The Education of Politeness in the Court: Pragmatics Analysis

Inestie Printa Elisya

and Ike Revita

Postgraduate Study of Linguistics, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

English Department, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

Keywords: Crimes, Language, Politeness, The Court Session, Violation.

Abstract: Court is the place where legal trials take place and where the crimes are judged. In the court session, all of

need is cooperation from all participants in order to make clear the case. The goal of this writing is to analyze

the types of politeness violation and the factors that cause politeness violation in the court session “KOPI

SIANIDA”. The data are all the linguistic aspects involved in the courtroom. The data are collected by

observational method with note-taking, recording, taking picture. The analysis is done by referential method

related to the concept proposed by Oktavianus and Revita (2013). Having analyzed the data, it is found that

there are four types indicated as politeness violation. They are (1) politeness in expressing; (2) politeness in

being emotional; (3) politeness in asking; and (4) politeness in refusal, etc.There are ten factors that caused

the violation of politeness such as setting, participant, ends, act, setting and key, act and key, people involved

in the speech, speech environment, speech topic and speech norm.

1 INTRODUCTION

Language essentially reflects a nation. As a fact,

politeness nearly extinct due to human acts. The high

amount of wrongly or miss interpreted meanings

provoked debates to happen, whether in social media

or in real life. The are many things associated with

politeness that we must know. This is because,

language would show the quality of a nation. The

nation that uses language must show the eastern

culture which is full of tolerance, peace and respectful

towards each other. There are couple of cases (hate

speech, hoax news, etc) or the usage of politeness that

have been waved away, would affect some aspects of

our lives, especially in education field.

Education is a process of teaching, training, and

learning, to improve the knowledge and develop

skills (Hornby, 2010 p.468). One of the most

important is about politeness. Politeness can be found

in our daily life when people have a conversation. It

can be found in formal and informal conversation.

One of the examples in formal conversation is the

court session.

In speaking, we have the potential to apply threat

to someone’s face. So, people tend to use politeness

strategy to prevent conflict. Unfortunately, some

violations are still happening for some reasons.

Politeness violation can be found in our daily life

when people have a conversation. It can be found in

formal and informal conversation. When saying

something, people do not always say what is true and

what they have evidence for.

The speakers also do not always make their

contribution as informative as it is required. Their

contribution is not always relevant to the interaction

and the way they are saying something. In other

words, it can be said that sometimes, what the speaker

says is unclear. This unclearness is often found in

politics or for speaker’s own benefit. If the speakers

do all of those intentionally, it means that they violate

the politeness.

According to Thomas (1995, p.150); Oktavianus

(2008, p. 98), politeness can be seen as a sincere

desire to do good to others. Sincere desire here means

it can be a form of verbal language and non verbal

language. Polite means we do not offend others.

Polite in one community or sphere is not necessarily

considered polite in other communities or sphere.

Linguistically, the politeness of an utterance could

be marked by segmental and supra-segmental form.

Segmental form consist of the words that the

existence influences the politeness. These words

could increase or decrease the level of meaning. The

choice of words, utterances including diction reflect

much to their politeness (Oktavianus and Revita,

2013, p. 61). There are four segmental aspects of

202

Elisya, I. and Revita, I.

The Education of Politeness in the Court: Pragmatics Analysis.

DOI: 10.5220/0008682202020206

In Improving Educational Quality Toward International Standard (ICED-QA 2018), pages 202-206

ISBN: 978-989-758-392-6

politeness. They are the use of word, the use of

particles, use of greetings, and the use of hedges.

2 METHODS

A method is a kind of systematical work plan in order

to make the research work become easier, so it can

achieved its main purpose (Sudaryanto, 1993, p. 9).

There are three steps in conducting this research.They

are Method and technique of collecting data, the

method and technique of analyzing data and the

method and technique of presenting the result of

analysis.

This is a descriptive research by using qualitative

approach. In the process of gathering the data, the

writer uses observational method with non-

participant observational technique. According to

Sudaryanto (1993), observational method is

observing the language used in the research. The

writer watches “live” on television and records it.

