How to cite:
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty (2022). Strategies of Responding to
Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students: Sociopragmatic
Analysis. Journal Eduvest. 2(1): 22-33
E-ISSN:
2775-3727
Published by:
https://greenpublisher.id/
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 1, January 2022
p- ISSN 2775-3735 e-ISSN 2775-3727
STRATEGIES OF RESPONDING TO PRAISE USED BY
HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: SOCIOPRAGMATIC
ANALYSIS
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Hasanuddin University, Indonesia
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected],
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Received:
December, 26
th
2021
Revised:
January, 17
th
2022
Approved:
January, 18
th
2022
This study aims to analyze the strategies for responding to
praise used by Hasanuddin University students. This
research is a qualitative research using descriptive method
and the approach used in this research is a socio
pragmatic approach. The data from this study were
obtained from questionnaires distributed by researchers.
After the data was obtained, the researcher analyzed the
answers from the respondents using 12 praise response
strategies according to Holmes, after which they were
linked to the theory of praise indicators from Golato. The
results in this study, namely the respondents in this study
tend to accept the praise given and the most widely used
praise response strategy is Strategy 1, namely
Appreciation Token, Strategy 2 is Comment Acceptance
and Strategy 3 is Praise Upgrade. Between the three
ethnic backgrounds (Makassar, Bugis and Toraja) and the
two sex groups (Male and Female), there was no
significant difference in the choice of strategies to receive
praise (Use of strategies 1, 2 and 3). Among the three
categories of familiarity level, respondents tend to receive
praise and use Strategy 1 (Appreciation Token) the most
when meeting foreigners compared to using strategy 2 or
strategy 3 where both of these strategies are used quite a
lot (besides strategy 1) to provide an acceptance response
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Strategies of Responding to Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students:
Sociopragmatic Analysis 23
a compliment delivered by a friend or friend.
KEYWORDS
Sociopragmatic, Praise, Strategies of Responding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
INTRODUCTION
Culture is the identity of a society. (Spencer-Oatey, 2008) stated that culture is a
collection of basic assumptions and values, life orientations, beliefs, policies, procedures
and behavioral conventions that are shared by a group of people and influence (But do not
determine) the behavior of each member and his or her interpretation of it. the 'meaning'
of the behavior of others. Cultural elements are universally divided into seven elements,
namely knowledge systems, language, equipment and technology systems, arts,
livelihood systems, religious systems, and social systems. Language is a medium of
communication. Language is the most valuable and most useful tool that humans have.
Language is used by humans to ask for and give information (Holmes & Hazen, 2013).
According to (Trudgill, 2001), the function of language is not only simply to
communicate information, but also to build and maintain relationships with other people.
In an effort to maintain this relationship, each individual has special
characteristics in expressing a language. The way a person expresses a language is
different from others even though they use the same language. Language differs from
place to place, from one social group to another and from one situation to another. The
way someone expresses a language can show the habits in a society or even the culture of
the community. It can be said that language has a very close relationship with the culture
of society. This causes each speech community in society to have different characteristics
from other speech communities, including how to interact between individuals in that
community. One of the differences is their language behavior because each culture has a
different language behavior according to the prevailing norms/rules. To understand social
rules and norms related to language behavior, a sociolinguistic study is needed. A speaker
will bring up various forms of speech to convey his aspirations, feelings, and ideas with
the people around him in various forms of linguistic expression. The forms of linguistic
expressions that appear when someone speaks with their partner include asking for,
giving, refusing, and praising, and other utterances.
In everyday conversation, someone will use certain utterances either directly or
indirectly to convey their meaning. These utterances can be utterances of request,
utterances to apologize, or utterances to avoid or refuse. These utterances are usually
framed with certain impressions to show polite behavior, such as thanks, greetings,
flattery or praise, and utterances that express concern or concern for others. Holmes
(1988) states that expressions of praise are included in speech or expressions that cause
attention, desire, need, and attention from the listener. Expressions of praise are used for
various reasons such as to express admiration, or respect for the work or activities that
have been carried out by others, to maintain solidarity, instead of greetings / respects,
apologies, and congratulations (Wolfson, 1981). Furthermore, linguists state about the
various purposes of people expressing praise, including to dilute communication, open
communication with unknown people, make people who are praised happy, and others.
