CULTURAL VALUE IN PHATIC COMMUNICATION OF MINANGKABAU SOCIETY



Temmy Thamrin(1), Maulid Hariri Gani(2*)

(1) Universitas Bung Hatta
(2) 
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


The idea of phatic communion was introduced by Malinowski where the phrase is refered to the language used to unite the union with other members of the community. As Minangkabau community is well known for their Phatic Communication ‘Baso-Basi’. This research was conducted to describe the cultural value of phatic communication of Minangkabau society in the form, the function, and the factors that affected on the use of phatic cmmunicatin. This research is descriptive qualitative research which used the socio-pragmatics approach. The respondents were chosen among native Minangkabau community. The result shows that Phatic communion occurs for in formal or informal situation and the relationship between the participants can be intimate or distant. It can be found in both higher and lower status. The function of phatic communication is to establish and maintain social relationship between people in society. The influenced factors of the use of phatic communication are: (1) Differences in situation; (2) Difference in relatives; (3) Differences in age, (4) Differences in position, (5) Differences in social status, (6) Gender differences, (7) Marital status, (8) Relationship intimacy,  and (9) The purpose of conversation.


Keywords


Phatic Communication; Baso-Basi; Minangkabau Society.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alwasilah, A. C. (1990). Sosiologi Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa Raya.

Arimi, S. (1998). Basa-Basi dalam Masyarakat Bahasa Indonesia. In Tesis. https://doi.org/.1037//0033-2909.I26.1.78

Asmara, R. (2015). Basa-Basi Percakapan Kolokial Berbahasa Jawa Sebagai Penanda Karakter Santun Berbahasa. Transformatika: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra dan Pengajarannya, 11(2), 80–95.

Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and Sicial Interaction in Two Communications. American Anthropologyst, 64(2).

Hilmiati, N. (2012). Bentuk Fatis Bahasa Sasak. Mabasan, 6(1), 37–39. https://doi.org/10.26499/mab.v6i2.226

Hymes, D. (1972). The Ethnograpy of Speaking, dalam Gladwin, T dan William.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

M Anton Moelino. (1984). Santun Bahasa. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The Problem of Meaning in primitive languages” dalam The Meaning of Meaning (ed. Ogden dan Richards).

Nababan, M. (2015). Bahasa dan Gender: Pendekatan Defisit, Dominan dan Kultural. (K. 3, Ed.). Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya Unika Atma Jaya.

Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa: Pengantar Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan Secara Linguistis. Yogjakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.

Temmy Thamrin. (1999). Sistem Sapaan Dalam Bahasa Minangkabau. In Tesis.

Temmy Thamrin. (2015). Minangkabau: Language Use and Attitudes. In PhD Disertation. Melbourne Austrlalia: La Trobe University.

Temmy Thamrin. (2018). The Language Attitudes of Minangkabau People toward Minangkabau and Indonesian Language. International Journal of Language Teaching and Education, 2(2).

Thamrin, T. (2003). Variasi Bahasa dan Struktur Teks dalam Wacana Jual Beli pada Masyarakat Tutur di Pasar Tanah Kongsi Kotamadya Padang ( Sebuah analisis Sosio-Pragmatik sederhana). Padang: LPPM Universitas Bung Hatta. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.09.004

Wardaught, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Black Well.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2020 Temmy Thamrin, Maulid Hariri Gani

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Published by Lembaga Layanan Pendidikan Tinggi (L2DIKTI) Wilayah X, Padang, Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

E ISSN : 2502-0706

Web
Analytics View Stats Jurnal kata : Penelitian tentang Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra