Interlanguage Pragmatics Failure among Javanese Learners of Japanese

Rina Supriatnaningsih; Tatang Hariri; Djodjok Soepardjo; Lisda Nurjaleka; Silvia Nurhayati

doi:10.22146/jh.67978

Interlanguage Pragmatics Failure among Javanese Learners of Japanese

https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.67978

Rina Supriatnaningsih^(1*), Tatang Hariri⁽²⁾, Djodjok Soepardjo⁽³⁾, Lisda Nurjaleka⁽⁴⁾, Silvia Nurhayati⁽⁵⁾

(1) Japanese Language Education Study Program, Universitas Negeri Semarang
(2) Japanese Literature Study Program, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(3) Japanese Language Education Study Program, Universitas Negeri Surabaya
(4) Japanese Language Education Study Program, Universitas Negeri Semarang
(5) Japanese Language Education Study Program, Universitas Negeri Semarang
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Interlanguage pragmatic; pragmatic failure; intercultural communication; Javanese; Japanese learner; impoliteness

Full Text:

PDF

References

Bailey, B. (1997). Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society, 327-356. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/benjamin_bailey/53/

Beden, S., & Zahid, I. (2017). Analisis Kesopanan Bahasa Leech (1983) & Grice (1975): Manifestasi Pola & Struktur Kesopanan Bahasa Dalam Novel Melunas Rindu. Jurnal Pengajian Melayu, 26(1), 29-49.

Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. Interlanguage pragmatics, 4(1), 82-107.

Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press. Retrieved from https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_64421/component/file_2225570/content

Chang, W. L. M., & Haugh, M. (2011). Evaluations of im/politeness of an intercultural apology. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 411-442. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3093&context=lhapapers

Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in. Discourse, 134-178.

Edizal. (2010). Tutur Kata Manusia Jepang (Nihonjin no mono no iikata), Padang: Kayupasak.

Goffman, E. (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. AldineTransaction.

Grainger, K. (2011). First order’and ‘second order’politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. Discursive approaches to politeness, 167, 188.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts(pp. 41-58). Brill.

Hayashi, O., Ueno, T., Kimura, M., Tanaka, N., Nomoto, K., Mizutani, O., Mizutani, N. & Miyazi, Y. (1990). Nihongo Kyouiku Handobukku. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten, 1990.

Haugh, M. (2010). Intercultural im/politeness and the micro-macro issue. Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 7. DOI:10.1515/9783110214444/ Corpus ID: 60090577

Haugh, M. (2011). Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. Situated politeness, 165, 184. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Haugh2/publication/268422755_Humour_Face_and_Impoliteness_in_Getting_Acquainted/links/54cc2cd50cf298d6565a30fb.pdf

Haugh, M. (2007). Emic conceptualisations of (im) politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 657-680. Retrieved from https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/16086/46279.pdf?sequence=1

Hinata, Shigeo. (2000). Keigo no Renshuu-cho Tokyo: Chuukei Shuppan.

Iori, I., Takanashi, S., Nakanishi, K., & Yamada, T. (2009). Shokyu o Oshieru hito no tameno Nhihongo Bunpo Handobukku. Tokyo: Suriieenetto waaku.

Ishihara, N. (2016). Softening or intensifying your language in oppositional talk: disagreeing agreeably or defiantly. English for diplomatic purposes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 20-43. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noriko_Ishihara/publication/285004255_Softening_or_intensifying_your_language_in_oppositional_talk_Disagreeing_agreeably_or_defiantly/links/5714715e08aeff315ba35f0b.pdf

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 149-169. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30383692/schmidt_developmental_issues_in_interlanguage_pragmatics.pdf?1356864863=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DDevelopmental_issues_in_interlanguage_pr.pdf&Expires=1601200321&Signature=FaT8rgu4cRccdZj6nLOkXL7fK3jUZR9iDFi8T27YToOOiL~IhR-Newg9yVPb44SiRuJZk4bR0VBj~SBZXDiUvermI3kogxfjeoGRaY6psD8-51J1rWwCV7uHBZK43ZD~GIzucplAZP5OBgP~Kzwr5DdkNf5NMlx~qUQGwACahxSraVf0HBEDQqnebJl-3ieHNt~l5p9FZ-ubgdIQBSTFIBojjo2LrNNznkNk4dOPWSSHRmYdYTE55HnjIalfmVwNYwR-7BcQD2gtq9ojvVdTA1Mc9yVh74wFVEPfZuFaCWFXJOSPDkcCz20r5T-Enp8E6B0bwBoM8SblpeMK4W5htQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1996). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Kondoh, A., Komori, K. (2012). Nihongo Kyoiku Jiten. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Leech, G. N. (2016). Principles of pragmatics. Routledge.

Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of pragmatics, 38(11), 1811-1835.

Rahardi, R. K. (2005). Pragmatik: kesantunan imperatif bahasa Indonesia. Erlangga.

Sarno, S., & Rustono, R. (2017). Kesantunan Tuturan Penyiar Televisi pada Wacana Siaran Program Hiburan Televisi Swasta Indonesia. Seloka: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 6(3), 297-306.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of pragmatics, 34(5), 529-545.

Taguchi, N. (2008). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 558-576.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

Thomas, J. A. (2014). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Routledge.

Wang, J., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2015). The challenge of building professional relations across cultures: Chinese officials in America. In International Management and Intercultural Communication (pp. 90-107). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Retrieved from http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/13637/1/The%20challenge%20of%20building%20professional%20relations%20across%20cultures.pdf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.67978