Identities and Politeness Strategies of the Sasak Language Speakers

in Conversations

Name: Nur Rizky Sukmawati

SID: I2J017021

POSTGRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

MATARAM UNIVERSITY

2019
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of The Study

Language is claimed to be effective strategies to make one’s identity. Because only

language is the easiest way to show people about who people are. This how they put language

based on what they want to present. Burke & Stets (2009) elucidate an identity is the set of

meanings that defines who one is when one is an occupant of a particular role in society, a

member of a particular group, or claims particular characteristics that identify him or her as a

unique person. People subconsciously mirror their culture background in day-to-day

communication (Sirbu, 2015). The way they express their self-presentation when communicate

to the others. Some of them may identify and judge the others by their language use. How they

use it to construct to their identity in making their class and ethnic.

The Sasak language has two varieties of language. First, we call as permenak which is

usually use by noble. This language placed on higher stage. Through this language people could

appreciate someone’s manner of speaking. Second, it is called as jajar karang which is usually

used in standard language of Sasak people. Someone who has the same age or has close relation

would use this in their daily conversation. Basically, each status social shows the diversity of

identities and politeness strategies.

On other hand, essentially, the Sasak speakers will more concern on language which they

use. In daily conversation, the Sasak speakers use language based on their castes. They will pay

more attention on every single act, face and language while the conversation. They may consider
their social relations, roles and status social which reflect where they belong to. Since in Sasak

community, self-concept is important to make up someone’s perspective about who we are.

The Sasak speakers show issue the important of self-presentation in communication.

They more pay attention to their language use. They assume that it is important for them to

construct language and identity. They commonly present to show their status social, education

and age. They construct the language and identity as politeness strategies. They show their

identity through the language use. That shows that who they are and where they from. They

reflect their characteristics, status social and ethnic. Edward, 2009 states that our personal

characteristics derive from our socialization within the group (or, rather, groups) to which we

belong; one’s particular social context defines that part of the larger human pool of potential

from which a personal identity can be constructed. Also, there are some factors which influence

the differences.

In addition, the word expression sampun [already], tabeq [expression for asking

permission], nggeh [yes] and tiang [I] are commonly used by Sasak speakers. Those words are

used by both castes depend on who they interact with. The Sasak speakers use speech acts in

their daily conversation. How they do requesting, asking, complaining, and greeting to the other

speakers. They may have same speech acts in greeting, asking, complaining, asking etc. since

they are from the same root. For instance, the common how to greet each others such as “silaq

mentelah” [please stop by], and asking for “ngupi” [drink the coffee] or “medaran” [eat] become

politeness strategies which Sasak speakers use in daily interaction. Besides that, they have

differences in showing their identity and politeness strategies. Some of them may still concern on

presenting where group member they belong to. It is related with the pride and prejudice of one’s

ethnic or status social. Some of them may have pride with their race and ethnic. They also have
addressing term to show their respect to considers member who has high status social. For

instance, some people who from Central Lombok call their children by using “bli” [elder

brother], “gede” [little brother] or “mboq” [little sister], to show their identity. Also, there are

numbers of members who change their social status because they have pilgrimage to Mecca.

They may be called as mamiq for man and umi for woman. They also will change their castes of

the language. Mostly, they will use permenak.

The Sasak speakers show that gender, status social and education have influenced people

communicative style. This study shows that both male and female use the language based on the

interlocutors. They also may change pronoun such as aku become tiang [I], side become

pelinggih [you] etc. and verb such as mangan become medaran [eat], lalo become lumbar [go]

etc. and adverb such as uah become sampun [already], ni become nike/niki [that/this]. Also,

male and female Sasak members have differences the way the express their thanks expression.

This study finds that each person shows the different identities. It analyses Sasak people

politeness strategies based on their castes. This study divides group member into six categories.

First, permenak people (adult category) who have hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) will change their

language use. They show that they more use base alus [the higher stages of Sasak language]

than before. Second, the noble people (adult category) who are actually noble (it is signed from

their descendant) use permenak in their daily conversation. They believe that they have high

status social among Sasak community. Third, the educated Sasak speakers (adult category) also

use permenak with the other Sasak speakers. Fourth, the Sasak people who are noble but they

have low education. Fifth, the Sasak speaker are from high education and purely noble. They

shows their own identity and politeness strategies. Last, Sasak speakers are from jajar karang
who have low education. They may use base alus to the Sasak speakers who have high status

social, however, they use jajar karang to their community.

In the light of these images, this study investigates the construction of identity and

politeness strategies in language use by Sasak speaker. It concerns on investigating the features

structure, component rule, grammar component, variation expression and is there any special

lexical item which Sasak speakers used. This study uses recording and note-taking to collect the

data collection. This data will use non probability sampling and it will be explained in form

words. The data will use Brown and Levinson theory and Ishihara and Cohen’s theory.

1.2 Statement of Problems

Based on the background study, the problems of this study are briefly stated as follows:

1. What linguistic identities are there in the conversation of the Sasak language speakers?

2. What politeness strategies are used in discourses involving different identities?

1.3 Objective of Study

Based on the statement problems above, the objective of this study are briefly states as follows:

2. To discuss what linguistic identities are there in the conversation of the Sasak language

speakers.

3. To discuss politeness strategies are used in discourses involving different identities.

1.4 Scope of Study

This study focuses on finding how Sasak speaker construct identity and strategies in

using language. It briefly explains language and social, identity and politeness strategies. It
considers how Sasak Speakers construct their politeness strategies based on their status social.

The source of this study is Sasak speaker in casual conversations.

1.5 Significant of Study

1. Theoretical

This study is expected to be useful to the researchers and readers who have interest in

studying language identity and politeness strategies. This study provides the discussion of how

Sasak speaker construct their identity and politeness strategies in using language which could be

one of the sources.

2. Practical

As a file, this study is expected to inspire researchers and readers to carry out further

study in similar topic.

1.6 Definition of Operational Key Terms

1.6.1 Identity/identities

This study argues that identity is self-presentation. Where is the member of group belong

to. Identity is defined as process which incorporates identifying oneself and being recognized by

others (Andreouli, 2010).

1.6.2 Politeness Strategy/strategies

Politeness strategy is the way people show their positive face to the interlocutors in

communication by using language as the tool. This study sees how people use languages as one

of the politeness strategies.

1.6.3 Speech acts

Ishihara and Cohen (2010) state speech acts tend to follow regular and predictable

patterns for members of the given community. This theory concern on presenting speech act such

asking, requesting, greeting, thanking and complaining in daily conversation. This study sees

speech acts as patterns of Sasak speakers identity.

1.6.4 The Sasak language speaker

Sasak speaker is someone who lives in Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara and be able to

communicate written and spoken in Sasak language. They also know about their identity, culture

and ethnic. They realize which group member they belong to. They understand their own identity

as Sasak speaker.

1.6.5 Face

Brown and Levinson (1987:311) state face is something that is emotionally invested, and

that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to interaction. This

study sees how people show their impression to the others. It is about what impression that they

want to show to interlocutor during the communication.

1.6.6 Conversations

Conversation is a talk, between two people or more in formal or casual communication.

This study sees the conversation as the important part in socialization. The way people could

show their identity in interactive communication.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Theoretical Concept

This chapter presents the idea of the theories which is related on the research problems. It

shows the conceptual frameworks on how this study explored the research problems. This

chapter also presents the theories which embody the data finding.

2.1.1 Theories of Identity

Language is basically a tool which people use to communicate. It has an important role. It

takes a part how human life. When we learn to speak our mother tongue, we unconsciously learn

the vocabulary, word-order and grammatical until we acquire the language. We gradually learn

the language, at the first stage, we learn word by word and phrase. Then, we know the word-

order and grammatical. Finally, we can understand and communicate. It is also used to show our

existence each other. Essentially, our language is influenced by the social factors.

