POLITENESS

In everyday conversation, there are ways to go about getting the things we want. When we are with a group of friends, we can say to them, "Go get me that plate!", or "Shut-up!" However, when we are surrounded by a group of adults at a formal function, in which our parents are attending, we must say, "Could you please pass me that plate, if you don't mind?" and "I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but I am not able to hear the speaker in the front of the room." I different social situations, we are obligated to adjust our use of words to fit the occasion. It would seem socially unacceptable if the phrases above were reversed. According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "face." Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Usually you try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA's. What would you do if you saw a cup of pens on your teacher's desk, and you wanted to use one, would you a. say, "Ooh, I want to use one of those!" b. say, "So, is it O.K. if I use one of those pens?" c. say, "I'm sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to ask you if I could use one of those pens?" d. Indirectly say, "Hmm, I sure could use a blue pen right now." There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson, that sum up human "politeness" behavior: Bald On Record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off-Record-indirect strategy. If you answered A, you used what is called the Bald On-Record strategy which provides no effort to minimize threats to your teachers' "face." If you answered B, you used the Positive Politeness strategy. In this situation you recognize that your teacher has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. If you answered C, you used the Negative Politeness strategy which similar to Positive Politeness in that you recognize that they want to be respected however, you also assume that you are in some way imposing on them. Some other examples would be to say, "I don't want to bother you but..." or "I was wondering if ..."

If you answered D, you used Off-Record indirect strategies. The main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of you. You are trying not to directly impose by asking for a pen. Instead you would rather it be offered to you once the teacher realizes you need one, and you are looking to find one. A great example of this strategy is somethin g that almost everyone has done or will do when you have, on purpose, decided not to return someone's phone call, therefore you say, " I tried to call a hundred times, but there was never any answer."
http://logos.uoregon.edu/explore/socioling/politeness.html

Politeness Strategies Used by Indonesian Chatters in Internet Relay Chat (IRC)

Ima Khalimatus Sadiyah Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out politeness strategies used by Indonesian chatters in the discourse of online environment specifically in IRC channels. This study investigates three downloaded data of written conversations or messages in the IRC. The data were collected by logging in into an IRC channel, which is #Cafislam, for approximately two hours and then copying the conversations or messages written by the Indonesian chatters in the channel into the computer hard disk. The written conversations or messages that are taken as data are only the one containing face-threatening act (FTA). The data are analyzed using Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness strategy (1987). Based on Brown and Levinsons model of politeness strategy (1987), the politeness strategies used in chat conversations to reduce the FTA are grouped into four main strategies: Bald on Record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, and Off-the-Record. The results of the analysis show that bald on record strategy is most widely used by Indonesian chatters in IRC. It may happen due to the setting of the conversation that is the cyber world where the people communicate there may not really know each other and they may never meet in the real world. It can be said that there is almost no boundary for everyone to say what they want to say.

Keywords: Internet Relay Chat (IRC), chatting in IRC, Indonesian chatters, politeness strategies, face-threatening act.

Introduction Human is social creature that has the need to communicate with others. Communication is defined as a process by which we assign and convey meanings in an attempt to create shared understanding, both the speaker and hearer should hold to general rules or principles and thereby use certain strategies. An often used strategy to achieve this is politeness (Renkema, 1993). Leech (1983) defines politeness as a form of behavior that establishes and maintains comity, that is, the ability of participants in a social interaction to engage in interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony. Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest politeness as a compensation action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts (FTAs). Further, they describe Face Threatening Acts as acts that infringe on the hearers need to maintain his/her self-esteem and be respected (Brown and Levinson, 1987). According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers face. Face refers to a speakers sense of linguistic and social identity, which is defined as the public self-image that every member (of the society) wants to claim for himself (Brown and Levinson, 1987). However, this linguistic aspect occurs in the verbal communication of the real conversation not only in the real world but also in the cyber world. Nowadays, since technology has developed very rapidly, people can communicate with others using many kinds of media. One of the technologies used by quite a few people in the world is the internet. The internet is a system that has revolutionized visual, oral, written communications and methods of commerce by allowing various computer networks around the world to interconnect, sometimes referred as a network of networks (Abdillah, 2005). Therefore, it is possible for people to communicate visually, orally, and in written form by using Personal Computer and Internet modem. To communicate in the written form via the internet, people can use the facilities which are called e-mail and chat. Chat or chatting via the internet is a real-time communication between two users via computer and the users are popularly-known as chatters. Once a chat has been initiated, either user can enter text by typing on the keyboard and the entered text will appear on the other user's monitor. Most networks and online services offer a chat feature. One of the common and popular internet facilities for chatting is the IRC (Internet Relay Chat). IRC is one of the internet free facilities which can be accessed by many internet chatters, even newbies. On-line chat-channels in IRC have become a popular environment for meeting new people and for general conversations. These chat-channels are comparable to real-life situations where participants interact at the same time and often in the same spatial environment. The same conversational rules are adhered to both in chat-channel conversations and in face-toface interaction. However, some specific features of chat-channel conversation, such as the politeness strategies, might be different from those we meet outside the cyberspace. Some researchers have studied about the IRC community, but only Ahti and Lhtevnoja (2002) from University of Helsinki, Finland, talked about the politeness strategies used there. Yet, they only talked about the politeness in opening sequences in Finnish and Finland-Swedish

