassarese literary texts which contain materials on the history, lives, and culture of Makassarese people. These samples are then analysed firstly using a semantic approach employing a two-step translation; literal and idiomatic, and these translation are then analysed within the framework adapted from Scollon and Scollon’s (1983, 1995).The study reveals that in either negating or affirming a proposition, Makassarese people tend to provide addressees with additional information mainly serving as a validation, an emphasis, or a lubricant of their negation or affirmation. They avoid responding to any proposition by simply saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only as this sounds impolite. This is mainly intended to keep addressees feel happy and satisfied. Such a good intention can also be identified from the way they respond to a command, a statement, and an offer. The data shows that there is no any negation in responding to a command and a statement. This implies that Makassarese people tend to avoid refusing a command and confronting one’s statement, as this will impose addressees’ face. Similarly, they tend to refuse an offer when it is for their own benefits. This is because of both to avoid bothering the person who provides the offer and being indebted from accepting the offer. Above all, politeness phenomenon in Makassarese culture is all governed by social norms and cultural values applied in the community. Thus, politeness in Makassarese is a norm rather than simply as an instrument as claimed by Brown and Levinson..KEY WORDS: Politeness theory, Cross-culture communication, social norm & values, individualistic & collective society.

1

INTRODUCTION

BackgroundIn recent years, the relevance of pragmatics has become increasingly clear to

applied linguists. Though the scope of pragmatics is far from easy to define, the variety of research interests and developments in the field share one basic concern: the need to account for the rules that govern the use of language in context (Levinson, 1983). One of the basic challenges for research in pragmatics is the issue of universality: to what extent is it possible to determine the degree to which the rules that govern the use of language in context vary from culture to culture and from language to language? Answers to this question have to be sought through cross-cultural research in pragmatics. For applied linguists, especially for those concerned with communicative language learning and teaching, cross cultural research in pragmatics is essential in coping with the applied aspect of the issue of universality: to what extent is it possible to specify the particular pragmatic rules of use for a given language, rules which second language learners will have to acquire in order to attain successful communication in the target language?

A number of studies have established empirically (Cohen and Olshtain, 1981; Kasper 1981; House 1982; Wolfson 1981; Blum-Kulka 1982; Thomas 1983) that second language speakers might fail to communicate effectively (commit pragmatic failure), even when they have an excellent grammatical and lexical command of the target language. In part, second language speakers’ pragmatic failures have been shown to be traceable to cross-linguistic differences in speech act realisation rules, indicating in Widdowson’s terms (Widdowson, 1978) that learners are just liable to transfer ‘rules of use’ (having to do with contextual appropriacy) as those of ‘usage’ (related to grammatical accuracy). One part of such a phenomenon is the study on politeness.

In their famous work on politeness, Brown and Levinson (hereafter, B&L) (1987) set out to investigate universal principles of language use. While recent work shows that not all the concepts they developed were applicable across cultures (Matsumoto 1988; Watts, Ide and Ehlich 1992; Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1992b), they did provide a useful analytical framework for the study of politeness phenomena. They showed very convincingly for instance that request are in essence “Face-Threatening Acts” (1987:59), and that all cultures share at least some common strategies to solve this problem.Problem and Objectives

The search for language universal, however, is not always the most useful approach when dealing with cross-cultural communication, because, as Ide (1988:372) points out, ‘if such universals of linguistic politeness exist, how can we account for the differences in different language …?’ B&L (1987:36) themselves point out that ‘even minor difference in interpretive strategies carried over from a first to a second language … can lead to misunderstanding and cross-group stereotyping of interactional style’.

When exploring problems of cross-cultural communication it is those minor differences - and their sometimes devastating consequences - which inevitably become the focus of the research. It is the case with this study which set out to analyse the universality of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory in the context of Makassarese.

In Makassarese, politeness is one of the concrete entities of ‘face’ which essentially concerns with ‘one’s dignity’, and ‘honour’. Such an honour is not concerned

2

only with the individuals but also with families including relatives and even with groups. As such, ‘face’ plays a very significant roles in Makassarese cultures since it governs Makassarese people in how to live their lives in harmony which results in what Frazer calls (1990:220) ‘positive politeness’. In contrast, the incongruence of an action with such a cultural value or norm will results in ‘negative politeness’ (Frazer, 1990:220). Consequently, it will ruin their honour which is likely to result in an alienation from their community.

In Makassarese, negating and affirming a proposition could be realised in various linguistic forms such as ‘tena’, ‘tenapa’, ‘tea’, ‘teaja’, ‘teamaki’, ‘teamako’, ‘teako’ denoting a negation, and ‘iyeq’, ‘iyoq’, ‘bajikmi’ denoting an affirmation. Another important form in either addressing or responding in an interaction in Makassarese culture is the employment of pronoun ‘you’ which also has some different forms such as -nu, nu-, -ko, -ki, ikau, ikatte, etc. It is presumably assumed that such a variation is likely to be motivated by different settings and social status of participants. It is to this phenomenon this study will be in base. Moreover, the study is also aimed at testing the universality of B & L model theory on politeness (1978, 1987). DATA

The data of this study are dialogues which are taken from two types of Makassarese literary texts, namely classic and contemporary texts. The classic text is taken from the translation version of a book called ‘Lontarak’, a compilation of preserved palm leaves which contains materials on the history, the life and the culture of Makassarese people which was originally written in Arabic script. The book tells about the story and the life of a holy man, Syech Yusuf, who begot a line of Makassarese kings and lived in about the fourteenth century. The other book contains materials on stories about the life and the culture of Makassarese people. From the two sources, thirty-nine dialogues drawn purposively as the samples of the present study. These samples are then translated into English literally and then idiomatically.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKBrown & Levinson vs Scollon & Scollon Theory

The theoretical framework used in this study is primarily based on B&L’s model theory (1978, 1987) on the notions of positive and negative politeness strategies. They define positive politeness strategy as strategies for doing FTAs on record plus redress to the hearer’s (H’s) ‘positive face’ ie. the want of every member that his or her wants be desirable to at least some others, and negative politeness strategy in contrast are strategies for doing FTAs on record plus redress to H’s ‘negative face’ ie. the want of every member ‘competent adult member’ that his or her actions be unimpeded by others (Brown and Levinson, 1987:60-62).

To be more specific, the study has adapted Scollon and Scollon’s (1995) politeness theory, especially their labelling system, by adding another variable, i.e. +/- K (kinship) as the data of the present study demands. As we know that Scollon and Scollon’s model theory divide politeness strategy into three politeness system and each exhibits only two variables, i.e +/-P; +/-D: Deference, Solidarity, and Hierarchical politeness strategies. They label deference politeness strategy as (-P+D) in which P stands for power and D stands for distance among the interactants , solidarity politeness

3

strategy as (-P-D), and hierarchical politeness strategy as (+P-/+D) (Scollon and Scollon, 1995:44-47).