Although people like to be praised, but how to respond to compliments
appropriately is often a problem for the recipient of the compliment. This is caused by the
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 1, January 2022
24 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
recipient of the compliment who tends to try not to show his pleasure as a form of
humility. In addition, people usually respond to compliments in various ways. Such as
saying "thank you", "really?", "ah no, I'm not that good", "actually I didn't prepare well",
"I will try to do better", and so on. In addition, there are several classifications of
responses to praise. (Pomerantz, 1978) classifies various responses to praise into four
categories; (1) accept (acceptances) for example by saying the word "thank you", (2)
agree (agreements) for example by saying the word "I am also satisfied with my
appearance earlier", (3) reject (rejections) for example by saying "oh no. ...I don't feel
comfortable wearing these clothes”, and (4) disagree, for example by saying, “Really? I
am not sure".
Praising is giving birth to admiration and appreciation for something (which is
considered good, beautiful, brave, etc.). Praising is a means of expressing sincere
appreciation to the speech partner. Origin of the word praise is praise which means
acknowledgment of admiration and sincere appreciation for the goodness (superiority) of
something. The utterance of praise and its response is one form of the principle of
politeness in language. According to (Brown, Levinson, & Levinson, 1987), praise is one
of the positive politeness strategies used to show the speaker's desire to be considered a
group with the speech partner, and have the same values or norms as the speech partner,
so that praise is said to be able to bring the relationship between the speaker and the
speaker closer. speech partner. However, praise can also threaten the face of the
interlocutor by giving pressure to respond to the compliment, sometimes praise can be
used as a satire (Holmes, 1988). Therefore, for smooth communication, it is necessary to
have pragmatic or contextual knowledge about praise so that misunderstandings and
miscommunications will not occur which will eventually make the speaker's relationship
with the speech partner relaxed.
Misunderstandings that occur are usually caused by differences in perceptions by
the speech partner which causes the response given is not in accordance with what is
expected (Supposedly) by the speaker. The response of these speech acts of praise can be
very diverse and as explained in the previous section, it will be greatly affected if it is
applied to people with different cultures. This is in line with (Golato, 2005) statement that
responding to praise properly is an aspect of communicative competence that varies and
varies from one culture to another. The response, in various aspects (depending on the
social context), will lead to language politeness because the response cannot be predicted
to be in the form of approval, rejection, or neutral form (disagree or reject). If the
response appears in a bad form (rejection), it will certainly have a negative effect on the
giver of the compliment. Therefore, in responding to one's speech acts, the role of culture
is also decisive.
One of the most visible differences in responding to compliments is the habit of
Indonesians when receiving compliments, many of them respond to compliments in a
denial style, which is different from the culture and linguistic model, for example,
westerners or Chinese. They have several responses to show politeness and respect for
others. Praise expresses the rules of language used in a speech community and is an
important element of the toolkit for maintaining relationships between individuals.
Studying the praise response can improve our understanding of people's culture, social
values, social organization, and the function and meaning of language used in a
community. Furthermore, it can be said that research on praise response is an important
and interesting topic because it differs from culture to culture.
The differences are not always related to western and eastern culture as is widely
discussed. Indonesia is famous for various tribes that live side by side where each of these
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Strategies of Responding to Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students:
Sociopragmatic Analysis 25
tribes has a different culture. The ethnic background makes the variety of language
behavior of the Indonesian people. One of the language behaviors that are assumed to
invite these differences, as mentioned in the previous section, is how to respond to
compliments. Responding to praise for some people on certain cultures in Indonesia
creates contradictions. Responding to praise by saying thank you or agreeing to the
content of the compliment can be considered arrogant while refusing a compliment is
considered a violation and sometimes someone will be confused in choosing the right
response to express when receiving a compliment.
Empirical studies conducted so far (Hill et al., 2018); (Aisyah, 2015); (Yoga,
Malau, & Marbun, 2021); (Lestiyanawati, Hartono, & Sofwan, 2014); (Rosiah, 2017);
(Yuliasri & Allen, 2019) show that the same speech act will be realized very differently
by speakers who have cultural backgrounds. different. The results of the study show that
there are differences in the way in giving praise and responding to praise. The influence
of culture on the use of language in speech acts of praise is very visible when people
respond to praise. The difference is seen in the language pattern, the attributes that are the
source of praise, the order of frequency, the function and the response given. The most
striking difference lies in the strategies used in responding to compliments. In Western
cultures, for example, the most common response is to accept praise, while in Asian
cultures, Asians tend to avoid praising themselves.