chat conversations. Since there is no study about the politeness strategies used by Indonesian chatters, in this present study, the researcher tries to explain the politeness strategies used by Indonesian chatters in IRC channel discussion through observation and analysis.

Literature Review Politeness Politeness is an aspect of pragmatics in that its use in language is determined by an external context. This external context is the context of communication, which is determined by the social status of the participants: politeness is a system used by the speaker in order to keep up to the addressees expectations. According to Grundys account (Grundy 1995: 135) we are told that the determiners of the need to use politeness strategies are three: distance, power and imposition. Imposition covers every action (by this we also mean speech acts) which threatens the addressees autonomy and freedom of action and usually is conveyed in the form of an order; power is evaluated in terms of numerous factors such as position in society and age; distance implies the evaluation of the others place in the world, degree of familiarity and/or solidarity towards the addressee. An important source of inspiration in the study of politeness phenomena is the work done by Ervin Goffman (1955). Goffman, a psychologist, wanted social interaction, including verbal communication, to be studied from the perspective that a participant are striving for stability in their relationship with others. He claimed that every participant in the social process has the need to be appreciated by others and the need not to be interfered with. Goffman also introduced the concept of face, which later became an inspiration for further study by Brown and Levinson.

Politeness Strategy According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed to save the hearers face. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that self-esteem in public or in private situations. Their notions of face is derived from that of Goffman (1967, as cited in Brown and Levinson 1987) and from the English folk term, which is related to notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or losing face. Brown and Levinson stated that there are two types of face in an interaction: 1. Negative face: the want of every competent adult member that his actions can be unimpeded by others. 2. Positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others.

Face Threatening Acts According to Brown and Levinson, Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem. If we do or are about threaten someones positive or negative face, but do not mean it, we need to minimize it by applying politeness strategies that are Bald on Record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, and Off-the-Record (as suggested by Brown and Levinson, 1987).

Strategies for doing FTA The possible strategies for doing the FTA are shown below:

Fig 2.1 Possible strategies for doing FTAs

Bald on Record Strategy In the bald on record strategy, the speaker does nothing to minimize threats to the hearers face. The prime reason for its usage is that whenever a speaker (S) wants to do the FTA with maximum efficiency more than he wants to satisfy the hearers (Hs) face, even to any degree, he will chose bald on record strategy (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 95). There are, however, different kinds of bald on record usage in different circumstances, because S can have different motives for his want to do the FTA with maximum efficiency. It is divided into two classes: 1. Cases of non-minimization of the face threat.

This is where maximum efficiency is very important, and this is mutually known to both H and S, no face redress necessary. The situations are presented as follows: a. In cases of great urgency or desperation. b. Cases of channel noise, or where communication difficulties exploit pressure to speak with maximum efficiency such as in calling across a distance. c. Task-oriented, in this kind of interaction face redress will be irrelevant.

d. Ss want to satisfy Hs face is small, either because S is powerful and does not fear retribution or non-cooperation from H. e. S wants to be rude without risk of offending, so S does not care about maintaining face. f. Sympathetic advice or warnings.

g. Granting permission for something that H has requested. 2. Cases of FTA-oriented bald on record usage. The use of this strategy is oriented to face. In other words, it is used where face involves mutual orientation, so that each participant attempts to foresee what the other participant is attempting to foresee. For in certain circumstances it is reasonable for S to assume that H will be especially worried with Hs potential violation or Ss maintaining. There are three functional categories or areas where we expect the pre-emptive invitations to occur in all languages (which are potential to FTA): a. Welcoming b. Farewell c. Offers

Positive Politeness Strategy The positive politeness strategy is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA). The only feature that distinguishes positive politeness compensation from normal everyday intimate language behavior is an element of exaggeration. There are fifteen sub-strategies that are used in positive politeness strategies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods). Exaggerate (interest approval, sympathy with H) Intensify interest to H Use in-group identity markers Seek agreement

6. 7. 8. 9.

