VIJ Digital library
Articles

Honorifics For Ulama As A Form Of Respect Madurese And Banjarese Societies: Comparative Sociolingustics Study

Ridha Fadillah
English Department, Antasari State Islamic University, Banjarmasin, Indonesia
Hani'ah
Indonesian language and literature Department, Madura Trunojoyo University, Madura, Indonesia
Bio

Published 2024-03-28

Keywords

  • honorifics, respect, Madurese society, Banjarese society, comparative sociolinguistics

Abstract

This research is a sociolinguistic study of the honorific in Madurese and Banjarese societies to glorify an ulama and his family as a form of their respect. This research aims to describe the differences and similarities between honorific patterns in the two groups of society. This research uses a qualitative descriptive method. The data collection techniques used in this research are observation techniques, interviews, proficient free-involved listening techniques, as well as note-taking and recording techniques. Data analysis techniques are carried out by applying an interactive model which consists of three components, namely data reduction, data presentation and interpretation, and withdrawal and verification. The findings of this research show that the Madurese and Banjarese have similarities and differences in honorific patterns as a form of their respect for ulama. Madurese show respect with an honorific pattern to ulama and all members of families, while Banjarese give honorific for the ulama only, while their family does not have a special tittle for honorifics. Based on the results of this research, it can be concluded that in general there are two patterns of honorific, both in South Kalimantan and Madura. Honorific in Banjarese have two points, (1) the word Tuan/Guru + regional name, (2) the word Tuan/Guru + a typical Banjarese nickname, namely adding the sound [i] before the name of the ulama. Meanwhile, Madurese also have two patterns, but they are slightly different. (1) The word kèyaè + regional name, (2) the word kèyaè + name of ulama. The similarities are that they both have a special honorific form that only applies to one ulama, and both have a pattern that uses regional names.

References

  1. Ahmadin, A. and S. Sulfiah. (2020). Bentuk-Bentuk Honorifik Dalam Berbahasa Ciacia. Jurnal Bastra (Bahasa Dan Sastra), 5 (2).
  2. Amil, F.S.N. dan Ramdhani, I.S. (2023). “Analisis Kesantuan Berbahasa Warganet pada Kolom Komentar Postingan Akun Instagram @Mastercorbuzier”. Jurnal Education and development Institut Pendidikan Tapanuli Selatan. Vol.11 No.2 Edisi Mei 2023, pp.280-286
  3. Bertens, K. (2004). Etika. Jakarta: Gramedia
  4. Brown, G. Dan Yule, G. (1996). Analisis Wacana. Terjemahan oleh I Soetikno. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
  5. Brown, R dan Ford. (1972). “ Address in American English” (Laver, J. et. Al Ed.). pp.
  6. -142. Communication in face to face interaction. Ringwood: Penguin Books Inc.
  7. Crystal, D. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Massacusett: Basil Black Well.
  8. Duranti, Allesandro. (2000). Linguistic Antrophology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Gunarta, I Wayan dan Ekasriadi, IAA. (2023). “Evaluasi Kesantunan Berbahasa dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia: Upaya Memperkuat Karakter Bangsa”. PEDALITRA III: Seminar Nasional Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya Vol. 3 No. 1, E-ISSN: 2963-2862
  10. Hanani, I. (2022). “Honorifik Bahasa Korea dan Bahasa Indonesia”. Jurnal Lingua Applicata. Vol 5, No 2.
  11. Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Harlow: Person Education.
  12. Hymes, Dell. (1974). Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Etnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvan Press, Inc.Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1993. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia
  13. Ide, Sachiko dalam Eelen. (2001). Kritik Teori Kesantunan. Airlangga University Press.
  14. Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (2016). Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia
  15. Leech, G.(2014). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
  16. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University
  17. Martinich A.P. (2001). The Philosophy of Language. Fourth Edition. New York Oxford University Press.
  18. Miles, Matthew B. dan Huberman, A. Michael.(1992). Analisis Data Kualitataif. Terjemahan Tjetjep Rohendi Rohidi. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
  19. Romadhon, Sukron. (2020). Kiai bagi Masyarakat Madura. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Islamic Studies (ICONIS) 2020
  20. Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian: Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta
  21. Syafruddin, Ananda, R. dan Supratmi, N. (2022) “Representasi Honorifik dalam Tindak Tutur Direktif Siswa SMA di Kota Makassar”. Jurnal Sastra Indonesia 11 (3) (2022) 177-188 https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/jsi
  22. Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2009). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.