The crucial reason for adapting Scollon and Scollon’s model theory is primarily motivated by the need to have a somewhat more reliable and comprehensive framework for analyzing the data of the present study. I found that Scollon and Scollon’s theory is still not enough to account for the difference between hierarchical relation within a kin context and non-kin context. These two relations are fused in one in Scollon and Scollon’s. In Makassarese, such a kin relation appears to be much more complex because it concerns with not only the relation which is tied up by a direct blood relation (vertical blood relation), ie. from grandfather/grandmother to grandchildren, but also concerns with a horizontal (indirect) blood relation such uncle/aunt, niece/nephew, etc. Such a relation covers up to three dimensions. Therefore, we have a relational term such as my third nephew/niece, etc. meaning he/she is the son/daughter of my father/mother’s second nephew/niece. Even, there is another indirect blood relation related by a marriage such as my brother/sister in-law, father/mother in law and its scope is quite similar to the two relational forms before.

I believe that the form used in the interactions within a kin context relation is significantly different from those in a non-kin context one in Makassarese. For instance, In Makassarese, forms used will be different in master-servant interaction, an asymmetrical non-kin relation, and those in father-son interaction, an asymmetrical kin relation. In the Scollon and Scollon’s framework, these two interactions will be all mapped onto only one frame, that is, hierarchical politeness strategy which is labelled as (+P-D). As such, in terms of labelling system, the two interactions do not show any differences. Therefore, in the present study I will propose to add another variable to Scollon and Scollon’s model theory, ie. a kin context which is labelled as (+K) and non-kin relation labelled as (-K). So, the two interactions above can be labelled as (+P-D-K) for the master-servant interaction and as (+P-D+K) for the father-son interaction. As such, the distinction between the two interactions is much clearer in terms of their relational patterns. Hopefully, this model could provide a more abstract framework for any other similar cultures.

B&L (1978) present a theory of politeness strategies based on universal wants for negative and positive face. Depending on perceived dimensions of distance and power, both face wants are played off against each other in interaction using different strategies of deference and solidarity politeness. The core of Brown and Levinson’s theory consists of the concepts of negative and positive face.

When people interact in public they are concerned to preserve and present a public image that has two aspects. The positive aspect of a person’s public face is his concern to be thought of as a normal, contributing member of his social world. Since the speaker’s face is his public image, his positive face wants are to be seen as a supporting member of that public. At the same time, though, a person wants to preserve some sphere of his own individuality, his own territory within which he has the right of independence of movement and decision. Within his private sphere he wants the right not to be imposed upon. This aspect of face, because it asserts the right to be independent of the social world, is negative face.

Social interaction in Brown and Levinson’s view consists in each speaker playing off his own positive and negative face wants against those of other interactants.

4

Politeness strategies are the codings of communication which provide in each case the carefully calculated balance of these wants which are continually under negotiation in public communication.

The Presentation of ‘self’Brown and Levinson (1978) distinguish five categories of politeness strategies.

These range from those which involve very little risk of loss of face, their first strategy ‘bald on record’, to the strategy of not saying anything because the risk is too great, their fifth strategy. The second category of strategies they call positive politeness. These strategies emphasise the commonality of the speaker and the hearer. These strategies are addressed to the hearer’s positive face, that is, to his desire to be thought of as a supporting member of the society.

Scollon and Scollon (1983, 1995) call this category of politeness strategies ‘solidarity politeness’ as a way of reminding ourselves that the emphasis of these strategies is on the common grounds of the participants’ relations. Lying behind solidarity politeness is the assumption that there is little distance (-D) between the participants and that there is also at most a slight power (-P) difference between them. Among the strategies that Brown and Levinson give for solidarity politeness are these (1978:107):1. Notice, attend to H (hearer)2. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)3. Claim in-group membership with H4. Claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge, empathy5. Be optimistic6. Indicate S knows H’s wants and is taking them into account7. Assume or assert reciprocity

Brown and Levinson then go on to elaborate these and other sub-strategies with examples from three languages, English, Tzeltal, and Tamil. They show that there are striking parallels in the linguistic forms used to express these and the following deference politeness strategies in these three wholly unrelated languages.

We can now recall that Erickson (1976) found that in gatekeeping encounters co-membership provided significant ‘leakage’ in that it provided improved access to social and institutional mobility for the applicant. Here we can now rephrase this finding. Co-membership emphasises low distance (-D) and low power difference (-P). This configuration (-P-D) is a concomitant of solidarity politeness strategies and allows the communication of impositions with a relatively low risk of loss of face. We think it is this low risk of loss of face, especially for the gatekeeper, that facilitates the conduct of the gate keeping encounter in a way that favours the applicant.

Brown and Levinson (1978) call the third category of politeness strategies negative politeness. This is because these strategies are directed to the negative face of the hearer, to his right to be free from imposition. The essence of negative politeness is deference and so no wonder that Scollon and Scollon (1983,1995) call these strategies ‘deference politeness strategies’. This helps to remind us of the emphasis on deference as well as to avoid possible negative connotations in using the word negative.

According to Scollon and Scollon (1983), unlike solidarity politeness, deference politeness emphasises the distance (+D) between the participants. The speaker, out of

5

respect for the hearer’s negative face, advances his imposition with care. He seeks to give the hearer ‘a way out’ in case the hearer regards the imposition as too great. This respect for the independence of the hearer from social obligations results in the strategies for deference politeness given by Brown and Levinson (1978:136):1. Make minimal assumptions about H’s wants, what is relevant to H2. Give H option not to do act3. Minimise threat4. Apologise5. Be pessimistic6. Dissociate S, H from the particular infringement7. State the F(ace) T(hreatening) A(ct) as a general ruleDeference politeness acknowledges the seriousness of the imposition in the act of making it. Solidarity politeness, though, is directed more to the general nature of the relationship between interactants.

The fourth category of politeness strategies treats impositions as so great that they are advanced only ‘off record’. By this we mean that the communication is ambiguous. It may be taken either as an imposition or not. The decision is left up to the hearer.

Global Politeness SystemsThere are three factors that determine what kind of politeness strategy will be

used, power, distance and the absolute seriousness or weight of the imposition. Brown and Levinson suggest that different groups may typically treat these factors differently. If one group for any reason should place a value on maintaining distance (+D) between individuals, this will create an overall deference politeness system. If another group should place a value on emphasising the common grounds of social interaction, this will create a system of solidarity politeness. These two types of system are symmetrical in that both speaker and hearer use the same strategies in their interaction. The symmetry of the system reflects the assumption that there is little difference in power between the participants. For clearer illustration, I have quoted Scollon and Scollon’s illustration (1983:169) as in the following illustration.

-P +D, deference politenessSpeaker 1 Speaker 2

STRATEGIES:3 (deference politeness)4 (off record)5 (not said)imposition assumed high

-P -D, solidarity politenessSpeaker 1 Speaker 2

STRATEGIES:1 (bald on record)2 (solidarity politeness)imposition assumed low

6

Where there is a strongly asymmetrical power relationship (+P) a different set of strategies is used by each speaker. The more powerful speaker uses low numbered strategies, especially the first one, ‘bald on record’, in speaking ‘downward’. The less powerful speaker uses strategies of deference (3, 4, and 5) in speaking ‘upward’. This situation can be shown as below:

+P +D, asymmetricalSpeaker 1 STRATEGIES: 1 (bald on record) 2 (solidarity politeness)Speaker 2 STRATEGIES: 3 (deference politeness)

4 (off record) 5 (not said)

These global politeness systems reflect the overriding values on distance (D) and power (P) differences held by members of particular groups. In any particular case, of course, because of individual differences, differences in the imposition being advanced, or differences in the context, any strategy might be used by a speaker. For example, even where two speakers are in a very asymmetrical relationship the ‘lower’ one does not need to show deference in an emergency. A shout to ‘get out of the way’, if it is offered in the interest of saving a life, can be taken as no loss to face even if in other contexts it would be heard as a rude.

