INTRODUCTION

Communication is an integral part of human life. As long as humans live, during that time humans also communicate both in the form of non-verbal communication such as gestures, body language, facial expressions and verbal communication. As social beings, humans always wish to establish communication in creating and increasing the activeness of relations with other fellow humans. Language is one of the tools used by humans to communicate and interact. On communicating through language, humans express speech acts with various expressing intentions. Each unit of speech acts or utterance holds a distinctive function according to the speech situation, i.e., the utterances of apologizing, offering something, rejecting, thanking, etc. share their respective functions.

In this view, the use of language in interactions in classroom learning is a social and cultural phenomenon which is inseparable from the speech tradition of the speakers. This is justified by Brown (1980) because in the language of each actor the speech is always based on the language of each actor speaking always based on social factors and cultural or traditional values by social factors and cultural or traditional values around the individual. The attitudes between people vary from place to place, between one nation and another.

The use of language in interactions is inseparable from language functions and other components of interaction. The success of using language as a means of interaction through these functions is influenced by speech participants' factors and the context behind the speech. Therefore, the use of language can be seen as a system in which it involves language components, speech actors, and the context. In other words, language activities are always influenced by linguistic components, things related to speech actors, and socio- cultural factors as contexts of conversation.

In this regard, the use of language in interactions in vocational student practice learning classes isinteresting to be conducted. Based on the functional view of language, to understand the language interactions in classroom learning as communication events or interface speech events. Communication events marked the interaction between speakers and reciprocal speech partners are prominent where the form is determined by social goals (Richard, 1995, p. 3). In exploring the speech acts use between lecturers and students on interactions in learning in the classroom, speech can be viewed as a speech act which should be placed in the whole context of speech events in accordance with the socio-cultural context (Hymes, 1974; Duranti, 2000; Susanti, 2019).

Certain speech act modes are used in the socio-cultural context, the interaction between lecturers and students in practical learning classroom expresses politeness values reflected in the caring speech acts. The politeness of speech acts in Indonesian and mixed with regional languages, namely Javanese in accordance with these facts, are always influenced by local socio-cultural factors. This phenomenon can be seen in the following example.

In polite utterances, there are three factors that the speaker should pay attention. According to Brown and Levinson (1987, p.61) there are another three factors models assessed the seriousness of FTA: Power, distance, and ranking of imposition. In case, many students neglect the use of politeness in in their conversation shall ruin their social relationship with other fellow people. For vocational students masteringpoliteness is highly important especially teachers, bearing in mind they will teach their students how to speak and behave politely.

Politeness is a universal phenomenon, similar to the applied norms of politeness in any language in this world. In a language interaction, humans are given the power of thought and taste which is in turn represented through communication. According to Eelen (2001) humans wish to refute and appreciate. However, based on the culture of speakers who produce language, politeness is a cultural phenomenon which shows differences between one nation and another, one region with another, even one region with another. In this discussion, politeness is translated by cultural norms surrounding speakers and the speech partners in communication. In this context, according to Duranti (2000), culture is a system of mediation and a system of practice. As a mediation system, culture organizes the use of tools in various activities. According to this view, culture addresses material and ideational objects. Products include conversations.

Culture as a practical system views language as a series of practices that not only refer to grammatical words and rules, but also certain symbols. In accordance with this view, conversations in classroom learning are typical of communication culture. Culture in this case is a system of communication rules and interactions in classroom learning as a formal dimension of education, including bilingual (Indonesian and Javanese language) socio-cultural factors in the speech community. As a speech society, both lecturers and students collectively share knowledge and agreement on rules that speak of interaction in learning.

A number of researches on politeness have been done, among others: Matsumoto (1988, p.75), Ide, et al. (1989, p.63), Gunarwan (1994, p. 81), Sasabone (2001, p. iii), and Aziz (2003, p. 241). The following are briefly described in their study along with the results or findings. Matsumoto (1988, p.75) examines the phenomenon of politeness from the perspective of a qualitative approach. He examined the universality of the concept of "face" in Japanese language and society. The result is in-depth description of the realization of politeness in Japanese society concerns about the concept of face. Ide, et al. (1989, p.63) compared the politeness of Japanese people compared to the politeness of Japanese people with Americans. The result is politeness for the Japanese nation honorific (respect) concept concerns while for Americans, politeness concern strategy as Brown and Levinson's theory.

