Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE REALIZATION OF EFL LEARNERS’ REQUESTS AND
THE CROSS CULTURAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE
POLITENESS OF THE REQUESTS AT SMA TUNAS MEKAR
INDONESIA BANDAR LAMPUNG
A Thesis
By
SENIARIKA
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2016
ABSTRACT
THE REALIZATION OF EFL LEARNERS’ REQUESTS AND THE CROSSCULTURAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE POLITENESS OF THE REQUESTS
AT SMA TUNAS MEKAR INDONESIA BANDAR LAMPUNG
BySeniarika
The importance of pragmatic competence, producing polite requests andhaving adequate knowledge about cross cultural perceptions in cross culturalcommunication is unquestionable since lacking of them could inducecommunication breakdown. This article deals with the request strategy typesrealized by the Indonesian EFL learners in school context, the factors influencethe realization, and the perceptions of teachers from different culture on thepoliteness of request strategy types realized. In this study twenty students (aged16-17) who use English as means of communication at school were asked to dorole play to obtain data about request strategy types used in school context. Therequests realized in the role play were then rated by six teachers from differentculture based on their perceptions on the politeness of requests in school context.The data, taken from Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ) filledout by the raters, were analyzed qualitatively. The results reveal that (1) context isthe reason why two out of twelve request strategy types were not used by thestudents (2) gender, proficiency level, and social power of interlocutor influencethe realization of request (3) perception cannot always be concluded as aconsensus in a certain culture, but it can also be regarded as an idiosyncratic. Itcannot be generalized since it truly comes from one’s background, experience,mind set and knowledge.
THE REALIZATION OF EFL LEARNERS’ REQUESTS AND
THE CROSS CULTURAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE
POLITENESS OF THE REQUESTS AT SMA TUNAS MEKAR
INDONESIA BANDAR LAMPUNG
By
SENIARIKA
A Thesis
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2016
Submitted in a partial fulfillment of
The requirements for Master degree
CURRICULUM VITAE
The writer’s name is Seniarika. She was born on September 28th, 1981 in
Bandung. She is the first daughter of a happy Moslem couple, Muhammad
Thamrin, S.H. and Zurniati. Both of them take care of her with her lovely younger
sister and brother. She is also a mother of a lovely boy, Dyven Ramskatra, who
has become her spirit in accomplishing this thesis.
She graduated from State Elementary School 1 Teladan Kotabumi in 1993. Then
she continued her study at State Junior High School 5 Kotabumi and graduated in
1996. After that she entered State Senior High School 10 Bandar Lampung and
graduated in 1999. In the same year she was accepted at English Education at
Lampung University and graduated in 2004. In 2014, she was registered as a
student of the 1st batch of Master of English Education at Lampung University.
She taught at Bandar Lampung University and English First from 2003 until 2012.
She has been teaching for various age levels and subjects. She has also been
conducting English trainings in some government offices, institutions, and
companies such as Attorney office, Customs office, State Electricity Company,
Rabo Bank, Healthcare and Social Security Agency (BPJS), and etc. Since 2015
she has been teaching in Lampung State Polytechnic.
Bandar Lampung, May 2016
DEDICATION
By offering my praise and gratitude to Allah SWT for the abundant blessing to
me, I would proudly dedicate this piece of work to:
My beloved parents, Muhammad Thamrin, S.H and Zurniati.
My beloved son, Dyven Ramskatra
My beloved brothers and sisters, Irena Friska, A.Md. and Rendi
Hortamadeni, S.ST.
My beloved brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Muhammad Chairul
Hasibuan, A.Md. and Febby Adika Lubis, A.Md.
My beloved nephew and nieces, Rafa Rheynaru Hasibuan, Falisya Alenia
Hortamadeni, and Sheeha Varenzha Hasibuan.
My amazing friend, Rizki Amalia, S.Pd.
My fabulous friends of the 1st batch of Master of English Education.
My Almamater, Lampung University.
MOTTO
“Courage is not having the strength to go on.
It is going on when you don’t have the strength”
- Theodore Roosevelt (The 26th President of the United States) -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin, praise to Allah SWT, the Almighty and Merciful
God, for blessing the writer with faith, health, and opportunity to finish this thesis
entitled “The Realization of EFL Learners Requests and the Cross Cultural
Perceptions on the Politeness of the Requests at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia
Bandar Lampung”.
Gratitude and honor are addressed to all persons who have helped and supported
the writer until completing this thesis, since it is necessary to be known that it will
never have come into its existence without any supports, encouragements, and
assistances by several outstanding people and institutions. Therefore, the writer
would like to acknowledge his respect and sincere gratitude to:
1. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. as the first advisor, for his assistance, ideas,
advice, and cooperation in triggering the writer’s spirit for conducting
seminars and final examination.
2. Dr. Tuntun Sinaga, M.Hum. as the second advisor, for his advice, criticism,
and cooperation in encouraging the writer to think more critically.
3. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A. as the 1st examiner, for her advice, ideas, and
carefulness in reviewing this thesis.
4. Dr. Flora, M.Pd. as the Chief of Master of English Education Study Program,
for her unconditional help, support, and motivation, and all lecturers of
Master of English Education Study Program who have contributed during the
completion process until accomplishing this thesis.
5. Ujang Suparman, M.A., Ph.D. as the 2nd examiner and the academic advisor,
for his contribution, ideas, and support.
6. Tri Puji Astuti, S.Si., M.Pd. as the Principle of SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia
Bandar Lampung, for the permit to conduct the research.
7. Andreas Yogi Santoso, S.Pd., M.Pd. as the Vice Principle of SMA Tunas
Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung, for the schedules given to conduct the
research.
8. Siwi Arbarini Prihatina, S.Pd. as the teacher of the twelfth graders, for her
help and full support.
9. All beloved students of twelfth graders at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia
Bandar Lampung, academic year 2015 - 2016, for their participation as the
subject of the research.
10. All beloved foreigner teacher friends, for their participation as the raters in
the research.
11. Her beloved parents, Muhammad Thamrin, S.H. and Zurniati, who have
always prayed and supported the writer.
12. Her brothers and sisters, for their prayers.
13. Her beloved friend, Rizki Amalia, S.Pd., for her unconditional prayers,
unlimited inspiration, great motivation, and encouragements.
14. All lovely friends of the 1st batch of Master of English Education, for their
solidarity, care, cooperation, togetherness, and irreplaceably unforgettable
happy moments.
Finally, the writer fully realizes that this thesis may contain some weaknesses.
Therefore, constructive comments, criticisms, and suggestions are always
appreciatively welcomed for better composition. After all, the writer expects this
thesis will be beneficial to the educational development, the reader, and
particularly to those who will conduct further research in the same area of interest.
Bandar Lampung, 16th May 2016
The writer,
Seniarika
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
CURRICULUM VITAE ii
DEDICATION iii
MOTTO iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF APPENDICES x
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Problems................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Questions .............................................................................. 7
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................. 7
1.4 Uses ...................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Scope .................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Definition of Terms............................................................................... 9
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Pragmatics Competence ........................................................................ 11
2.2 Speech Acts .......................................................................................... 15
2.3 Requests ............................................................................................... 17
2.3.1 Requests Frameworks ................................................................... 17
2.3.1.1 Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s Requests Strategy Types ....... 18
2.3.1.2 Development of Requests Strategy Types ......................... 20
2.3.2 Variables Affecting the Realization of Requests ......................... 21
2.4 Politeness ............................................................................................ 24
2.4.1 Politeness and the Speech Acts of Requests ................................ 31
2.5 Perception …………………………………………………………… 32
2.5.1Cross Cultural Perception ............................................................ 33
2.6 Studies on the Realization of Requests ................................................ 34
2.7 Studies on the Perception of Requests ................................................. 36
2.8 Elicitation techniques in requests studies …………………………… 40
2.8.1 Discourse Completion Test (DCT) …………………………….. 40
2.8.2 Role Play ………………………………………………………. 41
III. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Research Design .................................................................................. 43
3.2. Participants of the Research ................................................................ 44
3.2.1. The Participants for Speech Acts of Requests Realization
Group ........................................................................................ 44
3.2.2. The Participants for Perception Group ...................................... 44
3.3. Data Collecting Techniques ................................................................ 45
3.3.1. Requests Realization Group ...................................................... 45
3.3.1.1 Demographic Questionnaire …………………………... 45
3.3.1.2 Role Play ……………………………………………… 45
3.3.2. Perception Group ...................................................................... 46
3.3.2.1 Demographic Questionnaire ………………………..... 46
3.3.2.1 Scaled Perception Questionnaire (SPQ) ……………… 46
3.3.3. Recording the Role Play, Transcribing the Recorded Role Play, and
Coding the Transcript ............................................................... 46
3.4. Steps in Collecting the Data................................................................. 47
3.4.1. Determining the Subjects of the Research ................................ 47
3.4.2. Administering the Demographic Questionnaire for Request
Realization Group ..................................................................... 48
3.4.3. Conducting the Role Play ......................................................... 48
3.4.4. Recording, Transcribing, Coding .............................................. 49
3.4.5. Administering the Demographic Questionnaire for Perception
Group ........................................................................................ 49
3.4.6. Administrating the Scaled Perception Questionnaire (SPQ) ..... 50
3.5. Data Treatment .................................................................................... 50
3.6. Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 50
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Results .................................................................................................. 52
4.1.1 Subjects of Study ....................................................................... 52
4.1.2 EFL Learners’ Requests ............................................................. 53
4.1.3 Factors Influencing the Realization of Requests ........................ 63
4.1.3.1 Gender Effect …………………………………………… 63
4.1.3.2 Proficiency Level Effect .................................................. 65
4.1.3.3 Interlocutor’s social power effect .................................... 66
4.1.4 Cross Cultural Perception .......................................................... 68
4.2 Discussion ……………………………………………………………. 70
4.2.1 The Realization of EFL Learners’ Request Strategy Types …. 70
4.2.2 The Factors Influencing the Realization of Requests …………. 73
4.2.2.1 Gender Effect ................................................................... 73
4.2.2.2 Proficiency Level Effect .................................................. 75
4.2.2.3 Interlocutor’s social power effect .................................... 76
4.2.3 The Perception of Cross Cultural Raters ……………………… 77
4.2.4 The Implications ………………………………………………. 82
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 85
5.2 Suggestions .......................................................................................... 87
5.2.1 Suggestion for Future Research ................................................. 88
5.2.2 Suggestion for Second/Foreign Language Classroom Practice . 88
REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 88
APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 95
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDICES Page
1. Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire for Speech Acts of Requests
Realization Group ………………………………………………..……. 95
2. Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire for Perception Group ……... 96
3. Appendix C: Role Play Situation ……………………………………… 96
4. Appendix D: Transcription ……………………………………………. 99
5. Appendix E: Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ) ……. 114
I. Introduction
Chapter one provides background of the problem where the researcher
elaborates the things that underlie the present study, lays research questions,
objectives of the research, use of the research, scope, and definition of terms
which aims to help readers to understand the terms used in the present study.
1.1 Background of the problem
English, as a communication tool, is playing an extremely significant role
in cross-cultural communication (Lihui and Jianbin, 2010: 41). Whenever people
from different countries and from different cultures meet and have
communication, they use English to express their ideas or to let the hearer
understand what they mean. Thomas (1983:91) uses the term ‘cross-cultural’ as a
shorthand way of describing not just native-non-native interaction, but any
communication between two people who, in any particular domain, do not share a
common linguistic or cultural background. This might include workers and
management, members of ethnic minorities and the police, or (when the domain
of discourse is academic writing) university lecturers and new undergraduate
students.
In order to have a successful and effective communication, Grice
(1975:45-46) suggests four conversational maxims under the Cooperative
2
Principle (CP) named quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Quantity means
giving the right amount of information, not making the contribution more
informative than is required; quality means contributing true information, not
saying what the speakers believe to be false; relation means giving the relevant
information; and manner means giving perspicuous information, not giving
ambiguity and in order contribution.
In other words a cross culture communication is considered to be
successful if what the speaker wants to say is clearly heard by the hearer, the
speaker’s intention is understood by the hearer, and there is an effect of the
speaker’s utterance. Austin (1962:108) distinguished a group of things people do
in saying something into locutionary act, which is roughly equivalent to uttering a
certain sentence with a certain sense and reference; illocutionary act is utterances
which have a certain (conventional) force such as informing, ordering, warning,
undertaking; and perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying
something. In short locutionary act is a performance of an utterance, illocutionary
act is a hidden intention that a performance of an utterance bring, and
perlocutionary act is an action or an effect that comes after locutionary act is
performed.
People who are involved in the conversation need to have communicative
competence in order to have a successful conversation. Communicative
competence is the ability to understand and to use language effectively to
communicate in authentic social and school environment. Four competencies in
communicative competence are linguistic competence, strategic competence,
sociolinguistic competence, and discourse competence.
3
Regarding to the importance of sociolinguistic competence in
communication, language learners need to have pragmatics competence. On some
occasions conversation involves incomplete sentences, ungrammatically
sentences, and indirect statements or indirect request. Hence having pragmatics
competence can help people to maintain their conversation. As Fraser (2010:33)
said that pragmatic competence is necessary if one is to communicate effectively
in a language.
Pragmatic competence is the ability to communicate your intended
message with all its nuances in any socio-cultural context and to interpret the
message of your interlocutor as it was intended (Fraser, 2010:15). In other words
pragmatic competence is crucial to successful cross-cultural and interpersonal
communication as it will facilitate speakers to convey their communicative
intention and hearers to comprehend the message as it is intended by the speakers.
Speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk
of appearing uncooperative at the least, or, more seriously, rude or insulting
(Bardovi-Harlig et. al, 1991:4). Pragmatic failure refers to the inability to
understand ‘what is meant by what is said’ (Thomas, 1983:91). In short,
pragmatic failure occurs when the hearers do not understand the locutionary act
and feel offended.
Since lack of pragmatic competence can lead to pragmatic failure and,
more importantly, to complete communication breakdown (Amaya, 2008:11),
learners of English, especially those who involved in cross cultural
communication, need to improve their pragmatic knowledge and communicative
competence. Lihui & Jianbin (2010:41) added that more introductions to
4
pragmatic knowledge and cultural information should be incorporated into
English teaching.
Leech (1983) in Liu (2007:14-15) proposed to subdivide pragmatics into
pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics components. Pragmalinguistics refers to
the resources for conveying communicative acts and relational and interpersonal
meanings. On the other hand, sociopragmatics refers to “the sociological interface
of pragmatics” which means the social perceptions underlying participants’
interpretations and performances of communicative action.
One of the subsets which lies in pragmatic is speech act. The term “speech
act” is used to refer to how the words that a speaker chooses to use affect the
behavior of the speaker and the listener in a conversation. Drawing from Austin’s
classification of speech acts, further Searle (1976:10-14) developed and classified
illocutionary act into five main categories including representative (such as
hypothesizing or flatly stating), directives (such as commanding or requesting),
commissives (such a promising or guaranteeing), expressives (such as
apologizing, welcoming or sympathizing), and declarations (such as christening,
marrying or resigning).
A speech act of request is a prominent event in daily interactions, one in
which the speaker usually manipulates appropriate linguistic forms to make
requests according to certain situations. People produce requests for various
reasons in everyday interactions either to obtain information or certain action, to
seek support, or to acquire assistance from others. However, the way requests are
presented varies from one speech community to another. In a request the speaker
5
to a greater or lesser extent imposes on the addressee hence there is a need to put
politeness strategies into action in order to mitigate the imposition.
The importance of producing polite request ability and having good
perception towards utterances heard is unquestionable. If the requests used by the
speaker are considered impolite by the hearer, the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer can be jeopardized. The speaker may not receive what he
or she wanted or needed and the hearer may feel offended. In short cross-cultural
communication requires both speakers’ sufficient mastery of the linguistic
knowledge of the target language and hearers’ pragmatic competence.
Having adequate knowledge about perception of people from different
cultures on politeness of requests is needed since it can be a guideline for those
who have cross culture communication. Meier (1997:24) stated what is perceived
as a formal context in one culture may be seen as informal in another. Lee
(2011:22) added that utterance which deviates from the frame of a particular
culture will of course be seen as impolite or in appropriate in that particular
culture. In terms of requests, Aubrecht (2013:14) said that requests that would be
pragmatically appropriate in one culture could be inappropriate in another culture.
Numerous statements which state that perception on the politeness of the request
is different from one culture to another culture has become the main reason why
this study is conducted, to know cross-cultural perceptions on the politeness of
requests realized by Indonesian EFL learners.
Literature provides numerous studies on production of requests by non
native speakers of English like Jordanian EFL learners (Al-Momani, 2009), Thai
EFL learners (Srisuruk, 2011), Iranian and Turkish EFL learners (Tabar, 2012),
6
and Chinese EFL learners (Han, 2013) but the number of studies which show the
use of requests strategy by Indonesian learners of English is still limited (e.g.
Sofwan and Rusmi, 2011). Furthermore many scholars investigated cross cultural
perception on the politeness of requests (e.g. Taguchi, 2011; Matsuura, 1998;
Lee, 2011) but I have not found any scholars who paid attention on finding out
whether the perception of native speaker teachers similar with the perception of
non native speaker teachers of English on the politeness of requests in school
context.
This study, which focuses on production and perception, took students in
EFL setting in Indonesia as the participant in the realization group and took
teachers from different culture as the participant in the perception group. The
researcher conducted this study because she found some native speakers got
confused, felt uncomfortable, and got offended with the requests realized by EFL
learners. They did not understand what the EFL learners want them to do or they
thought the requests were impolite. In addition this study seemed to be urgent to
be conducted due to the fact that more and more Indonesian students go to English
speaking countries to continue their studies and due to an assumption that it is
important to know the interlocutors’ perception in cross culture communication.
Pragmatics deals with who speaks to whom and politeness as well. Since
there is a tendency that Indonesians use different kinds of utterances when talking
to those who are in the same age and those who are older, this study involved the
power of interlocutor as one of issues discussed besides other learners’
characteristics like gender and proficiency level. For example, if a speaker wanted
to make a request to ask for something from a close friend, she would ask
7
differently than if she were making a request to ask for something from a teacher
or another authority figure.
To sum up since no studies have been found regarding to the EFL
learners’ requests strategy types in school context and to the perceptions of native
speaker teachers and non native speaker teachers on the politeness of the requests,
this study was accordingly intended to find out the realization of the speech act of
requests realized by the EFL learners and the cross cultural perception on
politeness of the requests.
1.2 Research Questions
This investigation considers both aspects of pragmatic competence:
production/ performance (pragmalinguistic knowledge) and perception
(sociopragmatic knowledge). Based on background of the problem mentioned
previously the research questions are as follow:
1. What are request strategy types realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas
Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung in school context?
2. Do gender, proficiency level, and social power of interlocutor (P)
influence the requests realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar
Indonesia Bandar Lampung?
3. What are perceptions of teachers from different culture on the politeness of
requests realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar
Lampung?
8
1.3 Objectives
The objectives of this research are as follow:
1. To find out what requests strategy types realized by EFL learners at SMA
Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung.
2. To find out whether gender, proficiency level, and interlocutor’s social
power (P) influence the requests realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas
Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung.
3. To find out the perceptions of teachers from different culture on the
politeness of requests realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar
Indonesia Bandar Lampung.
1.4 Uses
Theoretically first, the results of this study can enrich the previous theory
on request strategy types and to confirm findings like there are some factors
influence the realization of request and there are differences between perception
of native speakers and non native speaker regarding to the politeness of requests
used in school context;
Practically first, the results of this study can inform the readers, English
teachers, language researchers, and other practitioners about the requests strategy
types realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung
and about the importance of having pragmatic competence in communication
especially if the language used is a foreign language. Second, they can be used as
a reference for the next researchers who will concentrate on speech act of requests
9
especially those realized by EFL learners. Third, they can be used as references to
improve the EFL learners’ sense on the politeness of requests.
1.5 Scope
In this study there were two groups involved, the realization group which
consisted of third graders students at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar
Lampung and the perception group which consisted of teachers from different
cultures. Those students were chosen because they use English as means of
communication and they had chances to interact with people from other countries
who were hired as teachers at their school. The teachers were chosen as raters in
this study since they are assumed as people who know more about polite requests
in school context.
The requests strategy types realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar
Indonesia Bandar Lampung were elicited through elicitation technique called role
play and the perceptions from cross culture raters were obtained through
questionnaire called Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ). The role
plays were recorded and the results were transcribed, coded manually and
elaborated qualitatively. The results of the questionnaire were analyzed and
explained qualitatively as well.
1.6 Definition of Terms
The following definitions are included to clarify the terminology used in
the present study:
10
1. Requests:
Utterances that attempt to get a person to perform an action (Rose, 1999 in
Aubrecht, 2013:14)
2. Politeness:
Interactional balance between the need for pragmatic clarity and the need
to avoid coerciveness (Blum-kulka, 1987:131)
3. Perception:
A process by which a person interprets and organizes a situation or stimuli
to produce a meaningful experience of the world (Lindsay and Norman, 1977
in Borkowski, 2011:52)
II. Literature Review
Chapter Two mainly establishes a theoretical foundation for this study and
presents the previous researches that focus on the realization of request and perception
of native and non-native speakers of English. The first part of the chapter unravels the
views on pragmatics competence while the second part elaborates speech acts. The
third is about speech acts of requests including the requests frameworks and variables
affecting the realization of requests. Before exposing previous studies on requests and
perception, the researcher explains the politeness in part four and perception in the
following part. The last part, eighth part, is about elicitation techniques in requests
studies.
