Instructions for ISPACS 2003 Camera-Ready Manuscript


Journal of Research and Innovation in Language 
Available online at:  http://ojs.journal.unilak.ac.id/index.php/reila 

Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2020, pp. 14-18  

 

14 

 

 

Exploring Local Wisdom in Buginese Ethnics: Language Politeness 

Phenomena of Tau Soppeng 
  

Fiptar Abdi Alam 
1
 and Al-Muthmainnah

 
Al-Muthmainnah

 2
 

1 
Guidance and Counseling Study Program, STKIP Muhammadiyah Barru, Indonesia, 28265  

2 
English Education Study Program, STKIP Dampal Selatan, Indonesia 

fiftar.alam@stkipmb.ac.id 

 
 
 

 

ARTICLE HISTORY 

Received : 2020-03-06 

Revised : 2020-03-15 

Accepted : 2020-04-20 

 

KEYWORDS 

Local wisdom  

Politeness 

Linguistic politeness 

 
 

ABSTRACT 

The objectives of this research are to explore and to reveal the forms and the 
characteristics of linguistic politeness, politeness strategies, and the realization 
of local wisdom found among Soppengese (Tau Soppeng), one particular people 
of Buginese ethnics. This research applied ethnolinguistics viewed from 
pragmatics, semiotics, and politeness theories. To capture the data, this study 
used purposive sampling and snowball among native in Soppeng regency which 
agrees to be a part of this study. The method used is the method of listening 
with free engaged, recording, documentation, elicitation technique, and 
interview. The results of this research show the characteristics and the forms of 
linguistic politeness through marked morphemes, prefix (ta), suffix pronouns 
(ta, ki, ni), honorific vocabularies (pung, andi, daeng), lexemes (iye, tabe, 
taddampengenga), maxims of politeness principles (generosity, approbation, 
modesty, sympathy), and four strategies of linguistic politeness (bald on record, 
positive, negative, off-record strategy). In addition, this study also found the 
realisation and the implication of local wisdom as a primary value such as 
ethics and language politeness, self-image, courage, solidarity, and 
cooperation.  
 
 
 

1.  Introduction 

Politeness behaviour is very closely related to the 

culture and language of an ethnic group. Both cannot 

be separated between one another. According to 

Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams (2003), language is a 

reflection of culture. Otherwise, culture is a value, a 

principle that can the truth is believed in the speakers 

of a language, and can be a guide in interacting and 

communicating. One of the ethnic cultures in 

Indonesia is the Soppeng Buginese community. There 

is no doubt that the Indonesian nation consisting of 

various ethnicity in this archipelago is rich in values 

noble personality as a value inheritance past culture. 

Abdulrahman (2007) stated that the accumulation of 

these noble values symbolizes and can strengthen the 

identity of the Indonesian people, as a multilingual 

country, and has a polite and highly civilized society. 

This legacy of noble values strengthens the 

brotherhood of Indonesia, which is multi-ethnic.  

However, in this era of openness and reform, the 

linguistic politeness of Indonesian tends to decline. 

That matter considered in the Bugis community, 

including Soppeng Buginese. Starting from that 

reality, this form of politeness in the language needs 

to be studied more in-depth and comprehensive, so 

that can be a material for character formation based 

on local wisdom. This effort is expected can trigger 

the strengthening of identity again and language 

manners, especially in the Bugis community based on 

the culture they have. 

The focus of this research study are: (1) the 

characteristics of the form of linguistic politeness in 

Soppeng Buginese society, (2) the forms of politeness 

strategy represented by Soppeng Buginese community 

in interacting based on communication and situation 

context, (3) principle realization of local wisdom 

value on politeness strategies of Soppeng Buginese 

society. Watts (2003) reveals that the word 'polite' 

comes from the English word, which is equivalent to 

the Latin politus means smooth (polish). Whereas 

according to Cumming (2005), politeness is self-

control and social control. The characteristic of a 

person's polite behaviour is equivalent to social 

accuracy, or acceptance of behaviour in social 

interactions context.  