The people of Sulawesi, which is a sub-culture of Asian society, also experience
the dilemma as mentioned above. In the culture of the people of Sulawesi, harmony or
harmony and respect for others are basic principles that always to hold in everyday
interactions (Adawiyah, 2020). The principle of harmony is achieved by avoiding vulgar
conflicts in the arena of community members. The principle of respect is embodied in the
system of sipaka tau, sipakalebbi, silapaknga and politeness in language. Thus, the
response of the people of Sulawesi to a compliment will not be far from this principle.
RESEARCH METHOD
This research was a qualitative research using descriptive method and the approach
used in this research is a socio pragmatic approach. According to (Lexy,
2010)"Qualitative research is research that is intended to understand the phenomenon of
what is experienced by the object of research in a descriptive way in the form of words
and language, in a special natural context and by utilizing various scientific methods".
The method used in this research is descriptive analysis method or descriptive research.
Through the descriptive analysis method, the researcher tries to explain clearly the
discourse data obtained based on the results of the research that has been carried out.
According to Prastowo (2011) "Descriptive analytical research is research that seeks to
describe a symptom, event, event that has occurred at the present time (when the research
was carried out)". With the descriptive analysis method, the researcher tries to record all
the symptoms or events that occured during the implementation of the creative method in
the field and then explain it as it is to answer all questions. The results of discourse data
were represented in words that could clarify and describe the actual situation in the field
or at the time of research.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In the following section, the researchers discussed the results of the research which
were divided based on ethnic background, gender and level of familiarity to see what
response is the most widely used in terms of the three variables.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 1, January 2022
26 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
The table below contains the total answers for each classification of general praise
responses which are categorized based on differences in ethnic background. There are 3
ethnic groups, namely Bugis with 31 respondents, Makassar with 25 respondents and
Toraja with 19 respondents.
Table 1. Classification of Praise Responses Based on Ethnic Differences
Complime
nt
Response
Classificati
on
Bugis Tribe
Makassar Tribe
Toraja Tribe
Total
Answer
Average
Total
Answer
Average
Total
Answer
Average
1 =
Receipt of
Praise
99
8
66
6
88
6
2 = Agreed
Commenti
ng
99
8
80
6
36
2
3 = Praise
Increase
26
2
12
1
5
1
4 =
History
Explanatio
n
3
1
2
1
1
1
5 =
Diversion
of Praise
4
1
6
1
2
1
6 =
Complime
nt Revenge
4
1
2
1
3
1
7 = Giving
Humble
Comments
40
2
41
3
18
2
8 = Asking
Questions
5
1
4
1
8
1
9 =
Rejection
of Praise
13
1
3
1
6
1
10 =
Comparati
ve
Commenti
ng
3
1
6
1
2
1
11 =
Response
Cancellatio
n
23
2
21
2
16
1
12 =
Request
Submissio
n
4
1
6
1
4
1
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Strategies of Responding to Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students:
Sociopragmatic Analysis 27
No answer
30
2
0
0
0
0
Total
Respond
ents
Bugis
Tribe
31
Total
Respond
ents
Makassa
r Tribe
25
Total
Respondents
Toraja Tribe
19
Based on the data above, it was discovered that the most widely used response
strategy by respondents with a Bugis ethnic background to respond to compliments given
was strategy 1, namely Acceptance of Praise (Short verbal or non-verbal responses
indicating the acceptance of praise from those who praised) and strategy 2 i.e. Agreed
Commenting (Accepting compliments and providing appropriate comments on the topics
discussed). However, there are some of them who reject the praise using strategy 7,
namely Giving Low Comments (rejecting praise by giving comments that show that the
topic of praise is normal) and there are also respondents who do not respond to the praise
given ( strategy 11, namely Eliminating Response / no response in any form, both verbal
and nonverbal).
The same thing applies to respondents with a Makassar ethnic background that
Strategy 1 (Receiving Praise) and Strategy 2 (Giving Agreed Comments) are the most
widely used strategies to respond to compliments given. Quite in line with this,
respondents from Toraja ethnic backgrounds also chose strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) as a
form of response to the praise given. However, unlike the other two tribes who also used
strategy 2 (Agreeing Comments) with a not too significant difference from strategy 1,
respondents from the Toraja tribe did not experience the same thing. There is a significant
difference between the use of strategy 1 and 2, which means that respondents from the
Toraja tribe tend to use strategy 1 more than strategy 2.