2.1 Pragmatics Competence
Yule (1996:3) said that pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning, contextual
meaning, how more gets communicated than is said, and the expression of relative
distance. Hymes (1972:282) said that competence is the most general term for the
capabilities of a person. So, pragmatic competence is the ability to use language
effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in
context (Thomas, 1983:92). In Interlanguage Pragmatics, Pragmatics competence is
the ability of a non native speaker to speak, listen and understand the meaning of what
is happening in a social interaction.
12
Pragmatic competence is an important component in communicative
competence. The notion of communicative competence has been the subject of
discussion for decades (i.e. Canale and Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983; Bachman, 1990;
Celce-Murcia et.al, 1995). In Canale and Swain’s communicative competence model
(1980:28-31) there are three main competencies: grammatical competence,
sociolinguistics competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical competence will
be understood to include knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax,
sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology. Sociolinguistic competence is made up
of two sets of rules: sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse. The primary
focus of these rules is on the extent to which certain propositions and communicative
functions are appropriate within a given sociocultural context depending on contextual
factors such as topic, role of participants, setting, and norms of interaction. Strategic
competence is made up of verbal and non verbal communication strategies that may be
called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to
performance variables or to insufficient competence.
In simple terms, grammatical/linguistics competence refers to the learners’
abilities to produce grammatically or phonologically accurate sentences in the
language used; sociolinguistics/sociocultural competence refers to the learners’ ability
to accurately present their sensitivity to linguistic variation within different social
contexts; strategic competence refers to the ability to successfully “get one’s message
across”. In their model pragmatic competence is identified as
sociolinguistics/sociocultural competence and defined as the knowledge of
contextually appropriate language use.
13
Canale (1983) in Celce-Murcia et.al (1995:7) then developed the
communicative competence model and added another component called discourse
competence. So in his model, the communicative competence has four components:
grammatical competence- the knowledge of the language code (grammatical rules,
vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling, etc); sociolinguistic competence- the mastery of
the sociocultural code of language use (appropriate application of vocabulary, register,
politeness and style in a given situation); discourse competence- the ability to combine
language structures into different types of cohesive texts (e.g., political speech,
poetry); strategic competence- the knowledge of verbal and non-verbal
communication strategies which enhance the efficiency of communication and, where
necessary, enable the learner to overcome difficulties when communication
breakdowns occur. In line with the Canale and Swain’s communicative competence
model, pragmatics competence is still element part of sociolinguistic competence.
Bachman (1990) in Uso-Juan and Martinez-Flor (2008:159) proposed the
communicative language ability model which include three elements, namely language
competence, strategic competence and physiological mechanisms. Language
competence comprises two further components: organizational and pragmatic
competence. On the one hand, organisational competence consists of grammatical and
textual competence. On the other hand, pragmatic competence consists of illocutionary
competence and sociolinguistic competence, the former referring to knowledge of
speech acts and language functions and the latter referring to the knowledge of how to
use language functions appropriately in a given context. The second element in the
communicative language ability is strategic competence which refers to the mental
capacity to implement language competence appropriately in the situation in which
14
communication takes place. The third element is physiological mechanisms which
refer to the neurological and psychological processes that are involved in language
use.
Unlike Canale and Swain’s research whereas pragmatic competence is
represented as sociolinguistic competence, Bachman’s model of communicative
language ability represent pragmatic competence as a competence in its own right. In
other words pragmatics is an element of language competence which refers to the
ability to use language to fulfill a wide range of functions and interpret the
illocutionary force in discourse according to the contexts in which they are used.
The importance of pragmatics competence was then maintained in the
pedagogically motivated model of communicative competence proposed by Celce-
Muria et al. (1995:9-28). They represent a model of communicative competence as a
pyramid enclosing a circle and surrounded by another circle. In brief, in this model
communicative competence was divided into linguistic, sociocultural, strategic,
discourse and actional competencies. In analyzing these components they start with
the core, that is to say, discourse competence, which concerns the selection and
sequencing of sentences to achieve a unified spoken or written text. This competence
is placed in a position where linguistic, sociocultural and actional competencies shape
discourse competence, which in turn, also shapes each of the three components.
Linguistic competence comprises the basic elements of communication: sentence
patterns and types, the morphological inflections, phonological and orthographic
systems, as well as lexical resources. Actional competence is defined as competence in
conveying and understanding communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent
with linguistic form based on the knowledge of an inventory of verbal schemata that
15
carry illocutionary force (speech acts and speech act sets). Sociocultural competence
refers to the speaker’s knowledge of how to express appropriate messages within the
overall social and cultural context of communication, in accordance with the
pragmatic factors related to variation in language use. Finally, these four components
are influenced by the last one, strategic competence, which is concerned with the
knowledge of communication strategies and how to use them.
2.2 Speech acts
One major component of pragmatics competence is the production and
perception of speech acts and their appropriateness within a given context. The idea of
speech acts was presented by Austin (1962) and further developed by Searle (1975,
1976). Austin (1962:120) maintained that things we do in saying things perform
locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. The locutionary act which has a
meaning, the illocutionary act which has a certain force in saying something, and the
perlocutionary act which is the achieving of certain effects by saying something”. For
example, in the utterance, “It’s hot in here,” the locutionary act is the speaker’s
statement about the temperature in a certain location. At the same time, it is possibly
an illocutionary act with the force of a request for the door to be opened. It becomes a
perlocutionary act when someone is persuaded to go and open the door.
Within this framework, Austin (1962:150-151) classified illocutionary acts into
five categories: verdictives, acts giving of a verdict or judgment (e.g., to convict,
diagnose, or appraise); exercitives, acts exercising power, right, or influence (e.g., to
appoint, order, or advise); commissives, acts promising or otherwise undertaking (e.g.,
to promise, agree, or guarantee); behabitives, acts adopting an attitude and social
16
behavior (e.g., to apologize, commending, or condoling); and expositives, acts making
plain how our utterances fit into the course of an argument or conversation, how we
are using words, or, in general, are expository (e.g., ‘I reply’, ‘I argue’, or ‘I
illustrate’).
Drawing on Austin’s notion that a theory of language is a theory of action
(1962), Searle (1975, 1976) further refined and developed Austin’s illocutionary acts
into speech act theory. Searle (1975:71) said that the theory of speech acts would
enable us to provide a simple explanation of how sentences, which have one
illocutionary force as part of their meaning, can be used to perform an act with a
different illocutionary force. He added that each type of illocutionary act has a set of
conditions that are necessary for the successful and felicitous performance of the act.
The conditions are identified as felicity conditions.
Searle’s felicity condition types are preparatory conditions, sincerity
conditions, propositional content conditions, and essential conditions. For example, for
request, preparatory condition is when hearer (H) is able to perform act (A), Sincerity
condition is when speaker (S) wants H to do A, propositional content condition is
when S predicates a future act A of H, and essential condition counts as an attempt by
S to get H to do A.
Claiming that Austin’s taxonomy was based on illocutionary verbs rather than
illocutionary acts, which resulted in too much overlap of the categories and too much
heterogeneity within the categories, Searle (1976:8-14) further revised Austin’s
illocutionary act classification. Searle classified speech acts into five categories: 1.
Representatives, the speaker’s commit to the truth of the expressed proposition (e.g.,
hypothesizing, concluding); 2. Directives, the speaker’s attempt to get the addressee
17
do something (e.g., requesting, commanding); 3. Commissives, the speaker’s commit
to some future course of action (e.g., promising, threatening); 4. Expressives, express a
psychological state specified in the sincerity condition about a state of affairs specified
in the propositional content. (e.g., thanking, apologizing, welcoming); 5. Declarations,
the successful performance of one of its member brings about the correspondence
between the propositional content and reality, successful performance guarantees that
the propositional content corresponds to the world (e.g., christening, declaring war).
2.3 Request
According to Searle’s classification (1976:11) a request is categorized as a
“directive” speech act whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee)
that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act, which is for the benefit of the
speaker.
2.3.1 Requests Frameworks
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984:201) said that on theoretical grounds, there
seem to be three major levels of directness that can be expected to be manifested
universally by requesting strategies;
a. the most direct, explicit level, realized by requests syntactically marked as such,
such as imperatives, or by other verbal means that name the act as a request, such as
performatives and hedged performatives;
b. the conventionally indirect level, procedures that realize the act by reference to
contextual preconditions necessary for its performance, as conventionalized in a
given language;
18
c. nonconventional indirect level, i.e. the open-ended group of indirect strategies
(hints) that realize the request by either partial reference to object or element
needed for the implementation of the act ('Why is the window open'), or by reliance
on contextual clues ('It's cold in here').
2.3.1.1 Blum Kulka and Olshtain ’s requests strategy types
On the basis of empirical work on requests in different languages, Blum-Kulka
and Olshtain (1984:201) launched the term CCSARP (Cross Cultural Study of Speech
Act Realization Patterns) and subdivided the three levels of directness into nine
distinct sub-levels called 'strategy types' that together form a scale of indirectness. The
categories on this scale are expected to be manifested in all languages studied; the
distribution of strategies on the scale is meant to yield the relative degree of directness
preferred in making requests in any given language, as compared to another, in the
same situation.
The nine strategy types proposed by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984:202) are:
(1) Mood derivable, the grammatical mood of the verb in the utterance marks its
illocutionary force as a request, e.g “Clean up this mess” ; (2) Explicit performatives,
the illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly named by the speakers, e.g “I'm
asking you not to park the car here” ; (3) Hedged performative, utterances embedding
the naming of the illocutionary force, e.g “I would like you to give your lecture a week
earlier” ; (4) Locution derivable, the illocutionary point is directly derivable from the
semantic meaning of the locution, e.g “Madam, you'll have to move your car” ; (5)
Scope stating, the utterance expresses the speaker's intentions, desire or feeling the fact
that the hearer do X, e.g “I really wish you'd stop bothering me” ; (6) Language
19
specific suggestory formula, the sentence contains a suggestion to X, e.g “So, why
don't you come and clear up the the mess you made last night?” ; (7) Reference to
preparatory conditions, utterance contains reference to preparatory conditions (e.g.
ability or willingness, the possibility of the act being performed) as conventionalized
in any specific language, e.g “Could you clear up the kitchen, please?” ; (8) Strong
hints, utterance contains partial reference to object or to elements needed for the
implementation of the act (directly pragmatically implying the act), e.g “You've left
this kitchen in a right mess” ; (9) Mild hints, utterances that make no reference to the
request proper (or any of its elements) but are interpretable through the context as
requests (indirectly pragmatically implying the act), e.g “I'm a nun (in response to the
persistent boy who keep pestering her on the street).
Table 2.1 Request Strategy Types (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984)No Request Strategy Types Examples1 Mood derivable
the grammatical mood of the verb in the utterance marks itsillocutionary force as a request
“Clean up this mess”
2 Explicit performativesthe illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly named by thespeakers
“I’m asking you not to parkthe car here”
3 Hedged performativeutterances embedding the naming of the illocutionary force
“I would like you to give yourlecture a week earlier”
4 Locution derivablethe illocutionary point is directly derivable from the semanticmeaning of the locution
“Madam, you’ll have to moveyour car”
5 Scope statingthe utterance expresses the speaker's intentions, desire or feelingthe fact that the hearer do X
“I really wish you’d stopbothering me”
6 Language specific suggestory fomulathe sentence contains a suggestion to X
“So, why don't you come andclear up the the mess youmade last night?”
7 Reference to preparatory conditionsutterance contains reference to preparatory conditions (e.g. abilityor willingness, the possibility of the act being performed) asconventionalized in any specific language
“Could you clear up thekitchen, please?”
8 Strong hintsutterance contains partial reference to object or to elementsneeded for the implementation of the act (directly pragmaticallyimplying the act)
“You've left this kitchen in aright mess”
9 Mild hintsutterances that make no reference to the request proper (or any ofits elements) but are interpretable through the context as requests(indirectly pragmatically implying the act)
“I'm a nun (in response to thepersistent boy who keepspestering her on the street).
20
2.3.1.2 Development of requests strategy types
Several researchers (e.g., Takahashi, 1996; Lin, 2009) have attempted to
develop coding schemes for analyzing requests. Takahashi (1996:220) developed the
framework of request by adding several types on preparatory expression: preparatory
questions (i.e., questions concerning the hearer's will, ability, or possibility to perform
a desired action), e.g. “could you lend me a pen” ; permission questions, e.g. “may I
borrow a pen” ; mitigated-preparatory (i.e., query preparatory expressions embedded
within another clause), e.g. “I’m wondering if you could lend me a pen” ; and
mitigated-wants (i.e., statements of want in hypothetical situations), e.g. “I’d
appreciate it if you could lend me a pen” .
Table 2.2 Request Strategy Types (Takahashi, 1996)No Request Strategy Types Examples1 Mood derivable “Clean up this mess”2 Explicit performatives “I’m asking you not to park the car here”3 Hedged performative “I would like you to give your lecture a week
earlier”4 Locution derivable “Madam, you’ll have to move your car”5 Scope stating “I really wish you’d stop bothering me”6 Language specific suggestory fomula “So, why don't you come and clear up the mess
you made last night?”7 Preparatory questions “Could you lend me a pen”8 Permission questions “May I borrow a pen”9 Mitigated-preparatory “I’m wondering if you could lend me a pen”
10 Mitigated-wants “I’d appreciate it if you could lend me a pen”11 Strong hints “You've left this kitchen in a right mess”12 Mild hints “I'm a nun (in response to the persistent boy who
keep pestering her on the street).
In another study (Lin, 2009:1641) formulates the sub-strategies of query
preparatory strategies based on the function of the modals. The six sub-strategies are:
1. Can/could: (a) Can/could I/you (example: can I postpone the exam? I have to
participate in wedding at that time), (b) Do you think (that) I/you can/could; II.
Will/would: (a) Will/would I/you (example: Oh, I missed the last class; will you please
lend me your notes?), (b) I would appreciate it if; III. May (example: Professor, may I
21
have the test another day); IV. Mind (Do/Would you mind) (example: Excuse me Sir,
would you mind talking a picture for us); V. Possibility (example: It is possible for
you to take one picture for us); VI. I was wondering...
Table 2.3 The sub-strategies of query preparatory strategies (Lin, 2009)No Modals Examples1 Can/could
(a) Can/could I/you
(b) Do you think (that) I/youcan/could
“Can I postpone the exam? I have to participate inwedding at that time?”“Could you please turn off your recorder because I can’tstudy”
2 Will/would(a) Will/would I/you
(b) I would appreciate it if
“Oh, I missed the last class; will you please lend me yournotes?”“Would you slow down the music please? I’m studying.”
3 May “Professor, may I have the test another day?”“May I sit here, please?”
4 Mind (Do/Would you mind) “Excuse me Sir, would you mind talking a picture for us”“Excuse me would you like to take a photo for us, if youdon’t mind”
5 Possibility “It is possible for you to take one picture for us”6 I was wondering... “I was wondering if you have time to write
recommendation letter for me”
The studies were conducted in different places and involved people from
different cultures and with different characteristics. They showed that requests strategy
used all over the world is influenced by the culture of people where the language is
used and by the people’s characteristics. The variables affecting the realization of
requests are discussed in the following section.
2.3.2 Variables affecting the realization of requests
Numerous scholars investigated the influences of individual variables in the
requests strategy use. In terms of gender, Al-Marrani and Sazalie (2010:63) found that
there was a general trend in Yemeni Arabic for higher levels of directness in male-
male interaction and higher levels of indirectness in male-female interaction. Lorenzo-
22
Dus and Bou-Franch (2003:196-197) got, at least, two findings in their study involved
Spanish and British undergraduates: both Spanish men and women used mainly direct
strategies in their requests, and British women were not more direct than men.
The requests strategies use is also influenced by cultural background of
society. Zhu and Bao (2010:850) compared between Chinese and Western politeness
in cross cultural communication. They found that in western society, personal interest,
individual power and privacy are all believed sacred and inviolable. So, even in
communication between employer and employee, parents and children, teachers and
students, communicators must follow the tact maxim to reduce the threat to other
person’s negative face or reduce the compulsive tone. However, from the point of
view of Chinese tradition, people’s behavior is restricted by social expectation. Some
people have the right to give the others commands, requests, suggestions, advices,
warnings, threatens, etc.; while other people have to accept or fulfill the behavior. For
example, directive language can only be used by the elderly to the younger ones,
employers to their employees, teachers to their students and parents to their children,
or else it is impolite.
Tawalbeh and Al-Oqaily (2012:85) conducted a research regarding to
indirectness and politeness in American English and Saudi Arabic requests. The
results of their study revealed that conventional indirectness was the most prevailing
strategy employed by the American sample. On the other hand, the Saudi sample
varied their request strategies depending on the social variables of power and distance.
The results also showed that the level of directness differed cross-culturally. American
students used direct requests when addressing their friends on the condition that the
request was not weighty; however, directness was the most preferred strategy among
23
Saudi students in intimate situations where directness is interpreted as an expression of
affiliation, closeness and group-connectedness rather than impoliteness.
Power and distance were also found as variables affecting the use of requests
strategies (Han, 2013:1104). By contrasting the strategies of head acts both in English
and Chinese, we can find that the similarity between native Chinese speakers and
native English speakers is that both value conventionally indirect strategies and their
difference lies in that native Chinese speakers prefer to use direct strategies i.e.
imperatives, in some cases, while native English speakers seldom choose to use
imperatives when requesting someone to do something. Furthermore, in adopting
conventionally indirect strategies, native Chinese speakers are inclined to use tag
questions such as “…Is it ok?” or “Do you agree?)” while their English counterparts
tend to use general questions in the forms of “Can/Could you…?”, “Will/Would
you…?” and “Would you mind…?”. In Chinese traditional culture, individual’s
position and power in the society is very much emphasized since China had been a
hierarchical society for thousand years. On the other hand in almost all the English-
speaking countries, individualism is highly valued and cherished. The value of
equality is also emphasized in everything from government affairs to daily social
deals. Since everyone in such a society treat others as equals, the power relationship,
which is stressed in Chinese society, will not play a big role. As a result, direct
strategies or imperatives, which seem more or less like orders, will certainly not be
preferred when they make requests.
Ashoorpour and Azari (2014:39) found that there is significant relationship
between grammatical knowledge and pragmatic competence in pre-intermediate and
intermediate level students. Those who were in advanced level and have more
24
grammatical knowledge performed better both in grammatical knowledge and
pragmatic competence.
Rank of imposition can also be a variable affecting the realization of request.
This finding was obtained by Sofyan and Rusmi (2011:78) after they investigated the
requests strategy types realized by English teachers of Junior High school in
Indonesia. When the imposition of the situation is low, the teachers used three kinds of
strategies: direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect strategies,
with the mood derivable strategy is the most direct strategies, followed by Query
preparatory, and then mild hints. On the other hand when the imposition of the
situation is high, all the teachers used conventional indirect strategies to address their
requests. They used query preparatory (75%), followed by direct strategies in the form
of hedged performatives (20%) and mood derivable (5%). In other words, they found
that the higher the rank of imposition, the more indirect the request strategies will be.
However, this study does not investigate all factors discussed above. This
study discusses about requests realization in school context only so the researcher
limits the area of discussion to three factors only- gender, proficiency level, and social
power.
2.4 Politeness
Many definitions on politeness have been proposed and they go to the same
direction that politeness refers to strategies that aim at conflict-free communication
and at the self-realization and the self-defense of a speaker in a conversation. Names
connected with politeness are Robin Lakoff, Geoffrey Leech, Penelope Brown and
25
Stephen C. Levinson, and Richard J. Watts. Numerous scholars deal with politeness
but their theories are considered as the most influential ones.
a. Robin Lakoff’s theory of politeness
Lakoff (1973) in Subertova (2013:13-14) defines politeness as forms of
behavior that have been developed in societies in order to reduce friction in personal
interaction. According to her, pragmatic competence consists of a set of sub-maxims,
namely: 1- Be clear and 2- Be polite. There are many situations in which the
requirement of the first maxim (be clear) is more important than the other one (be
polite), and vice versa. Lakoff clarifies this relationship by asserting that politeness
usually supersedes. It is considered more important in a conversation to avoid offense
than to achieve clarity. This makes sense since in most informal conversations actual
communication of important ideas is secondary to merely reaffirming and
strengthening a relationship.
Lakoff characterizes politeness from the perspective of the speaker. She
identifies three sub-types: 1. formal (or impersonal) politeness (don't impose/remain
aloof). 2. informal politeness – hesitancy (Give options) 3. intimate politeness –
equality and camaraderie (make a feel good – be friendly/act as though you and the
addressee were equal). These strategies (distance, deference and camaraderie) are
usually applied in different circumstances. When the relationship between the speaker
and addressee is not close, formal politeness should prevail, and the speaker must
conform to social etiquette. The speaker should be indirect, and in certain situations
can be considered reserved. Intimate politeness is typical for conversation between
close friends. If the relationship between the interlocutors is not close enough, this
26
strategy can be troubling. In brief, Lakoff views politeness both as a way to avoid
giving offense and as a lubricator in communication that should maintain harmonious
relations between the speaker and the hearer.
b. Geoffrey Leech’s theory of politeness
Leech in (1983) in Subertova (2013:14-17) formulates the Politeness Principle
by giving us a set of maxims. His concept is based on the terms self and other. In a
conversation the self would be identified as the speaker (or anybody or anything close
to the speaker), and the other would normally be identified as the hearer (or anybody
or anything associated with the hearer). The goal of the PP is to maintain the social
equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors
are being cooperative in their communication with us. The PP employs six maxims
(that tend to go in pairs) to perform its functions.
The six maxims with their corresponding sub-maxims go as follows: 1. TACT
MAXIM: a) Minimize cost to other; b) Maximize benefit to other. 2. GENEROSITY
MAXIM: a) Minimize benefit to self; b) Maximize cost to self. 3. APPROBATION
MAXIM: a) Minimize dispraise of other; b) Maximize praise of other. 4. MODESTY
MAXIM: a) Minimize praise of self; b) Maximize dispraise of self. 5. AGREEMENT
MAXIM: a) Minimize disagreement between self and other; b) Maximize agreement
between self and other. 6. SYMPATHY MAXIM: a) Minimize antipathy between self
and other; b) Maximize sympathy between self and other.
To judge the appropriateness of the degree of politeness in a certain speech
event, Leech introduces five scales: 1. The COST-BENEFIT SCALE on which is
estimated the cost or benefit of the proposed action, A to s or h. For example, an offer
27
(e.g. Sit down, please.) brings more benefit to the addressee than a request does (e.g.
Wash the dishes, please.) 2. The OPTIONALITY SCALE on which illocutions are
ordered according to the amount of choice which s allows to h. A request in the
imperative (e.g. Help me!) gives addressee a smaller amount of choice than the same
request formulated as question (e.g. Could you help me, please?) 3. The
INDIRECTNESS SCALE on which, from s’s point of view, illocutions are measured
with respect to the length of the path (in terms of means-end analysis) connecting the
illocutionary act to illocutionary goal. For example, an interpretation of Close the win
dow, please is easier than a request formulated I am cold. 4. The AUTHORITY
SCALE on which is the ‘power’ of authority of one participant over another is
determined. This, for example, means that a superior has more of a right to expect an
inferior to fulfill his request than vice versa. 5. The SOCIAL DISTANCE SCALE on
which we ascertain the overall degree of respectfulness, which depends on relatively
permanent factors of status, age, degree of intimacy, etc. but to some extent on the
temporary role of one person relative to another. This means that a speaker can expect
help from his friend rather than from a passer-by.
c. Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness
One of the most influential, detailed and well-known models of linguistic
politeness is that of Brown and Levinson (1987) in Subertova (2013:18-21). They
were not only inspired by Grice’s CP and Austin’s and Searle’s theory of speech acts,
but also by conception of face. Face is the public self-image of a person. Thus, every
participant of a conversation has a face, and everyone’s task in a conversation is to
maintain and protect his or her face within the interlocutors. However, face can be
28
threatened in specific situations and such threats are called face-threatening acts
(FTAs).
In their theory, face is two dimensional – they work with the concepts of
positive and negative face. However, the terms positive and negative are not subject to
evaluation; we cannot consider the positive face to be better than the negative one. The
terms are meant in a directional way (vectorial), i.e. the positive face metaphorically
aims outwards and the negative inwards, into the inner world of the speaker. Brown
and Levinson define the positive face as the positive consistent self-image of
‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants. On the other hand, the negative face is our wish
not to be imposed on by others and to be allowed to go about our business unimpeded
with our rights to free and self-determined action intact. To sum up, the negative face
is the desire of every ‘competent adult member’ for his/her actions to be unimpeded by
others while the positive face is the wish of every member for his/her wants to be
desirable to at least some others.
Brown and Levinson give us examples of positive politeness strategies:
expressing an interest in and noticing the hearer, using ‘in-group’ language, noticing
and attending to the hearer’s desires, making small talk, exaggerating
interest/approval/sympathy with H, intensifying interest in H, seeking
agreement/avoid disagreement, showing optimism; and negative politeness strategies:
conventionally indirect, questioning or hedging, pre-sequences to directives, showing
pessimism, impersonalizing, apologizing, nominalizing, stating FTA as a general rule,
minimizing imposition, showing deference.
29
As already mentioned, the face is threatened in certain situations, and those
threats are called face-threatening acts (FTA). FTA’s categories are: acts threatening
the positive face of the speaker (e.g. apologies, confessions), acts threatening the
negative face of the speaker (e.g. expressing gratitude, promises, offers, obligations),
acts threatening the positive face of the addressee (e.g. criticism, disrespect, refusal),
acts threatening the negative face of the addressee (e.g. orders, requests, threats).
Brown and Levinson then focus especially on acts threatening the addressee,
providing us with a taxonomy of strategies that the speaker can follow when intending
to do the FTA: 1. Do the FTA on record without redressive actions (the least polite) –
e.g. Watch out!; Don’t burn yourself!; Give me 10 bucks. 2. Do the FTA on record
with redressive action addressing positive face – e.g. Your concert had a relatively low
attendance. 3. Do the FTA on record with redressive action addressing negative face –
e.g. Would you mind...?; Forgive me for interrupting. 4. Do the FTA off record – e.g.
irony, rhetorical questions, discourse markers; conversational implicatures in general
(Grice 1975), 5. Don’t do the FTA (the most polite strategy). This can also be
illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 2.1 Strategies for performing FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
30
d. Richard J Watts’s theory of politeness
Watts (2003:4-10) classified (im)politeness into two parts: first-order
(im)politeness, folk interpretation; and second-order (im)politeness, a concept in a
sociolinguistic theory. He says that first-order politeness or politeness 1 reveals a great
deal of vacillation on how behavior is evaluated as ‘polite’ at the positive end of the
scale when compared with the negative end. Further whether or not a participant’s
behavior is evaluated as polite or impolite is not merely a matter of the linguistic
expressions that s/he uses, but rather depends on the interpretation of that behavior in
the overall social interaction. On the other side, second-order politeness or politeness 2
means something rather different from our everyday understanding of it and focuses
almost uniquely on polite language in the study of verbal interaction.
In simple terms, the linguistic definition of politeness is usually different from
the general perception of the term politeness. First order politeness is what the
majority of people of a certain cultural and language community consider polite (e.g.
to behave well by using polite phrases, like please, thank you, your welcome, etc.)
while second-order politeness is the theoretical term used in sociolinguistics. First-
order politeness is always connected with evaluation, while second-order politeness is
a term for a set of strategies in communication, not an evaluative term.
Watts says that the theory of politeness 2 should be based politeness 1, and
should also be discursive, i.e. based on how the politeness is perceived by people in
real situations. He says that linguistic politeness should be always perceived in this
double perspective, from the speaker and the hearer, because the speakers are also the
hearers and vice versa. According to his discursive approach to politeness, it is
impossible to differentiate polite from impolite behavior without the context of the
31
particular interaction, which happens in a certain environment, in a certain situation,
with a specific speaker and addressee. Moreover, we must consider the perspective of
the speaker and also the addressee. Lexical terms such as please or thank you are not
polite inherently or always. They can be interpreted as polite only in certain
communication.
Watts is one of the first linguists to have noticed aspects that earlier authors
had not; for example, the above-mentioned fact that abstract theories of politeness are
not always reflected in the use of real language, and that politeness is something that
every interlocutor can perceive differently.
2.4.1 Politeness and the speech acts of requests
Politeness is one of the most important impressions of human and human being
cannot live with each other and communicate together if conventions of politeness are
not observed in the society that they live in. it is a universal, interdisciplinary
phenomenon. Every culture, every language, has its ways of displaying respect and
deference, saving face, avoiding, or minimizing, imposition and exercising good
manners verbally and non-verbally. Numerous studies have shown that the
conventions of politeness are different from one culture to another (e.g. Lee, 2011;
Matsuura, 1998; Taguchi, 2011).
A request is people’s communication of their intentions with others by words
and sentences. It is a person’s intention to have his anticipation reached by another
person. Request acts can affect the pressure on the hearer. It may threaten the
addressee’s negative face or positive face. A negative face-threatening act can
threaten the interlocutor’s face and disapprove the interlocutor’s idea whereas a
32
positive face-threatening act is against the addressee’s desire to be liked and
appreciated.
In performing a request, the speaker should always adhere to the principles of
politeness and try to avoid direct request. Leech and Brown and Levinson explain that
direct form appear to be impolite and face threatening act, but indirect form tend to be
more polite and is a suitable strategy for avoiding threatening face. Since there is a the
connection between politeness and speech acts of requests, the proper realization of
requests needs both the speaker’s awareness of politeness and judgment of the request
strategies.
2.5 Perception
Lindsay and Norman (1977) in Borkowski (2011:52) said that perception is a
process by which organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful
experience of the world. Borkowski (2011:52) added that the perception process
follows four stages: stimulation, registration, organization, and interpretation.
Figure 2.2 Perception processing system
see
hear
Taste
SmellTouch
Stimulation
Organization(based on prior
experiences,beliefs, etc.)
Registration(selectedstimuli)
Negative feedback cause internalconflict need for re—examination
for future reference
Positive feedback reinforcesinterpretation of One’s reality
Interpretation(analyze andunderstand
based on priorexperiences,beliefs, etc.)
33
The figure shows that sense organs and past experience affect someone’s
perception. When someone is confronted with a situation or stimuli, he or she
interprets the stimuli into something meaningful to him or her based on what he or she
got through sense organs and based on prior experiences. In addition the target or
interlocutor and the context in which a person see objects or events are also important
factors to shape a perception.
2.5.1 Cross Cultural Perception
Perception across culture plays an important role in categorizing politeness.
Lee (2011:22) said that people shape their frames about politeness based on the
environment and culture in which they live. In other words what is considered in one
culture to be polite may seem impolite in another. Similar opinion was expressed by
Meier (1997:24) who stated that what is perceived as a formal context in one culture
may be seen as informal in another. Perception differences from one culture to another
make the widely known politeness marker like “please” could be shown to be not
polite if it increases the directness of requests by making their force more obvious.
If a request is not realized correctly in a local culture, modes of its performance
may carry heavy social implication because the speaker may fail to achieve not only
the desired requestive end but also the interpersonal end. Therefore, much attention
has been paid to cross-cultural perception towards the realization of requests (e.g. Lee,
2011; Matsuura, 1998; Taguchi, 2011; Mohammadi and Tamimi Sa’d, 2013)
34
2.6 Studies on the Realization of Requests
Many researchers conducted studies on the requests realized by English
learners and different results indicate that there are varieties of requests strategy used
in communication (e.g. Kim, 1995; Otcu and Zeyrek, 2008; Sofyan and Rusmi, 2011;
Jalilifar et. Al, 2011, Hendriks, 2008)
a. Request realized by Korean learners of English
Kim (1995:6) involved 15 American English native speakers, 15 Korean ESL
learners, and 25 native Korean speakers. The finding was that in requesting to get off
work early, non native speakers and native Korean speakers were much more indirect-
which might seem rude to a native English speaker in this type of situation. In
contrast, non native speakers were overly direct in asking a child to go to sleep.
b. Requests realized by Turkish learners of English
Otcu and Zeyrek (2008:265) examined request utterances made by Turkish
lower intermediate and upper-intermediate learners of English and compared them to
native speaker controls. Their learner data were collected with role-plays, while their
American English data were elicited with DCTs. Their data showed that the most
common strategy used by the three groups were the same, query preparatory strategy.
They also found that direct strategies, namely mood derivables and want statements,
were employed by both learner group in certain situations but not by English native
speaker.
35
c. Request realized by Indonesian learners of English
Sofyan and Rusmi (2011:69) involved 20 teachers, ten male and ten female
from Junior High Schools in their study. They have been teaching English for more
than five years and were holders of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in English language
education. The requests strategy type analyzed are based on CCSARP categories.
There were 180 request strategies in the utterances found in this study. The strategies
were then classified into three categories: higher-ranking to lower ranking, equal to
equal, and lower-ranking to higher-ranking.
The results showed that in category one the teachers used direct strategies 5
times (2.8%), conventional indirect strategies 54 times (30%) and non-conventional
indirect strategies only once (0.6%). The only non-conventional indirect strategy was
in the form of mild hints. In category two the teachers used direct strategies 14 times
(7.8%), conventional indirect strategies 46 times (25.6%) and 0% non-conventional
indirect strategies. In category three the teachers used eleven times (6.1%) of direct
strategies, 49 times (27.2%) of conventional indirect strategies and 0% of non-
conventional indirect strategies.
Out of the three categories, the teachers employed conventionally indirect
strategies in the form of query preparatory 144 times (80%) and suggestory formulae 4
times (2.2%) of all strategies in the three categories. It is followed by direct strategies
in the form of hedged performatives 18 times (10%), mood derivable 11 times (6.1%)
and want statements twice (1.1%). Only one teacher employed non-conventionally
indirect in the form of mild hints (0.6%).
36
d. Request realized by Iranian learners of English
Jalilifar et.al (2011:790) investigated the request strategies used by Iranian
learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and Australian native speakers of
English. A Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used to generate data related to the
request strategies used by each group. The data showed that the EFL learners with
higher proficiency displayed overuse of indirect type of requesting, whereas the native
group was characterized by the more balanced use of this strategy. The lower
proficiency EFL learners, on the other hand, overused the most direct strategy type.
e. Request realized by Dutch learners of English
Hendriks (2008:34) involved three groups of respondents: native English, non-
native English, and native Dutch. The data showed that hints, the most indirect request
strategies, were used in less than one per cent of all requests. Only about ten per cent
of the requests were formulated with direct request strategies, the majority of which
were want statements, in which speakers state their wishes or desires. Few of the
native Dutch or native English requests were formulated with want statements, but the
learners used them slightly more often. This suggests that although the learners know
that want statements can be used to formulate English requests, they use them slightly
too often.
2.7 Studies on the Perception of Requests
Numerous researchers conducted studies on cross cultural perception towards
types of requests realized by English learners. Different results indicate that perception
of one culture may be different with another culture and perception of a person may be
37
different with another person (e.g. Lee, 2011; Matsuura, 1998; Taguchi, 2011;
Mohammadi and Tamimi Sa’d, 2013)
a. Perception of NS and NNS towards requests realized by Chinese learners of
English
After having cross culture investigation, Lee (2011:28-33) found that there are
similarities and differences when it comes to the topic of what “politeness” is in
Chinese and Western cultures. Both groups of Chinese learners and native speakers
agreed that some form of request like “go get the book”, “why don’t you get the
book”, and “I want you to get the book” considered to be “not acceptable and not
polite”.
On the other hand, different perceptions were found in forms of requests like
“you will go get the book, right?”, “I would like you to go get the book”, “would you
go get the book”, and “would it trouble you to go get the book?”. Native speakers
thought the request “you will go get the book, right?” was “not acceptable and not
polite” while Chinese learners thought it was “acceptable but not polite”. Native
speakers thought the request “I would like you to go get the book” and “would you go
get the book” were “acceptable and not polite” while Chinese learners thought they
were “acceptable and polite”. Native speakers thought the request “would it trouble
you to go get the book?” was “acceptable and polite” while Chinese learners thought it
was “acceptable but overly polite”.
38
b. Perception of Japanese and American towards English requests
Matsuura (1998:38-46) conducted a study on how the Japanese perception of
politeness in making English requests could differ from that of Americans. The study
involved 77 Japanese and 48 American university students. They were given 11
English sentences which were used in the action of borrowing a pen, with a seven-
point rating scale. The sentences were I was wondering if I could…, May I borrow a
pen?, Could you lend me a pen?, Could I borrow a pen?, Do you have a pen I can
use?, Can you lend me a pen?, Can I borrow a pen?, Got a pen I can use?, Let me
borrow a pen., Lend me a pen., Give me a pen.
The results showed that both groups felt that "I was wondering if I could
borrow a pen" was the most polite request, followed by such interrogatives as "Could
you lend me a pen?" and "Could I borrow a pen?". Japanese students and American
students have different perception on "May I ... ?" form. Japanese students rated this
interrogative request to be almost neutral in politeness while Americans evaluated it as
a very polite request.
Results also showed that in the situation of close friend as an addressee,
Japanese tended to think that they could use rather casual expressions, while
Americans indicated that they might use more polite requests. For example, more
Japanese than Americans might use such imperatives as "Lend me a pen" and "Give
me a pen" in an actual interaction.
39
c. Perception of mixed cultural background towards requests realized by Japanese
learners of English
Using a five-point rating scale, four native English speakers of mixed cultural
background (one African American, one Asian American, and two Australians) rated
the appropriateness of requests produced by 48 Japanese EFL students (Taguchi,
2011:459-463). The five-point rating scale is ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5
(excellent): 5 is for Excellent: almost perfectly appropriate and effective in the level of
directness, politeness, and formality. ; 4 is for good: not perfect but adequately
appropriate in the level of directness, politeness, and formality. Expressions are a little
off from target-like, but pretty good. ; 3 is for fair: somewhat appropriate in the level
of directness, politeness, and formality. Expressions are more direct or indirect than
the situation requires. ; 2 is for poor: clearly inappropriate. Expressions sound almost
rude or too demanding. ; and 1 is for very poor: not sure if the target speech act is
performed.
For a request like “Ah, sorry, I beg you pardon? Please one more time, what
you said” which was addressed to a close friend, the two Australian have the same
perception. They said that it was in category 3 which is fair. The Japanese American
participant had different perception. She rated 4 for the request inasmuch as it was a
little overly polite. The African American gave even a perfect score on this request, 5.
To fill in the gap of the scarcity of findings in relation with the perception of
NS and NNS towards requests strategy realized by Indonesian learners of English, the
researcher in the present study would like to collect data of Indonesians’ requests
strategy which then will be perceived by native speakers and non native speakers.
40
2.8 Elicitation technique in requests studies
Kasper and Dahl (1991:216) divided data-collection methods in pragmatics
research into the categories of (a) production-based methods (observation of authentic
discourse and use of discourse completion tasks [DCTs] and role plays) and (b)
perception/comprehension-based methods (the use of multiple-choice and scaled
response instruments [questionnaires] and interviews).
Numerous requests studies use Discourse Completion Test (DCT) (e.g. Jalilifar
et.al, 2011; Woodfield, 2008; Mohammadi and Tamimi Sa’d, 2014; Sattar et.al, 2009;
Hendriks, 2008; Kim, 1995; Tawalbeh and Al-Oqaily, 2012) or Role Play (e.g. Otcu
and Zeyrek, 2008; Tanaka, 1988; Han, 2013; Taguchi, 2006) as their elicitation
technique to obtain data of requests strategy.
2.8.1 Discourse Completion Task (DCT)
Discourse Completion Tasks are written questionnaires including a number of
brief situational descriptions, followed by a short dialogue with an empty slot for the
speech act under study. Subjects are asked to fill in a response that they think fits into
the given context (Kasper and Dahl, 1991:221). In other words DCT is a production
(written) questionnaire and involves non-interactive elicitation of data. It is created to
stimulate speech production and usually provides a number of scenarios or fictitious
situations which are designed to elicit the speech act under study. Each description is
followed by a section of dialogue, in which the participants have to fill in their
contribution in a way they believe suitable to the given context. To do so, they need to
imagine what they themselves or some abstract person might do and say in that
situation.
41
DCT has many administrative advantages, for example allowing the researcher
to control for certain variables (i.e. age of respondents, features of the situation, etc)
and to quickly gather large amount of data without any need for transcription, thus
making it easy to statistically compare responses from native to non native speakers
(Golato, 2003:92). In other words, DCT can provide large amounts of data in a short
period of time with a minimum of effort. Although DCT cannot provide authentic
speech, it can provide insights into what subjects think they would do in a certain
situation.
However, Beebe and Cummings (1985) in Kasper and Dahl (1991:243) found
that written role plays bias the response toward less negotiation, less hedging, less
repetition, less elaboration, less variety and ultimately less talk. The data do not
correspond to natural spoken language, or in other words the language collected with
DCTs does not reveal the actual pragmatics features of spoken interaction (Han,
2013:1099)
2.8.2 Role Play
Role plays may be designed in open or closed fashion. Closed role plays are
similar to discourse completion tests but are performed in the oral mode. Participants
are presented with scenarios and are asked to give one turn oral responses that are
recorded or videotaped. Open role plays like those used in this study involve
interactions played out by two or more individuals. They are not limited to only give
one response. Role play is generally regarded as simulating more authentic responses
than written tests. The respondents are asked to take a particular role requiring the
performance of a speech act (Sasaki, 1998:459).
42
Role plays have advantage over authentic conversation that it is replicable and,
just as Discourse Completion, allow for comparative study (Kasper and Dahl,
1991:229). Other advantages of this method are that the subjects have the opportunity
to say what they would like to say at their own chosen length, and their spoken
language is thought to be a good indication of their “natural” way of speaking.
However, for role-play, the subjects are aware of being recorded, which affects
their speech in ways that are unclear. Some have claimed that there is little emotional
involvement by participants, since they will not in fact experience feedback and bear
no responsibility for the outcome, as could be the case in real life. In fact, the whole
interaction can be seen as artificial and contrived. From a practical standpoint, the
researcher also depends on recording equipment, and the transcription process is rather
lengthy.
III. Research Method
This chapter lays out the design used in the study, explains who the
participants are, describes the data collection technique used in the study, outlines
the procedures employed, and elaborates how the researcher treats and analyses
the data obtained.
3.1 Research Design
This study is a qualitative study. This study was intended to find out what
requests strategy types realized by the EFL learners at SMA TMI Bandar
Lampung in school context, what factors influencing the realization of requests
and whether perception of native speakers and non native speakers towards the
politeness of requests similar. To obtain a thorough data for answering the
research questions, the researcher conducted role plays and administered
questionnaire.
Role plays were conducted in order to elicit students’ requests strategy
types in school context. There were two phases of role plays and there were two
situations in each phase. Demographic Questionnaires (DQ) were given to both
groups, the students and the raters (native speakers and non-native speakers), in
order to get the data which then were used for finding out the factors influencing
the students’ realization of requests and for finding out whether the raters met the
44
requirements as those who were capable to rate the politeness of requests realized
by the students. Another questioner given to the raters was so called Scaled
Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ). It was aimed to find out and then
compare the perception of NS and NNS towards the speech act of requests
realized by EFL learners.
3.2 Participants of the research
There were two groups involved in this study, speech act of request
realization group and perception group.
3.2.1 The participants for speech act of requests realization group
The participants for realization group were senior high school students of
SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung. The students were purposively
chosen since they have been learning English for years and they use English as a
means of communication. In this study there were 20 students who were paired to
do role plays. All pairs were given four different situations in school context. In
the two situations the power of the relationship was equal (=P) while in the other
two situations the power of the listener was higher (+P).
3.2.2 The participants for perception group
There were six teachers involved in this study as raters. 2 participants were
from Indonesia, 1 participant was from Slovakia, 1 participant was from New
Zealand, and 2 participants were from America. Since this study was intended to
find out the cross cultural perception towards EFL learners’ realization of request,
the raters were teachers and they were from different culture. The researcher
45
assumes that teachers are group of people who are well-educated and know more
about polite requests in school context.
In this study the three Native Speaker teachers and three Non Native
Speaker teachers were asked to fill out Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire
(SPPQ). In that questionnaire those participants expressed their perceptions
regarding to the speech act of requests realized by EFL learners.
3.3. Data Collecting Techniques
This study considers the two primary aspects of pragmatics competence,
production (pragmalinguistics knowledge) and perception (sociopragmatics
knowledge). Multimethod data collecting technique was applied to obtain
thorough data needed, role play for eliciting the pragmalinguistics knowledge and
Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ) to find out the
sociopragmatics knowledge.
3.3.1. Requests Realization Group
3.3.1.1 Demographic questionnaire
Demographic questionnaire was administered in order to find out the
participants’ background and characteristics. From the questionnaire the
researcher got the data about name, age, gender, and proficiency level.
3.3.1.2 Role Play
Role play was selected as the method of data collection to elicit the
students’ pragmalinguistics knowledge inasmuch as this method is regarded as
46
simulating more authentic situation. This method also allows interaction with an
interlocutor and offers the opportunity to observe a great variety of pragmatics
feature which can be found in natural conversation and that are often lost when
other methods of data collection such as discourse completion tasks (DCT) are
used.
The Role Play conducted in this study involved twenty students which
were paired. They did role play based on the four situations in school context. The
situations are asking a classmate to move his or her bag, asking a teacher to repeat
his or her lesson, asking a classmate to lend his or her biology notes, and asking a
teacher to extend a due date of paper submission.
3.3.2. Perception Group
3.3.2.1 Demographic questionnaire
Demographic questionnaire was administered in order to find out the
participants’ background. From the questionnaire the researcher got the data about
name, age, gender, job, nationality, and educational background.
3.3.2.1 Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ)
This questionnaire consisted of ten requests which were chosen randomly.
It was given to be rated and commented by the six raters who come from different
culture. They were asked to perceive the politeness of the requests strategy types
realized by the EFL learners at SMA TMI Bandar Lampung.
3.3.3 Recording the role play, transcribing the dialogues recorded, and coding
the transcript
47
The role play which was conducted in the class was recorded with mobile
phone. There were eighty dialogues obtained. In this study the researcher coded
the dialogues based on twelve requests strategy types proposed by Takahashi
(1996), based on the students’ characteristics like gender and proficiency level,
and based on the power of interlocutor (P).
3.4 Steps in Collecting the data
Table 3.1 Scenarios of data collection.
In collecting the data, the researcher did these following steps:
3.4.1 Determining the subjects of the research
This study was conducted at as a National Plus School called Tunas Mekar
Indonesia senior high school. This school has several foreigner teachers, uses a
combined curriculum, Indonesian and international curriculum, and uses English
as a means of communication. Since most students in this school are intended to
continue their study abroad so it is assumed that it is kind of important to know
what requests strategy types used by the students in school context and how
teachers from different culture perceive the politeness of the requests.
Role Play Phase 2(Recording)
Role Play Phase 1(Recording)
Demographicquestionnaire for therealization group
Scaled PolitenessPerceptionQuestionnaire (SPPQ)
Demographicquestionnaire for theperception group
Transcribingand coding
48
The participants for speech act of request realization group were from the
3rd grade or those in the last year of study and those perceiving the students’
requests were teachers from two different groups, native speaker teachers and non
native speaker teachers. There were six teachers who were asked to fill out the
scaled politeness perception questionnaire (SPPQ). They were chosen inasmuch
as they are assumed to be group of people who were well-educated and knew
more about polite requests in school context.
3.4.2 Administrating the Demographic Questionnaire for request realization
group
The Demographic Questionnaire was given to the request realization group
in order to get data about the students’ name, school, age, gender, and proficiency
level. The data were then used to find out the effect of the EFL learners’
characteristics on the requests strategy types use in school context.
3.4.3 Conducting Role Play
The Role Play conducted involved twenty students which were paired.
There were ten pairs of students and they were given four everyday situations at
school. Each pair did the role play in turn so that it was easier for the researcher to
record the conversations. The four situations were given in two phases. One phase
consisted of two situations which were different in terms of PD level.
The situations were asking a classmate to move his or her bag (=P), asking
a teacher to repeat his or her explanation (+P), asking a classmate to lend his or
49
her biology notes (=P), and asking a teacher to extend the due date of paper
submission (+P).
In each situation a pair of students got role cards and they performed based
on the role stated. After the first dialogue done, they exchanged the role cards and
did the role play again. It was continued to the next pairs of students and in the
next situations until finally eighty dialogues was obtained.
3.4.4 Recording, Transcribing, and Coding.
The researcher used mobile phone to record the students’ role plays. After
all the utterances recorded, the researcher transcribed them. The researcher
watched the video for many times and listened to the utterances carefully until all
utterances were transcribed.
The requests in the transcription were then coded based on Requests
Strategy Types model proposed by Takahashi (1996). Numbers were used to code
the twelve requests strategy types. The requests were also coded based on the
learners’ characters: F for female, M for male, L for low proficiency level, and H
for high proficiency level. The numbers and the symbols were then useful for
answering the research objectives which were about the requests strategy types
realized by EFL learners and the factors influencing the realization.
3.4.5 Administering the Demographic Questionnaire for perception group
Demographic questionnaire was administered in order to find out the
participants’ background. From the questionnaire the researcher got the data about
name, age, gender, job, nationality, and teaching experiences.
50
3.4.6 Administrating the Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ)
This questionnaire consisted of ten requests which were chosen randomly
from the transcription. It was given to teachers who were from different culture to
be rated based on their opinion on the politeness of requests in school context. In
the Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ) the raters did not solely
express their opinions towards the EFL learners’ requests strategy types realized
in the role play but also wrote the reasons for doing so.
3.5 Data Treatment
Based on the demographic questionnaires, the researcher made tables of
the participants’ characters. Based on the coded transcription the researcher made
a table of requests strategy types realized by EFL learners in school context, made
a table of requests used by different gender and different proficiency level, and
made a table of requests based on social power level. Then the researcher chose
some requests strategy types randomly to be rated by the raters and analyzed the
data to find out the factors influencing the realization of the requests.
3.6 Data Analysis
There were two kinds of data obtained, requests strategy types realized by
EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung and cross cultural
perception on the politeness of the requests realized by EFL learners in school
context. First, the researcher analyzed the transcription and coded based on the
benchmark decided, Takahashi’s requests framework (1996), and based on
participants’ characters. The researcher coded the requests by numbers and
51
alphabets. Second, the researcher analyzed the table of requests strategy types
realized by EFL learners in school context. The analysis was focused on the
percentage of each type of requests used by the students. The purpose of the
analysis towards the data about requests strategy types was to find out what
requests strategy types realized by EFL learners at SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia
Bandar Lampung and whether the data found was similar with the other studies.
In terms of cross cultural perception on the politeness of the requests
realized by EFL learners in school context, the researcher analyzed the table
which showed data obtained from the questionnaire filled out by the raters. The
researcher then concluded that the perception was similar if all raters rated a
certain request with similar rate. Yet if there was a difference in rating a certain
request, the researcher would conclude that the perception was different. The
purpose of the analysis regarding to learners’ characteristics was to find out
whether learners’ characteristics influenced the realization of requests. Then some
of the requests were rated by native speaker teachers and non native speaker
teachers in order to find out whether there was any congruence or incongruence of
the perception between native speaker teachers and non native speaker teachers.
V. Conclusion and Suggestions
This chapter presents conclusion of this study including strengths and
limitations. It also tells suggestions both for future research and for second/foreign
language classroom practice.
5.1 Conclusion
There are several types of utterances that can be used to get a person to
perform an action or to ask a hearer to do a speaker’s intention which is called by
request strategy types. Based on taxonomies of requests developed by Takahashi
(1996), in school context, the EFL learners at SMA TMI Bandar Lampung used
merely 10 out of 12 request strategy types. In other studies which involved variety
of context, all types of requests appeared. So context is the reason why not all
types of request were applied in a communication.
From the ten request strategy types appeared, preparatory questions were
employed most frequently (27.5%) with permission questions coming second
(22.5%). Both strategy types belong to conventional indirect utterances. The third
position of the most frequently used requests strategy is strong hints which
belongs to non conventional indirect utterances (20%). The frequency of hints use
in teenagers’ communication show that teenagers who are thought as group who
like to say things spontaneously and direct especially to friends also use hints.
86
The data show some factors influence the realization of requests. First,
different gender use different type of request strategy. Males tend to use direct
requests while females tend to use indirect requests. Males tend to use their
logical thinking in making request so they just think how to send a clear message
to the interlocutor. On the contrary, females tend to use their feeling in making
requests. They do not want to sound imposing their intention and want to sound
polite. In other words, the females combine the need for clarity and the need to
avoid coerciveness while the males merely focus on the need for clarity. However,
when both genders have guilty feeling, in weak position, or have perception that
the hearer would not perform an action if they use direct utterances, they tend to
use the same type of request, indirect utterances. Second, students who have
different proficiency level use different request strategy types. Third, the requests
addressed to interlocutor who has higher power, teacher (+P), is relatively
different from the requests addressed to interlocutor who has equal power,
classmate (P=). To sum up gender, proficiency level, the power of interlocutor
and perception of speaker influence the realization of request by EFL learners at
SMA Tunas Mekar Indonesia Bandar Lampung in school context.