Sasabone (2001, pp. iii) examines the form of refusal politeness in student interaction, namely the form of direct and indirect speech delivery. The form of speech delivery is directly marked by the word no. Indirect speech forms are realized through five ways, namely rejection with (a) reasons, (b) conditions, (c) proposals,(d) thanks, and (e) signals. Aziz (2003, h.241) examines the role of age in the realization of Indonesian politeness in West Java. He found a striking difference in the realization of politeness speaking in different generations of groups. Age variable turns out not only as an instrument, but a functional role that controls the role of other social variables and integrates in a social system. From such studies, the topics of politeness with relates culture specific situation. This study differently lies in the subject under study, background, culture, and social aspects that influence communication.

METHODOLOGY

This study was designed with descriptive-qualitative research method; it is research paradigm which does not consider statistical calculation (Moleong, 1994, p. 2). The data retrieval technique of this study applied note taking technique and content analysis. The data analysis used extralingual equivalence method. This study was conducted in Polytechnic Indonesia of Surakarta, Indonesia. Five active students of both male and female students-lecturers were chosen as the research subjects. The lecturers who were designed for the current study teach five different courses. The other participants were 128 (one hundred and twenty-eight) students taught by the selected five lecturers. The needs of observing students mainly done to explore how those students’ act of responding heir lecturer(s’) interactive utterances and viewed the relationship between the utterances in line with the pragmatic forces being exercised by the lecturer(s) in the classroom.

The data were collected using questionnaire technique which was designed according to Complete Discourse Completion Test (DCT) model intentionally given to respondents. The test presented several different situations in the form of discourse where respondents were asked to complete the test section by responding to the given situation. This Discourse Completion (DCT) used is modified according to the situation and conditions in the Javanese culture where the respondent originated. The Discourse Completion Test being to determine the caring and warnings speech acts realization followed Tuncel's theory (1999) further adapted ub Cohen and Olshtain (1981) and quoted by Istifci (2009). The Completion Test (DCT) test was used to determine the use of speech act realization. The collected data is calculated and categorized according to the criteria described above regarding the act of speech caring and warning.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Linguistic politeness study

The term politeness as a noun is actually derived from the adjective word form of "polite". Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (CALD-2003) describes the word 'polite' comprises of attitudes 1) to behave socially correct manner and of showing communicative behavioral awareness of caring other people's feelings; 2) to act socially right rather than friendly. However, this definition remains incomplete, the typical politeness according to common understanding of the society on how one should behave in accordance with the prevailing social rules within a society in addition to show a deep concern and sensitivity to other people’ feelings.

The aforementioned politeness can never be solely interpreted as being gentle and friendly, but also itemphasizes on how one should behave properly, and according to the socially accepted norms. Thomas (1995, p. 157) further argued that it is impossible to examine politeness without engaging the surrounding context, for it is not just a linguistic form that displays an utterance consisting of a polite or non-polite sense, but it is necessary the "linguistic form + the utterance context + both the speaker and the speaking partner(s)’ relationship and the effect of the expressed utterances on the other person".

Thomas’ explanation (1995) reflects that politeness is a system, namely a series of items (speech forms, contexts, participants, and speech effects) that are mutually interrelated and operate altogether. The term "system" or the (English) system described in the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (CALD-2003) is a set and / or method described as: a set of connected items or devices which operate altogether as a system (method): (1) a way of doing things; (2) the counting of a particular method, measuring or weighing things. This definition provides a view that "system" can be seen as a "series" and as a "method". As a series, the system is "a series of items that are mutually interconnected that operate altogether". Having assumed as a method, the system is "how to do something" or "a method or special method of calculating, measuring or weighing something". According to Fraser (1990) in politeness there is a kind of rights exercised by speaker(s) and listeners or lawyers. Thus, if there is rights there will also be the obligations for both speaker(s) and the speaking partners. Departing from the already explained definitions, this study, therefore, examine the meaning of politeness as follows. Politeness is contractual, which is operationalized in a communication contract or conversation contract using variations or language codes that are in accordance with, and considering, the specific measurable scale and the speakers and speech partners’ familiarity on the basis of their rights and obligations to maintain a harmonious relationship.

LANGUAGE STUDY ON POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS

The author conducted preliminary research at the Polytechnic campus in Surakarta City, while the results showed that interactions between students and lecturers was verbally and nonverbally carried out in academic activities on campus as well as the highlights on Javanese cultural background in everyday conversation. In Javanese culture, lecturers are the educational elite social elements in which studentsall over social class should respect to. This background nuances the politeness strategy used (Senowarsito, 2012). On such a reason, students need to be able to show their good attitude and politeness speech to their lecturers. As part of esablishingsuch conditions, it is significantly the lecturer(s) provide opportunities for the students to actively take a role in academic activities, lecturers should place themselves emotionally closed to the students.

