Interlanguage Pragmatics Failure among Javanese Learners of Japanese

In the Japanese language, Keigo refers to the politeness in language that one must adhere to during interactions with native speakers. Japanese language students are obliged to pay attention to this principle and behave politely in spoken communication. In the Javanese language, the manner in which speech is delivered, undha usuk, comprises a variety of registers applied to different social contexts, such as krama (High or formal Javanese) and ngoko (Low or vernacular Javanese). Still, other politeness principles are to be taken into account. This study, driven by such a concern, was devoted to examining politeness violations in communications between 108 university students, most of whom were native Javanese speakers. The politeness principle was employed to unravel the issue. Data were collected by recording conversations between participants and native Japanese speakers. A follow-up interview with each subject was also conducted. The results revealed that most students failed to build intercultural communication in Japanese conversation, due to their lack of socio-pragmatic knowledge. Based on the interview results, in daily communication, the students rarely used the Javanese speech act level of krama, instead using basa ngoko or Indonesian. These findings emphasize the socio-pragmatic concept, and more precisely the politeness principles other than the Keigo style, to students. This should minimize the violation of politeness maxims in the Japanese language.


INTRODUCTION
The use of honorific language style or Keigo, despite its complexity, must be taken into account. A speaker is required to pay attention to the relationship and position of the interlocutor. This notion emphasizes the importance of understanding Keigo in Japanese language learning (Hayashi, 1990:160). Sigeo (2000: 14) points out several functions of Keigo; among the notable examples is improving the quality of the communication and relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor.
Japanese language learners who come from Javanese backgrounds are required to use Keigo correctly.
Both the Japanese and Javanese languages have honorifics levels, called undhak usuk basa or unggah-ungguh. Ishii (1991) compared the system of undhak-usuk in Javanese and Keigo in Japanese. The collected data in Ishii's (1991) study is a Javanese language speech level book published by language development. The study investigates the role of similarity in the form and function of Japanese and Javanese speech levels, which concluded that Japanese and Javanese resemble in terms of form and function of speech level. The word "futsuu" means "casual," and they are characterized with copula "da" or "de aru." This speech level of "futsuu" is usually used between family, a close friend, and from the higher to the lower. It is also used in formal sentences such as mass media, papers, novels, and others.
Meanwhile, the speech level of "ngoko" reflects a sense of distance between 01 and 02. This means that 01 does not have a sense of shame (jiguh pakewuh) towards 02. So, to express some intimacy, someone needs to use the level of "ngoko". Ishii (1991) also explained that "tindak tutur krama" is the level that radiates the whole meaning of politeness. This level indicates a feeling of reluctance "pakewuh" of 01 towards 02 since the latter is a person who is not yet familiar or has a higher ranking, different social status, others. For example, a student uses "krama" in a conversation with their teacher or an employee with their superior.
This study emphasized that "krama" characteristics have the same as "teinei" in Japanese. "Teinei" is used at the end of the sentence with "desu/masu." The teinei variety is used to respect the interlocutor directly. This variety of speech acts can be found in the conversation between professors and their students, guests, waiters in shops, employees, superiors, formal places, or meetings.
Meanwhile, to speak correctly in Japanese and use Keigo, the language function must be followed. The difference between Javanese and Japanese is that in Japanese, the interlocutors are also required to consider their partners' relationship, such as the speaker's family or acquaintance, with the corresponding speaker since it affects the chosen vocabulary.
A study about the similarity of Javanese and Japanese by Suherman (2009) stated that the Javanese textbook and Japanese novel data to compare speech levels in each language. Suherman's found that "ngoko" possesses the same system as "futsuu" in Japanese and "krama andhap" has a similar utilization as "kenjogo" in Japanese. Meanwhile, "krama inggil" should have the same system as "sonkeigo" in Japanese.
Another study related to this research is Munandar's (2013) research, which states that a change in the Javanese language marks the symptoms of a decline in the function of the Javanese language in the Javanese-speaking community in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. The research concludes that the Javanese language is undergoing a shift to Indonesian. In a society with a higher education background, the mastery of the Javanese language is not visible anymore, and it even tends to weaken. In contrast, the mastery of the Indonesian language continues to increase, which prompts this language to become linguistically more dominant.
Based on the previous explanation, university students majoring in the department of the Japanese language found in two different cities, Yogyakarta and Semarang, with Javanese cultural background, are urged to master and comprehend the use of honorific languages, allowing them to have successful and respectful communication with Japanese native speakers. This notion has been highlighted by Shigeo (2000: 16) that the proper use of Keigo results in quality learning and communication.
Poor understanding of Keigo increases the risks of insulting conversation partners. This has been claimed by Edizal (2010: iii), who states that ignoring the regulations of using honorific in the Japanese language leads to proper communication and misunderstanding. The incorrect expression might insult the interlocutor and damaging the relationship between the people involved in the conversation.
For this reason, the comprehension of Keigo plays an essential role in Japanese language learning for university students since it helps them to adhere to the regulations of the honorific system in the Japanese language.
The politeness principle in the Japanese language is the students' focus, concerning that improper use of honorific language styles can ruin the communication process. Keigo is the basic honorific language system in the Japanese language. Topics revolving around Keigo have been incorporated into the curriculum of several universities in Central Java; these are taught in the third semester. However, besides using Keigo appropriately during a conversation, one must pay attention to other politeness principles, such as the one proposed by Leech (1983). Driven by the above issue, this study examines the violation of politeness maxims among Japanese language students. It focuses on the problems of the students in conversation with native Japanese speakers.
From the previous studies, it can be seen that some students are yet to adhere to the aspects of the honorific address in the Japanese language, including the politeness principles. Lessons about speech acts and politeness principles may not be included in the curriculum of the Japanese language at the university level, and the lesson is only limited to the introduction of the types of honorific language. Consequently, the students are yet to comprehend the politeness principles of the Japanese language based on the socio-pragmatic perspective, which causes politeness violations in communication. Therefore, the focus of this study has been broadened by collecting samples from university students (the violations of politeness maxims).
The problem statements of this study are (1) the examples of the violation of politeness maxims and the causes of the problem among the Japanese language students are? (2) What is the students' improper use of expression (based on the speaker's consideration) of the students. And the causes of the problem?

Politeness Theory
Politeness, in a language, is an essential aspect of communication. Based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis regarding linguistic relativity, there is a significant correlation between language, culture, and speaker thought. In communicating, a speaker considers diction, polite expressions, and sentence structures in order to provide positive impressions to the interlocutor. Rahardi (2005) investigates the use of language in a community with a particular language by considering the socio-cultural background. Furthermore, Fraser (as cited in Rahardi, 2005) mentions four views in the study of politeness in language: 1. Socio-cultural norms of a user of a particular language 2. Conversational maxim as the attempt of facesaving 3. A particular action to fulfill the conditions of a contract in a conversation or the conversational contract 4. Politeness from the perspective of sociolinguistic study that considers the forms of social reference, honorifics, and styles of speaking Theories related to language politeness are identical to the face theory proposed by Goffman, and Brown, and Levinson. Starting from the face theory by Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1987) further develop the face-threatening acts (henceforth FTA). The FTA theory claims that language politeness correlates with the attempt of the speaker to minimize the impact caused by an action. Brown and Levinson then categorize the FTA into two: 1) the positive face, i.e., the intention of the speaker to acquire a normal or positive impression from their surroundings, 2) the negative face, which refers to the intention of the speaker to be free from external threats and the sense of being respected by the surrounding based on the speaker's expectation. The face theory in language politeness has underpinned other related theories.

The Politeness Principle (Pragmatic of Politeness)
In communication, politeness is used to maintain the relationship of the speaker with the interlocutor. Leech (1983:132) claims that verbal communication seeks to develop, maintain, nurture, and enhance interpersonal and social relationships. Leech (1983) also proposes a set of politeness principles described into several maxims to attain the goal. The tenets of the politeness principle mainly discuss the benefit and cost. The benefit is for the interlocutor (other), and the cost is for the speaker (self). Leech (1983:131-132) further mentions six types of maxims. The first type is the tact maxim, which is generally uttered in positive and commissive utterances. The second type is the generosity maxim, which encompasses expressive and assertive utterances. The third type, the approbation maxim, is generally applied in the expressive and assertive utterance. The fourth maxim, the modesty maxim, minimizes the praise, showing that the speaker is not arrogant. Expressive and assertive utterances are commonly applied in the modesty maxim. The fifth maxim is the agreement maxim, which is generally utilized in assertive utterances. The sixth maxim, or the sympathy maxim, is widely used in assertive utterances. Grice (1975) argues that one should adhere to four maxims to demonstrate the cooperative principles; those maxims include the maxim of quantity, quality, relevance, and the maxim of manner. Besides, Grice opines that politeness in language correlates with social, aesthetic, and moral regulations in speech. The rationale of establishing the politeness principle is that adherence to the cooperative principle is insufficient in a speech.
Several studies on applying cooperative and politeness principles focused on the Indonesian language have been carried out. Sara and Indrawati (2015) examined the application of Leech's and Grice's maxims, and it was reported that politeness maxims are essential to actualizing political freedom. Sarno and Rustono's (2017) study discovers the scale of politeness principles in the utterances of news anchors in an entertainment program on private television. The scale shows a profit, probability, and indirectness. Among the scales, the profit aspect is the most dominant one, given that the anchors of the entertainment program mainly deal with the social aspect of the audience. Budiati (2012) states that in the "Laskar Pelangi" movies, the politeness maxim has the purpose of minimizing and smoothing the utterances, which is shown by how the characters respect older people's power, range, distance, and familiarity. Iori et al. (2009) state that polite expressions in the Japanese language are not limited to desu and masu affixes. In a conversation, being polite also considers the speaker's feelings, leading to respectful communication between the speaker and the interlocutor. Kondo et al. (2012) further emphasize the previous concept, explaining that using Keigo or other polite expressions is insufficient to promote quality interpersonal relationships. One should consider other aspects, such as feeling, generosity, humanity, and sympathy. The idea proposed by Iori and Kondo, along with the concept of politeness principle by Leech (1983), will be the grounding of the present study's analysis.
Some expressions of considering the Japanese language are shown in adverb (fukushi) tabun or osoraku. A speaker uses this expression to express hesitation in being polite during a conversation. The adverb of tabun and osoraku are put after the subject. Another expression that shows possibility is also expressed by the use of kanosei o arawasu hyogen. The adverb used in this context is kamoshirenai, which indicates possibility. The word tabun and osoraku can also be used in considering the Japanese language; the sentence structure will be "... wa osoraku...hazu da" (Iori et al., 2009).

Impoliteness on Intercultural Communication
Several theories that study politeness in language are the politeness principle by Leech, the cooperative principle by Grice, and the use of honorific languages. Recent studies have emphasized the violation of the politeness concept. This issue is possible in intercultural communication due to differences in politeness principles, which results in misunderstanding. Some studies have also reported that most people are unaware of committing violations in politeness while communicating with others from different backgrounds; this underpins the idea of impoliteness (Chang & Haugh;Haugh, 2008;Spencer-Oatey 2002;Wang & Spencer-Oatey 2015). These studies also signify that something indicated as impoliteness will be negotiated by the users; it will not be regarded as the function of the hypothesis of a cultural norm. This idea later becomes an aspect that must be noted to examine politeness violations in intercultural communication.
Most research focuses on distinguishing the manner of speaking and the situation from which it can violate politeness in interaction (Haugh, 2010: 143-150). Some cases have been generalized to failed or unintended politeness (Bailey 1997;Clyne 1994;Grainger 2011;Nakane;Tyle 2009). The differences in speech act in practices and the speaker's intention in intercultural communication are assumed as the functions of the pragmatic transfer.
A few studies have investigated impoliteness in intercultural communication. Specifically, those involving the Japanese language, despite the possibility of issues in conversation with native Japanese speakers. Driven by this notion, the present study aims to bridge the gap by examining the violation of politeness principles committed by university students majoring at the Japanese language department in communication with the native Japanese.
Investigating the issue is essential to discover the politeness principles from the socio-pragmatic perspective, i.e., the applicable normative regulations in the speech act levels of the Japanese language along with their corresponding expressions of giving considerations. The offensive speech and politeness maxims will be beneficial to determine the factors causing the issue by interviewing the students.

RESEARCH METHOD Research Design
This qualitative study aims to elaborate the violation of politeness principles conducted by university students majoring in the Japanese language department. It presented the aspects of the violations, especially those associated with consideration in the Japanese language, and the factors that caused the issue. The politeness principles by Leech were also discussed.

Data and Sampling Technique
The data were obtained from 108 university students in a selected university in Central Java and Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The participants were in their fifth to the ninth semester of their study, and it was assumed that they had learned the honorific languages or Keigo since this topic was generally taught in the third semester.
The data consisted of the students majoring in the Japanese language department from the selected two universities in Central Java and Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and five native Japanese speakers. As many as 291 excerpts were collected from the conversation, which contained the expressions of giving considerations and politeness principles in the Japanese language. Further, the interview was employed in order to obtain an in-depth analysis of the data collected previously. The interview aimed to identify the factors causing the violation of politeness principles (based on the speakers' feelings) during the conversation.
This section explains the rationale for applying specific approaches, methods, procedures, or techniques to identify, select, and analyze information to understand the research problems, thereby critically evaluating the research's overall validity and reliability.