The writer watches the video several times and

makes some notes.

The writer is interested in analyzing this session

because it was an interesting topic and hot issue now.

The session is a face-to face conversation which is

full of politeness violation phenomena.

The second step is analyzing the data. The writer

uses referential and translational identity method

which is related to the types of politeness proposed by

Oktavianus and Revita (2013). Referential method is

used to figure out the reference of the data by

describing the situational context of the data to

determine the types, functions and factors in

politeness violation.

Firstly, the writer described the text based on its

context, and then identified the part of conversation

that violates the politeness. After the data are

transcribed, they are classified based on categories of

politeness which is violated.

In presenting the result of the analysis, the writer

applied both formal and informal method. The

technique which is used in informal method is verbal

statement where the analysis will be presented by

using ordinary words or natural language. Then, the

technique which is used in formal method is symbol

or sign (Sudaryanto, 1993, p. 145).

In the court, all of the participants of that session

have to keep quiet and obey the rules. In many

sessions, all of the personals run their job in order to

make the decision. The personnel are The Judges

(MH), Public Prosecutors (JPU), Advocates or

lawyers (PH), Clerks (PP), and defendant. But this

session was different. The session didn’t run well.

Most of participant there felt angry, sad, and hectic.

In this study, the writer analyses the politeness

violation of all the participants in the court. The

utterance will be classified into the politeness

principle by Oktavianus and Revita. This research

aims to describe the spoken used in hearing “KOPI

SIANIDA” session which is shows politeness

violation and the cause. The object of this study is the

utterance from eye witness and expert. Those data are

in the forms of video which contain the recording of

the hearing “KOPI BERSIANIDA” live on television

and records it.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The court session is illustrated as a hot and very

tensed situation. Each public prosecutor argumented

with the other side (advocates) by using strong

arguments. This case happened because they (the

participants) want to prove their arguments and they

want the judges to believe them. In the court session

“KOPI SIANIDA”, some of the participants do not

always observe politeness principle. Participants do

violation for some reasons. It is also influenced by

some contextual factors.

Datum 1

Description : Setelah Lawyer 1 bertanya,

dilanjutkan oleh lawyer ke 2

‘After lawyer 1 questioned the

expert, it was then continued by

lawyer 2’

PH : Baik kepada ahli, kembali lagi,

kalau saya melihat apa yang sudah

berjalan.. kami minta“supaya”ahli

dapat menjawab sesuai dengan

yang jujur.

‘Alright, back to the expert, if I see

from the previous sessions. we are

asking the expert to answer the

question honestly.

This conversation involved lawyer 2 and expert

(Psychologist). The expert was from JPU’s side. This

interaction occurred at 12

session. The conversation

started after lawyer 1 finished his question. Lawyer 2

said “Baik kepada ahli, kembali lagi, kalau saya

melihat apa yang sudah berjalan.. kami minta supaya

ahli dapat menjawab sesuai dengan yang jujur”.

The Education of Politeness in the Court: Pragmatics Analysis

203

The statement from the lawyer indirectly showed

that lawyer 2 doubted the testimony or the statement

of the expert before. The word “supaya” is

conjungtion for spesific purpose. This conjunction

tries to explain the purpose of someone’s act.

According to Hoetomo (2005: 491) the word

“supaya” means the consequence or the objective.

Then, the lawyer asked the expert to be honest. It was

including as politeness violation.

Lawyer asked to the expert to be honest because

the lawyer doubted the expert’s statement. The

politeness that was violated was politeness in

requesting. According to Oktavianus and Revita

(2013) a request was an expression that contained a

meaning which later on will be the reason or part of

the reasons for the hearer to act. In particular culture,

a request can drop self-esteem. The lawyer asked with

imperative sentence. The lawyer asked the expert to

speak honestly. But, this actually dropped the expert’s

pride. In the court, an expert was a person who came

because of his/her knowledge considered to have

given wrong information or dishonest.

Filing a request to hearer was essentially a threat

to negative face of the hearer (Revita, 2008, p. 4).

