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

Ridha Fadillah; Hani'ah

doi:10.18535/ijsrm/v12i03.el05

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.

Keywords

honorificsrespectMadurese societyBanjarese societycomparative sociolinguistics

References

Ahmadin, A. and S. Sulfiah. (2020). Bentuk-Bentuk Honorifik Dalam Berbahasa Ciacia. Jurnal Bastra (Bahasa Dan Sastra), 5 (2).Google Scholar ↗
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.280-286Google Scholar ↗
Bertens, K. (2004). Etika. Jakarta: GramediaGoogle Scholar ↗
Brown, G. Dan Yule, G. (1996). Analisis Wacana. Terjemahan oleh I Soetikno. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.Google Scholar ↗
Brown, R dan Ford. (1972). “ Address in American English” (Laver, J. et. Al Ed.). pp.Google Scholar ↗
142. Communication in face to face interaction. Ringwood: Penguin Books Inc.Google Scholar ↗
Crystal, D. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Massacusett: Basil Black Well.Google Scholar ↗
Duranti, Allesandro. (2000). Linguistic Antrophology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar ↗
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: 2963-2862Google Scholar ↗
Hanani, I. (2022). “Honorifik Bahasa Korea dan Bahasa Indonesia”. Jurnal Lingua Applicata. Vol 5, No 2.Google Scholar ↗
Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Harlow: Person Education.Google Scholar ↗
Hymes, Dell. (1974). Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Etnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvan Press, Inc.Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1993. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: GramediaGoogle Scholar ↗
Ide, Sachiko dalam Eelen. (2001). Kritik Teori Kesantunan. Airlangga University Press.Google Scholar ↗
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (2016). Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: GramediaGoogle Scholar ↗
Leech, G.(2014). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar ↗
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar ↗
Martinich A.P. (2001). The Philosophy of Language. Fourth Edition. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar ↗
Miles, Matthew B. dan Huberman, A. Michael.(1992). Analisis Data Kualitataif. Terjemahan Tjetjep Rohendi Rohidi. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.Google Scholar ↗
Romadhon, Sukron. (2020). Kiai bagi Masyarakat Madura. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Islamic Studies (ICONIS) 2020Google Scholar ↗
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian: Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: AlfabetaGoogle Scholar ↗
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/jsiGoogle Scholar ↗
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2009). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-1] Ahmadin, A. and S. Sulfiah. (2020). Bentuk-Bentuk Honorifik Dalam Berbahasa Ciacia. Jurnal Bastra (Bahasa Dan Sastra), 5 (2).Google Scholar ↗

[refR-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.280-286Google Scholar ↗

[refR-3] Bertens, K. (2004). Etika. Jakarta: GramediaGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-4] Brown, G. Dan Yule, G. (1996). Analisis Wacana. Terjemahan oleh I Soetikno. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-5] Brown, R dan Ford. (1972). “ Address in American English” (Laver, J. et. Al Ed.). pp.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-6] 142. Communication in face to face interaction. Ringwood: Penguin Books Inc.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-7] Crystal, D. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Massacusett: Basil Black Well.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-8] Duranti, Allesandro. (2000). Linguistic Antrophology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-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: 2963-2862Google Scholar ↗

[refR-10] Hanani, I. (2022). “Honorifik Bahasa Korea dan Bahasa Indonesia”. Jurnal Lingua Applicata. Vol 5, No 2.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-11] Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Harlow: Person Education.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-12] Hymes, Dell. (1974). Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Etnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvan Press, Inc.Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1993. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: GramediaGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-13] Ide, Sachiko dalam Eelen. (2001). Kritik Teori Kesantunan. Airlangga University Press.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-14] Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (2016). Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: GramediaGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-15] Leech, G.(2014). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-16] Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-17] Martinich A.P. (2001). The Philosophy of Language. Fourth Edition. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-18] Miles, Matthew B. dan Huberman, A. Michael.(1992). Analisis Data Kualitataif. Terjemahan Tjetjep Rohendi Rohidi. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-19] Romadhon, Sukron. (2020). Kiai bagi Masyarakat Madura. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Islamic Studies (ICONIS) 2020Google Scholar ↗

[refR-20] Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian: Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: AlfabetaGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-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/jsiGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-22] Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2009). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.Google Scholar ↗