Politeness Strategy on Social Interaction Used by Munanese

This study aims to investigate the differences of politeness strategy used by Munanese in their social interaction. The source of the data was verbal utterances of Munanese dialect Gu . This study used pragmatic study especially theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson, and supported by other theory particularly Yassi's theory. It also used descriptive qualitative method that is observation by recording and note taking. The result of the study showed the pattern politeness strategies used in Munanese Dialect Gu are; Hormat Non Kerabat; mixed, Hormat berkerabat; mixed and positive politeness (KP), Akrab Non Kerabat; mixed, Akrab Berkerabat; positive politeness (KP), Hierarki Non Kerabat; mixed (hierarchy), and (6) Hierarki Kerabat; mixed. The differences of the strategies maybe caused by several possible reasons including cultural differences, different age and social status when the people interact each other.


Introduction
Language is a system that holds an important role in human life. It becomes a fundamental instrument of communication that allows people to communicate. They communicate through a language in order to convey their ideas, their needs, feeling, and expectations towards someone or something. Besides, the ways which people use language in their daily life are in order to have a connection or maintain their relationship.
The use of language in communication is a part of pragmatics study. According to Mey (2001:6) pragmatics as a study of the way human use their language in communication, bases itself on a study of those premises and determines how they affect, and effectualize, human language use. Moreover, according to Hence as cited in Mey (2001:6) pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the condition of the society. In other words, pragmatics refers to the social language skill which people use in their interaction with others. It includes what they say, how they say, their body language and whether it is appropriate to the given situation or context.
One of important aspect of pragmatics competence is politeness. Yule (1996) VWDWHG WKDW ³SROLWHQHVV LQ DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ FDQ EH GHILQHG DV WKH Peans to show awareness RI DQRWKHU SHUVRQ ¶V IDFH´ S 7KH NQRZOHGJH RI SROLWHQHVV LV LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH politeness has an instrumental role in the social interaction.
The theory of politeness was established by Brown and Levinson in 1987. They also introduced the notion of face which is most influential theory on politeness. It contains Face Threatening Acts (FTA) and politeness strategy. They state that everyone in the society has two kinds of face wants; negative face and positive face. Negative face is the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to non-distraction, i.e., face to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Meanwhile, the positive face is the positive consistent self-image or personality claimed interacts. Moreover, according to Brown and Levinson every speaker and hearer should avoid threatening to face with considering potentially of face threatening act of a speech act due to some factors i.e Power (P), Distance (D) and R (Relationship) supported by cultural factors, social interaction and appropriate application of politeness strategy.

Research Method
The researcher used descriptive qualitative method in conducting this research. Thus, this research described and elaborated the differences of politeness strategy used by Munanese in their social interaction.

Data Collection
The data of this research was Muna language. In collecting Muna language data, the researcher used observation technique by investigating and observing Muna language used by Muna people. Besides, to strengthen the data, the researcher used in depth interview by asking some questions (supported by recording and note taking technique) concerning the using of politeness strategy used in their social interaction.

Data Analysis
In analyzing the data, the researcher used some technique. Firstly, the data from Muna language which gained from observation and in-depth interview transcribed. Then, it was reduced by selecting data which could representative others. The data based on Politeness strategy which divided by Brown and /HYLQVRQ ¶V VXSSRUWHG E\ <DVVLV ¶V SUHVHQWHG 7KH SUHVHQWHG GDWD DQDO\]HG XVLQJ pragmatic principle. The meaning of Muna language of politeness strategy concluded based on the information gained. After doing the analysis, finally the researcher made some conclusions which could reflect the main points of the analysis.

Data 1
Here the interaction between two adult women who do not know each other or this is the first time they meet each other. The conversation took places on the ship. They were talking about their self and their family.

Data 2
This is the interaction between distance relatives. They are talking about the cashew. A is younger than B.

d. Akrab Berkerabat (-P -D +K)
This is the interaction between two siblings. A is a older sister and B is younger sister.

e. Hirarki Non Kerabat (+P +D -K)
This is the interaction between two people which recognize and respect the social distance that places A is super ordinate position and B is subordinate position.

Discussion
Based on the table above, it showed that the data number (1) which is the system is Hormat Non Kerabat used Mixed strategy between two people who do not know each other. Sometimes they used nto as from persona nomina LQWDR ¶GL (You: polite way) and also use direct speech.
In data number (2) which is the system is Hormat Berkerabat shows that the strategy used by the speaker and the hearer are mixed. The use of nto appears because there is the different of the age between speaker and hearer. Moreover, they also use language of intimacy which shows the casual way. This strategy is also occurred in the system of Akrab Non Kerabat in the data number (4).
On the other hand, the data number (3) shows another strategy even it still in the same system of Hormat Berkerabat. The strategy used in the conversation is positive politeness (KP). It can be seen when that the speech is more direct, lag of social attributes, and casual honorific. Furthermore, in the system of Akrab Berkerabat also used positive politeness (KP) as proven in the data number (5) because there is no social attributes in the language they used.
The data number (6), (7) and (8) is in the asymmetry system. In the system, one places in a superodinate position and the other in a subordinate position. In Data number (6), the speaker as one who is superior used positive politeness (KP) to the hearer. While the hearer who is as the imperior one use the negative politeness (KN). In contrast, the data number (7) and (8)  ,I LW FRPSDUHV WKH GDWD WR WKH <DVVL ¶V WKHRU\ WKHUH DUH VRPH VLPLODULWLHV and differences in the using of politeness strategy. In the system of Hormat Non Kerabat, Hormat berkerabat, Hierarki Non Kerabat, and Hierarki Kerabat both of them used the VDPH VWUDWHJLHV +RZHYHU LQ WKH V\VWHP RI $NUDE 1RQ .HUDEDW LQ <DVVL ¶V WKHRU\ the strategy used negative politeness (KN), Akrab Berkerabat used hierarki, In Munanese Dialect Gu the system of Akrab Non Kerabat used mixed and Akrab Berkerabat used positive politeness (KP). It caused by some factors such as cultural differences and social status.

Conclusion
After analyzing the data, the writer concluded Dialect Gu in Munanese used some strategy of politeness in their daily interaction. Under the framework of Brown and /HYLQVRQ ¶V SROLWHQHVV VWUDWHJ\ WKHRU\ DQG VXSSRUWHG E\ <DVVL ¶V WKeory, this paper explored the differences in the application of politeness strategies in Munanese Dialect Gu.
There are some similarities and differences of the strategies used by Munanese Dialect Gu and MakassDUHVH EDVHG RQ <DVVL ¶V WKHRU\ ,Q WKH V\VWHP RI +RUPDW 1RQ Kerabat, Hormat berkerabat, Hierarki Non Kerabat, and Hierarki Kerabat both of them XVHG WKH VDPH VWUDWHJLHV +RZHYHU LQ WKH V\VWHP RI $NUDE 1RQ .HUDEDW LQ <DVVL ¶V WKHRU\ the strategy used negative politeness (KN), Akrab Berkerabat used hierarki, In Munanese Dialect Gu the system of Akrab Non Kerabat used mixed and Akrab Berkerabat used positive politeness (KP). The differences of the strategies maybe caused by several possible reasons including cultural differences, different age and social status when the people interact each other.