Suswanto Ismadi Megah S


This study was aimed to identify how the prostitutes who considered as ‘the marginalized people’ still had polite side although that money is the prostitute’s first orientation, and sexual favours would be the potential client’s first orientation. Hence, at the initial stage of communication between the prostitute and the potential client, there would be a considerable amount of negotiation between them as they offer and counter offer each other. The data collected by using recording data and transcription of the offering. Then the data analyzed descriptive-qualitatively based on politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory.


            The result of the study that although the Indonesian language was known as the national language in Indonesia but Javanese still survived among Javanese people, even prostitutes in Bangunsari. Whenever the Javanese language was use would consider the polite styles based the degree of the Javanese level. The use of lower level of the Javanese language due to their limited educational and socio-economic backgrounds, the subjects were observed to be more at ease using the lower level.  The data showed that mostly prostitutes used positive politeness strategies However, despite the ‘coarse’ nature of their vocation and their educational as well as socio-economic backgrounds. There were six of the positive strategies used by the subjects during ‘the transaction’. This study concluded that the use of the  Indonesian language due to build conversation was more easily and equally. Therefore, the use of Indonesian language was to save ‘the face’ and to avoid miscommunication among them.


Key words: Positive Politeness, Offering, Transaction and Prostitutes

Full Text:



Brown, Penelope. 1976. “Women and politeness; A new perspective on language and society. Review of ‘Language and woman’s place’ by R. Lakoff”. Review in Antropology 3: 240-249.

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, C. Stephen.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Elis Nurhayati. 2007. Power and Politeness: An Analysis of Electronic Mail Messages in UNDP Indonesia office. M.A. Thesis. Jakarta: Atmajaya Catholic Universiy.Unpublished.

Fraser, Bruce and Nolen, William. 1981. “ The association of deference with linguistic form”. International Journal of the Sociology of the Language 27, 93-109.

Geertz, Clifford. 1960. The Religion of Java. New York: Free Press.

Geertz, Hilder. 1961. The Javanese Kindship Family. Glencoe, IL Free Press.

Goffman, Erving.1981. On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.Psychiatry,18: 213-31.

Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”, Syntax and Semantics, Speech Act, 3, New York: Academic Press.

Gunarwan, Asim. 1992. “Persepsi kesantunan direktif di dalam bahasa Indonesia di antara beberapa kelompok etnik di Jakarta”. In B. Kaswanti Purwo (ed.). PELLBA. Jakarta Atmajaya Catholic University.

Hartati, Sri. 2002. Pragmalinguistic Failures and Grammatical Errors in Directives: A Case Study in Making Request by Students of the UPN Computer Science Faculty. M.A.Thesis Atmajaya Chatolic University. Jakarta: Unpublished.

Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Jamaliah Mohd. Ali. 1995. Malaysian Student Seminar: A Study of Pragmatic Features in Verbal Interaction. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Malaya. Kuala Lumpur. Unpublished

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.

Mulholland, Joan.1991.The Language of Negotiation: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Improving Communication. London: Routledge.

Raja Rozina Raja Suleiman.2004.Face Consideration in Malay: An Examination of Offers and Requests in Malay Plays. Ph.D Thesis. University of Malaya.Unpublished.

Reiter, Rosina Marquez. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Request and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.

Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

Wouk, F. 2001. Solidarity in Indonesia conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 177-191.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.1684

DOI (PDF): http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.1684.g1566


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Prosiding Prasasti diterbitkan oleh Program Studi S3 Linguistik PPs UNS

Prosiding Prasasti terindeks:

TOCS Journal UK
Flag Counter Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.