The Prosodic Aspects of Politeness in Instructional Interactions of Elementary School Teachers in Surabaya


This study aimed to describe the prosodic aspects of politeness in the instructional interactions of elementary school teachers in Surabaya. These prosodic aspects describe the sound intensity, duration, speed and tone. The data were collected using observations at four elementary schools in Surabaya. Data analysis was performed by using Praat acoustic analysis devices and a computer software package for the scientific analysis of speech in phonetics. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the intensity, the speed of sound, and the tone of the prosodic aspects of politeness in the declarative mode of speech had lower averages than the prosodic aspects of politeness in the interrogative and imperative modes of speech. This may be because the declarative mode does not contain the illocutionary directive, while the interrogative and imperative modes do, which affects their use in response to threatening acts.

Keywords: prosody characteristics, politeness, teacher instructional interactions

[1] Samani M, and Hariyanto. Konsep dan Model Pendidikan Karakter. Bandung: Rosda and Unesa; 2011.

[2] Lickona T. Educating for character how our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: A Bantam Book Publishing History; 1992.

[3] Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1987.

[4] Leech G. Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Oka MDD, translator. Jakarta: UI Press; 1993.

[5] Watts R. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

[6] Kridalaksana H. Linguistic dictionary. Jakarta: PT Gramedia; 1984.

[7] Halim A. Intonation in relation to Indonesian syntax. Jakarta: Penerbit Djambatan;1984.

[8] Fairclough N. Language and power. London: Longman; 1989.

[9] Stadler SA. Multimodal (im)politeness: The verbal, prosodic and non-verbal realization of disagreement in German and New Zealand English [unpublished dissertation]. The University of Auckland and Universitat. Auckland; 2006.

[10] Cullpeper J., Boushfield D., and Wichmann A. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics. Volume 35, Issues 10–11, October–November 2003, Pages 1545-1579.

[11] Nygaard LC, Herold DS, Namy LL. The semantic of prosody: Acoustic perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning. Cognitive Science. 2008;33:127-146.

[12] Braga D, Marques MA. The pragmatics of prosodic features in the political debate. In; 2003.

[13] Ito M. Japanese politeness and suprasegmentals – A study based on natural speech materials. 1998.

[14] Sudaryanto. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press; 2015.

[15] Lieshout PV. PRAAT short tutorial a basic introduction. University of Toronto; in PRAAT_workshop_manual_v421; 2003.

[16] 9Sugiyono9sgsrobona gdastidar9-2019771795Initial of author. Spoken language research guide: Phonetics. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional; 2003.

[17] Soderberg C. Using modern tools to research Indonesian intonation pattern. Prosiding Konferensi Internasional Pengajaran BIPA IV, Denpasar: IALF; 2001.

[18] Gabriel JF. Medical physics. Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kedokteran EGC; 1996.

[19] Cameron JR, Skofronick JG, Grant RM. Human body physics. Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kedokteran EGC; 2006.