THE REALIZATION OF EFL LEARNERS’ REQUESTS AND THE CROSS CULTURAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE POLITENESS OF THE REQUESTS AT SMA TUNAS MEKAR INDONESIA BANDAR LAMPUNG

ABSTRACT

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

The importance of pragmatic competence, producing polite requests and
having adequate knowledge about cross cultural perceptions in cross cultural
communication is unquestionable since lacking of them could induce
communication breakdown. This article deals with the request strategy types
realized by the Indonesian EFL learners in school context, the factors influence
the realization, and the perceptions of teachers from different culture on the
politeness of request strategy types realized. In this study twenty students (aged
16-17) who use English as means of communication at school were asked to do
role play to obtain data about request strategy types used in school context. The
requests realized in the role play were then rated by six teachers from different
culture based on their perceptions on the politeness of requests in school context.
The data, taken from Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ) filled

out by the raters, were analyzed qualitatively. The results reveal that (1) context is
the reason why two out of twelve request strategy types were not used by the
students (2) gender, proficiency level, and social power of interlocutor influence
the realization of request (3) perception cannot always be concluded as a
consensus in a certain culture, but it can also be regarded as an idiosyncratic. It
cannot 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

A Thesis

By

SENIARIKA

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2016

ABSTRACT

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

The importance of pragmatic competence, producing polite requests and
having adequate knowledge about cross cultural perceptions in cross cultural
communication is unquestionable since lacking of them could induce
communication breakdown. This article deals with the request strategy types
realized by the Indonesian EFL learners in school context, the factors influence
the realization, and the perceptions of teachers from different culture on the
politeness of request strategy types realized. In this study twenty students (aged

16-17) who use English as means of communication at school were asked to do
role play to obtain data about request strategy types used in school context. The
requests realized in the role play were then rated by six teachers from different
culture based on their perceptions on the politeness of requests in school context.
The data, taken from Scaled Politeness Perception Questionnaire (SPPQ) filled
out by the raters, were analyzed qualitatively. The results reveal that (1) context is
the reason why two out of twelve request strategy types were not used by the
students (2) gender, proficiency level, and social power of interlocutor influence
the realization of request (3) perception cannot always be concluded as a
consensus in a certain culture, but it can also be regarded as an idiosyncratic. It
cannot 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

Submitted in a partial fulfillment of
The requirements for Master degree

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2016

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 CelceMuria 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
1 Mood derivable
the grammatical mood of the verb in the utterance marks its
illocutionary force as a request
2 Explicit performatives
the illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly named by the
speakers
3 Hedged performative
utterances embedding the naming of the illocutionary force
4 Locution derivable
the illocutionary point is directly derivable from the semantic
meaning of the locution
5
Scope stating
the utterance expresses the speaker's intentions, desire or feeling
the fact that the hearer do X
6
Language specific suggestory fomula
the sentence contains a suggestion to X
7

8

9

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
Strong hints
utterance contains partial reference to object or to elements
needed for the implementation of the act (directly pragmatically
implying the act)
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)

Examples
“Clean up this mess”

“I’m asking you not to park
the car here”
“I would like you to give your
lecture a week earlier”
“Madam, you’ll have to move
your car”
“I really wish you’d stop
bothering me”
“So, why don’t you come and
clear up the the mess you
made last night?”
“Could you clear up the
kitchen, please?”

“You’ve left this kitchen in a
right mess”

“I’m a nun (in response to the
persistent boy who keeps
pestering 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
Examples
1
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