The use language is not only to share ideas or information but also to construct the

identity. According to Whorf (1956; in Blot, 2003) states that how linguistic categories shape the

way people perceive the world. It means that, people may have their own purposes how to see

the language. They may use it to build intimacy or show the self-presentation. Those are just two

of objectives of how people use the language in social life. In addition to glossing the way

linguistic expressions are constructed, performed, and negotiated in everyday life, theories and

approaches that fail to consider language as a material or constitutive practice background the

ongoing and open-ended relationship between language and social life (Blot, 2003).
 Then, language is used to judge other, people may often consciously choose one form of

a language or dialect over another to create or to mark a boundary between themselves and

others (Blot, 2003). Some people more concern thinking about their social and identity. Burke

&Stets (2009) Identity theory seeks to explain the specific meanings that individuals have for the

multiple identities they claim; how these identities relate to one another for any one person; how

their identities influence their behavior, thoughts, and feelings or emotions; and how their

identities tie them in to society at large. For some people, showing identity is one of the

important ways to get purpose of interaction. They may express their identity to construct the

politeness strategies in social life. We know that individual’s identity could influence the

language use. If people have higher status social than the others, they may pay more attention to

their language used. They may control they behavior and attitude during the interaction. For

example, Blot (2003) presents Hungarian Princess when she judge by her language; she remains

other to social elites, those superficial observes who respond, not to her, but to the distinctive

features of her speech. Basically, many people who want to indicate their politeness, they use

their identity mark to show where they belong to. Bloomer, Griffth & Merrison (2005) argue the

use of identity markers such as solidarity address forms dialect, slang, contraction could be

politeness strategies use in group.

Basically, identity is a process – identification– not a ‘thing’, it is not something that one

can have, or not; it is something that one does (Jenkins, 2008:5). It is how people identify

themselves and define their identity. It refers to which group member they belong to. We seem to

know who we are, we have a good enough working sense of who the others in our lives are, and

they appear to relate to us in the same way (Jenkins, 2008:1). Edward (2009) Personal identity –
or personality – is essentially the summary statement of all our individual traits, characteristics

and dispositions; it defines the uniqueness of each human being.

2.1.2 Theories of Politeness

Watts (2003) elucidates the ideology of politeness, it was instrumental in creating and

maintaining a strictly hierarchical and elitist social structure, and it was used as a means of

enforcing social differences. Grundu (2000) defines politeness is the term we use to describe the

extent to which actions, including the way things are said, match addressees’ perception of how

they should be performed. That reflects how people could control their language when they

interaction. It also refers to whatever means are employed to display consideration for one’s

addressee’s feeling (or face), regardless or the social distance between the speaker and the

addressee (Green, 1996). This issue shows someone’s politeness could be different for people

who have different status social in society.

Politeness reflects how people express the language in an appropriate way. Each

individual may have different opinion and perspective about the relationship between language

and politeness. It means that how we consider people in using language to show their politeness

and what kind of the language criterion of politeness. We can argue that we have standard of

language politeness but how to indicate the standard of politeness. Watts (2003) argues

politeness is not something we are born with, but something we have to learn and be socialized

into, and no generation has been short of teacher and handbook on etiquette and correct behavior

to help us acquire polite skill. In fact there is no standard to measure people politeness. However,

it is basically linguistic behavior signaling that speaker wants/needs/appreciates (at least some

of) the same things as hearer (Bloomer, Griffth & Merrison, 2005).
2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Language Society and Identity

In interaction, each ethnic generally show their linguistic identity. It appears when they

speak with people whose same member. They may use dominant language but there is a

distinctive diversity language which appears. For instance, Sasak speakers could be use standard

language, the use of standard pronoun ‘tiang’ [I] and ‘side’ [you] and prefer to use standard verb

‘bekelor’ [eat] instead of ‘mangan’[eat]. Basically, linguistic identities often appear when people

with the same ethnic, culture and root talk. It shows their self-presentation and existences in that

community.