Avoid disagreement Presuppose/raise/assert common ground Jokes Assert or presuppose Ss knowledge of and concern for Hs wants.

10. Offer, promise. 11. Be optimistic 12. Include both S and H in the activity 13. Give (or ask for) reasons 14. Assume or assert reciprocity 15. Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

Negative Politeness Strategy Negative politeness is defined as a redressive action addressed to the addressees negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unobstructed and his attention unrestricted (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Negative politeness strategy recognizes the hearers face, but it also recognizes that the speaker is in some way forcing on them. Some of the sub-strategies of negative politeness are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Be conventionally indirect. Question, hedge. Be pessimistic. Minimize imposition Give difference

6. 7.

Apologize Impersonalize S and H

8. 9.

State the FTA as general rule Nominalize

10. Go on record as incurring debt, or as not indebting H.

Off-the-record Strategy According to Brown and Levinson (1987), a communicative act is done off-record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act. Thus, if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can do it off-record and leave it up the addressee to decide how to interpret it. Some sub-strategies of off-record: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Give hints Give association clues Presuppose Understate Overstate Tautologies Contradictions Be ironic Use metaphors

10. Use rhetorical questions 11. Be ambiguous 12. Be vague 13. Over-generalize 14. Displace H

15. Be incomplete, use ellipsis

Research questions 1. What types of politeness strategies are used by Indonesian chatters in the IRC? 2. How do Indonesian chatters use politeness strategies in the IRC?

Methodology The research design of this study was descriptive qualitative. The researcher tried to report and describe the data or the information as the way the things are; therefore the researcher did not change any content of the information for the sake of the ingenuity of the data required. The technique used, as in most descriptive research, was the observation technique, since it could exactly describe how IRC chatters responded directly to other IRC chatters in the channel. All messages sent by the researcher were not considered as part of the data because Fraenkell and Wallen (1993, in Abdillah 2005) state that in observing the activities of a certain group, the researcher is not a participant. Since this research was descriptive qualitative, the main instrument of this research was the researcher herself as the key human-instrument. An additional instrument used was a table, which was needed to systematize the phenomena found from the criteria that had been determined. Below is the example of the table used in the study:

Table 1 : Data No 1 Code 2.2 POS Interlocutors & Dialogs <shinchan-abdurrahman> banyak banget pelanggaran dan pelecehan terhadap laki2 <shinchan-abdurrahman> yang melecehkan itu perempuan dan laki2 juga <shinchan-abdurrahman> jadi kita perlu komisi nasional yang melindungi kaum laki2 <Abi_coOL> yap... Chosen Strategy Positive (give gift)

Procedure After connected to the internet, the researcher opened an IRC window and selected the channel the researcher wanted to join. The researcher joined the channel for approximately two hours from around 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. The researcher chose that time because it was a kind of rush hour in the internet chat channels. It may happen since it was the time to rest or relax for Indonesian people. After approximately two hours, the researcher logged out from the channel, then wrote the date of each IRC connection and downloaded all the written conversations in the Internet Relay Chat channel (mIRC Cafislam) into the researchers hard disk. Next, the researcher printed out the written conversations and started to identify the messages which contained FTA then marked them. These marked messages became the data.

Data Analysis The researcher used document analysis because the data here were in the form of written or visual material (IRC messages). Data analysis and data collection in qualitative study cannot be separated. While collecting the data, interpreting and analyzing them also took place. The researcher classified the data according to the FTA contained in it. In this case, it was about what kind of politeness strategy used by the chatters, whether they were bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, or off-record based on Brown and Levinsons theory. These activities could not be separated from analyzing and interpreting the FTA. After that, the researcher described the data contained FTA which was found, and then it was explained. In obtaining the data, several dialogs with quite similar patterns were taken, identified, and analyzed to determine whether they had the same patterns or not. The last, the researcher summarized and concluded the discussion of the findings.

