Comparison of Medical and Law Students’ Request Strategies
124
different of the requests’ pattern and strategies employed by Medical and Law students of Batam University. At this point, the pragmatic study allowed to see
clearly why the students selected certain linguistic elements to deliver their intentions. Therefore, bringing back Bublitz and Norrick’s 2011 idea, the
advancing of pragmatic study was precisely helpful in investigating the pattern of linguistic actions, language functions, type of inference, principles of
communication, frame of knowledge, attitude and belief of the speakers to carry out the requests in various possible strategies and modifications.
Based on the four main strategies of request proposed by Rue and Zhang 2008, the researcher discovered that the Medical and Law students practiced
different preferred strategies and modifications in requests see table 19. At glance, it was noticed that Medical group used the external modification as the most
dominant strategy in making requests with the reoccurrence of 31.81 from the total. Meanwhile, the Law students favored modifying the internal structures of the
statements while they made requests and it occurred 29.93 of the total strategies employed. This result agreed Felix-Brasdefer 2005 that to mitigate the requests
force, the speakers used various and complex forms of internal and external modifications. However, to fortify the researcher findings, the simple test for
difference known as t-test was next took place to prove it. The t-test result for the two groups, Medical and Law group, verified that
the different requests’ strategies employed were significant shown by the Sig.2- tailed of less than 0.050 see table 23. This significant differences were realized
through the choosing of different dominant strategy to carry out the requests. The PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
125
researcher dismantled that Medical students selected external modifications as the leading strategies in asking the hearers to do and not to do what they wanted shown
by significant level of 0.000. From table 19, it was noticed that Medical students used 2.57 more external modifications than Law group. On the other hand, Law
students chose the internal modifications as the most frequent requests strategies with the difference of 1.56 from Medical group which ensued significance level
of 0.037. In the same line, other strategies of the openers and also head acts modifications also encountered different number of the occurrences.
The previous discussion on request’s patterns done by Medical and Law group discussed in details about the using of each modification. Yet, further in this
section, each of the strategies were compared into more specific points of difference. Firstly, both Medical and Law group were proven to use all the four
sequences of request strategies. Meanwhile, the researcher discovered that Medical students made greater use of external modifications compared to Law students.
Unsurprisingly, supportive moves with occurrence of 31.81 were the most frequently used strategies by Medical group, meanwhile, for Law students, it
occurred for 29.24 of the total strategies. This finding was supported by the t-test result of the significant level of 0.000 which construed that there was extremely
weighty disparity between Medical and Law students in using external modifications for requests.
216 Hi friend, so sorry to disturb your time. I would like to exchange shift with you because tomorrow I have important family business.
How? Can I exchange shift with you? Thank you. DM 009 217 Sorry, I need to finish my tasks because the deadline is in a couple
of hours . When I finish my work, you can borrow it again. Is that OK?
DM 091 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
126
218 Excuse me, boss. Sorry to disturb your time, but I want to be honest, boss. I cannot cope with the responsibilities on my present position.
I am afraid that my performance was not optimal when I fill this position. Please considerate it again, boss. DM 129
Corresponding to Hassall 2003, speakers’ pragmatic competence helps them to choose and decide the linguistic units used in making requests. Thus,
dealing with different situations, in order to mitigate the requests force, Medical students employed supportive reasons, usually in sort of explanations and
justifications. This result stayed in line with Fellix-Brasdefer 2005 that the most employed external strategies by EFL learners was the grounders tactic. Based on
the pragmatic competence point of view, this selection of grounders strategy embedded the unique properties of negotiability between the speaker and the hearer.
Form the results, some students provided short reasons beginning with “because”
as seen in 216 and 217, and often offered longer and complex justifications as seen in 218. The adaptation of this grounder strategy as the supportive reasons
consecutively were preceded by apology statements of “Sorry” for the trouble that
potential requests might cause. Besides, the selecting of the supportive justifications and explanations also began with preparatory statements using
preparators as shown in 219 and 220.
219 Excuse me, boss. Can I talk to you about something? I need to tell you that I can’t take the responsibilities in my present job. It is too
hard for me to do. Would you mind to change my job? DM 135
220 Excuse me, sir. May I have a talk with you? I think that I can’t cope
with all responsibilities in my present position. If you agree, please change my job and get another people to replace me. DM 143
On the other hand, eventhough Law students were found to use external modifications of supportive reasons, often they provided shorter form of
127
explanations and justifications than the Medical group. The following examples of cases pointed that Law students inclined to preferably use a direct form of speaking
without mentioning potential apology to the requests they pleaded. In terms of politeness, it was generally considered that Medical students were more polite than
Law students in using the justifications that accompanied by sorry expressions preceded them. Furthermore, it was also examined that Law students frequently
stated their main act requests without any preparators mentioned before. This matter might heighten the impositive forces on the hearers as well.
221 Excuse me, sir. Can you help me to open the door? My hands are so full, sir. DL 045
222 Can you get me a glass of water? I was thirsty. DL 084 223 May I get my computer back? I have duties to do. DL 092
Another point to be underlined, Medical students not only selected supportive reasons along with apologies and preparators as the external
modifications, but also supportive sweeteners most of time. Unlike the grounders which gave some explanations toward the requests, the sweeteners potentially put
the hearers into a positive feeling by stating compliments to them.
224 Great job. Congratulations, man I already realized that you are very talented in this fields
. Anyway, how about having dinner with other office staff tonight? DM 218
225 Hey, I heard you did a great job in managing marketing. Can you
handle another big project? I need capable person like you to manage it
. DM 243
226 You are a good marketing manager that our company has
. That’s
why I need a person like you to handle our big project next year. Our company needs you
DM 253 The opting of the compliments in speaking was measured as high pragmatic
competence in use. The supportive compliments incorporated the unique properties of negotiability and dynamicity at the same time. Through compliments, the
128
speakers possibly engaged in a more flexible strategy and developed the communicative interaction between the participants. Conversely, Law students
likewise employed supportive compliments as shown in below examples.
227 Our company will have a big project next month and I need this capable person to manage it.
This person must be you. I think you can manage this project well
. DL 250
228 I see your job is so excellent. I am so proud of you. I have a new big project. Will you help me? I trust you. DL 251
Conforming the two groups, the researcher came to the findings that the Medical students seemed to be more natural in conveying their compliments. It was
seen from the way they selected the linguistic properties as well as dictions to represent it. In contrary, Law students had tendency to overratedly use the
compliments. Seen in two examples above, the lexical choices as well as the redundancy of the supportive moves made the compliments sound unnatural and
inflexible. Stay in the same line with the sweeteners, the supportive gratitude helped to enhance the hearer-dominance.
229 So sorry, I need you to help me. Can you open the door for me because
my hands are so full? Thank you, sir. DM 052
230 Hi, nice to see you on my team. By the way, I am very thirsty. Do you
mind to take me some water, please? Thank you. DM 087
231 Hello, friend. Are you still using my computer? I have an urgent request to finish because the boss is waiting for me. Can you return
my computer? Thanks. DM 095
Medical and Law students were found to use the supportive gratitude to the hearers for the expected compliances of the requests, but, the Law students
employed only few of them. The findings revealed that Medical students selected this strategy five times greater than the Law students see table 18. The using of
the supportive appreciation in fact created a more positive feeling to the hearer, and PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
129
at the same time, lessened the appeal ’s force. Another point to mark, in order to
elicit the hearers’ sympathy, the researcher discovered that Medical students chose more supportive of humbling oneself than Law students.
232 Excuse me, sir. If I could ask, I need a reposition about my job. I think I did the maximum thing in coping with this position, but
I couldn’t manage it well
. DM 130 233 Excuse me, boss. Sorry to disturb your time, but I want to be honest,
boss. I cannot cope with the responsibilities on my present position. I am afraid that my performance was not optimal when I fill this
position . Please considerate it again, boss. DM 129
234 Excuse me, boss. Can I talk to you about something? I need to tell you
that I can’t take the responsibilities in my present job. It is too hard for me to do.