Data Collection
Techniques of data collection involved recording, observation, and interviews. The recording method was utilized to generate the data of conversations between the students and the native Japanese speakers. The observation method was carried out by taking note of the speech from the corpus containing information indicating the adherence or violation of politeness principles. Moreover, the content of the message of the conversation between the research participants was also noted. An interview was carried out to identify the contributing factors of the violation of the politeness principles.
The data collection process was conducted in two universities in Central Java and Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, from September 2016 to June 2017. Following the process was the triangulation of information retrieved from one informant to another. Japanese native speakers were also involved to ensure the validity of the triangulation process.

Data Analysis
The transcribed data consisted of 291 utterances. These data were analyzed using the data and followup techniques by sorting the students' utterances and native speakers. Utterances containing the violation of politeness principles were examined based on the pragmatic interlanguage perspective. It was aimed to identify the expressions of giving considerations used by the students. The study categorized the unit of speech into elements, including words and sentence structures, to determine the level of the speech act, the expressions of giving consideration, and politeness principles. After completing this process, all relevant elements and data were paired and compared with the theories of giving considerations based on the speaker's feelings by Iori et al. (2009). The utterances were also analyzed based on the politeness principles by Leech (1983).
Heuristic analysis and normative analysis were carried out in examining the data of this study. The adherence and violation of the politeness principle were identified using the heuristic analysis, i.e., one of the analysis methods in pragmatics. All excerpts of the conversation were examined using the method previously mentioned during and outside the class. Figure 1 is the framework of the heuristic analysis model proposed by Leech (1983:41).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Violation of Politeness Principles from Leech's Perspective
This study discovered 42 issues regarding the violation of politeness maxims, such as tact maxim, sympathy maxim, agreement maxim, and modest maxim, in the conversation between the research participants.
Below are examples of the violation of the tact maxim. Tact maxim is minimizing cost to others and maximizing benefit to others.
Excerpt 2 below is a conversation about transnational marriage.

UN2, 3, 4, 5: "Watashi wa nihonjin to kekkon shitakunai desu. Shukyo ga chigaimasu. Bunkamo chigaimasu"
'I do not want to marry Japanese people; they have different religions and cultures.' Utterance 2 contains a violation of tact maxim since the speaker used the form shitakunai desu to express their decision to not marrying Japanese people. The use of shitakunai may insult the interlocutor, or in this case, the Japanese speaker.
Other examples of the tact maxim violation are seen in excerpt 7 with the same topic, i.e., transnational marriage.
UN14: "Watashi wa nihonjin to kekkon surunowa iya desu. Shukyo ga chigaimasukara." "I do not want to marry Japanese people due to a different religion." Utterance 7 shows the use of the form "...iya desu," which signifies the speaker's dislike of marrying Japanese people due to the different religions. Using such a form leads to maximizing cost to the interlocutor. On top of that, the interlocutor may consider the utterance as an insult.
The factor causing this violation is that the students are yet to comprehend the general principles of politeness. Consequently, the students fail to comply with the politeness principles, and impolite expressions are unavoidable. Violations of the agreement maxim are also found in the conversation. The agreement maxim refers to maximizing agreement between self and others while minimizing disagreement between the two. In other words, violation of this maxim occurred when the speaker and interlocutor disagreed with each other. The following are examples of the violation of the agreement maxim.
Excerpt 49 describes a situation during the bunpo (grammar) class. UN2: "Ukemi no rareru to keigo no rareru to dou chigaimasuka" 'What are the differences between the use of rareru in the passive voice and rareru in honorific?
As shown in the above example, the participant should maximize the agreement and minimize the disagreement between themselves and others. Participant UN2, however, directly asked the question using the expression "Sensei, shitsumon desu." The speaker should use polite expressions to ask the question. In the conversation, participant UN2 directly asked the question without asking for permission from the speaker PJ. It should be noted that the violation of this maxim is when the speaker and interlocutor disagree with each other.
Another maxim violation in this research is neglecting the modesty maxim. The modesty maxim occurs when the speaker minimizes praise of themselves and maximizes the praise of others.
Utterance 27 shows the violation of modesty maxim during the teaching practice subject.
PJ: "Anata ga, oshieta koto o nani ka ki naru koto wa aru ? 'Do you have something to share after the teaching practice?' UG9: "Hai arimasu. Oshieta ato, watashi ga oshieta koto o gakuseiga wakaru kadouka o kakunin wa muzukashii desu". 'Yes, I want to share something. I feel that it is difficult to check the students' comprehension after the class.' "Sono hokani, quiz no yarikata wa atte iru kadouka, demo gakusei ga quiz de shitsumon ga kotaerareto, anshin desu". "Is it alright to give them a quiz to check their understanding? I feel uneasy whenever the student answers the question." The violation of modesty maxim is shown when participant UG9 said: "Sono hokani, quiz no yarikata wa atte iru kadouka, demo gakusei ga quiz de shitsumon ga kotaerareto, anshin desu." From the example above, it can be seen that the speaker neglected the modesty maxim since not all students in the class have answered the question. As a result, the speaker ended up using the form "...anshin desu". This expression should not be used unless the speaker and the interlocutor have reached an agreement.
Since the students often violated the politeness principles during the conversation, the study proceeds to the interview process. The interview results show that the students have yet to learn the politeness principle theory by Leech, and therefore, the students use the Keigo form.