Polytechnic is one of the vocational higher educational institutions in Indonesia that has specificities related to the learning process. The education offers at the Polytechnic is specifically emphasized on developing the ability in applying science and technology practically and are adept at handling work. The characteristics of education at the Polytechnic are as follows: 1) Polytechnic is higher education namely academically based and industrial competence, 2) In the teaching and learning process, theory and practice are held to strengthen mutual reasoning skills and advanced skills mastering in dealing with practical problems with comparisons between theories 30- 40% and practice 60-70%, c) Teaching theory emphasizes the linking of basic concepts with real cases directly through comprehensive problem solving methods, d) teaching practice emphasizes skills integrating theory with practice that produces works or finished products that can be directly used.

Based on the specialization of polytechnics as a vocational campus, a student is required to always think and do creative things to be able to produce advanced products benefited to all society. For this reason, the role of the lecturers involved is not only limited to providing knowledge but also acts as a facilitator, controller, manager, as well as a student source seeker to participate in activities (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Brown, 2007). At present, ideal learning is a learning process leading towards the provision of a larger learner role in the class (learner-centered) so that the dominance of lecturers is much reduced (S Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Senowarsito, 2012) The lecturers’ roles in lecturing process is as an educator, motivator, supervisor, model, and facilitator. Especially with regard to the lecturing process, lecturer(s) bear their roles as a facilitator (Harmer, 2001; Littlewood, 1981; Senowarsito, 2012), namely facilitating students to conduct lecture processes that are realized in multiple roles, as a controller, organizer, assessor, prompter, participant , resources, tutors, and observers. Murphey (2003) further suggests that the success in academic activity process, whether in class, in the laboratory, or in other spaces depends on the achievement of interaction between lecturers and students. In addition, it is undeniable that every action and expression produced by lecturers in the classroom involves linguistic substances (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, and Shuart-Faris, 2005). In the interaction between students and lecturers, language plays an important role in classroom management and student acquisition processes. This illustrates that the language used in a learning situated communication shall determine the success and classroom interaction as well as a medium to increase student knowledge acquisition in the classroom (Nunan, 1991 cited in Peng, Xie, and Cai, 2014).In this study the authors discussed the use of speech acts between students and lecturers in the domain of higher education, especially polytechnic campus students.

Politeness utterances of the indonusa polytechnic students- lecturer(s)

The politeness of speech acts in Students-lecturer‘s practical classroom learning of Indonusa is represented by declarative, interrogative, and imperative speeches. The politeness declarative speech acts as an act of asking for acts of commanding, praising, and counseling. The lecturer uses the declarative mode to have students pay attention to learning instruction before it starts for further. The lecturer's request was responded positively by students. The lecturer places himself on par with students. By using our first pluralperson pronouns, the lecturer builds equality with students even though their roles and status are actually different.

The use of declarative mode which represents the act of governing, the lecturer concerns the role of each student in the practical classroom. By expressing declarative modal speeches, based on the context of speech, students have understood that illocutionary contained in the lecturer's utterance reflects an order. The following utterances express the lecturer's instructions to students about explaining a procedure for charging the accu.

Lecturer: “Ini siapa yang ngecas aki? Anda tahu tidak, prosedur ngecas aki itu gimana?”

[Who is charging an accu (here)? You know what arethe procedures (should be taken) in charging the accu?]

Typical speech acts realized are the indirect speech acts, these are expressed to soften illocutionary force of the utterance that. These findings are in line with the opinion of Holmes (2001) that the use of declarative mode with the illusion of request, command, praise, and advise in conversations is more polite than using the imperative mode. That is because indirect speech is formed. The continuity of speech provides a softening effect on illocutionary force which shows a sense of politeness.

Lecturer: “Yusuf, kamu kok ganteng sendiri to, yang lain pake wearpack. Kamu kok pake kaos.” [Yusuf, how come you are the most handsome of the others, others wear wear. How come you wear a shirt]. The lecturer's speech act illustrated above clearly reflects the advise to a student’s name called Yusuf for at that moment he was caught not wearing lab-coat in joining the workshop.

The lecturer's speech act illustrated above clearly reflects the insulting pragmatics of the student’s name called Yusuf for at that moment he was caught not wearing lab-coat in joining the workshop. The declarative speech intentionally used to inform something or interrogative speech that intends to ask something is called a direct speech act.