Would you mind to change my job? DM 135 It was a promising matter that when the lawyers faced their clients, they
would not mention something which could possibly reduce their client’s trust. For
some cases, implicitly this external strategy conveyed through the acts of blaming or lowering the speakers themselves. This fact potentially became the reason behind
the less exploiting of the supportive humbling hisherself by the Law students. Another motivation of Medical and Law students to employ the supportive moves
was to eliminate any possible refusal to the pleas expressed which known as reassuring disarmers.
235 Excuse me, sir. May I use this photocopier first? I have many documents to be copied and I only have 15 minutes before the meeting
start. Please, understand my condition sir. DM 189 236 Excuse me, sir. I am sorry to disturb you. This is not what I want.
But, I must say this. Could you help me to let me copy my documents
first since I have to bring them to the meeting now, sir? Please. DM 201
237 Hi, John. Your work is very satisfied me. This is your chance to prove that you are more than good in managing marketing
. Let’s join my team. DM 250
130
The variability property of pragmatic competence allowed the speakers to select various possibility of communicative choices to propose their need.
Identically, this variability was accompanied by salience property to realize the degree of the awareness reached by certain communicative choices. Thus, Medical
students manipulated the request acts using disarmers as the communicative strategy to get the hearers accept the requests. Paying a close examination on these
three previous examples, the researcher came to a cue that Medical students employed more salience strategy by putting the emphasis to the hearers or the
hearer-dominance tactic. 238 Sorry, can you help me? I want to use my computer.
I’m waiting for you
DL 113 239 Sir, can I use it first?
It’s so urgent. In 15 more minutes the meeting
will start and I must finish them before the meeting begin. DL 183 240 Alex, I heard that you has done a great job managing marketing. We
will have a big project and
I don’t have other candidate except you.
Will you handle this project? DL 249 Meanwhile, the three examples above were noticed to be more speaker-
dominance concern. The supportive disarmers of “I’m waiting for you”, “It’s so urgent” and “I don’t have other candidate except you”, appeared to reinforce the
burden on the hearer side, thus, it was confirmed as the speaker-dominance. In some way, whenever people made requests, to get the hearers completed the pleas, the
speakers need to ease the hearer and put them into a comfortable feeling. In that manner, the compliance of the requests was expected higher than using the speaker-
dominance one. 241 Sorry, I need to finish my tasks because the deadline is in a couple of
hours. When I finish my work, you can borrow it again. Is that OK? DM 091
131
242 Hey, sorry before, but I need to finish my tasks because my boss is
waiting. Can I get my computer back? Are you okay with that? DM 092
243 Congratulations You are always as great as usual. Then, let’s buy us
a drink to celebrate your promotion. I think it is not bad idea, what do you think?
DM 238 244 Hello, sir. Excuse me before, I want to change my job to
administration because it’s my basic skill. How about that, sir? DL 125
245 Congratulations, sir. You got a promotion, you deserve it. We must
celebrate it. How about having lunch at the café near here? DL 220
Observing the situations provided, some situations were fashioning the hearer to use another kind of strategy. The pragmatic competence of indeterminacy
made plausible for the speakers to re-negotiate the pragmatic choices as the interaction unfolds in order to fulfill the communicative intentions in form of
supportive moves. The most commonly used supportive external modifications for this condition wa
s asking the hearer’s opinion strategy. Besides, slightly, the researcher pointed that the two groups also employed
supportive begging in consigning their want and desires. The findings revealed that the Medical and Law students equally used this external modifications as seen
below.
246 Excuse me, sir. Help me please. Help me to open the door, sir.
Because I carry too many books on my hands. DM 040 247
I’m so sorry sir for being impolite, but there are important documents which need to be photocopied since the meeting will soon be started.
Please help me.
DM 187 248 Excuse me, sir. I want copying my documents so soon. This document
will be for the meeting and it is only 15 minutes left. Please help me to copy them, please
. DL 201 In chances, there were some supportive moves that more often employed by
the Law students like cost minimizer, promising for rewards, and confirmation. These two modifications assisted Law students to deal with their implicit intentions
132
for example when they do the interrogations. The speakers provided the hearers less burden through giving a bid for certain cases. This condition might trigger to put
the benefit on the hearers as well as the speakers mutually. 249
I’m sorry, I want to do my job right now
. I don’t take a long time, you can wait for me
. DL 103 250 Excuse me, sir. Can I speak with you right now? I feel my job is not
my specialty. I cannot cope the responsibilities on my present position. Will you change the job for me? I will make my best on the new
position you give me . DL 132
251 Want you to help me this time? I have a great project upcoming. I will promote you after finishing this project.
DL 268 252 Excuse me, congratulations on the new position. Can you buy us
dinner for tonight? Will you? DL 217
Furthermore, to make the speakers obtained desired convincing statements, often
they employed supportive confirmations to check the potential compliances of the need they wanted to get.
253 Excuse me, can I get my computer now? I must finish my job. You know, my boss is so angry person
. DM 106 For the other type of the external modifications, there was only a limited
number of supportive jokes employed by Medical and none of Law students was found to employ jokes in making requests. When people engaged into a demanding
situation, it was imminent for them to be aggravating, thus the use of jokes would considerably not applicable to the context.
Following Han 2013, individual’s position and power influenced the using of the speech acts in requests. Hence, from
the situated working life settings, it can be concluded that the non-English students tended to be serious and formal, moreover when the issue of [P], [D] and [R] were
existed. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
133
On the contrary, for the upgraders, providing salience reprimands were the ways of criticizing the things done by the hearers. Both Medical and Law students
employed reprimanders as the upgrading function of external modifications, yet, Law students tended to use stronger forms.
254 Sorry, sir. This is a smoke free room. Can you kill the cigarette? Or if you want to smoke, please smoke outside this room. Thanks
. DM 156
255 Excuse me, sir. Sorry if I offend you, here is not the place for smoking. If you want to smoke, you can do it outdoor. Thanks.
DM 159 256
Can’t you read that sign? This room is no smoking area DL 154
257 There has been a big sign right in front of you.
Don’t you see it? DL
168 Fulfilled the pragmatic competence of reviving the awareness of the
addressee that smoking caused harm to hisherself as well as the others in that room, Law students employed offe
nded reprimanders seen in “Can’t you read that sign?” and “Don’t you see it?” as very strong warnings which created greater impositive
force to the hearer. Meanwhile, Medical students used softer fashion to notify by embedding some downgraders of apologi
zing like “Sorry, sir” and “Excuse me, sir. Sorry if I offend you” with politeness markers and inserted “Thanks” as the other
way to increase the politeness. Secondly, moving forward to the internal modifications, the Medical
students were discovered to use fewer internal modifiers on speech acts, in comparison with the Law students. This strategy was the most dominant strategy
advanced by Law group. The total of the occurrence of the internal modifiers employed by Law students reached 29.63 of the total, which was 1.26 ahead
from the Medical group. This result was supported by the t-test result of 0.037 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
134
which indicated the diversity of the internal modifications used by the two groups was significantly worth to be discussed.
The findings suggested that to soften the force of requests, speakers used both syntactical and lexical modifiers. With this respect, both groups experienced a
lot in selecting the syntactical and lexical modifications for various purposes and ways, and most of them, particularly the Law students, preferred interrogatives
most. There was a tendency for Law students to use more interrogative forms than the Medical students as their most important syntactic mitigator. Some examples of
interrogative structures found in this research were observed in the following examples.