Our general interest in this discussion of global politeness strategies is to argue that the way a person speaks will always reflect underlying assumptions about the relations of distance and power between himself and his listener. Brown and Levinson’s insight has been to provide us with a theoretical framework within which we can discuss the face relations between speakers as a matter of deep assumptions about relationship that are encoded in the politeness strategies of deference and solidarity.

LITERATURE REVIEWGeneral: Works on Politeness

Nowadays, many literature have been published on politeness theory such as to name only a few Lakoff (1973), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), Hill et al (1986), Leech (1983), Frazer (1990), Kasper (1990), Scollon and Scollon (1983, 1995). Among them Brown and Levinson’s face saving approach was evaluated to be a more fully articulated version (Frazer, 1990) and it is the most widely cited and followed model.

However, some studies including Ide (1989), Matsumoto (1988), and Gu (1990 (see the detail below) rather contradictory with, to some extent, Brown and Levinson’s framework to explain some politeness phenomena especially in non-western cultures including this present study.

Recent non-Western politeness research has mainly consisted of attempts to show the invalidity of Brown and Levinson’s theory for the universality of face - the notion at the heart of their politeness theory. Brown and Levinson’s notion of face is based on Goffman’s definition of face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself” (1972:319). The central aspects of Brown and Levinson’s theory are two types of desires: the desire to be approved of by others, and the desire to be unimpeded by others in one’s actions.

The first desire is termed ‘positive face’ and the second ‘negative face’. Brown and Levinson assume not only that these operate in almost all languages and cultures, but

7

also that the need to protect alter’s negative face and to defend ego’s positive face are important functions of politeness in all languages and cultures. Face is therefore seen as a type of pan cultural human resource that can be lost, maintained, and enhanced. The main principle of Brown and Levinson’s theory is the notion that “some acts are intrinsically threatening to face and thus require ‘softening’ “ (1987:24). Consequently, social interaction becomes an activity of continues mutual monitoring of potential threats to the faces of interactants, and of devising strategies for maintaining the interactants’ face - a view that if always true, could rob social interaction of all elements of pleasure.

Research questioning the universality of Brown and Levinson’s notion of face can be categorised as falling into the following dichotomies: strategic versus discernment politeness, private versus public face, and social norm versus face-saving politeness. To begin with the first, in their studies of the honorific system in Japanese, both Matsumoto (1989) and Ide (1989) argue that it is not necessarily face that governs the interactants’ behaviour but rather interactional aspects of the conversation and social and psychological attitudes toward the particular referent expressed by the subject. Matsumoto (1989: 208) asserts that “no utterance in Japanese can be neutral with respect to (the) social context” in which it is uttered; “a Japanese speaker cannot avoid conveying the setting and the relationship among the addressee, the third person(s) or object(s) (which I will call referent(s)) in the utterance, and him/herself”. In a culture where the individual is more concerned with conforming to norms of expected behaviour than with maximising benefits to self, face, in Brown and Levinson’s sense, ceases to be an important issue in interpersonal relationships (Matsumoto 1989:218). In such a culture, discerning what is appropriate and acting accordingly is much more important than acting according to strategies designed to accomplish specific objectives such as pleasing or not displeasing others.

Ide (1989:223) subscribes to the view that discernment rather than face is the motivating force behind Japanese politeness. She argues that Brown and Levinson’s universal principles neglect two aspects of language and usage which are relevant to linguistic politeness in Japanese: (a) the conscious choice of ‘formal linguistic forms’, and (b) an aspect of usage, ‘discernment’, which she defines as “the speaker’s use of polite expressions according to social conventions rather than interactional strategy”. Discernment is to be distinguished from volitional politeness. While volitional politeness aims at performing linguistic acts to achieve specific goals, discernment is a form of social indexing that “ operates independently of the current goal a speaker intends to achieve” (Kasper 1989:196). This again suggests that certain manifestations of politeness are responses to expected social norms of behaviour. In Japanese society, according to Ide, “the practice of polite behaviour according to social conventions is known as wakimae. To behave according to wakimae is to show verbally and non-verbally one’s sense of place or role in a given situation according to social conventions” (1989:230). In other words, polite behaviour is a response to one’s awareness of social expectations appropriate to his/her place in society.

A contrast between private versus public face views of politeness is made by Gu (1990), although indirectly. If Brown and Levinson’s theory represent a private face view that implicitly elevates the individual over the group, Gu’s approach represents a public face view that emphasises group rather than the individual. Gu (1990) finds Brown and Levinson’s model unsuitable for accounting for politeness phenomena in Chinese. First,

8

“the Chinese notion of negative face seems to differ from that defined by Brown and Levinson”, and second “in interaction politeness is not just instrumental. It is normative” (1990: 241-242). He emphasises the normative nature of politeness in Chinese society, noting that Brown and Levinson’s failure to go beyond the instrumental and recognise the normative function of politeness in interaction is probably due to their construction of their theory around the notion of two rational and face-caring model persons (MPs). This, he argues, may well work in atomistic and individualistic societies like those in the West, but not in a non-Western society where the group is stressed above the individual. Gu’s social norm view corresponds, and is therefore quite compatible with, the public face view, which I adopt in this study. Both are in agreement with Watt’s notion of politic behaviour, which he defines as “socio-culturally determined behaviour directed towards the goal of establishing and/or maintaining in a state of equilibrium the personal relationships between individuals of a social group, whether open or closed, during the on-going process of interaction” (1989:135).

The social norm view of politeness, as shown above, stands in contrast to the face view of politeness popularised by Brown and Levinson. In the social norm view, politeness is seen as arising from an awareness of one’s social obligations to the other members of the group to which one owes primary allegiance, while the face view eposes the notion that politeness is a strategy acquired and manipulated by individuals to attain specific objectives, goals, or intentions. The following paragraphs present some studies which concern with both the notions of linguistic politeness and negation and affirmation in various cultures.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONResponding to polar question. The data show that in negating and affirming the

speaker’s proposition there is no significant differences between simple and complex responses in terms of the forms used by the participants. When the relation of the interactants is asymmetrical, the superiors are more likely to use a less polite form such as mako ‘you’, nu- ‘you’ in both responding and addressing. In contrast, the inferiors use the more polite forms such as karaeng ‘sir’ in responding or addressing. The following examples show this clearly (The forms accounted are in bold). 1. A dialogue between an uncle and his nephew who has just got home. S (speaker) = the uncle H (hearer) = the nephew The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K)

S. Niyak+mako? EXTC+you ? ‘Are you home, now?’ H. Niak+mak. EXTC+I ‘I am’.2. A dialogue between a master and his servant, S = the master, H = the servant The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in non kin context (+P-D-K)

S. Niyak sumpaeng tau nu+cinik ammenteng ri+timunganga? EXCT just now people You+see stand PREP+door ? ‘Was there any people you saw just now standing in front of the door?’