However, the other hand, some speakers may use preferred language in order give

information about who they are. This may appear because of the differences of gender, age,

education and status social. For some people, that is important to decide the preferred language

in communication. It might be a reason to speak, act and behave in that way. It may deal with

something about what should they do and not, or something which control them. We use

language to get recognize as taking on a certain identity role, that is, to build an identity here and

now (Gee, 2010).

2.2.2 Identity, Face and Politeness

In social life, the basic interaction involves the mutual sending, receiving, reading and

interpreting of significant symbols, both verbal and nonverbal (Turner, 2002:4). Both speaker

and listener need to recognize the situation and condition towards the object. It is important how

they put themselves in that situation to show what response they want to give. According to

Turner (2002:5) explains self is the ability to see oneself as an object in a situation by reading the
gestures of others and bring to a situation a more stable set of attitudes toward one-self as an

object. Those could be control the member of society to show their identity. It refers to the ‘face’

that they want to show to the interlocutors.

Face is what impression that you would like to show to the interlocutor. People basically

need to show their images to the others. Brown and Levinson (1987:311) state face is something

that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be

constantly attended to interaction. Brown and Levinson (1987) assume:

1. Face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in

two relating aspects:

(a) Negative face: the basic claim territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction –

i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition

(b) Positive face: the positive consistent self-image of ‘personality’ (crucially including the

desire that this self-image be accepted and approved of) claimed by interactants

2. Certain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the

means that will achieve those ends.

In interaction, expression is needed. People imply their impression or want to the others.

We need to show the sign to interlocutor in order to give response. Brown & Levinson

(1987:312) point out face is as the basic wants. They argue that negative face, with its derivate

politeness of non-imposition, is familiar as the formal politeness that the notion ‘politeness’

immediately conjures up. However, positive face and its derivate forms of positive politeness,

are less obvious (Brown & Levinson, 1987:312).

 2.2.3 Politeness Strategies

The politeness of solidarityis characterized, for example, by use of intensifiers, in-

group identity markers and address forms, exaggerated intonation patterns, and
forms for emphasizing agreement and avoiding disagreement. Avoidance-based
politeness is characterized by forms expressing self-effacement, formality,
restraint, deference, with the use of honorifics, hedges, indirect speech acts, and
impersonalizing mechanisms like pluralization of pronouns, nominalization, and
passive.
(Levinson, 2015:327)

Language is claimed as the way people try to show their identity. People construct their

polite utterance and behavior to the others. Levinson (2015:326) states that politeness is crucial

to the construction and maintenance of social relationships, politeness in communication goes to

the very heart of social life interaction; indeed it is probably a precondition for human

cooperation in general. Levinson (2015:326) also presents three main classes of theoretical

approach to the analysis of politeness in language can be distinguished.

1. Politeness as social rules

Levinson defines politeness as a concept designating ‘proper’ social conduct, rules for

speech and behavior stemming generally from high-status individuals group. This theory

shows the rule how people act to the event such as greeting and farewell. This theory

emphasizes politeness is conventionally attached to certain linguistic forms and formulaic

expression, which may be very different in different languages and cultures. This reflects to

the how group member think and act their politeness based on their identity rule in society.

2. Politeness as adherence to politeness maxims

 Levinson argues an alternative approach takes the position that the linguistic forms of

politeness are not a matter of arbitrary convention but are motivated by general principles.

These principles refer to the ‘maxims’ of quality, quantity, relevance and manner). They also

are used to express the speech act. It involves the communicative strategies.

3. Politeness as face management

Face as an individual’s publicly manifest self-esteem, and proposed that social

members have two kinds of face requirements: positive face, or the want for approval from

others, and negative face, or the want not to offend others (Goffman, 1967; in Levinson,

2015:327).

On other hand, a theory of speech acts is a theory about what people set out to

accomplish when they choose to speak (Shelley, 1992). People use words to express intended

meaning. How they could give various expression to the interlocutor. Also, they could pay more

attention to the conversational behavior. Austin (1962) also elucidates speech act is how to do

things with words.

According to Ishihara & Cohen (2010) state speech acts tend to follow regular and

predictable patterns for members of the given community. This theory concerns on presenting

speech act such asking, requesting, greeting, thanking and complaining in daily conversation. We

find many real speech act communication in daily interaction. Speakers may express speech act

based on their context. Since speech act would be very helpful in keeping translations faithful to

their intended communicative purposes (Shelley, 1992). Generally, there are politeness strategies

which are commonly used by Sasak speakers to show their own identity.
 2.2.4 Methods of Identity and Politeness Strategies

2.2.4.1 Conversational analysis

Conversational analysis is developed to analyze the conversation between speaker and

interlocutor. According to Speer & Stokoe (2011), conversations analysis (CA) is primarily

concerned to describe the methods and procedures speakers use to coordinate their talk to

produce orderly and meaningful conversational actions. It involves about what the speakers

saying and what the interlocutor’s response. The goal of CA is to establish the structural

frameworks that underpin and organize such regularities in interaction: ‘the structures of social

action’ (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984: in Speer & Stokoe, 2011). The primary data for research are

audio (and, where necessary or appropriate, video) recordings of naturally occurring interaction

and the transcriptions system provides a detailed characterization of ‘messiness’ of everyday

interaction, focusing on speech production and turn-taking organization (Wooffitt, 2005).

Based on the research problems of this study, analyzing the conversation among Sasak

language speakers are needed. It aims to present the finding data of conversations (speech acts)

such as greeting, requesting, asking and complaining. And this more concerns on the turn-by-

turn organization of talk and embodied conduct in interaction (Speer & Stokoe, 2011). It is also

important to know the basic knowledge of the speakers how they understand the meaning of the

content.

2.2.4.2 Discourse analysis

In language, there are important connections among saying (informing), doing (action),

and being (identity) (Gee, 2010:2). It is concerned, as well, with a method of how to study

saying, doing, and being in language (Gee, 2010:3). Jorgensen & Philips (2002) presents the
methodological guidelines include: choice of research problem, formulation of research

questions, choice of material, transcription and analysis. According to this study, Sasak speakers

doing and being show up the patterns. How they see the language and use it. How they see the

language as a tool to present their self-presentation in speech community. Van-Dijk (1993) states

that critical discourse analysis is primarily interested and motivated by pressing social issues,

which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis.

According to Jorgensen & Philips (2002), discourse analysis is the general idea that

language is structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they

take part in different domains of social life. Therefore, it relates to analyze the context of

language which concerns in language use. It also involves the process of human communication.

How people express the idea, while the interlocutors negotiate the meaning of the context and try

to interpret them. This is how people could understand and recognize someone’s identity.

2.2.4.3 Ethnography of communication

Ethnography of communication is where the analysis is devoted to the functions of

language in particular settings, such as the function of humour in drawing moral boundaries

(Davies, 1982: in Brewer, 2000). It refers to communicative competence of member which uses

linguistic identity in particular goal of communication. It can be investigated based on the speech

community, speech act, speech event and speech situation. Therefore, this study more concerns

on what is the identity and politeness strategies of Sasak speakers in conversation by observing

the speech act. This study has device method in order to answer the research problems such as;

decide the setting & participants, and analyze the goal of the communication.
 On other hand, this method also considers some aspects of communication which relate

to this study such as gender, age, status social and education level. All of the aspects could bring

the influences in speakers’ identity and how they show their impression to others. Dell Hymes,

who develop the ethnography of communication present the objective of this is to detect patterns

of language use that help members of particular socio-cultural groups to create and reflect their

social world in particular contexts. Thus, in order to identify the factors which could involve the

influences Sasak speakers’ identity, this method may help to examine how people change their

social identity to the interlocutors. This study also examines the social class scales. Wardhaugh

(2000) presents the factors which power the social class scales including occupation, education,

housing, and income.