Drawing conclusions from the explanation above, it can be said that in terms of
differences in ethnic background, respondents from each ethnic group tend to accept the
praise given and respond to it (at most) using strategy 1, namely Receiving praise and
then strategy 2, namely Giving Agreed Comments. However, there are some of them who
reject the praise using strategy 7, namely Giving Low Comments and there are also
respondents who do not respond to the praise given (classified as strategy 11, namely
Elimination of Responses).
The table below contains the total answers for each classification of praise
responses (general) which are categorized based on gender differences. There are 49
female respondents and 26 male respondents.
Table.2 Classification of Praise Responses by Gender
Classification of Praise Respons
Female
Male
Total
Average
Total
Average
1 = Receipt of Praise
160
14
93
7
2 = Agreed Commenting
157
14
58
5
3 = Praise Increase
27
3
16
1
4 = History Explanation
4
1
2
1
5 = Diversion of Praise
6
1
6
1
6 = Compliment Revenge
7
1
2
1
7 = Giving Humble Comments
62
6
37
3
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 1, January 2022
28 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
8 = Asking Questions
11
1
6
1
9 = Rejection of Praise
6
1
16
1
10= Comparative Commenting
3
1
8
1
11 = Response Cancellation
37
3
23
2
12 = Request Submission
11
1
3
1
No answer
17
2
13
1
Total
Female
Respondents
49
Total Male
Respondents
26
Based on the data above, it was found that the most widely used response strategy
by female respondents to respond to compliments given was strategy 1, namely
Accepting Praise (a short verbal or non-verbal response indicating the acceptance of
praise from those who praised) and Strategy 2, namely Giving Agreed Comments (Accept
the praise given and provide appropriate comments on the topics discussed). There are
also a small number of them who use strategy 3, namely Increasing Praise with a
significant comparison compared to strategies 1 and 2. There are also several respondents
who reject the praise by using strategy 7, namely Giving Low Comments (Rejecting
praise by giving comments that show that the topic of praise is a common thing) and there
are also some respondents who do not respond to the praise given (Strategy 11, namely
the Elimination of Response/no response in any form, both verbal and nonverbal).
The same thing applies to male respondents that Strategy 1 (Receiving Praise) and
Strategy 2 (Giving Agreed Comments) are the most widely used strategies to respond to
compliments delivered with significant differences that are not too far away. Even in
receiving praise, there are some male respondents who use strategy 3 (Increasing Praise)
with a significant difference compared to Strategies 1 and 2. There are also some
respondents who use strategy 7, namely Giving Low Comments to reject the praise given
and strategies 11 (Negation of Response) as a form of lack of response to the praise
given.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that based on gender
differences, female respondents and male respondents alike tend to accept the praise
given and respond to it (at most) using strategy 1, namely receiving praise, then strategy
2, namely Giving Agreed Comments and strategy 3 is Increase in Praise. There are also
some of them who reject the praise using strategy 7, namely Giving Low Comments and
there are also respondents who do not respond to the praise given (Classified as strategy
11, namely Eliminating Responses).
The table below contains the total answers for each classification of praise
responses in general which are categorized based on differences in the level of
familiarity, namely the respondent's answers to situations where the speaker
(Complimentary) is a friend or stranger.
Table 3 Classification of Praise Responses Based on the Level of Familiarity
Classification of
Praise Respons
Best Friends
Friends
Foreigners
Total
Average
Total
Average
Total
Average
1 = Receipt of
Praise
82
21
56
14
138
37
2 = Agreed
Commenting
75
19
62
16
52
14
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Strategies of Responding to Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students:
Sociopragmatic Analysis 29
3 = Praise
Increase
18
5
14
5
7
2
4 = History
Explanation
1
1
2
1
3
1
5 = Diversion of
Praise
3
1
14
5
0
0
6 = Compliment
Revenge
4
1
5
1
0
0
7 = Giving
Humble
Comments
25
6
51
13
23
6
8 = Asking
Questions
8
2
1
1
7
2
9 = Rejection of
Praise
14
5
8
2
7
2
10 =
Comparative
Commenting
5
1
4
1
1
1
11 = Response
Cancellation
22
6
21
6
18
5
12 = Request
Submission
3
1
11
1
0
0
No answer
20
6
34
9
18
5
Total
Respo
ndent
75
Total
Resp
onde
nt
75
Total
Respo
ndent
75
Based on the data above, it was found that the most widely used response strategy
by respondents in responding to compliments given by friends was strategy 1, namely
Accepting Praise (Short verbal or non-verbal responses that indicate receiving praise from
those who praised) and strategy 2, namely Giving Comments. Agreed (accepting
compliments and providing appropriate comments on the topic being discussed). There is
also a small percentage of them who use strategy 3, namely Increasing Praise with a
significant comparison compared to strategies 1 and 2.