9

H. Niyak, karaeng. EXTC, sir ‘Yes, there was, sir’

The two interactions above show the same form of what Scollon and Scollon (1995) term it as ‘hierarchical politeness strategy’ and are labelled as +P-D for (1) and +P+D for (2). However, Scollon and Scollon’s framework cannot explain the difference between the two interactions above. In (1), the relation is in a kin context and thus is labelled as (+K). As such, the use of titles such as puang, karaeng, ‘sir’ etc., by the inferiors in both addressing and responding to their superiors is optional. By contrast, in (2) where the relation is non-kin (-K) the use of such a title for the inferiors is compulsory. The omission such a title in addressing and responding will violate what Fraser call it as ‘the social norm view’, that is explicit rules that prescribe a certain behaviour, which result in incongruent action with the norm, i.e. impolite (Fraser, 1990:220). So, to combine the Scollon and Scollon’s labelling system with the label that I propose we then can label (1) as (+P-D+K) while (2) as (+P+D-K) which clearly show the difference of pattern.

Interestingly, even in symmetrical relations, for instance an interaction between two colleagues which is formulated as ‘solidarity politeness strategy in non-kin context labelled as (-P-D-K) also shows a contradiction with Scollon and Scollon’s theory (1995:45) claiming that such a strategy will involve much informality regardless of the setting. This is counterattacked by the data as in (3) below which indicates the participants still employ the formality although the participants are colleagues, and thus the forms they used are those which are more polite ones such as iyeq (opp. iyoq) ‘yes’, puang ‘sir’.

3. A dialogue between two colleagues, S= older H= younger The relation form = Solidarity politeness strategy in non-kin context (-P-D-K) S. Manna+njo tana roso bajik+ji bate+na akbua ? although+DCT soil infertile good+PTCL way+POSS yield ? ‘Does it still yield well although the soil is infertile ?’ H. Iyek puang, kamma+mi+njo bate+na na+pau mantari partaniang+a. yes sir true+PTCL+DCT way+POSS PSV+say officer agriculture+DCT ‘Yes, sir. According to the agricultural officer’.

The phenomenon is also found in the interaction between two strangers which is framed into a ‘deference politeness strategy in non-kin context’ labelled as (-P+D-K). According to Scollon and Scollon’s theory (1995:44) in such a politeness strategy the participant will employ ‘formality’ (contrast with above). And thus they will use polite forms in the interaction. Again the data show a different behaviour, i.e. the participants use impolite rather than polite forms such as ikau (opp. ikatte) ‘you’ as in (4) and (5) below.4. A dialogue between two strangers. S= a clan leader, H=a religious leader The relation form = Deference politenes strategy in non-kin context (-P+D-K) S. Ikau+mi+ntu paleng na+kella+i tuan+ta angajarak+ki? you+PTCL+DCT so PSV+ask+PTCL leader+POSS teach+us?

10

‘So is that you who was asked by our leader to teach us?’ H. Kamma+mi+njo kanang+na ri+nakke. as+PTCL+DCT order+POSS. PREP+I ‘As I was asked’.

5. A dialogue between two people who has just met. S = a king’s escort H = a holy man The relation form = Deference politeness strategy in non-kin context (-P+D-K)

S. Ikau paleng ampassallang+i tu+malompo+ku? you so Islamise+PTCL man+powerful+POSS? ‘So is that you who Islamise my king?’ H. Erok+na Allah Taala, pangella+in+na Rasulullahi. will+POSS Allah Taala permission+PTCL+POSS Prophet ‘With God’s will and Prophet’s permission’.

However, in reality, these two contradiction phenomena, i.e. Scollon and Scollon’s theory and the fact shown by the data, are not impossible to occur. Actually, tendency to be polite with all people including strangers is typical character of Makassarese people. Nevertheless, certain people like bureaucrats, people who hold a higher rank or social status have already got used to accepting formal and very polite forms from their subordinates and giving a less polite forms. As Brown and Gilman (1960) in Giglioli (1972:255) point out that there is a tendency for superiors give ‘T’ form and receive ‘V’ form. As such, that behaviour becomes gradually habitual. As a result, they will be likely to unconsciously apply such a habit whenever they meet people including the strangers. This is actually shown by examples (4 and 5) above in which the speakers are a clan leader and a king’s truthful escort respectively.

Surprisingly, as the data show, even the interaction between a husband and a wife shows asymmetrical relation, that is ‘hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context’ (+P-D+K) which is likely to be different from those in western couples who mostly apply a symmetrical relation that is ‘solidarity politeness strategy’ (-P-D+K). Therefore, in responding and addressing, the husband as the superior could employ both a polite and less polite forms such as nu- ‘you’ (less polite) as in (6) and ki- ‘you’ (more polite) as in (7) below. In contrast, the wife as the inferior constantly use the polite form such as ki- rather than nu- ‘you’ in either responding or addressing.

6. A dialogue between a husband and his wife. S=husband, H=wife The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K)

S. Taena+ka nu+lekbak langere+ki paupaun+na sitau baine tinggi minasa dudu?

NEG+QST you+already hear+DCT tale+DCT oneHUMAN woman high wish INTSFR ‘Haven’t you heard a tale of a woman who has a very high imagination’? H. Taena+pa, ki+pau saibedengmae antu paupau+a. NEG+PERF you+tell please DCT tale+DCT. ‘No, I haven’t. Could you please tell me that tale’?

7. A dialogue between a husband and his wife, S=the wife H=the husband.

11

The relation form = ‘Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context’ (+P-D+K) S. Ta+lekbak+ka+i ki+langngerek paupaun+na Daeng Manaik? NEG+already+QST+PTCL you+hear tale+DCT Daeng Manaik? Haven’t you heard about the tale called ‘Daeng Manaik’ H. Taena+pa, ki+pau sai bedeng antu paupau+a. NEG+PERF you+tell please just DCT tale+DCT No, I haven’t. Could you please just tell the story.

Such a phenomenon above is a common practice among Makassarese couples. So, as a whole, negating and affirming the speaker’s proposition politely in polar question interaction are much determined by the linguistic form especially pronoun ‘you’ encoded by the hearers in responding to the speakers. So, in this sense, this feature verifies Ide’s (1989) argument claiming that politeness phenomena in Japanese culture is manifested through two forms; the linguistic forms and discernment which are according to Ide neglected by Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model theory of politeness. This phenomenon might also imply that politeness in Makassarese can be manifested by not only verbal forms like pronoun ‘you’; -ta, ki- -ki, ikatte, (opp. -nu, nu-, -ko, ikau) titles; puang, karaeng, (+T) (opp. -T) ‘sir’, etc. but also non-verbal ones such as gestures, facial expressions, etc. as Tannen (1984:193) points out that ‘only a part of meaning resides in the words spoken, the largest part is communicated by hints, assumptions, and audience filling-in from context and prior experience. I believe that these two forms are equally important in politeness manifestation in Makassarese since these are all governed by what we call it as ‘etiquette in speaking and acting/behaving politely’. For instance, paying attention when people talk to you, try to keep smile during the interaction, be co-operative, etc.

Responding to a request. The data show that no significant differences between the simple and the complex responds in negating and affirming the speaker’s proposition in terms of the use of pronoun ‘you’ and the titles like puang, karaeng ‘sir’. Like the previous discussion, when the relation is asymmetrical, that is, ‘hierarchical politeness strategy in kin or non-kin context (+P+/-D+/-K), the superiors are more likely to employ less polite forms such as ikau, nu-, -nu, ‘you’ etc. By contrast, the inferiors will constantly use the more polite forms such as ikatte, -ki ‘you’, etc. as in the following example.