2.2.4.4 Selected Method

The research questions of this study will answer by combining conversational analysis

and discourse analysis. In order to answer the research questions, ethnography access the

meaning of the conversation by combining with related field. It will help to answer the

relationship between identities and politeness strategies of the Sasak language speakers in their

daily conversations. Then, it might help to orientate research problem and significant of this

study. This study not only investigates and analyzes the Sasak speakers’ conversation but also try

to relate the conversation to their identity and politeness strategies. This study will use the

conversation analysis for examine the conversation and it will use discourse analysis method to

examine the relationship of identities and politeness in conversation.

Therefore, this study assumes that Ethnography of communication will be the best

method to answer the research problem. For this purposes, Farah (1998:125) elucidates “speakers
of a language in particular communities are able to communicate with each other in manner

which is not only correct but also appropriate to the social culture context. And the ethnography

of communication is concerned with the questions of what a person knows about appropriate

patterns of language use in his/her community and how he/she learns about it”. Therefore, it

would bring influence to this study how to collect the data. The idea that how people interaction

each other may show their identity and politeness strategies could discover more data finding

through interview and observation.

And the data will be analyzed by focusing on ethnography of communication: the speech

situation and speech act during Sasak speakers’ conversation. Speech situation may look for how

Sasak speakers impress themselves to the others. What character they want to show (identity).

On other hand, speech acts will more focus on the politeness strategies which Sasak speakers

present during the conversations.

At the end, there are expected results of this study which follow:

Research Questions:

1. What linguistic identities are there in the conversation of the Sasak language speakers?

2. What politeness strategies are used in discourses involving different identities?

Expected Result:

1. There are linguistic identities in the conversation of the Sasak language speakers.

2. Sasak Speakers use politeness strategies in discourses involving different identities.

2.3 Related Previous Study

- Politeness Principle in Cross-Culture Communication by Yongliang Huang, 2008.

In this study, it discusses the differences of politeness between Chinese and western

culture and their values. It explains that there are four aspects of Chinese conception of

politeness (which is called as limao); respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal, warmth and

refinement. Modesty can be seemed as another way of saying ‘self-denigration’. Attitudinal

warmth is self’s demonstration of kindness, consideration, and hospitality to other, and

Refinement refers to self’s behavior to other which meets certain standards. (Gu, 1990). Then,

this study uses ‘Face Wants’ of Brown and Levinson’s theory, which face refers to our public

self-image.
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Method

This chapter presents the source of data, population and sampling technique, research

instruments, data collection and data analysis. This study uses ethnography research. Shagrir

(2017) explains that “ethnographic research is a genre of qualitative research, which developed

out of anthropological methodology. It investigates societies and cultural examining human,

interpersonal, social and cultural aspects in all their complexity. This research includes culture,

ethnic, group and society. It also focuses on ways of life, social interactions and people’s

perceptions as expressed by the actions and the surrounding in which they live (Shagrir, 2017).

This study tries to investigate culture and identity which appropriate to the objective of this

research.

This study will use descriptive method. It means that all of the data and result will be

explained in form of words. This study will focus on identifying how Sasak speakers construct

their identity and politeness strategies in social life. Then, it will conduct further action such as

indentifying and analyzing Sasak speakers to the theoretical concept and theoretical framework

which have been discussed in previous chapter.

3.2 Source of Data

The source of data in this study is Sasak speakers consist of 16 respondents. They are

from different genders, ages and education, religion, and status social.

3.3 Population and Sampling Technique

 3.3.1 Population

The population of this study is the Sasak speakers who live in Karang Baru. Due to the

huge number of Sasak speakers, this study takes only 16 Sasak speakers. They are divided into

two group members; Permenak and Jajar Karang. The participants include of 8 male and 8

female in ages of 15-60 (adolescent and adult Sasak speakers).

3.3.2 Sampling Technique

The sampling of this study is random sampling. It uses non-probability sampling

(purposeful convenience cluster). The data are obtained from the group member of community.

Karang Baru has high probability sampling since many people around West Nusa Tenggara

mostly immigrate there. Since they are from different gender, age, education, race, ethnic and

status social, they could have different politeness strategies in communication.