Findings and Discussion The findings show that the politeness strategies mostly used by Indonesian chatters in IRC is Bald on Record with 45 times of usage (41.28%), followed by Positive Politeness which was used 40 times (36.7%), Negative Politeness which was used 19 times (17.43%), and then Offthe-record which was used only 5 times (4.59%) as presented in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Distribution of the Types of Politeness Strategy No Politeness Strategies Frequency Percentage (%)

1 2 3 4 Total

Bald on Record Positive Politeness Negative Politeness Off-the-record

45 40 19 5 109

41.28 36.7 17.43 4.59 100

Below in table 3, is the frequency of each variation of bald on-record strategy used by Indonesian chatters in IRC: Table 3: Distribution of the Variation of Bald on Record Strategy BOR Desperation Case of Channel Noise Task-oriented S wants to satisfy Hs face is small S wants to be rude Frequency 2 1 6 1 9 13 3 5 5 45 Percentage (%) 4.44 2.22 13.33 2.22 20 28.9 6.67 11.11 11.11 100

Non Minimization Sympathetic of Face advice/warning Threat Granting permission Face Oriented Total Farewell Offer

From the table above, it can be seen that in the chatting conversation, Indonesian chatters used many variation of bald on-record strategy. Sympathetic advice/warning is frequently used by the chatters (13 times). It may happen because the conversation is in the form of sharing where chatters tell a story about themselves or state their opinion about something.

The distribution of the variation of positive politeness strategy can be seen in Table 4.3 below:

Table 4: Distribution of the Variation of Positive Politeness Strategy POS Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) Exaggerate (interest approval, sympathy with H) Intensify interest to H Address forms In-group language or Use in-group identity dialect markers Contraction and Ellipsis Seek Agreement Avoid Disagreement Presuppose/raise/assert common ground Include both S and H in the activity Give (or ask for) reason Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Total Frequency Percentage (%)

6 1 1 3

15 2.5 2.5 7.5

2 1 2 4 2 1

5 2.5 5 10 5 2.5

15 40

37.5 100

As shown in Table 4.3, positive politeness strategy which is mostly applied by Indonesian chatters in IRC is by giving gift, either in the form of sympathy, undertanding, or cooperation. In line with Bald on record strategy, it may happen due to the form of the conversation that is sharing problems and ideas. In this case, S satisfies Hs positive face by giving gift, not only in the form of thing, but human-relation wants to be liked, admired, care about, understood, listened to, etc.

Below is the distribution of the variation of negative politeness strategy:

Table 5: Distribution of the Variation of Negative Politeness Strategy

NEG Be conventionally indirect Question, hedge Minimize imposition Apologize Impersonalize S and H Total

Frequency 10 2 4 1 2 19

Percentage (%) 52.63 10.53 21.05 5.26 10.53 100

From the table above, it is clearly seen that negative politeness strategy is not much used by Indonesian chatters in IRC. The negative strategy mostly used by the chatters is by being indirect. It may happen due to the influence of Indonesian culture where Indonesian people tend to be indirect in saying something.

A speaker uses off-record strategy when he/she wants to avoid the responsibility of doing an FTA. When a speaker uses off-record strategy, he/she leaves the FTA up the addressee to decide how to interpret it since here the speaker must say something in general (less information) or different from what he means (Brown and Levinson 1987: 211) Table 6: Distribution of the Variation of Off-the-Record Strategy OFF Give association clues Be vague Over-generalize Use saying Total Frequency 1 1 1 2 5 Percentage (%) 20 20 20 40 100

A shown in Table 4.5, off-record strategy is very rarely used by Indonesian chatters in IRC. Yet, there is a new sub strategy found here, that is doing the off-record strategy by using saying. Although it is similar to the sub strategies by using metaphors and tautologies, the findings do not match to both of the sub strategies.

Conclusions From the findings, it is discovered that politeness strategies are also applied in computer-

mediated communication, as presented by Indonesian chatters in the IRC. Politeness is used to maintain the social value of the community, including in virtual-community. The chatters use the strategy of politeness when they talk in the channel to reduce the FTA in saying something. The findings show that bald on record strategy is the most frequently used by Indonesian chatters in IRC. Most chatters use the strategy without considering other chatters feeling or face. It may happen due to the setting of the conversation that is the cyber world where the people communicate there may not really know each other and they may never meet in the real world. This setting makes them able to say whatever they want to say without any risk to themselves. Still, the characteristics of Face Threatening Acts proposed by Brown and Levinson fit in some way. The efficiency, indifference, and disregard of others feeling have become the central consideration in choosing bald on record strategy. Positive politeness is also quite widely used by Indonesian chatters in the IRC in order to show their respect and regard toward the other chatters. Generally, the chatters use the positive politeness strategy when they agree with other chatters opinion and willing to cooperate or when they want to minimize the FTA in disagreeing with others. Negative politeness strategy is generally used by Indonesian chatters in IRC when they want to ask other chatters to do something and to show that the interlocutor recognizes the addressees want to have his freedom of action unobstructed. A rather different phenomenon from what happen in the real world is that sometimes Indonesian chatters in IRC minimize the imposition of the FTA by writing smiley sign (e.g. :) or ^_^) or grinning expression (e.g. hehehe). It happens since the chatters in IRC cannot see each others face. Off-the-record strategy of politeness is the least used by Indonesian chatters in IRC. In line with bald on record strategy, it may happen due to the setting of the conversation which is the virtual community where there is almost no boundary for everyone to say what they want to say. In the findings, there is a new sub strategy found, that is by using saying. It appears that Indonesian chatters in IRC prefer to use saying rather than other off-the-record strategy such as using tautologies or metaphors. It happens because the conversations are in the form of discussions and it is usual in Indonesia to counter somebodys attack or argument with saying.

Suggestions In studying politeness strategy in pragmatics, students have to be aware of the distance and the social factors which influence the use of specified strategy of politeness. This research may also suggest that pragmatic students observe more pragmatic studies. It may stand up-to-date since they can always be done to any current communication media. Lecturers of pragmatics can help to improve the students awareness about the difference between the strategies of politeness. Learning politeness strategy can also be done in various aspects of discourse, not only in the real world but also in the virtual-community. While, a future researcher can analyze the politeness strategy used by people in e-mails.

Further, they can compare the politeness strategy used by men and women when they write emails and analyze the effect of the strategy used. It can be done since gender difference also influence the politeness applied. Future researchers can also improve this research by conducting a similar research in the private message in IRC. Here, the future researchers can observe the politeness strategies used by the IRC chatters when they talk privately (e.g. what kind of politeness strategy which they select to answer a personal question). The future researchers even may compare the politeness strategy used by Indonesian and English chatters in the private message. It is since in each culture, people have different values in communicating; thus it will influence the politeness employed in the same context. Then, the future researchers can analyze the effects of the strategy (how the strategy is responded). Pragmatics is a quite popular subject taken as thesis topic in English Department of State University of Malang. Yet, there is not much literature about pragmatics that is available in both faculty library and main library. It is hoped that in the future the university can provide more literature talking about this subject.

References Abdillah, Seno. 2005. Slang Terms in the Internet Relay Chat. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: Undergraduate Program in English Language and Literature. State University of Malang. Ahti, Jonna and Lhtevnoja, Hanna. 2002. Showing Politeness in Opening Sequences in Finnish and Finland-Swedish Chat Conversations. Department of Finnish. University of Helsinki. Blum-Kulka, Soshana. 1989. Playing It Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness. In Soshana Blum-Kulka et al (Eds.), Cross Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Bogdan, Robert C. and Sari Knop Biklen. 1998. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (3rd ed.). USA: Allyn and Bacon. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cedeno, Nancy. 1995. Tool Kit untuk Internet. Terjemahan oleh Sugiharto. 1996. Jakarta: PT Elex Media Komputindo. Chodorowska-Pilch, Mariana. 1999. On the Polite Use of Vamos is Peninsular Spanish. Pragmatics, 9 (3): 343-355. Crystal, David. 1993. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cyberspace Research Unit. 2003. (Online), (http://www.fkbko.co.uk/EN.php?lang=EN&&subject=10&&id=0&&level=0, accessed on November 30 2007) Goffman, Ervin. 1955. On the face work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements n Social Interaction. Face to Face Interaction. Middlesex: Penguin. Google. 2004. Language in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), (Online), (http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/paulb/206/cmclec.pdf [html version], accessed on December 1, 2007) Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold. Gumperz, John J. 1971. Language and Social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Pearson Education Limited. Hornby, Albert Sydney. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. England: Oxford University Press. Kaul, Asha and Kulkarni, Vaibhavi. 2005. Coffee, Tea or: Gender Politeness in ComputerMediated Communication (CMC). Indian Institute of Management: Research and Publication Division. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. London: Longman. Liu, Geoffrey Z. 1999. Virtual Community Presence in IRC. School of Library and Information Science: San Jose State University, (Online), (http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/liu.virtual_community.html, accessed on February 16 2008) Meier, Ardith J. 1995. Defining Politeness: Universality in Appropriateness. Language Sciences, 17 (4): 345-356. Oikarinen, Jarkko and Reed, Darren. 1993. Internet Relay Chat Protocol, (Online), (http://www.xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3920.html, accessed on February 16 2008) Renkema, Jan. 1993. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Universitas Negeri Malang. 1995. Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Malang: Univeritas Negeri Malang Press. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1992. An introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell

Yule, George. 1996. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.infoskripsi.com/Artikel-Penelitian/Artikel-Skripsi-Politeness-Strategies.html