8. A dialogue between a master and his servant. S= the servant, H= the master The relation form = ‘Hierarchical politeness strategy in non-kin context’ (+P-D-K) S. Ikatte+mamiseng ku+parek mangge. you+only I make father. ‘It is only you that I regard as my father’. H. Bajik+mi. ikau sikali nakke pissimpulo rannu+ku. right+PTCL you once I ten times happy+POSS ‘All right. Your happiness is once but mine is ten times’.

Even in a kin (+K) context such as interaction between a husband and a wife, the husband as the superior might address and respond to his wife by using both the polite and less polite forms. In contrast, the wife as the inferior keeps using the more polite

12

forms when addressing and responding to her husband. The following example shows this.

9.A dialogue between a husband and a wife, S = the wife H = the husband The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K) S. Erok dudu+ak naung ammantangmantang ri daeng+ku. want INTSFR+I go stay PREP. Elder brother+POSS ‘I really want to go to stay with my elder brother’ H. Bajik+mi punna paleng erok+ko naung. right+PTCL if really want+you go. ‘All right. If you really want to go there’.

Another typical feature is shown by the interaction between a king and a common people. In this interaction the common people as the inferior has to use typical expression in responding to and addressing the king as the superior, i.e. sombangku ‘your Highness’ as in the following example.

10. A dialogue between a king and a man with his wife who came to see the king. S = the king H = the man The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in non-kin context (+P+D-K) S. Bajikbajik tojeng-i bainen+nu. good really+PTCL wife+you POSS. Your wife is really beautiful.

H. Sombang+ku, ammantam+mi+a ka napuji karaeng+a. Highness+POSS stay+PTCL+she because like king+DCT Your highness, she will stay because my lord likes her.

However, such a form is not used anymore today. Instead, there are special forms used for noble people including the king’s blood such as andi, puang, petta, datu, and karaeng. But, in daily practice today, these forms appear ambiguous with those which actually mean ‘sir’ such as puang, and karaeng as found in the samples. This ambiguity might be caused by firstly, certain dialect of Makassarese like konjo and turatea customarily use puang and karaeng which simply mean ‘sir’ rather than denoting nobility. Because even in addressing strangers they still use such a form, and secondly, in daily practice such as in encountering something administrational matters like completing documents, papers, licences, etc. in government offices, certain people might use these forms to aim at performing a compliment or flattery. There is an assumption that such a strategy can lubricate and thus speed up the process of the business that we encounter. In other word, by addressing for instance the bureaucrats using such a form, they will feel good because they feel themselves as if they are a noblemen which occupy a higher rank in the society. As such, it will save their positive face.

As a whole, the data show that negating and affirming a proposition in a request interaction can be done by using direct and indirect forms. When the hearer (H) is in superior position, a more direct response will likely to be used by him/her as in example (9) above. By contrast, a less direct respond will be likely to be used if the H is in inferior position as shown by (10) above or alternatively H is superior but in this case the speaker is showing a modesty by employing for instance a metaphorical form as shown by the

13

examples in (8) above and typical religious expression like ‘if God and the prophet permit’ as in (11) below. As Leech (1983:132) categorised his Politeness Principle (PP) into six maxims; Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement, and Sympathy. He defines modesty in a two-clauses contrasting pair as minimising praise of self, maximising dispraise of self. This suggests that the speaker who does modesty will put her/himself in the inferior slot.

11. A dialogue between a holy man and one of his follower. S = the follower H = the holy man. The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in non-kin context (+P+D-F) S. Ero+ka angkellai+ki mange angngonjoki barungbarung+ku. want+I beg+you go visit home+POSS I beg you to visit my home. H. Punnanakaerokija karaeng AllahTaala siagang nakbia niak+ja antu sallang. If want God Allah Taala with Prophet EXTC+I PTCL FUT. If God and the prophet permit, I will come.

The phenomena above imply that unless the H is in superordination position, it is customarily for Makassarese to be less direct especially when negating a speaker’s request. Even I believe that such an indirectness is applied also in all other interactions that can be regarded as an imposition either to the hearer’s perspective like commands, offers (yet offers can be also as imposition in the speaker’s perspective, I will come to this later) or to the speaker’s point of view like requests, etc. Otherwise, it will appear rather impolite.

Responding to a command. In negating and affirming a command, the data show similar feature with the previous interactions. The superiors tends to employ both less polite and more polite forms. In contrast, the inferiors keep maintaining using the polite forms in either addressing and responding. The following examples show this in detail.

12. A dialogue between a master and his student. S = the master H = the student The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in non-kin context (+P-D-K)

S. O, Supu. Alle+sai anjo karanjeng pammoneang juku+ka. Oh Yusuf take+please DCT basket container fish+DCT ‘Oh Yusuf, please get me that fish container’. H. Iyok, karaeng. Yes, sir ‘Yes, sir’13. A dialogue between an uncle and his nephew. S = the uncle H = the nephew The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K) S. Tea+ko aklampai punna tak+nyakring+ak. NEG+you go if NEG+wake up+I ‘(You) Don’t go if I haven’t woken up yet’. H. Bajikmi AFF+PRTCL ‘Allright’.

14

14. A dialogue between a master and his servant. S = the master H = the servant The relation form = Hierachical politeness strategy in non-kin context (+P-D-K) S. Tea+mako angallei jeknek, Manai. NEG+you take water Manai (you) Don’t take water any more, Manai. H. Bajikmi karaeng AFF+PRTCL sir Allright, sir.

Again, the examples above show that kin or non-kin (+/-K) relations can determine the linguistic choice of the participants. In (12) and (14) the relation is hierarchical non-kin labelled as (+P-D-K). As such, the inferior should compulsory use the titles (+T) like karaeng ‘sir’. In contrast, in hierarchical kin relation labelled as (+P-D+K) the use of the title is optional for the inferiors, and usually as I mentioned previously the title is dropped (-T).

Another feature shown by the examples (12 and 14) is the employment of personal name without accompanied by any titles. This is another form of addressing implying that the speaker is in superordination position.

Unfortunately, I did not find any samples from the data that show a negation to a command. I believe that the form used in negating a command is also similar to those identified by the previous interaction. Another reason of such an impresence is that it is customarily for Makassarese to avoid refusing a command since a command is usually uttered by those who are in the superordination positions. Otherwise, they will use a more indirect form of interaction like a request. Therefore, the addressees (H) who are in subordination positions seem not to have other alternative to choose. And thus, they usually obey the command. Otherwise, they will appear to be impolite. In other word, a command in Makassarese is formulated into a hierarchical relations (+P+/-D+/-K) in which the commanders are in the super-ordination slots.

Responding to an offer. In this interaction the data show similar behaviour with those in previous discussions in terms of the linguistic choice of the participants which are notably determined by the form of the relations they undergo. The superiors will likely to employ less polite forms in either addressing or responding to their inferiors. By contrast, the inferiors will constantly use the more polite forms. The following examples show this in detail.

