34
D. Instrument
Since the researcher used a simak observation method and was continued by simak bebas libat cakap technique, so the instrument used in this technique was
the writer himherself. Next, the writer used note technique on data sheet and was continued by classification Sudaryanto 1993:135-136.
E. Data Analysis Technique
Having collected the data of directive acts, the researcher did the analysis based on the aim of the study. She did these four steps; coding, classification,
description, and interpretationexplanation. The followings are the explanation of the four steps.
1. Coding
The focus of this study was the speech acts of refusals SARs. The semantic formula obtained from the data was identified into different SARs. Each SAR
was then given a code to ease the process of analysis. If in the process of coding, some of the semantic formula provided by Beebe
and Takahashi 1990 in Nguyen, 2006 were not found in the data gathered, they would be removed from the list of semantic formula.
The classification of refusals proposed by Beebe and Takahashi 1990 in Nguyen, 2006:30-31 was as follows:
I. Direct: A. Performative
B. Non-performative statement 1. “No”
2. Negative willingness abilitystatement of unwillingness
35
II. Indirect A. Statement of regret
B. Wish C. Excusereasonexplanation
D. Statement of alternative
1. I can do X instead of Y 2. Why don’t you do X instead of Y
E. Set condition for future or past acceptance F. Promise of future acceptance
G. Statement of principle H. Statement of philosophy
I. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor
1. Threatstatement of negative consequences to the requester 2. Guilt trip
3. Criticize the requestrequester, etc. 4. Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding the
request. 5. Let interlocutor off the hook
6. Self defence J. Acceptance that functions as a refusal
1. Unspecific or indefinite reply 2. Lack of enthusiasm
K. Avoidance 1. Nonverbal
2. Verbal a. Topic switch
b. Joke c. Repetition of part of request, etc.
d. Postponement e. Hedging
f. Ellipsis g. Hint
III. Adjuncts to Refusals 1. Statement of positive opinionfeeling or agreement
2. Statement of empathy 3. Gratitudeappreciation
36
Table 1 shows the number of SARs which were found in the data and had been given codes.
Table 1: List of Code of SARs
Speech Acts of Refusals Code
Direct 1. No
IA 2. Statement of unwillingness
IB Indirect
1. Statement of regret IIA
2. Wish IIB
3. Excusereasonexplanation IIC
4. Statement of alternative IID
5. Set condition for future or past acceptance IIE
6. Promise of future acceptance IIF
7. Statement of principle IIG
8. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor a. Threatstatement of negative consequences to the
requester IIH
IIH1 b. Criticize the requestrequester, etc.
IIH2 c. Request for help, empathy, and assistance
IIH3 d. Let interlocutor off the hook
IIH4 e. Self defence
IIH5 9. Acceptance that functions as a refusal
III 10. Unspecific or indefinite reply
IIJ 11. Avoidance
a. Nonverbal IIK
IIK1 b. Verbal
a. Topic switch IIK2
IIK21 b. Joke
IIK22 c. Repetition of part of request
IIK23 Adjuncts
to Refusal 1. Statement of positive opinionfeeling or agreement
IIIA 2. Gratitudeappreciation
IIIB 3. Pause filler
IIIC 4. Statement of caution
IIID 5. Addressing term
IIIE
2. Classification