In Bugis language, politeness is called 

pangadereng or ampe madeceng (Abdulrahman, 

2007). Studying the phenomena of the Buginese in 

term of the linguistic politeness is inseparable from 

the review of the meaning of speech related to events 

and speech situation, and interpretation of meaning 

associated with cultural norms and principles. 



Journal of Research and Innovation in Language 
Available online at:  http://ojs.journal.unilak.ac.id/index.php/reila 

Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2020, pp. 14-18  

 

15 

 

Therefore, in this research, the meaning of siri’ 

culture and the cultural meaning of 3S (sipakatau = 

glorify each other, sipakaraja = respect each other 

sipakainge’ = remind each other) are seen as central 

values in the Buginese society. 

In his research, Achmad (2012) found that the 

politeness strategies applied in Buginese society 

communication have implications for the principle of 

the cultural value of siri’ in the Buginese community. 

The realization of politeness is manifested in the 

cultural values of sipatangngari = deliberation, 

sipakaraja = mutual respect, sipaku = mutual glorify 

(3S) on the language behaviour of Buginese people.  

Lakoff (1973) proposed a formula of linguistic 

politeness by basing self on pragmatic competence 

through two elements, namely 'be clear' and 'be polite'. 

Firstly, the element of 'be clear' is based on the 

cooperation principle, which covers:  

a) Quantity maxim: giving sufficient information as 
needed 

b) Quality maxim: saying what is believed right 
c) Relevant maxim: information conveyed is relevant 
d) Manner maxim: not contain imprecise information 

Secondly, the element of „be polite‟ covers: 

a) Not impose to the interlocutor 
b) Giving option 
c) Showing hospitality and familiarity 

Leech (1983) formulated the principle of 

politeness by focusing more on pragmatics. In his 

theory, two pragmatic systems are known, namely 

text rhetoric and interpersonal rhetoric. Text rhetoric 

refers to the clarity principle, economy principle, and 

expressivity principle. While interpersonal rhetoric 

refers to interpersonal relationships between speech 

participants. In this theory, Leech formulated the 

maxims which are aimed at the speech partners, 

namely tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation 

maxim, agreement maxim, and sympathy maxim. The 

basic idea of tact maxim is that each participant must 

benefit themselves and maximize the advantages of 

others. Commanding with an interrogative sentence is 

considered more polite than using the command line, 

for example, "Could I interrupt you for a half-second 

– what was the website address?" 

In generosity maxim, the speakers said an 

utterance that minimizes profit for self. For example, 

“Let me wash your clothes too. I have the same thing 

to be washed, really.” This utterance is considered 

polite because it minimizes the benefit for the speaker. 

Approbation maxim is expressed by minimizing the 

expression of dispraise of others. A person will be 

considered polite if the person maximizes praise to 

others or the hearer. For example, "I heard your 

English just now; your pronunciation is very good”. 

Modesty maxim is self-centred. This maxim means 

maximizing dispraise of self. For example, "I don't 

think I will do it well. I am still learning". This 

utterance is considered polite because the speaker 

maximizes dispraise of self. 

Agreement maxim is emphasized that the speaker 

is able to develop an agreement to the speech partners. 

For example, "Good idea, I will wait for you at the 

restaurant". This conversation shows that the speaker 

is able to build their agreement so that they will be 

polite to each other. 

In sympathy maxim, it is expected that the 

participant can maximize sympathy among people. 

Antipathy toward others will be considered as 

impoliteness. For example, "I take pity on hearing you 

didn't pass the exam." 

Studies on politeness based on Leech‟s theory 

have been carried out by several researchers. One of 

the studies was carried out by Eshghinejad & Moini 

(2016) to investigate the politeness principles used in 

text messaging between teacher and EFL students. 

