Authors retain the copyright without restrictions for their published content in this journal. HSSR is a SHERPA ROMEO Green Journal.
THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF KINESICS IN A SEMIOPRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE: A STUDY ON LANGUAGE LEARNING
Corresponding Author(s) : I Wayan Ardi Sumarta
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews,
Vol. 8 No. 3 (2020): May
Purpose of the study: Language is a productive communication tool for teachers to interact with learners. The use of non-verbal Language in speaking becomes strong support when the speech event takes place. This study aims to determine the elements of kinesics and politeness of the Language of the instructor in learning.
Methodology: The method used in this study uses descriptive methods. The subjects involved in the research were one lecturer in Indonesian language courses andMahasaraswati university students who were taking Indonesian language courses. The study was conducted in 6 different classes for three meetings.
Main Findings: The results showed that non-verbal Language is inherent and contributes to the application of the instructor’s politeness principle in learning. Utilization of kinesics in the politeness of Language perfects a speech that is based on the politeness of Language so that the care of speech harmony can be sustained and to the success in maintaining the face of the speech partner especially emotional closeness between learners and instructors.
Application of this study: Learning includes embedded values and imprinted into a role model for learners. The attitude that is no less important and inherent in the instructor’s self is the kinesic attraction that causes the learner’s pleasure and comfort when learning takes place.
Novelty/Originality of this study: Research in Indonesian has not yet led to politeness in Language. The utilization of non-verbal Language in speaking becomes strong support when the speech event takes place, this is because Language is the main communication tool for interaction in learning.
Download CitationEndnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1955). Background to kinesics. Institute of General Semantic, 13(1), 10–18.
Buck, S., & Tiene, D. (1989). The Impact of Physical Attractiveness, Gender, and Teaching Philosophy on Teacher Evaluations. Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885887
Caffi, C., & Janney, R. W. (1994). Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(3–4), 325–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5
Chaer, A., & Agustina, L. (2004). Sosiolinguistik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Chiu, R. K., & Babcock, R. D. (2002). The relative importance of facial attractiveness and gender in Hong Kong selection decisions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190110092857 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190110092857
Gabbott, M., & Hogg, G. (2000). An empirical investigation of the impact of non‐verbal communication on service evaluation. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010311911 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010311911
Gkorezis, P., Bellou, V., & Skemperis, N. (2015). Nonverbal communication and relational identification with the supervisor: Evidence from two countries. Management Decision, 53(5), 1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630
Gulec, S., & Temel, H. (2015). Body Language Using Skills of Teacher Candidates from Departments of Mathematics Education and Social Studies Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.149
Hans, A., & Hans, E. (2015). Kinesics, Haptics, and Proxemics: Aspects of Non -Verbal Communication. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science Ver. IV, 20(2), 47–52.
Jolly, S. (2000). Understanding body language: Birdwhistell’s theory of kinesics. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 5(3), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280010377518 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280010377518
Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2011). The effects of nonverbal communication of employees in the family restaurant upon customers’ emotional responses and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 542–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.09.005
Kaiser, F. G., Glatte, K., & Lauckner, M. (2019). How to make nonhumanoid mobile robots more likable: Employing kinesic courtesy cues to promote appreciation. Applied Ergonomics, 78(April 2017), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.02.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.02.004
Mey, J. L. (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Elsevier’s Rights Department.
Rahardi, K. (2005). Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Ratna, K. N. (2009). Stilistika, Kajian Puitika Bahasa, dan Budaya. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Rusminto, N. E. (2009). Analisis Wacana Bahasa Indonesia. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung.
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Tarigan, H. G. (1993). Berbicara Sebagai suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Wijana, I. D., & Rohmadi, M. (2010). Analisis Wacana Pragmatik. Kajian Teoridan Analisis. Surakarta: Yuma Pustaka.