3.3.3 Research Variable

This study has two variables. They are independent and dependent variable. The

independent variable is identities and politeness strategies and the dependent variable is Sasak

speakers’ conversation. The dependent variable may influence the independent variable.

3.4 Data Collection

The data of this study will be collected by following these steps:

3.4.1 Pre-observation
This study use ethnographic observation. The researchers will collect the data by watching

participants happening in specific context, by making themselves suitable to the

environment, but not part of it (Shagrir, 2017).

3.4.2 Recording and observation

Then in order to keep the source of the data, this study will use recording as the technique

and save them as files. It will show that the data are real from the speakers.

3.4.3 Note-taking and observation

The last step is note-taking. During the recording, researcher will note the important data

which may appear while the interview. This step may support the data and explanation the

record file.

3.4.4 Post-observation and interview

After collecting the data, the respondents will be interviewed about their experiences. It

proves that the data are truly events in reality. It means that the utterance is actually said

by the respondents. The purpose of interviews is to establish basic processes for

transmitting information, opinion, and perceptions, while giving interviewees time and

opportunities to express their opinion fluently and openly and giving interviews time to

ask questions and request clarifications in order to get a broad picture information,

opinions, thoughts and emoticon (Shagrir, 2017).

3.5 Data Analysis

For this purposes, this study analyses findings data based on ethnographic research.

3.5.1 Identification

Based on the theoretical concept and framework of this study, it will be focus on identifying

identity of Sasak speakers, language use, self-presentation and politeness strategies.

3.5.2 Classification

Second, the respondents will be classified by their identity such as gender, age and education.

Permenak and Jajar karang group will be analyzed in order to get the result of the data.

3.5.3 Description

Third, the data will be described based on the classification data. It tends to get more sources

from the data collection.

3.5.4 Explanation

Last, the data will be explained by conducting with the theoretical concept and framework. It

concerns to get more explanation and conclusion of this data.

References

Andreouli, E. 2010. Identity, Positioning and Self-Other Relation. Papers on Social

Representation.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bewer, J.D. 2000. Ethnography. Library of Congress Cataloging.
Bloomer, A., Griffth, P. & Merrison. 2005. Introducing Language in Use. London and New
York: Routledge.
Blot, R.K. 2003. Language and Social Identity. British Library Cataloguing.
Brown, P. & Levinson S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, P. 2015. Politeness and Language. The Netherlands: Max Planck Institute of
Psycholinguistics.
Burke, P.J & Stets, J.E. 2009. Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Edward, J. 2009. Language and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J.P. 2010. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory: Theory and method. Taylor &
Francis Group.
Green, G.M. 1996. Praagmatics and Natural Langauge Understanding 2nd Edition, Hillsdale. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grundu, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In Denzin,
N. K & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oak: Sage.
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A.D. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatic: Where Language and
Culture Meet. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.
Jenkins, R. 2008. Social Identity 3rd Edition. Taylor & Francis Library.
Jorgensen, M. & Philips, L.J. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. British Library
Cataloguing.
Keeves, J. P. (1997). Educational research methodology and measurement. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A.B. 2017. Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in
Educational Contexts. Sciedu Press: International Journal of Higher Education Vol (6) 5.
Shagrir, L. 2017. Journey to Ethnographic Research. SpringerBriefs in Educ ation. DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-47112-9_2
Shelley, C. 1992. Speech Acts and Pragmatics in Sentence Generation. Canada: University of
Waterloo.
Sirbu, A. 2015. The Significance of Langauge as A Tool of Communication. “MirceaacelBatran”
Naaval Academy Press, XVIII:2.
Speer, S.A. & Stokoe, E. 2011. Conversation and Gender. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Turner, J.H. 2002. Face to Face: toward a social theory of interpersonal behavior. California:
Stanford University Press.
Van-Dijk, T.A. 1993. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Society.
Wardhaugh, R. 2002. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Blackwell.
Watts, R.J. 2003. Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wooffitt, R. 2005. Conversation Analysis & Discourse Analysis. British Library Cataloguing.