The representation of politiness speech acts strategy

The research findings show that the politeness of speech acts in a practical classroom learning consists of both expressing utterances directly and indirectly. Expressing utterances directly is realized in the form of complete imperative speech and imperative speech with phrases.

Untuk laporan bisa ditulis sekarang, kalau ada perlu tambahan segera ditambahkan, sehingga nanti saya minta anda untuk mengerjakan laporan dan mengumpulkan sudah siap jadi tinggal di jilid seragam dan itu pembagian dari nilai juga, gimana hasil dari prakttik anda di rekap disitu, termasukk nanti yang kehadiran jarang hadir itu ada rekapannya sendiri di laptop saya.

[The report can be written now, in case there is an extra information, it will be added immediately, thus later I ask you to work on the report and collect it ready to stay in a uniform volume and that is the distribution of values, how can you recap the results of the practice rarely present is there a recipe on my laptop]

Expressing utterances in a direct way can be potentially threatening faces. In the findings, it can be seenthat imperative speeches are used by teachers and students in classroom learning. The teacher uses an imperative speech to tell students to do something, while students use imperative speech when asking the teacher to explain certain material. However, the use of a number of certain politeness markers provides the softening effect of illocutionary force on the lecturer’s utterances.

Greetings are words used by speakers to indicate or designate people to talk to when someone wants to establish a communication with their partner (Fasold, 1990). In many languages, there are two main types of greetings, namely the name and the greeting word. Greetings may be part of a complete system of meaning used in maintaining social relations. A greeting word or phrase is generally done when a speaker has received the attention of the listener; the call here functions to attract the attention of the speech partners Brown and Gilman (1960/1972; cf. Fasold, 1990, p. 3; cf. Braun 1988; Wardhaugh, 2004, p.259-265; Fishman, 1968, p.24-28; Spolsky, 2003, p.2023; Bonvillain, 2003) examined in depth the use of greeting words in French, German, Italian and Spanish. They suggested that the use of greeting words was encouraged by two meanings (semantics), namely power (power) and solidarity (solidarity). The meaning of semantic power pronoun such as power relations is non-reciprocal. A person has power over others at the level he can control the behavior of others. This relationship is non-reciprocal considering that the two people cannot have power over each other in the same area. In the same way, the meaning of power carries the use of two non-reciprocal greeting words. People whose lower greeter says V (vos) - in the Javanese language 'panjenengan' 'you' or Anda in Indonesian context - to someone who has power and he receives the greeting T (tu) which in Javanese: 'kowe' or you. Traditionally, parents are considered to have more power over the younger or son/daughter, bosses have power over their employees, priyayi (Javanese elite) have power over non-priyayi, namely wong cilik (common people). The meaning of power only applies if a society is truly stratified. Thus, each individual shares an asymmetrical relationship, in other words, there is no power alignment.

In the context of Javanese culture, lecturers are traditionally considered more mature and knowledgeable than the students. As a realization of respect, students need to be polite to their lecturer(s). Politeness acts relate the language addressed the various aspects of social norms and structures as well as behavioral and ethical rules application. Students' utterances to lecturers in academic activities are inevitably insparable from politeness issues. In addition to being influenced by the Javanese cultural context, politeness both realizations and strategies are also influenced by a paradigm shift in learning from teacher-centered to learner-centered. This change in paradigm has an impact on the changes in patterns of interaction between students and lecturers withinan interaction which engage various academic activities. This interactional pattern influences their politeness language-style realization and strategies. Those academic activities are all things related to campus activities, such as discussions both inside and outside the classroom, consulting academic advisers, consulting reports and practicum, guiding final project proposals, etc.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of data analysis and discussions on classroom interaction at the Indonusa Polytechnic of Surakarta, the realized illocutionary acts were: (a) directive, which is the act of commanding,(b) expressive, criticizing and praising, (c) declarative, giving information, prohibiting, and deciding, (d) the expressive, mainly realized by the act of praising. The most occurred speech acts were directive speech acts. This is quite reasonable because the lecturer(s) incline towards showing more power (pragmatic force) than the students. The pragmatic forces realized throughout the data reflect directive speech acts expressed by the lecturer(s) speech acts in practical classes at the Indonusa Polytechnic of Surakarta quite strongly addressed to students.