15. A dialogue between an uncle and his nephew. S = Nephew H= uncle The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K) S. Sengka+ki rolong mae ri bola+ya puang nakicaricarita. stop by+you a while here PREP house+DCT sir chat ‘Could you stop by at my home for a while sir to have a chat’?. H. Kammatojengi antu nu+kanaiya anak. true DCT you+say son ‘What you said is true, son’.

16. The same participant as in (15) S = Nephew H = uncle

15

S. Rinni+maki bajik akbangngi ri balla puang. Battu+rini+paki na+ki+narrusu tamak

here+you good stay tonight PREP house sir. From here you FUT+you+go direct go in

ri Tombolok. PREP Tombolok. ‘You’d better stay here tonight sir. From here then you can go directly to

Tombolok’. H. Tarimakasik jai dudu anak. Mange +pa+seng ri Mangkasarak

na+ku+battu thank you many INTSFR son. go+I+again PREP Makassar

FUT+I+come akbangngi ri ballak+nu. Ka+tena+poeng ku+pauangi andik+nu stay PREP house+you POSS cause+NEG+also I+tell little sister+you

POSS kana la+sengka ri ballak+nu. that FUT+stop by PREP house+POSS. ‘Thank you very much son. If I go next time to Makassar, I will stay at your

home. And also because I didn’t tell your sister that I will stop by at your home’.

Moreover, there is typical negation for an offer shown by the example in (16) above. Instead of using ‘no’, the hearer using tarimakasiq ‘thank you’ which might or not be accompanied by an intensifier like jaidudu ‘very much’. Actually this form is borrowed from Indonesian terimakasih. There is an assumption that Makassarese does not have any verbal forms in expressing a gratitude. Rather, it is expressed non verbally like using gesture and facial expression, i.e. by bowing, etc. However, I am not so sure about this. So this phenomenon might be my another project when I return to my country. Now let’s return back to the point. Tarimakasiq denotes two semantically different implications. Tarima from terima (Indonesian) means ‘accept’ while kasiq from kasih (Indonesian) mean ‘give back’ or ‘return’. As a whole the expression implies that the offer is accepted by the recipient (H) but she/he does not want to both bother the one who does the offer (S) and be indebted by accepting the offer and therefore the H gives back or returns back the offer. Nowadays, this kinds of negation to an offer is common practice among Makassarese, and even Indonesian in general since saying ‘no’ (teaja, teamaki, tea) in negating the offer appear to be aggressively rude although the negator use the polite form such as teamaki.

Such a behaviour is quite similar to the finding found by Yu and Lii in Alatis (1994:147) in Chinese’s way in refusing an offer politely. In contrast, Leech (1983:137) found that Japanese especially Japanese women in accepting a compliment ‘graciously’, is by thanking the speaker for it, rather than to go on denying it. Perhaps, this is because the perlocutionary forces which are carried by the two forms of interaction, i.e. an offer, and a compliment are different. Like Chinese culture, in Makassarese, an offer may cause the recipient indebted (by accepting the offer). As such, it encourage the negative face of the recipient. Therefore, tendency to refuse and offer is actually a manifestation of being not indebted for these people and thus save their positive face. Otherwise, they have to pay back the indebt later. In contrast, by accepting a compliment, the recipient will not risk in being indebted. Rather, it will save the recipient positive face, i.e. make him/her

16

feel good. However, as shown by the sample previously, in Makasasarese, people tend to negate a compliment aiming to show a modesty rather than to accept it which might be considered arrogant.

Responding to a statement. Compared with the other speech interaction, the data show that affirming a proposition in a statement indicates a somewhat different behaviour. Apart from the simple responses, the complex responses to statements show some different forms which can be used by the negator in affirming a proposition in a statement. The following examples show this in detail.

17. A dialogue between an uncle and his nephew. S = nephew H = uncle The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K). S. Anjo tau+a ri Mangkasara, punna tena+mo doik dodong+mi

nyawa+na DCT people+DCT PREP Makassar when NEG+PTCL money weak+PTCL

soul+POSS ka tena ta+riballi. cause NEG NEG+buy. ‘The people in Makassar feel uncomfortable when they don’t have any money

because every thing costs money’. H. Kammatojengi antu nu+kanaiya anak. true DCT you+saya son. ‘What you said is true, son’.

18. A dialogue between an uncle and his nephew. S = nephew H = uncle The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in kin context (+P-D+K) S. Acaca, suaraki antu sallang puang, ka+massing tau kalumannyang. Gee crowded DCT FUT sir cause+each HUM rich. ‘Gee, It will be crowded sir because they are rich people’. H. Tea+ko herangi anak. NEG+you surprised son. ‘It’s no wonder (You don’t need to be wonder) son’.

19. A dialogue between two close friends talking about the other people S = a bit older H = a bit younger The relation form = Solidarity politeness strategy in non-kin context (-P-D-K) S. Anjo ku+cini Yusupu maramaraeng dudu+i paccinikku. Kamma tau ammake

ajaajarang DCT I+see Yusuf strange INTSFR see+I. like HUM use

black magic ‘I notice that Yusuf is strange. He is like people who have a super-natural power’. H. Kamamemangi antu, katte. true DCT (SOFTENER) ‘That’s true. (ZERO)’

20. A dialogue between an officer and his subordination. S = an officer H = subordinate

17

The relation form = Hierarchical politeness strategy in non-kin context (+P+D-K) S. Erok+ka ampalettek+ko mange ri Jakattara. want+I move+you go PREP Jakarta ‘I want to move you to Jakarta’. H. Ku+pinawangi kanang+ta I+follow say+you POSS ‘I obey your order’

The affirmation in examples (17) and (19) is semantically quite similar. Nevertheless, they are different in terms of politeness implication. The affirmation in (17) is more polite than those in (19). This is indicated by the use of anaq ‘son’ although this affirmation uses a less polite form, i.e. nu- ‘you’ and those in (18) does likewise. In contrast, the affirmation in (19) is more likely to be neutral since the relation is solidarity politeness strategy, i.e. between two close friends. However, regardless the setting and relation, it is customarily for Makassarese to speak and act politely since this is as I mentioned previously governed by the cultural norms ie., ‘etiquette in speaking and acting/behaving politely’. Therefore, the affirmation in (19) is accompanied by what I call it as a smoother ‘katte’ as a softener, which has no equivalent meaning in English aiming to keep showing a politeness. Concerning the forms used in this interaction, the data show no differences with those in the other interactions discussed previously.

THE IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS IN THE B&L’s THEORY.B&L (1987:70) distinguish between two types of politeness: positive and negative

politeness. Positive politeness “anoints the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, S wants H’s face (e.g. by treating him as a member of an in-group, a friend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked)”. Negative politeness, on the other hand, ‘is oriented mainly towards partially satisfying H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination … Hence negative politeness is characterised by self-effacement, formality and restraint”.

Affirming the S’s proposition means the H is showing agreement and co-operation. As such, it will save the speaker’s positive face since the H make the S ‘feel good’. In contrast, negating the S’s proposition mean the H is showing disagreement and uncooperativeness. As such, it will encourage FTA (Face threatening act) for the S in which it serves the S’s negative face because the H make the S ‘not feel good’. So this falls nicely under B & L’s theory of positive and negative politeness.