There are also some respondents who reject the praise by using strategy 7, namely
Giving Condescending Comments (Rejecting praise by giving comments that show that
the topic of praise is a normal thing), strategy 8, namely Giving Questions (asking the
truth of praise to those who praise). who uses strategy 9, namely Rejection of Praise
(Rejecting praise by giving comments indicating that the praise is inappropriate. In
addition, there were several respondents who did not respond to the praise given (Strategy
11, namely the Elimination of Responses/no response in any form, both verbal and
nonverbal).
The same thing applies to compliments delivered by Friends and Strangers that
Strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) and Strategy 2 (Giving Agreed Comments) are the most
widely used Strategies to respond to compliments delivered with significant differences
that are not too far away. Even in receiving praise, there are several respondents who use
strategy 3 (Increasing Praise) with a significant difference compared to Strategies 1 and 2.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 1, January 2022
30 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
There are also some respondents who use strategy 7 (Giving Low Comments) and
strategy 9 (Rejecting Praise) to reject the praise given and strategy 11 (Rejecting
Response) as a form of not responding to the praise given. However, there is one
difference in terms of rejection of compliments between Friends and Strangers in that
strategy 8 (Questioning) is used more by respondents to respond to compliments given by
Strangers than those delivered by Friends.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that in responding to
compliments given by friends, friends or strangers, respondents tend to accept the praise
given and respond by (at most) using strategy 1, namely receiving praise, then strategy 2,
namely Giving Agreed Comments and strategy 3. i.e. Increased Praise. There are also
some of them who reject the praise using strategy 7, namely Giving Low Comments,
strategy 8 namely Giving Questions and strategy 9 namely Rejecting Praise and there are
some respondents who do not respond to the praise given (classified as strategy 11,
namely Rejecting Response) .
From table 1.1, it can be seen that of the 31 Bugis respondents, on average 16
people chose to receive praise with 8 people using strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) and 8
people using strategy 2 (Giving Agreed Comments). There is also an average of 2 people
who refuse praise using strategy 7 (Positive Commenting) and an average of 2 people
who do not respond (classified as strategy 11). Of the 25 Makassarese respondents, on
average 12 people chose to receive praise with 6 people using strategy 1 (Accepting
Praise) and 6 people using strategy 2 (Giving Agreed Comments). There is also an
average of 3 people who refuse praise using strategy 7 (Positive Commenting) and an
average of 2 people who do not respond (Classified as strategy 11). Of the 19 Toraja
respondents, an average of 8 people chose to receive praise with 6 people using strategy 1
(Accepting Praise) and 2 people using strategy 2 (Agreeing Comments). There is also an
average of 2 people who refuse praise using strategy 7 (Giving Low Comments) and an
average of 1 person who uses strategy 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Based on this, it can be concluded that respondents in this study tend to receive
praise by using strategies 1 and 2. This is in line with the results of research from
(Fakhiroh & Rohmah, 2018), (Lestiyanawati et al., 2014) and (RAHDAYANTI, 2017)
which suggests that statements agree with or without explanation is still the respondent's
favorite strategy in responding to the praise given. Ethnic differences are not a factor in
response polarity because all three are still in the same culture and community circle,
namely the Sulawesi community with the characteristics of the sipaka tau culture, sipaka
lebbi, sipaka inga and politeness in language (Adawiyah, 2020).
From table 2, it can be seen that from 49 respondents for women, an average of 28
people chose to receive praise with 14 people using strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) and 14
people using strategy 2 (Agreeing Comments). There is also an average of 6 people who
refuse praise using strategy 7 (Positive Commenting) and an average of 3 people who do
not respond (classified as strategy 11). Of the 26 male respondents, on average 12 people
chose to receive praise with 7 people using strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) and 5 people
using strategy 2 (Agreeing Comments). There is also an average of 3 people who refuse
praise using strategy 7 (Positive Commenting) and an average of 2 people who do not
respond (Classified as strategy 11).