They found that teachers used politeness principles in 

text messaging. Results of that study also showed no 

significant difference between male and female EFL 

learners in applying politeness principles in 

communication.  

Another study was conducted by Haryanto, Weda, 

& Nashruddin (2018). They researched to find out the 

politeness principles used by EFL teachers during the 

classroom interaction, and the implication of 

politeness principles toward the teaching-learning 

process. The result of the study showed that the 

politeness principle creates togetherness between the 

teacher and the students, builds respect behaviour of 

the students, and creates cooperating interaction 

between the teacher and the students.  

Lakoff‟s theory and Leech's theory were then 

perfected by Brown & Levinson (1987). The core of 

the theory is to save the face of the interlocutor (face-

threatening act). The speaker selects the utterances 

based on three social factors, namely social relations, 

the strength of symmetric relationships, and the scale 

of emphasis level. Furthermore, Brown & Levinson 

(1987), in their analysis, stated that politeness 

involves people showing an awareness of other 

people's face wants. Face refers to our public self-

image. Brown and Levinson formulated the politeness 

principles into five strategies, namely bald on record 

strategy, positive politeness strategy, negative 

politeness strategy, off-record strategy, and do not do 

the FTA. Moreover, research on politeness based on 

the theory of Brown & Levinson had been conducted 

by Sulu (2015), who investigated an interaction 

between English learners and a native English-

speaking teacher.   

Therefore, the study aims to see whether the 

effects of politeness strategies differ when students 

and teacher do not share the same culture and native 



Journal of Research and Innovation in Language 
Available online at:  http://ojs.journal.unilak.ac.id/index.php/reila 

Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2020, pp. 14-18  

 

16 

 

language.  The researcher observed and tape-recorded 

two hours of classes. The research findings show that 

politeness exists in that EFL classroom helps students 

to have positive feelings towards the lesson and 

motivates them to participate more in classes. 

Nevertheless, According to Mattulada (1997), the 

cultural practitioners view that the Indonesian nation, 

which consists of various ethnicity is rich in values of 

noble personality as a value of the past inheritance. In 

Bugis ethnic culture, the phenomenon of linguistic 

politeness can be observed comprehensively through 

the meaning of siri' culture. The great value is 

elaborated in three cultural subsystems, namely 

sipakatau, sipakaraja, sipakainge’. 

2.  Method 

This research is located in Soppeng Regency, with 

the characteristic population of the Bugis language of 

Soppeng community in daily communication 

interaction. Sample of this research includes discourse 

data or speech-language that has been obtained and 

the results of interviews about realization and value 

implications of cultural meanings. In collecting data, 

the techniques used were purposive sampling and 

snowball. The method used is the method of listening 

with free engaged, recording, documentation, 

elicitation technique, and interview. The data analysis 

technique used was componential utterance (Brown & 

Yule, 1983) that is investigating the interpretive 

meaning (pragmatic) and the value of utterances 

based on context and situation in terms of social 

semiotic aspects.  

3.  Findings 

3.1 The Characteristics of the Form of Linguistic 

Politeness among To Soppeng 

The forms and the markers of linguistic politeness 

in Soppeng Buginese were found in two levels, 

namely morphology level and syntax level. In the 

level of morphology, it can pay close attention to the 

speech with the topic "ordering".  

Ta-pattama-ni motorok-ta ko ilaleng  

bola-e (1) 

(Just put your motorcycle in the house) 

Pattama-ni motorok-mu ko ilaleng bola-e (2) 

(Just put your motorcycle in the house) 

The utterances “Ta-pattama-ni” (1), and “Pattama-

ni” (2), have the same meaning, namely “Just put in”. 

The difference is that “Ta-pattama-ni” begins with 

morpheme /ta/ = you, which is imperative as a form of 

linguistic politeness in the Bugis language. In the 

other hand, "Pattama-ni” without morpheme /ta/, this 

shows a less impolite linguistic formula. 