What was found in this study was not merely factors influence the
realization of EFL learners’ requests in school context but also idiosyncratic
perception. Different perception was not only found between native speakers and
non native speakers but also between each person who come from the same
nationality.
That the most common strategy used by EFL learners in requesting in this
study is indirect utterances is in line with the data obtained by Otcu and Zeyrek
87
(2008) which involved Turkish EFL learners, Sofwan and Rusmi (2011) which
involved Indonesian EFL learners, Jalilifar et.al (2011) which involved Iranian
EFL learners, and Hendriks (2008) which involved Dutch EFL learners. Yet the
finding that shows that hints are frequently used in requesting is different with
those studies. In this study hints, strong hints, is in the third position of most used
utterances in requesting while in those studies hints solely has low percentage
compared with other types of utterances. So some parts of the finding confirm the
previous studies while some other parts rejecting them.
That native speakers and non native speakers have different perceptions
on the politeness of the requests was also found in the previous study (Lee, 2011;
Matsuura, 1998) but they did not obtain data that show that there is a different
perception among a group of native speakers and among a group of non native
speakers. That mixed cultural background people have different perception on the
politeness of the request was investigated by Taguchi (2011) yet he did not find
the differences of perception among people who have the same cultural
background. So the finding of this qualitative study, which shows that perception
is idiosyncratic, enriches the previous findings and become the gate to a deeper
investigation about people’s perception.
5.2 Suggestions
One of the strengths of this study is that it has presented the requests
strategy types realized by EFL learners in school context. The other strength is
that it has compared the perception of various raters who are teachers from
different countries. The limitation of this study is that the subject was merely a
88
number of students in a class of school that use English as means of
communication and the data was merely from four situations which was taken in
two phases. Although idiosyncratic perception is still too premature since this
study solely involved few raters, yet the data found have shown an indication to it.
5.2.1 Suggestion for future research
This study cannot be generalized as Indonesian EFL learners’ request
since it only involved one class of students and limited the topic to only in school
context. Further this study only involved students at school that use English as
means of communication. Other cross sectional and longitudinal studies need to
be carried out to obtain empirical evidence to answer questions like what requests
realized by students in school that does not use English as means of
communication, would the requests realized similar with what has been found in
this study, and what requests realized by people in Indonesia in terms of more
complex context.
5.2.2 Suggestion for second/foreign language classroom practice
The goal of teaching practice in EFL setting in Indonesia is to help
students to communicate in the target language. In order to meet the requirement,
teachers are widely suggested to focus not only on improving grammatical
knowledge and widening vocabulary but also on other beneficial aspects of
language like pragmatics competence in order to communicate properly in the
right situation especially in school context. Further since the perception is found
to be idiosyncratic, teachers need to equip themselves with adequate knowledge of
89
cultures and different perception of people from different culture so that they are
able to attach linguistic politeness in their teaching practice.
REFERENCES
Al-Marani, Y.M. and Sazalie, A. B. 2010. Polite Request Strategies by Male
Speakers of Yemeni Arabic in Male-Male Interaction and Male-female
Interaction. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, pp.
63-80.
Al-Momani, H.S. 2009. Caught Between Two Cultures: The Realization of
Requests by Jordanian EFL Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Amaya, L. F. 2008. Teaching Culture: Is it possible to avoid pragmatic failure?.
Revista Alicantina de Estudio Ingleses, 21, 11-24.
Ashoorpour, B. and Azari, H. 2014. The Relationship Between Grammatical
Knowledge and Pragmatic Knowledge of Speech Act of Request in Iranian
EFL Learners. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1),
39-47.
Aubrecht. K.M. 2013. Helping English Learners Make Pragmatically Appropriate
Requests. Unpublished Masters of Arts in English as a second language,
Hamline University.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. In Uso-Juan,
E., and Martinez-Flor, A. 2008. Teaching Intercultural Communicative
Competence through the Four Skills. Revista Alicantina de Estudios
Ingleses, 21, 157-170.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.A.S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M.J., and
Reynolds, D.W. 1991. Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the
conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4-15.
Beebee and Cummings. 1985. Speech act performance : A function of the data
collection procedure?. In Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. 1991. Research methods
91
in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13,
215-247.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or
Different?. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131- 146.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and Apologies: A cross-cultural
study of speech act realization patterns (CCSRP). Applied Linguistics,
5, 196- 213.
Borkowski, N. 2011. Organizational Behavior in Health Care. Massachusetts :
Jones and Bartlett Publisher.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals of language use. In
Subertova, A. 2013. Aspects of Politeness in a Classroom of English as a
Second Language. Unpublished Diploma Thesis, Prague: Charles
University.
Canale, M. 1983. From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative
competence: a pedagogically motivated model with content specifications.
Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative
competence: a pedagogically motivated model with content specifications.
Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Felix, B. 2005. Indirectnes and Politeness in Mexican Requests. Selected
Proceeding of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium
Fraser, B. 2010. Pragmatic Competence: the Case of Hedging. In Kaltenbock, G.,
Mihatsch, W., & Schneider, S. 2010, Studies in Pragmatics: New
Approaches to Hedging, 9, 15-34.
Golato, A 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and
recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 90-121
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Cole, P., et.al. Syntax and
semantics, 3, 41-58, New York: Academic.
92
Han, X. 2013. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and British English Request
Strategies Based onn Open Role Play. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 4, 5, 1098-1105.
Harimansyah, G. 2011. “Diksi laki-laki dan perempuan” dalam puisi-mutakhir
Indonesia (Kajian sosiolinguistik-genderistik). Widyariset, 14(1), 143-152.
Hassal, T. 2003. Requests by Australian Learners of Indonesian. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 1903- 1928.
Hendriks, B. 2008. Dutchh English Requests: A Study of Requests Performance
by Dutch Learners of English. In Pütz, M. and Aertselaer, J.N. Developing
Constrastive Pragmatics : Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin
Books.
Jalilifar, A., Hashemian, M., & Tabatabaee, M. 2011. A cross-sectional study of
Iranian EFL learners’requests strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 2(4), 790-803.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247.
Kim, J. 1995. “Could You Calm Down More?”: Requests and Korean ESL
Learners. Working Papers in Educational Linguistic, 11,2, 67-82.
Kramsch. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. In Marazita. 2009.
The Role of Negative Politeness in Request: The Strategies that Non-Native
Speakers Apply and Fail to Apply when Performing Request. Journal of
Nelta, 14(1-2), 82-90.
Lakoff, R. T. 1973. “The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s”. In
Subertova, A. 2013. Aspects of Politeness in a Classroom of English as a
Second Language. Unpublished Diploma Thesis, Prague: Charles
University.
Lee, Y. 2011. Comparison of Politeness and Acceptability Perceptions of Request
Strategies Between Chinese Learners of English and Native English
Speakers. Asian Social Science, 7(8), 21-34.
93
Leech, G. 1983. The principle of pragmatics. In Liu (2007). Pragmatics in foreign
language instruction: The effects of pedagogical intervention and technology
on the development of EFL learners’ realization of “request”. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Texas: Texas A&M University.
Lihui, Z., and Jianbin, H. 2010. A study of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic
failure and the implications for college English teaching. Polyglossia, 18,
41-54.
Lin, Y.H. 2009. Query preparatory modals : cross-linguistic and cross-situational
variations and request modification. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1636-1656.
Lindsay, P. and Norman, D.A. 1977. Human information processing : An
introduction to psychology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. In Borkowski,
N. 2011. Organizational Behavior in Health Care. Massachusetts: Jones
and Bartlett Publisher.
Lorenzo-Dus, N. and Bou-Franch, P. 2003. Gender and Politeness: Spanish and
British Undergraduates’ perceptions of Appropriate Requests. Genero,
lengueje y traduccion, Jose Santaemilia, Valencia, pp.187-199.
Matsuura, Hiroko. (1998). Japanese EFL Learners' Perception of Politeness in
Low Imposition Requests. JALT Journal, 20(1), 33-48.
Meier, A. J. 1997. Teaching the universals of politeness. ELT Journal, 51(1), 21-
28.
Mohammadi. and Tamimi Sa’d. 2013. Native speakers’ of (im)politeness of non-
native speakers’ requests. International Journal of Research Studies in
Language Learning, 3(4), 23-40.
Otcu, B. and Zeyrek, D. 2008. Development of Requests : A study on Turkish
learners of English. In Pütz, M. and Aertselaer, J.N. Developing
Constrastive Pragmatics : Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
Petraki, E. and Bayes, S. 2013. Teaching Oral Requests : An Evaluation of Five
English as a Second Language Coursebook. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499-517.
International Pragmatics Association.
94
Rose. K. R. 1999. Teachers and Students Learning about Requests in Hong Kong.
In Aubrecht. 2013. Helping English Learners Make Pragmatically
Appropriate Requests. Unpublished Masters of Arts in English as a second
language, Hamline University.
Sasaki, M. 1998. Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A
comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30(4),457-484.
Sattar, L., & Suleiman. 2009. Iraqi Postgraduates’ Production and Perception of
Requests: A Pilot Study. The International Journal of Language Society and
Culture, pp.56-70.
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan. Syntax and
Semantics. New York : Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5,
1-23.
Sofwan, A. and Rusmi. 2011. The Realization of Request Strategies by Non-
Native Speakers of English. Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora,
11(2), 69-81.
Srisuruk, P. 2011. Politeness and Pragmatic Competence in Thai. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Newcastle University.
Tabar, M.S. 2012. Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization: The Case of Requests
in the Persian and Turkish Speech of Iranian Speakers. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(13), 237-243.
Taguchi, N. 2006. Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2
English. International Pragmatics Association, 16 (4), 513-533.
Taguchi, N. 2011. Rater Variation in the assessment of speech acts. International
Pragmatics Association, 21(3), 453-471.
Takahashi, S. 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second language
Acquisition,18, 189-223.
Tanaka, N. 1988. Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English.
jALTJournal, 9, 81-102.
95
Tawalbeh, A. and Al-Oqaily, E. 2012. In-directness and Politeness in American
English and Saudi Arabic Requests: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Asian
Social Science, 8(10), 85-98.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Watts, R.J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodfield, H. 2008. Interlanguage requests : A contrastive study. In Pütz, M. and
Aertselaer, J.N. Developing Constrastive Pragmatics : Interlanguage and
Cross-Cultural Perspective. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhu. and Bao. 2010. The Pragmatic Comparison of Chinese and Western
“Politeness” in Cross–cultural Communication. Journal of Language
Teaching and Learning, 1(6), 848-851.
![Efl Journal[1]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/543e6a37b1af9f29068b457e/efl-journal1.jpg)