However, I found that B & L’s framework is still lack of explanation in accounting for a refusal to offers. In Makassarese, not all refusals to offers could create an FTA for the one who provides an offer. Similarly, an offer is not always create a convenience for the addressee. In Makassarese, concept of politeness is much determined by the concordance of one’s behaviour with their cultural value or norms including \in accepting and refusing and an offer. For instance, in one sample, the King refuses to accept (although he could have accepted it) the Queen’s offer to marry a married woman because the cultural norms/values forbid a man to marry to a married woman regardless of the power of the men. Therefore, by refusing the offer, the king has saved not only his personal positive face but also his family, and even his ethnic groups and his people positive face because he had acted in congruence with the social value in his community (see also Frazer, 1990:220). As such he has saved his ‘positive

18

politeness’ (1990:220). Similarly, as shown by one sample in which Yusuf refuses to accept the King’s daughter’s offer to marry her because of different social rank, that is, Yusuf was from a king’s slave origin (at the time a man was forbidden to marry to a woman from different social ranks). As such, Yusuf has acted according to the norms and thus saves his positive politeness. In other word, In Makassarese, ‘face’ whereby politeness embarks is not simply like what B & L call it as either the desire to be approved by others, positive face, or the desire to be unimpeded by others, negative face, in one’s action but also is oriented toward a norm. In this sense, Makassarese is quite similar to Chinese who considers politeness not only as an instrument but also as a norm (Gu, 1990:241-242). So, this again indicates another different aspect of B & L’s notion of face compared with those in Makasarese.

Accordingly, Nwoye (1990:320) criticises inadequacy of B & L’s theory in explaining non-western culture in terms of an offer. Nwoye argues that the imposition of an offer is only accounted on the H’s perspective in B & L’s theory. It fails to explain such an imposition from the S’s point of view by exemplifying a case where he will miss the bus when he is about to leave but the hosts offer him a drink. He regards such an offer is imposition on the S’s perspective.

In Makassarese, such an imposition can also happen and I believe that even more sincere. For instance, it is something like unwritten law for the hosts to entertain a guest with a drink, usually coffee, tea or sweet milk, without asking the guest beforehand whether or not he/she wants it since asking the guest about it is considered impolite. Such an offer becomes an imposition when the drink offered is something that the guest strictly not to consume (maybe for the sake of current health condition of the guest like diabetic, allergic, etc.). So, by doing that, the host is completely not realised that s/he already puts the guest into trouble by choosing one of two risky things, they are, on one hand, if the guest didn’t drink the drink offered, it would hurt the host’s feeling because the host assumes that the guest regards the drink is dirty, disgusting and the likes. On the other hand, if the guest had it, it would risk his/her life at least endanger her/his health. I myself found this phenomenon really complicated.

However, to overcome such a situation, the guest should mention something which is more neutral like fresh water as the substitute of the drink before the hosts prepare the drink. So, this means that we should pay a bit attention in detecting the right time the host is going to prepare the drink. Sometime there is some clues for this, for instance the noise of cups, glasses, etc. that are from the kitchen. And if it is so, that is the right time to ask for a change or mention something like ‘don’t bother, I have just had a drink at home and I feel still full. By doing this, we can escape from choosing the two risky things above.

Moreover, according to B & L’s theory (1987:94-101) bald-on-record strategies are used in two kinds of cases: where ‘maximum efficiency is very important’, for instance in a case of a fire or earthquake, and where ‘other demands override face concern’, for instance, demands which are beneficial to the hearer. Contradictorily, as shown by the data, negating the proposition seems to be a bald-on-record strategy of doing an FTA, since it typically begins with ‘no’ (tena, taena, takkulle, etc). So, this again obviously shows inadequacy of B & L’s theory.

Furthermore, as the data show the pronoun ‘you’ significantly plays a role in politeness phenomena in Makassarese. According to B & L’s theory (1987:190), the

19

avoidance in using pronoun ‘You’ and ‘I’ is one way of indicating that S doesn’t want to impinge on H by phrasing the FTA as if the agent were other than S, or at least possibly no S or not S alone, and the addressee were other than H , or only inclusive of H. In other word, the employment of pronoun ‘I’ and ‘You’ will encourage negative politeness for the addressee. As a whole, this theory is plausible with the data of the present study. In Makassarese pronoun ‘you’ has many forms like ki-, -ki, ikatte, maki, (polite forms), nu-, -ko, ikau, -ko, mako (less polite forms). This implies that the speaker has many choices to employ and to avoid the less polite forms in other to keep being polite in his/her interaction.

However, some B & L’s points regarding pronoun ‘you’ seem inapplicable in Makassarese. For instance, B & L’s theory suggest to drop ‘you’ in commands since its presence is regarded as aggressively rude. This theory might be true in English. However, In Makassarese, the presence of ‘you’ in commands as shown by all the samples (25, 26, 27) are likely to be compulsory. If not, the commander should mention personal name of the addressee instead, like in (25). Nevertheless, the presence of this pronoun does not mean the sentence appear aggressively rude since the politeness or impoliteness of the sentence is much determined by the linguistic forms especially pronoun ‘you’ and the titles which are encoded by the participants, and then the employment of the titles and certain forms of pronoun ‘you’ by the participants are determined by the relation pattern/form that they are undergoing. This also explains that the avoidance of using pronoun ‘you’ as B & L’s theory suggests even might make the sentence ambiguous since the reference is unclear.

However, B & L’s theory claiming that ‘you’ (singular) gives H no ‘out’, nails him with an FTA, so the use of names may do and likewise is applicable in Makassarese. ‘You’ that is regarded as polite form in Makassarese is that which actually refers to plural meaning, i.e. you and I (You=We). For instance, ikatte mean you and I and likewise ki-, -ki, maki.

Similarly, the use of name only (without accompanied by any titles) in addressing adult people also appear to be rude in Makassarese regardless of the social status of the participants. For instance, the master will usually use a title such as paq ‘sir’, or bu, ‘madam’ in addressing or responding to his/her adult servant (see the figure below) except karaeng since this form indicates that the speaker is in subordinate position. Likewise, in the interaction between colleagues, the participants keep employing the titles either in responding or addressing regardless of their settings (formal like in the offices, meetings, etc. or informal like in a sport centre, at home, etc.). This phenomenon is quite similar to the politeness phenomena in Nigeria (Bamgbose in Alatis, 1994:117-127).

In addition to the use of pronoun ‘you’ in Makassarese. The notion of T and V forms proposed by Brown and Gilman (1960) in Giglioli (1972) seem plausible in Makassarese. The superiors tend to use the T form such as ikau, -nu, nu-, and -ko ‘you’ in addressing and responding and receive the V form such as ikatte, -ta, ni-, ki- and -ki ‘you’. Nevertheles, their model theory also shows, like Brown and Levinson’s theory, to some extent, some differences with those in Makassarese as shown by the following contrasting figures.

Brown and Gilman’s Makassarese Parent Parent T T V T V V (and all in kin context)

20

Son Son

Master Master T T V T V V

Faithful servant Faithful servantFigure 1. Brown and Gilman’s framework is contrasted with those in Makassarese’s.

As can be seen from the figures, the son and the servant may use both T and V forms to address or respond to his parents and master respectively in Brown and Gilman’s framework. In contrast, it is only the master and the parents who will have such a choice rather than the son and the servant in Makassarese. However, regardless of the availability of multiple choice of forms for the parents, I assume that in general the parents tend to use the V rather than the T form in those context for the sake of a good socialisation for the children, a process whereby a child acquires a specific cultural identity and to his responses to such an identity (Bernstein in Giglioli, 1972:162) for their kids. That is, providing them with a good model about the etiquette in acting/behaving and speaking politely which is later needed when they start interacting with other in their community.

Similarly, since the servants are commonly less educated, the master also teaches them such an etiquette both indirectly such as providing a good model and directly i.e. by informing. This is actually also for the sake of their kids who are looked after by the servant from whom the kids also will learn some politeness behaviour and action. Many linguists including Saville-Troike, 1989:245 citing Wang, 1977; Christian and Gardner, 1977; and Scollon and Scollon:148-154 have pointed out the significant role of such a socialisation to form the people’s character including the young generation.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In general, either affirming or negating the proposition put forward, Makassarese people will keep providing the listeners with something like additional supporting phrase or clauses aiming to validate or to strengthen or to lubricate their affirmations or negations. This aims at keeping the listeners happy and satisfied with the response. In responding to commands, Table 1 shows that ‘yes’ in simple form is the only responses to commands. This implies that Makassarese people avoid refusing one’s command. Otherwise, people will not be happy. In contrast, they avoid accepting all kinds of an offer or a request especially those which can provide them with their own benefits only as in (23,24,38) since they avoid bothering other people. However, those which can give advantages for others or many people will be accepted as in (16, 19, 22). This shows again that they will keep people happy. In responding to statements, the table shows that no simple and complex forms of ‘no’ responses in responding to statements. This implies that Makassarese people avoid confronting one’s opinion. If they do not agree with one’s opinion, they prefer to be silent. So the proverb saying that silence is golden is applied also in Makassarese. This aims not to hurt one’s feeling through confrontation.

Overall, in relation to the politeness phenomena, the typical features in affirming and negating a proposition in Makassarese are by employing the complex forms. This implies that much verbalisation needs to articulate the negation as well as the affirmation politely. In other word, such verbalisation is particularly aimed at providing the initiators

21

such as the offerers, commanders, etc. with a kind of reassurence information in order to keep them happy and satisfied with the refusal or acceptance of their propositions. Therefore, to use Brown and Levinson’s theory, such a response will save the initiator’s positive face, i.e. by making them ‘feel good’. In contrast, the short or simple responses will appear less polite since it is delivered in a more direct form. And thus contains no such a lubricant, and reassured elements. As such, it will encourage the initiator’s negative face, i.e. make them ‘feel not good’.

Specifically, politeness phenomena in Makassarese is all governed by what we called the etiquette in speaking and acting/behaving which is in congruence with the social norms and values. In other word, politeness can be manifested through both verbal and non verbal forms. In verbal form, politeness is much determined by the use of pronoun ‘you’ as well as the ‘titles’. The employment of certain forms of ‘you’ and ‘titles’ is determined by the social status of the participants. The superiors might use both polite and less polite forms. In contrast, the inferiors regularly employ the less polite forms. For instance, I have just realised that so far I have been unfair to my wife when I am doing this paper. In either addressing or responding to me, she has regularly used the polite forms. In contrast, I have employed the less polite forms whenever we interact each other. This indicates that a husband-wife interaction in Makssarese is labelled as asymmetrical relation in which the husband is in the superior position while the wife is in inferior position.

Finally, regardless of some criticism about their theory, to me, Brown and Levinson have lied a very useful and adaptable framework in politeness theory. Their model theory on politeness might be applied in all cultures, at least to the extent that their theory has provided other cultures with something like a useful and practical ‘manual’ or ‘guide’ as a basis in exploring further the other cultures. This can be proved by the fruitfulness of current studies on politeness which have been done so far in various languages/cultures since their model theory was launched about almost two decades ago.

REFERENCES:

Bamgbose, Ayo. ‘Politeness across cultures: Implications for second language teaching’ in J.E. Alatis (ed.) 1994. Educational linguistics, cross-cultural communication, and global interdependence. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Basang, Djirong. 1981. Riwayat Syekh Yusuf dan Kisah I Makkutaknang Daeng Mannuntungi. Jakarta: Proyek Penerbitan Buku Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah.

Berstein, B. 1970. ‘Social class, language and socialisation’. In P.P. Giglioli (ed.) 1972. Language and social context. London: Penguin Education.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. ‘Learning how to say what you mean in second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language’. Applied linguistics, 3, 29-59.

Brown, R. and A. Gilman , 1960 ‘The pronoun of power and solidarity’. In P.P.Gigliogi (ed.) 1972. Language and social context. London: Penguin Education.

Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson. 1978. ‘Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena.’ In E. Goody, (ed.). Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22

Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christian, J. and P.M. Gardner. 1977. The individual in northern Dene thought and communication: A study in sharing and diversity. Mercury series Canadian ethnology service papers no.35. Ottawa: National museum of man.

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. ‘Perspectives on politeness’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 14: 219-236.

Gu, Yueguo. 1990. ‘Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company 14: 237-257.

Goffman, Ervin. 1967. Interactional rituals: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Achor Books.

Hill, B. et al. ‘Universal of linguistic politeness’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 10: 347-371.

House, J. and G. Kasper. 1981. ‘Politeness markers in English and German’ in F. Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routine. (157-186). The Hague: Moutun.

Ide, Sachiko. 1989. ‘Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua. 8: 223-248.

Kasper, Gabrielle. 1990. ‘Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 14: 193-218.

Kitagawa, Chisako. 1980. ‘Saying yes in Japanese’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 4: 105-120.

Koike, D. April. 1994. ‘Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigating effect?’ Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 21: 513-526.

Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 292-305. Chicago, IL: CLS.

Lane, Chris. 1993. ‘Yes, I don’t understand: Yes, no, and European-Polynesian miscommunication in New Zealand’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 20: 163-188

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. ‘Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness

phenomena in Japanese’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 12: 403-426

Nwoye, O. G. 1992. ‘Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations on the notion of face’. Journal of pragmatics. North-Holland Publishing Company. 18: 309-328.

Palenkahu, R.A. et al. 1971. Dialek Konjo di Sulawesi Selatan. Ujung Pandang: Lembaga Bahasa Nasional Cabang III.

Saville, M. -Troike. 1989. The ethnography of communication: An introduction. 2nd

edition. New York: Basic Blackwell.Scollon, R. and S.B.K. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural communication: A discourse

approach. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.Tannen, Deborah. 1984. ‘The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied

linguistics. 5, 3.Thomas, Jenny. 1983. ‘Cross-cultural pragmatic failure’. Applied Linguistics 4(2), 91-

112.

23

Watts, Richards. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In: Richards J. Watts, K. Ehlich and S. Ide. Eds., Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yadugiri, M. A. 1986. ‘Some pragmatic implication of the use of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in response to yes-no questions’. Journal of pragmatics. North Holland Publishing Company. 10.

Yu, Hwei. E. and Lii-Shih. ‘What do ‘yes’ and ‘no’ really mean in Chinese?’ in J.E. Alatis (ed.) 1994. Educational linguistics, cross-cultural communication, and global interdependence. Washington: Georgetown university press.

Abdul hakim yassi,

Faculty of Cultural Science, Hasanuddin University of Makassarhakimyassi@yahoo.com

24