Similarly, it can be observed on the use of enclitic 

morpheme /ta/ in “motorok-ta” (1) = your motorcycle, 

which is a sign of politeness. In number (2), the 

enclitic morpheme /mu/ in “motorok-mu” seems 

impolite. Thus, these two morphemes can be a 

formula hint of linguistic politeness in Buginese. The 

same case is found in the following utterances. 

Aleng-a yatu colok-e, loka mattunu (3) 

(Give me the lighter, I want to burn) 

Taleng-a yatu colok-e, loka mattunu (4) 

(Give me the lighter, I want to burn) 

Another feature of the marker of linguistic 

politeness in Buginese is the use of /iye/ in initiating 

an utterance. 

Iye matei gare kasi’ di!  

Nappa toi uwisseng (5) 

(Pity, I hear that he's dead! I also just found out) 

The use of morpheme /iye/ is the realization of the 

cultural value of respects each other (sipakaraja). 

Another similar example is the use of words tabe‟, 

and taddampengenga, which mean excuse me, and 

forgive me. For example, in an utterance: 

Taddampengenga Uwak,  

engkaro palopekku ri seddeta (6) 

(I'm sorry, Uncle, that‟s my pen beside you) 

The use of morpho-phonemic /ki/ in “leppakki” 

from the basic word “leppang” is a marker of 

politeness in bugis language. If /ki/ is substituted with 

/ko/ becomes “leppako”, the formulation is not polite 

when addressed to people who are valued. Leppakki 

and leppakko have the same meaning, namely “come 

on drop by”, but “leppakki” is polite utterance, while 

“leppakko” is impolite. 

In the syntactic level, the marker of linguistic 

politeness can be observed in an example as follows: 

Bosi ladde’si maka cekke i-sedding, colok-mi u-

tiwi (7) 

(Heavy rain again, very cold, I only brought a 

match) 

Taddampenge-nga Daeng,  

de gaga tole u-tiwi. (8) 

(I'm sorry, Brother, I don‟t bring cigarettes) 

Pragmatically, the meaning of the expression (7) is 

to ask for cigarettes. The listener can understand the 

meaning of the utterance. Then he said that he also 

didn't carry cigarettes (8). 

The form and features of linguistic formulas can 

be in terms of the Bugis language phenomenon based 

on distance and social status, influence the 

phenomena of speech variation. 

Oppana nappammula acara-e ro Pammu? (9) 

(When will the event begin, Pammu?) 

 



Journal of Research and Innovation in Language 
Available online at:  http://ojs.journal.unilak.ac.id/index.php/reila 

Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2020, pp. 14-18  

 

17 

 

Iye, de to gaga padisenge-ku pung,kade  

oppannapi (10) 

(I also don't know when it will start, Sir) 

From the discourse above, it is known that the 

speaker of (10) has a higher status than the speaker of 

(9). The linguistic formula in the utterance (9) is very 

official, using off-record strategy, or indirectly, and 

also use lexemes that indicate courtesy of acceptable 

language, namely: iye and pung. 

3.2 The Forms of Politeness Strategy Represented 

by Buginese Community 

Firstly, tact maxim that each participant said to 

maximize the profits of others. It can be seen in the 

examples (1), (4), (6), and (10). Another example: 

Iye ta-alani-mai pangelli bale-na (11) 

(Please take money to buy fish) 

The second is the generosity maxim. The 

indicators of this maxim are expressive and assertive. 

The expressive utterance has an expressing function 

or notifies attitude a psychological, tangible statement 

illocution is like saying thank, praise, and express 

condolences. Assertive speech involves the speaker at 

the truth of propositions expressed, for example, 

stating, complaining, suggest, and report, and so on. It 

can be listened to the following discourse: 

Sukkuru ladde-ka apa engka-ki kasih (12) 

(I am very grateful because you came) 

Iye, majjappa-jappa-ki amaure (13) 

(Wish you always be healthy, Uncle) 

The discourse above shows cooperation in 

addition to using lexeme /iye/, and enclitic pronoun /-

ta/. 