258 Excuse me, sir. Would you help me please? Please open the door for
me, I need your help. Thank you. DM 051
259 Excuse me, sir. Would you substitute my morning shift today? I
think I forgot to lock my house, so I have to go back home. DL 008
260 Could you replace me in the morning shift? I am in a hospital right
now because my wife is about to give a birth. DL 030
261 May I get my computer back? I have duties to do. DL 095
The interrogative forms produced by Law and Medical students were basically in
form of yesno questions using modal verb. As seen in the examples above, the modal verb used were varied. Referring to Salgado 2011, the direct or indirect
form of request might be seen from the use of the modal verbs selected by the speakers. Even when
Medical students employed “can” and “would” as the interrogative modifiers, Law students were found to use more various modal verbs
like “can”, “could”, “would”, and “may” in making requests. Taking a deeper examination on inversions done by Law students, this suggested that when faced a
real working life, the speakers of Law preferred to use interrogatives since their job PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
135
required them to do so. Overall, both groups were able to produce yesno inversion using different modal verbs and this finding satisfied that the Medical and Law
students had good linguistic competence especially in grammar as well as pragmatic competence to adapt to different situations.
Besides the inversions, both Law and Medical students also employed other syntactical manipulation of conditional sentences. However, the Medical group
were discovered to use more conditional forms to modify their requests. This modification was to convey politeness as well as to mitigate the force might cause
by the plea. 262
I’m sorry, I have things to do all sudden. I am wondering if you can replace me today
. DM 007
263 Hey, bro. I am wondering if I could use my computer right now. I
really need it to complete my tasks. DM 100
264 Excuse me, sir. If I could ask, I need a reposition about my job. I
think I did the maximum thing in coping with this position, but I couldn’t manage it well. DM 130
265 Let’s have a meal after the meeting. It will be your treat since you just
promoted to be the new supervisor.
If you don’t mind. DM 224
The conditional structures were syntactically more acceptable and polite than the
interrogatives since they burdened no commitment to the hearer to accept the request. Thus, the hearer was given more chance whether or not to take the request.
Yet, this modification required a high both grammatical and pragmatic competence of the speakers. As Medical practioners, it was often that the doctors gave
suggestions to their patients to do and not to do something, thus, through the conditional sentence, the force can be lessen and more conventional.
Furthermore, for the using the internal modifications were intended to modify the main request acts, this adjustment also obliged the selection of linguistic
136
units’ insertion as lexical modifiers. The highest occurrence of the internal lexicon used to modify the request was the politeness markers as to spot the politeness stated
by the requesters. Being polite means that people performed interpersonally sensitive actions in non-threatening or less threatening manner Holtgraves, 2002.
As to emphasize that being polite is not obligatory Leech, 2014, there has always been reasons to be polite moreover when people need someone to do something for
their benefit. On the other hand, supporting
Leech’s idea that “a sense of what is normal” influenced the speakers in choosing the linguistic elements to carry out meaning,
members of society had their own standard about what was recognized as “how to be polite” for particular contexts. Responding to this fashion, Medical and Law
students provided two options of how to be polite. The first was the most obvious lexicons used as internal modifiers were the politeness markers, and as the
supporters, the second were the honorific terms.
266 Sorry, sir. Would
you help me to open the door because I can’t open it? DM 031
267 Hello, Mister. I have so much stuffs in my hands. I really need your help. Can you help me to open the door, please? DM 035
268 Excuse me, sir. Help me please. Help me to open the door, sir.
Because I carry too many books on my hands. DM 040 269
I’m sorry, boss. May I speak with you? Please help me to change my job because I fell I cannot cope with this job. Please sir, please change
my job. DL 139
Following Rue and Zhang 2008, the result showed that both groups equally satisfied the using of internal modifications of politeness and honorific
markers of the lexical downgrades. Discussing back the previous study done by Salgado 2011, politeness makers used to produce mitigated and polite requests.
137
The highest occurrence of the politeness markers found in this study were “please”,
and followed by “excuse me”, and “sir”. In the same line, when the participants followed the rule of [P], [D], and [R], in order to be polite, they had to adjust the
honorific of the personal deictic expressions like “sir”, “mister”, or “boss”, which considered as acceptable for the contexts. Furthermore, the use of past modal
“could” and “would” rather than “can” was also renowned as politeness markers which favored in a formal or distance interaction. It was noted that whenever the
speakers inserted “please” in the main request acts, it signaled an explicit mark that the statements or the expressions they uttered was a request, not as an order.