Hasyari (2018) suggests that Bugis women are more likely to accept to show
solidarity with their interlocutor and refuse praise to avoid exalting themselves.
Meanwhile, Bugis men tend to joke rather than accept compliments. Bugis men also tend
to refuse compliments. If you look at this reference, there are differences in assumptions
where the results of this study do not show that and quite the opposite, at least for male
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Strategies of Responding to Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students:
Sociopragmatic Analysis 31
respondents. Both female and male respondents in this study tended to accept the praise
given using strategy 1 and 2 while a small proportion of them refused using strategy 7.
Although this has not been confirmed for real, because according to (Guo, Zhou, &
Chow, 2012) there are several variables that affect a person's praise response to the praise
given. The researcher assumes that the difference between the results of this study and
Hasyari's (2018) research is due to the age factor that male and female respondents in the
study are in the adult age category, while in this study the age category of the respondents
is classified as teenagers (Students). This is as stated by (RAHDAYANTI, 2017) in her
research which says that the acceptance of praise is also influenced by the age factor.
However, further research is highly recommended to confirm the above assumptions.
The following section will discuss the analysis of data from table 3 which is about
choosing a praise response strategy based on the level of familiarity. The situation is that
in a condition where there is an utterance of praise delivered by a friend, friend or
stranger. Based on some of the references that have been stated previously, social
variations can affect the response to praise, so it is assumed that the level of intimacy
between the speaker and listener (who is in a praise speech situation) affects the choice of
response strategy.
From table 3, it was found that from 75 respondents who were in a situation of
communicating with friends, an average of 40 people chose to receive praise with 21
people using strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) and 19 people using strategy 2 (Agreeing
Comments). There is also an average of 6 people who refuse praise using strategy 7
(Positive Commenting) and an average of 3 people who do not respond (classified as
strategy 11). Of the 75 respondents who were in a situation of communicating with
friends, an average of 40 people chose to receive praise with 14 people using strategy 1
(Receiving Praise), 16 people using strategy 2 (Agreeing Comments) and each 5 people
using strategy 3 (Increasing Praise ) and strategy 5 (Diversion of Praise). There is also an
average of 13 people who refuse praise using strategy 7 (Positive Commenting) and an
average of 6 people who do not respond (classified as strategy 11). Of the 75 respondents
who were in a situation of communicating with strangers, an average of 51 people chose
to receive praise with 37 people using strategy 1 (Accepting Praise) and 14 people using
strategy 2 (Agreeing Comments). There is also an average of 6 people who refuse praise
using strategy 7 (Positive Commenting) and an average of 5 people who do not respond
(Classified as strategy 11).
From these data, it can be seen that respondents will tend to use strategy 1
(Accepting Praise) when dealing with Strangers and will tend to avoid strategy 3
(Increasing Praise). On the other hand, if the respondent is dealing with friends and
friends, strategy 3 actually experiences a significant increase in usage, which is 2.5x more
than its use to strangers. One other thing that needs to be explained is the use of strategy 7
which is more than 2x used against friends than against friends or strangers. All of these
are forms of response strategies used by respondents when viewed from who said the
compliment (friends, friends or other people) who pointed there is an effort to maintain
relationships, solidarity and harmony between individuals.
Apart from being based on the level of familiarity, this research questionnaire was
also compiled based on 4 topics of praise as proposed by (Miyazaki & Shimizu, 2016),
(Golato, 2005) and (Nugroho & Suparno, 2019) namely Appearance, Behavior,
Ownership and Achievement. As stated at the beginning of the discussion that of the 75
respondents in this study, when receiving praise they will use strategy (Accepting Praise)
and Strategy 2 (Giving Agreeable Comments), while to reject praise they will use strategy
7 (Giving Humble Comments) and there are also who do not respond to compliments
(classified as Strategy 11). The same applies to the classification results based on the
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 1, January 2022
32 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
topic of praise in this section.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that respondents in this study
tend to accept the praise given and the most widely used praise response strategy is
Strategy 1, namely Appreciation Token, Strategy 2 is Comment Acceptance and Strategy
3 is Praise Upgrade. However, there are also a small number of respondents who reject
the praise given using strategy 7, namely Scale Down, while some others choose not to
respond to the praise given (strategy 11, namely No Response). Between the three ethnic
backgrounds (Makassar, Bugis and Toraja) and the two sex groups (Male and Female),
there was no significant difference in the choice of strategies to receive praise (Use of
strategies 1, 2 and 3). Rejection of praise was also carried out using strategy 7, namely
Scale Down and there were also respondents who did not give any response to the praise
given (Using strategy 11). The female community with Bugis and Makassar ethnic
backgrounds and the male Bugis community were the respondents who mostly used
strategy 3 (besides strategies 1 and 2) to receive compliments given by friends or friends.