3.3 Local Wisdom’s Principle Value   

Paying attention to the context of realization and 

implications of the concept of Siri‟ and the 

subsystems (3S), the values of these cultural 

principles are stated in 6 basic principles, namely: 

a) Strengthening identity 
b) Courage and self-image 
c) Maintaining human dignity, existence and 

existence 

d) Politeness and ethics in social interaction 
e) Solidarity and cooperation 
f) The principle of honesty, responsibility, 

responsibility, and accountability 

These have an impact in the realization of the 

conception of fundamental values, namely the 

formation of values such as the value of determination, 

namely motivation and outlook life, the value of 

courage, which is value emotional temperament in 

maintaining pride, solidarity value, that is the value of 

mutual cooperation, and the value of politeness 

language, language skills based on Buginese ethnic 

cultures.   

4.  Conclusion 

From the results of research and discussion, 

researchers conclude that the first is relating to 

linguistic formulas, it was found in politeness markers 

of Soppeng Buginese were very varied. The forms 

and the markers of linguistic politeness in Soppeng 

Buginese were found in two levels, namely 

morphology level and syntax level. Soppeng Buginese 

linguistic politeness can be reflected based on values 

of siri‟ and 3S as central values, through the creation 

of variations or variations speech as a politeness 

strategy, which is influenced by factors of speech 

participant status, situation and context. Realization of 

Soppeng Buginese linguistic politeness associated 

with pragmatics found in some maxims: tact maxim, 

generosity maxim, and modesty maxim. Found on 

four the strategies: bald on record, positive politeness, 

negative politeness, off-record. The implication of 

local wisdom as a primary value such as ethics and 

language politeness, self-image, courage, solidarity, 

and cooperation.    

References 

Abdulrahman. (2007). Pelestarian kearifan lokal 

melalui pewarisan bahasa Bugis. Paper 

presented at the Kongres Internasional Bahasa-

bahasa Daerah Sulawesi Selatan, Makassar.  

Achmad, S. (2012). Strategi kesopanan berbahasa 

masyarakat bugis pinrang provinsi sulawesi 

selatan. Bahasa dan Seni: Jurnal Bahasa, 

Sastra, Seni, dan Pengajarannya, 40(1). 

Brown, & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). 

Politeness: Some universals in language usage 

(Vol. 4). Cambridge university press. 

Cumming, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A 

Multidisciplinariy Perspective. Edinburgh: 

Hewer Text Ltd. . 

Eshghinejad, S., & Moini, M. R. (2016). Politeness 

strategies used in text messaging: Pragmatic 

competence in an asymmetrical power relation 

of teacher–student. SAGE Open, 6(1), 

2158244016632288. 

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An 

Introduction to Language. USA: Michael 

Rosenberg. 

Haryanto, H., Weda, S., & Nashruddin, N. (2018). 

Politeness principle and its implication in EFL 

classroom in Indonesia. XLinguage" european 

Scientific Language Journal", 11(4), 90-112.  



Journal of Research and Innovation in Language 
Available online at:  http://ojs.journal.unilak.ac.id/index.php/reila 

Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2020, pp. 14-18  

 

18 

 

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding 

your ps and qs Papers from the 9th Regional 

Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic 

Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 

292-305. 

Leech, G. N. (1983). Semantics 3: Speech Act. New 

York: Academic Principles of Pragmatics. 

Mattulada. (1997). Kebudayaan Bugis Makassar. In 

Koentjaraningrat (Ed.), Dalam Manusia dan 

Kebudayaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Djembatan. 

Sulu, A. (2015). Teacher‟s politeness in EFL 

class. Intenational Online Journal of Education 

and Teaching, 2(4), 216-221..  

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University 

Press.