Mitigating Devices to Save Face in Sellers and Buyers Communication in Bukittinggi Traditional Market
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v5i2.280-303Keywords:
mitigation, mitigating devices, mitigation functions, face threatening acts, Minangkabau language.Abstract
Due to their content and ways of expression, several speech acts have the potential to threaten the participant's face during an interaction. Mitigating devices can be employed to reduce the harmful effects of these face-threatening acts (FTAs). In this study, the researchers focused on interactions between sellers and buyers in the traditional market in Bukittinggi, West Sumatera, which makes use of the colloquial Minangkabau language. This descriptive qualitative research was aimed at investigating the mitigation functions that exist in buying and selling interactions. In addition, it sought to identify the different types of mitigation strategies used by participants. Research data was collected by recording the exchanges between sellers and buyers. To complete the data, a questionnaire was also handed out to Minangkabau-speaking sellers and buyers in Bukittinggi's traditional market. The data analysis technique used in this study was contextual analysis, which involved evaluating the data that had been collected, recognizing it, and classifying it using the dimensions of context. The result showed that the face of the interlocutor was protected in this purchasing and selling encounter using a variety of mitigating devices. The most commonly used mitigation device is indirect speech. Other techniques, including disclaimers, impersonal constructions, hedges, euphemisms, question tags, and apologies, were also found as mitigation devices used by communicators. The purpose of using these mitigation devices is to carry out mitigation functions such as self-defense, prevention, or repair. Both the buyer and the seller are capable of carrying out all of these functions.
References
Ackermann, T. (2023). Mitigating strategies and politeness in German requests. Journal of Politeness Research. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2021-0034
Ali, A. I., & Salih, S. M. (2020). Taxonomy of Mitigation Devices in English Language. Koya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.14500/kujhss.v3n1y2020.pp31-40
Anugrah, M. ., Revita, I., & Marnita, R. (2020). Kesantunan Linguistik dalam Interaksi Jual Beli di Pasar Raya Solok. LINGUA : Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Dan Pengajarannya, 17(2), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.30957/lingua.v17i2.664.penutur.
Brown, P., & Levison, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. In Cambrigde University Press. Cambridge University Press.
Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Elsevier.
Cao, Y. (2020). Analysis of pragmatic functions of english euphemism from the perspective of pragmatic principles. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(9), 1094–1100. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1009.12
Chandra, et al. (2023). Linguistic Politeness Based on Local Wisdom for Minangkabau Tribal Elementary Children. 11(1), 107–124.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press.
Dewi, K. T., Artawa, K., Sutama, P., Ketut, N., & Erawati, R. (2021). The Analysis of Relationship Between Politeness and Face Theory. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 7(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v7n4.1879
Efrianto, E., & Afnita, A. (2019). The Politeness of Bungo Pasang Language Using Kato Nan Ampek in Minangkabau. Jurnal KATA, 3(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.22216/kata.v3i1.3489
Erlian, W., Amir, A., & Noveria, E. (2013). Tindak Tutur Deklarasi Bahasa Minangkabau Pedagang Kakilima di Pasar Raya Padang. Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, 1(2), 127–138.
Fadhilah, S., & Dewi, E. A. S. (2017). Pola Komunikasi Tradisi Marosok Antara Sesama Penjual Dalam Budaya Dagang Minangkabau. Jurnal Kajian Komunikasi, 5(2), 222. https://doi.org/10.24198/jkk.v5i2.10464
Flores-Ferrán, N., & Lovejoy, K. (2015). An examination of mitigating devices in the argument interactions of L2 Spanish learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 68–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.005
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6
Goudarzi, E., Ghonsooly, B., & Taghipour, Z. (2015). Politeness Strategies in English Business Letters: A Comparative Study of Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. Psychology of Language and Communication, 19(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0004
Haristiani, N., Septiana, A., Nor, N. F. M., & Ryota, N. (2023). The politeness of criticism speech acts in Japanese and Minangkabau films. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i1.58272
Hazem, A. H., & Mohammad, S. I. (2021). Mitigating Devices in Mosuli Iraqi Arabic With Reference To English. Ijaz Arabi Journal of Arabic Learning, 4(3), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.18860/ijazarabi.v4i3.13130
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345–365. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6
Isnaniah, S., & Huda, S. (2022). Politeness in Minang Language in Tenggelamnya Kapal Van Der Wijck Film. Hortatori : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, 6(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.30998/jh.v6i1.911
Khammari, H. (2021). View of Strategies and mitigation devices in the speech act of disagreement in American English. Studies in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. https://doi.org/10.48185/spda.v2i1.243
Nasution, E. H., Silalahi, R., & Deliana, . (2018). Politeness Principles Expressed by Minangkabau Migrants in Traditional Market: A Cultural Pragmatic Study. International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramification Researches (ICOSTEERR), 19, 1864–1870. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010104618641870
Oktavianus, & Revita, I. (2013). Kesantunan dalam Bahasa Minangkabau. Minangkabau Press.
Ramada, G. . (2020). Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Jounal of Pragmatics, 169, 206–218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.017
Revita, I, Rovika, T., & Anindya, Z. (2022). Strategies Of Minangkabau Women To Request As Depicted In Novel ‘Arini Bias Rindu.’ ICGCS 2021: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Gender, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.30-8-2021.2316254
Revita, I, & Trioclarise, R. (2020). Politeness Strategies of Minangkabau Ethnic in Indonesia. The Asian ESP Journal, 16(4), 13–34.
Revita, Ike, Marwati, S., Mardhiah, A., & Ayumi. (2020). Maxims of politeness performed by female sellers at traditional market in Sumatera Barat. Arbitrer, 7(1), 8–15. http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id/index.php/arbitrer/article/view/169/113
Revita, Ike, Trioclarise, R., & Anggreiny, N. (2017). Politeness Strategies of The Panders in Women Trafficking. Buletin Al-Turas, 23(1), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.15408/bat.v23i1.4810
Sadeghoghli, H & Niroomand, M. (2016). Theories on Politeness by Focusing on Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory. International Journal of Educational Investigations. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(2), 26–39.
Tang, J. (2013). Pragmatic functions of hedges and politeness principles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(4), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.4p.155
Villalba Ibáñez, C. (2020). Recognising mitigation: Three tests for its identification. Journal of Pragmatics, 167, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2020.06.015
Widya. (2017). Maxims Of Politeness In Students-Lecturers Whatsapp Conversations. Journal of English Language and Culture Hasil Penelitian, 8(1), 71–79. http://journal.ubm.ac.id/
Wray, A & Bloomer, A. (2006). Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Researching Language. Arnold.
Yao, J. et al. (2021). Performance of face-threatening speech acts in Chinese and Japanese BELF emails. Journal of Pragmatics 178 (2021) 287e300, 178, 287–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.001 Get rights and content
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Widya Widya, Erika Agustiana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS RESEARCH agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