Among the three categories of familiarity level, respondents tend to receive praise and
use Strategy 1 (Appreciation Token) the most when meeting with strangers compared to
using strategy 2 or strategy 3 where both of these strategies are used quite a lot (besides
strategy 1) to give response to receiving praise from friends or friends.
REFERENCES
Adawiyah, Robiatul. (2020). Dampak Gadget Bagi Penghafal Al-Qur’an (Studi living
Qur’an pada Mahasiswi Institut Ilmu Al-Qur’an Jakarta).
Aisyah, Siti. (2015). Perkembangan peserta didik dan bimbingan belajar. Deepublish.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness:
Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Fakhiroh, Zakiyatul, & Rohmah, Zuliati. (2018). Linguistic Landscape in Sidoarjo City.
NOBEL: Journal of Literature and Language Teaching, 9(2), 96–116.
Golato, Andrea. (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure
and sequential organization (Vol. 15). John Benjamins Publishing.
Guo, Hong‐jie, Zhou, Qin‐qin, & Chow, Daryl. (2012). A variationist study of
compliment responses in Chinese. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
22(3), 347–373.
Hill, Keith D., Suttanon, Plaiwan, Lin, Sang I., Tsang, William W. N., Ashari,
Asmidawati, Abd Hamid, Tengku Aizan, Farrier, Kaela, & Burton, Elissa. (2018).
What works in falls prevention in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. BMC Geriatrics, 18(1), 1–21.
Holmes, Janet, & Hazen, Kirk. (2013). Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical
guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Lestiyanawati, Rochyani, Hartono, Rudi, & Sofwan, Ahmad. (2014). Translation
techniques used by students in translating English news items. English Education
Journal, 4(2), 90–98.
Lexy, J. (2010). Moleong. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif.
Miyazaki, Takashi, & Shimizu, Nobuyuki. (2016). Cross-lingual image caption
generation. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1780–1790.
Herlisa, Lukman, Gusnawaty
Strategies of Responding to Praise Used by Hasanuddin University Students:
Sociopragmatic Analysis 33
Nugroho, Harizki Agung, & Suparno, Suparno. (2019). Implementing Beyond Centers
and Circle Time for Linguistics Intelligence of Children with Hearing Impairment at
an Early Age. International Conference on Special and Inclusive Education (ICSIE
2018), 285–288. Atlantis Press.
Pomerantz, Anita. (1978). Attributions of responsibilty: Blamings. Sociology, 12(1), 115–
121.
RAHDAYANTI, L. (2017). EXPRESSIONS OF COMPLIMENTS IN BUGINESE.
HASANUDDIN UNIVERSITY.
Rosiah, Rosi. (2017). Respon terhadap pujian pembelajar bahasa Jepang. Journal of
Japanese Language Education and Linguistics, 1(1), 108–130.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. (2008). Culturally speaking second edition: Culture,
communication and politeness theory. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Trudgill, Peter. (2001). The sociolinguistics of modern RP. Sociolinguistic Variation and
Change.–Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.–Р, 176–178.
Wolfson, Nessa. (1981). Compliments in cross‐cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
15(2), 117–124.
Yoga, Husni Rahman, Malau, Nadya Aulia, & Marbun, Derliana. (2021). CODE-
MIXING PHENOMENA ON HORROR GAME RESIDENT EVIL 4 BY REGGY
PRABOWO YOUTUBE CHANNEL. European Journal of Applied Linguistics
Studies, 3(2).
Yuliasri, Issy, & Allen, Pamela. (2019). Humour loss in the Indonesian translation of
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
9(1), 119–127.