Violation of Politeness Principles from the Consideration of the Speaker
This study identifies several issues regarding politeness principles from the speaker's perspective. The issues are the violation in the expression of emphasizing something or dantei hyougen, expression of uncertainty or dantei o sakeru hyougen or hi dantei, and the expression of possibility or kanosei o arawasu hyougen.
The following are examples of the violation of politeness principles committed by university students majoring in the Japanese language.
Utterance 106 is a conversation during the classroom discussion of natural disasters. UG3: "Iie, tasukemasen.Neko ga suki janai desu." 'I won't help the cat; I don't like cats.' The above example represents the utterance that does not consider the speaker's feeling as it did not incorporate the form of ...tabun...masu (the expression of uncertainty), ...tabun...deshou or ...to omoimasu or kamoshiremasen (expressing possibility) in the sentence Iie, tasukenai" and "Iie, tasukemasen." Participant UG3 did not comply with the speech act that considers the interlocutor's response based on the above utterance.
The speaker should add the form of tabun tasukemasen in emphasizing something, tabun tasukenani deshou, the form oftasukenai to omoimasu in expressing uncertainty, and the form of kamoshiremasen in tasukenai kamoshiremasen in explaining the lack of intention in helping the cat during an emergency.
On that ground, participant UG3 violated the politeness principles (regarding considering the speaker's feelings).
Another proof of violation of the politeness principle by participant UG3 was shown in the utterance "neko ga suki janai desu." The participant should add to omoimasu; hence, the sentence will be "neko ga (amari) suki janai da to omoimasu." The following utterance 107 also provides another instance of the violation of the politeness principle committed by participant UN8.
This utterance is a conversation during the classroom discussion of natural disasters.
UN8: "Shitsumon desu. Nihon ni Indonesia go no jugyou ga arimasuka?" 'Question. Do they teach the Indonesian language in Japan?' PJ: "Koukou wa nai desu. Daigaku ni haitte kara, irona gaikokugo ga arimasu. Indonesia go arushi, Furansu go to, Doitsugo toka, mezurashii desu." 'We don't study Indonesian in senior high school. You will learn that in university, it is interesting because they offer some languages, such as Indonesian, France, and Germany.' The violation of the politeness principle committed by participant UN8 was shown in the use of the form ...ii deshouka in expressing uncertainty or hi dantei hyougen /dantei o sakeru hyougen. The participant is supposed to add deshou when using the form of "shitsumon desu?". Thus, the appropriate expression is shitsumen shittemo ii deshouka. In other words, participant UN8 does not comply with the politeness maxim as s/he does not incorporate deshouka, which can lead to the impression that the speaker is too firm in expressing their idea to participant PJ1. Thereby, participant UN8 violates the politeness principles (regarding the consideration of the speaker's feelings).
Utterance 104, a part of the conversation with the participant UN15, brings another example of politeness principle violation; this describes a situation in a classroom while discussing transnational marriage. The violation of the politeness principle is because the participant UN15 did not add the word tabun to state possibility; the participant was supposed to incorporate tabun ... to omoimasu when they said Watashi wa nihonjin to kekkon shitakunai desu. In utterance 104, participant UN15 did not adhere to the politeness principle as there were zero expressions that indicated their consideration in predicting something that the speaker did not want to do.
Consequently, participant UN15 violated the politeness principles (regarding the consideration of the speaker's feelings). The participant should use the expression kamoshiremasen and change the word s hitakunai to muzukashii to be more polite during the conversation. The replacement of the phrase shitakun ai to muzukashii indicates that the speaker expressed the problem of marrying Japanese people due to different religions and cultures (this is considered to be more polite). Overall, the above utterance shows that participant UN15 neglected the politeness principle to avoid possibility expression.
Issues in the politeness principle are also found in discussing several topics, e.g., transnational marriage, Japanese foods, natural disasters, schools, and music in Indonesia and Japan. Problems in intercultural communication are primarily because of the barrier in the culture and language of the speakers. This study has discovered 97 utterances from 64 students that indicate the violation of politeness principles. Most students find it challenging to express certainty. Some of the examples of this problem are provided below.

1) "Watashi mo sugu nigemasu."
'I am going to run away.' 2) "Anshin na tokoro e ikimasu. Hiroba e ikimasu." 'I am going to find a safe place, such as a field.' 3) "Okaasan to imouto ga saki ni tasukemasu." 'I will help my mother and In the example of number eight, the use of lexical "okaasan" and "otoosan," which refer to "Ibu" and "Bapak," which in Javanese and mean mother and father, respectively. In Japanese, there are two different use of the words father and mother; for the use of your mother, they used "haha"; meanwhile, for the use of other people, they should use "okaasan." This also has the same pattern as the word used by the father. For their father, they use the word "chichi." Meanwhile, for the use of father for other people, they use "otoosan." According to the interview, the students have yet to comprehend the Japanese language's pragmatics fully. They have a poor understanding of the way native Japanese uses the expression of uncertainty in daily communication. In addition, as explained by Munandar (2013), especially in the Yogyakarta area, they use Indonesian more when daily communication between Javanese people.
The students mostly learn Keigo or the honorific languages in the class. As a result, they assume that adding the word desu and masu at the end of the sentence is sufficient to be polite in a conversation. The above elaborations align with Kasper & Blum-Kulka (1993), who assert that by observing.
In discourse involving second language learners displaying their pragmatic competence, we understand that pragmatics is correlated with SLA (Second Language Acquisition). This condition leads to the emergence of a concept of interlanguage pragmatic (IP). In intercultural communication, comprehending the socio-pragmatic norms is essential due to different cultures and languages. Ishihara (2016) considers pragmatic skills in intercultural interaction as a manifesto of the characteristics of the speakers rather than the symbol of the L2 communication competencies. Many studies claim that grammatical errors can be tolerated as failure in using a language. On the other hand, failures in pragmatic skills are a sign indicating the lousy personality of the speaker. This notion urges classroom intervention and appropriate L2 teaching strategies.
This study has discovered that most of the students are unable to adhere to the politeness principle, failing intercultural communication. Such an issue blames the students' inability to comprehend pragmatic skills.
Moreover, it is also believed that the learning environment contributes to how the students learn pragmatic skills since such skills are determined by contextual and cultural characteristics (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996). The students are expected to master these skills to interact in a more complex situation involving two different languages (Kasper, 1992;Levinson 1983;Mey 1993;Thomas 1983;1995;Taguchi 2008b). Hence, the accumulation of the learning input regarding the skills is crucial.
The study suggests that the students who possess Javanese backgrounds and majoring in the Japanese language at the Japanese language department are required to enhance their pragmatic skills in intercultural communication to avoid misunderstandings.

CONCLUSION
Based on our conversation analysis, it was found that the majority of the students did not comply with the politeness principles, specifically in the maxim of agreement, tact, modesty, and sympathy. There were also some cases of violating the politeness principles by Leech and Iori while communicating with the native Japanese speakers. In communication, students are expected to understand the concepts of communication in the second language, in this case the Japanese language.
Keigo, or the honorifics in the Japanese language, serves as the basis of politeness that the students must learn. Although the Japanese language learners, who have Javanese backgrounds, were accustomed to using respectful language levels that are almost the same as Japanese, other things still need to be considered, such as linguistic differences when mentioning family members, whether their own or of others. In addition, the function of using the Japanese language also needs to be considered.
The students, however, are demanded to learn other aspects related to politeness in communication, including the expression of hanashite no kimochi o arawasu handan in the Japanese language.
In intercultural communication, both speakers need to understand each other's culture, otherwise pragmatic failures in communication are inevitable. The speakers also need to be aware of the context of the communication. In mastering pragmatic intercultural competencies, students are expected to consider the pragmatic principles in daily communication.