BIODATA

Ratna Susanti: Is a doctor candidate in Linguistics Pragmatics at the University of Sebelas Maret Surakarta, Indonesia, as well as a lecturer at Politeknik Indonusa Surakarta, Indonesia. Her research interests include linguistics, pragmatics, politeness language, and gender. The Bachelor of Literature (S.S.) degree was obtained in 1996 from the Faculty of the Indonesian Literature Department of Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta and a Masters in Indonesian Language Education (M.Pd.) was obtained in 2012 from the Postgraduatte Sebelas Maret University Surakarta. The textbooks for higher education are published, such as Pedoman Perkuliahan Bahasa Indonesia (De-publish, 2013), Komunikasi Ilmiah: Kajian dan Aplikasi Teori (Sahabat, 2014), Ragam Bahasa Journalistik (Sahabat, 2015), Pemahaman dan Kajian Pragmatik (Bukukatta, 2018), and Kesantunan Berbahasa dalam Berbagai Ranah (Kanwa Publisher, 2019).

Sumarlam: Professor of Linguistics with a research interest in Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, and Descriptive Linguistics at the Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.

Djatmika: Professor of Linguistics with a research interest in Translation, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, and EFL in the Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.

Muhammad Rohmadi: Associate professor of Linguistics with a research interest in Pragmatics, Language Education, Descriptive Linguistics, and Discourse Analysis at the Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University Surakarta.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BISHOP, R. & GLYNN, T. (1999), Culture Counts Changing Power Relations in Education. Auckland: Dunmore Press Ltd.

BONVILLAIN, N. (2003). Language, Culture, and Communication the Meaning of. Messages, Fourth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

BRAUN, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter

BROWN, P. & LEVINSON, S. (1987). Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge Cambridge University Press

BROWN, R. & GILMAN, A. (1960). “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, 253-276. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

DURANTI. A. (2000). Antropologia Linguistica. Madrid: Cambridge University Press

EELEN, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishin

FASOLD, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of Language. USA: Basil Blackwell Inc.

FISHMAN, J.A. (Ed.). (1968). Advances in the Sociology of Language. Paris: The Hague, 1.

GU, T. (2014). “A Study: Based Study on the Performance of the Suggestion Speech Act by Chinese EFL Learners”. International Journal of English Linguistics, (4), 1, pp. 103-111. China: China West Normal University.

GUNARWAN, A. (1994). Kesantunan Negatif di Kalangan Dwibahasawan Indonesia-Jawa di. Jakarta: Kajian Sosiopragmatik dalam Berkala PELLBA 7

ISTIFCI, I. (2009). The use of apologies by EFL learners, English Language Teaching, (2), 3,

LITTLEWOOD, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

PENG, L. (2014). “A Case Study of College Teacher’s Politeness Strategy in EFL Classroom”. JournalInternasional Theory and Practice in Language Study, (4),1, pp. 110-115, China: Sichuan University of and Tehcnology.

SENOWARSITO & ULUMUDDIN, A. (2012). “Implementasi Pendidikan Ramah Anak dalam Konteks Membangun Karakter Siswa di Sekolah Dasar Negeri di Kota Semarang”. Media Penelitian Pendidikan, vol. 6, no.1

SINCLAIR, J.M. & COULTHARD, R.M. (1975). “Towards an Analysis of Discourse The English Used by Teachers and Pupils”. London Oxford University Press.

SUSANTI, R., SUMARLAM W.D., DJATMIKA & ROHMADI, M. (2018). “Responses to Caring Speech Acts: The Politeness Strategies of Indonesian Students in Academic Activities”. Proceedings of the Fourth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics (Prasasti 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/prasasti-18.2018.77

SUSANTI, R., SUMARLAM, W,D., DJATMIKA & ROHMADI, M. (2019). “Students-Lecturer(s’) Speech Acts in the Academic Practical Teaching Situated-Communication”. International Journal 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature. http://ejournal.ukm.my/3l/author/submission Review/ 30334

TAN H.K., TEOH M.L. & TAN S.K. (2016). “Beyond ‘Greeting’ and ‘Thanking’: Politeness in Job Interviews”. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature® The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, (22), 3 (2016), DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2203-12

TRUDGILL. (1996). “Two hundred years of dedialectalisation: the East Anglian short vowel system”. In M.Thelander (ed.) Samspel och variation. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. pp. 469-478

WELVI, Y.A. et al. (2015). “Tindak Tutur Direktif Guru dalam Proses Pembelajaran di MTs Riadhus Sholihin Koto Baru Kabupaten Sijunjung”. Journal Pendidikan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pembelajaran, (3), 1, pp. 84-95