Negative face was a person’s desire that his/her action

was not disturbed by others (brown and levinson,

1987, p. 129). In speech event which was meant as a

request, a speaker must be careful in choosing the

utterance because the choice of inappropriate form

can make the hearer offended.

This resulted in the relationship between

participants that were not harmonious, can lead to

new conflict (Revita, 2008, p. 4); (Revita, 2009, p.

77). This was provided by the offended expert’s

response by thanking to the lawyer who doubted her

honesty. The expert also said that she had been sworn

in and she was not lying.

There were two factors that influence the lawyer

to violate politeness principle; participants and ends.

According to Oktavianus and Revita (2013, p. 164)

Participants here were related to some parties

involved in conversation. In this case, as the speaker,

the lawyer had the opportunity to lead the judges to

doubt on expert’s statement /testimony (ends).

Lawyer started with saying in the court sessions, the

expert do not tell the truth in giving her testimony.

The other factor was speech topic. The topic was

about the expert’s testimony. The speaker had the

opportunity to lead the judges in doubting the expert’s

testimony. This topic had a high risk to the hearer.

The lawyer asked the expert to speak honestly. But,

this actually dropped the expert’s pride.

Datum 2

Description :Majelis Hakim masih berusaha

memberikan solusi kepada kedua

saksi ahli.

‘The Judges still mediated the two

experts’

PH 1 : Iya…karena dia membuat

zooming-zooming membuat suatu

teknik-teknik sendiri sehingga

seakan-akan ada percepatan

tangan-tangan ambil ini lo yang

mulia, jadi itu yang mau kita

analisis bahwa itu gak benar tidak

sesuai dengan prosedur menurut

ahli ini.

‘Because he makes his own

zooming and makes his own

techniques. So there were as if a

speed up of the that is what we want

to analyze that is not true, not

coherent with the procedure

according to this expert…’.

The Judge gave a solution to the lawyer and JPU.

He stated it by saying “Apakah sekiranya ada

flashdisk baru di copy kan dari jaksa

bagaimana?”.He suggested to copy the file (CCTV)

from JPU. The Judge stated that because the lawyer’s

expert did not have the copy of CCTV. The JPU’s

expert got the file. So, the judge suggested it in order

to make it equal. The judge told it so they can show

their work with the same source. The JPU’s expert

agreed with judge’s decision by saying

“Gpp..silahkan aja gak ada masalah”.

But the lawyer did not agree by stating “Yang

mulia..karena yang mau kita analisa kan apa yang

dilakukan ahli ini…”. He stated that he wanted to

analyze The JPU’s work. The Judge did not know that

the lawyer wanted to analyze the JPU’s work. It can

be seen from the judge’s statement by saying

“O..berati yang dikendaki…”. Then, the lawyer

explained by saying “Iya…karena dia membuat

zooming-zooming membuat suatu teknik-teknik

sendiri sehingga seakan-akan ada percepatan

tangan-tangan ambil ini lo yang mulia, jadi itu yang

mau kita analisis bahwa itu gak benar tidak sesuai

dengan prosedur menurut ahli ini….”. The lawyer

explained it in order to convey to the judges that

JPU’s expert made his own technique. There were as

if a speed up of the hand taking this too. So, they

(lawyer and his expert) wanted to analyze that it was

ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance

204

not true, not coherent with the procedure according to

this expert (Lawyer’s expert). It was included as

politeness violation. The lawyer accused the JPU’s

expert without checking it first. The politeness that

was violated was politeness in requesting.

According to Oktavianus and Revita (2013)

Politeness in requesting, was when people were asked

to be more polite or mannered in requesting. The

lawyer requested the expert’s work but he did not ask

it politely. After the judge heard the statement from

lawyer, he answered it quickly by saying “Ya artinya

kan begini..bahwa ahli yang diajukan oleh Jaksa

Penuntut Umum itu menganalisa rekaman cctv

berdasarkan perintah penyidik..ya kan..perintah

penyidik….ya kan dia tidak mengzooming-zooming

sendiri tapi kan menganalisa berdasarkan perintah

penyidik.. ya sehingga apabila disetujui..seperti saya

katakan flashdisk yang ada pada Penuntut Umum

dicopy untuk dianalisa ahli yang dari Penasehat

Hukum dengan hak zooming-zooming sehingga

seimbang…”. The judge stated it because he knew

that the expert did it based on investigator’s orders.

So, he did not zoom on his own but he did his analysis

based on investigator’s orders.

The factor that influences the expert to violate

politeness was Ends. He wanted to prove that the

work of JPU’s expert was not true. He stated it in

order to get the JPU’s expert work. The Judges did

not understand the lawyer’s want. So, the judges tried

to mediate them by copying the real CCTV. The

lawyer did not want it. The lawyers and their expert

wanted the other file. They had their own purpose to

get the JPU’s expert (JPU) work. The other factor was

participants. The lawyer stated it bravely because he

knew from his lawyer. The lawyer explained it in

order to convince the judge. They believed that the

JPU’s expert made his own technique.

4 CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the analysis, the writer concluded that

not all of types of politeness were violated by some

participants in the court session “KOPI SIANIDA”.

Those violations were politeness in requesting,

refusal, asking, directing, expressing, and politeness

in being emotional. In violating the politeness, some

participants were influenced by some contextual

factors.

Among the six types of politeness, politeness in

expressive was the most frequently violated. It

appeared in 21 utterances. The participants violated

them by intentionally being insincere and untruth.

The hearer can be misleaded by their utterance. Most

of participants violated this politeness to cover the

truth, hide information and their secret. The speakers

also violated this politeness to protect her/his self,

protect someone else (their client; Jessica), to prove

to Judges, to cover the truth, to hide the real feeling,

and to hide real intention. Politeness in expressing

was violated because the speaker did not give the

hearer information that they need. It is also can be

giving too much information or less information.

There were six factors that caused the violation of

politeness. The dominant factor was end. The end

factor happened because of the final goal, or what the

speaker or hearer wanted to reach. The other factor

was participants. Being older and educated actually

did not guarantee the speaker to speak politely. The

character of the speaker and final goal that influenced

someone in speaking. Overall, there are ten factors

that caused the violation of politeness such as setting,

participant, ends, act, setting and key, act and key,

people involved in the speech, speech environment,

speech topic and speech norm.

In conclusion, this study shows that in court

session “KOPI SIANIDA” some participants created

the utterance contained politeness violation. The

writer has seen that it is necessary for some side to

make the hearer flare up and emotion. This way

applied in order to the answer that they need come

out. By violating those politeness, the problem of this

session become long session, almost one year to

finish this case. The judges proved that Jessica is the

murder. The public prosecutors and Judges try to find

the fact about Jessica’s utterances.

REFERENCES

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness:

Some Universal of Language Usage. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hoetomo. (2005). Kamus Lengkap bahasa Indonesia.

Surabaya: Mitra Pelajar.

Hornby, A.S. (2010). Oxford Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oktavianus. (2008). “Rekonstruksi Nilai Budaya dari

Peribahasa Minangkabau dan Pembudidayaan dalam

upaya memperkokoh Filosofi Adat Basandi Syarak-

Syarak Basandi Kitabullah (ABS-SBK)”. Padang:

Penelitian Fundamental Dikti.

Revita, Oktavianus. (2013). Kesantunan dalam bahasa

Minangkabau. Padang: Minangkabau Press

Revita, Ike. (2009). “Faktor-Faktor Penanda Kesantunan

dalam permintaan Berbahasa Minangkabau (Kajian

Pragmatik), Jurnal Bahasa, Bil 15, pp.74-92.

Revita, Ike. (2008). ‘Permintaan dan Penolakan dalam

Bahasa Minangkabau: Tinjauan Sosiopragmatik.

Disertasi.Yogyakarta:Universitas GadjahMada

The Education of Politeness in the Court: Pragmatics Analysis

205

Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan Teknik Analisis

Bahasa.Yogyakarta: DutaWacana University Press.

Thomas, Jenny. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An

Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance

206