Besides, agreeing Salgado 2011 who noted that every time the speakers conveyed a request, they knew that they were asking for a favor and that the favor
represented a high cost for the hearer, therefore, the insertion of particular linguistic unit was very useful to mitigate the plea. One of the auspicious choices was the
using of subjectivizer and downtoner as displayed in the following examples.
270 Good morning, mister. I had a good job in your company, but I feel
like I can’t cope with the responsibilities in my position. Is it possible for me to change my job? I want to give my best for my position. DM
125
271 Excuse me, boss. Sorry to disturb your time, but I want to be honest, boss. I cannot cope with the responsibilities on my present position. I
am afraid that my performance was not optimal when I fill this
position. Please considerate it again, boss. DM 129 272
I’m sorry, sir. I think I cannot cope with my position. I’m so sorry for disappointing you, but I need you to change my position. DL 140
273 Excuse me, sir. I think I will change my job because I feel
I can’t handle it well. DL 142
274 Will you able to take another big project? I think it suits you, and I believe
in you to do this project as well. DL 267 These examples displayed that Law students sometimes overused the subjectivizers
as seen in 273 and 274 by employing double modifiers in a single request in cost PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
138
of the speakers’ benefit and increase the speaker-oriented at the same point. In addition, the use of the subjectivizers often followed by downtoners as represented
in 270, 271, and 272 by both Medical and Law students in order to internally modify and soften the illocutionary forces of the requests.
Another point to highlight, Law students opted more appealers than the Medical students. The same as subjectivizers, the appealers as the lexical
downgraders, placed more benefit on the speakers’ side for the appealers functioned to implicitly elicit response from the hearers towards the requests.
275 Sorry friend, is your computer still broken? If not, I plan to use my
computer because I must finish my work right now. How? DM 116
276 Hi, friend. Congratulations You got a promotion, so don’t forget your
treat, OK? DM 219
277 Excuse me, sorry sir but this is urgent. Please let me do the photocopy
first, okay? DL 198
278 Hey, congratulations for your promotion. It is a good idea to have a
drink to celebrate it, right? DL 215
Commonly, the speakers inserted appealers at the end of the statements with a tag question. Both group were found to make use of
some lexical choices like “How?”, “OK?”, and “Right?”. Passionately, whenever the speaker mentioned “Okay?” or
“Right?” at the end of the statement, the hearer focused more on it as the speaker’s emphasis. Thus
, the most potential answer replied by the hearer would be “Okay” that indicated the hearer agreed and accepted the requests. This tactic helped the
Law students a lot in the future when they were dealing with the real life of working setting. In addition, Medical and Law students also employed other lexical
downgraders of delimiter and hesitation marker which showed that Medical students were more frequently employed them. This issue then guided the
researcher to come to the idea that Law students tended to ignore them, moreover PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
139
the hesitation markers, to increase the advantage on the speakers, the hearer would not be able to recognize any hesitation of the request being implored.
Further, in order to explicitly rise the urgency of the pleas as well as increase the requester’s benefit, the speakers attached lexical upgraders of time intensifier to
the main acts. It were the Law students who used more time intensifiers than the Medical group. Both group added same lexical choices for the time intensifiers such
as “now” and “right now” commonly to support the head acts. Yet, sometimes Medical students also embedded time signals like “quickly”, “as soon as possible”,
and “soon”.
279 Hey, bro. I am wondering if I could use my computer right now. I
really need it to complete my tasks. DM 100 280 Sir, are you busy? Can I use my computer for a while? I have to
complete the task as soon as possible. Thank you. DM 102
281
I’m sorry, can you bring a glass of water for me now, please? DL 074
282
I’m sorry, I want to do my job right now. I don’t take a long time, you can wait for me. DL 103
Creating determination of time intensifiers emphasized the urgency of the plea, therefore, it might take into consideration by the hearers to comply what the
speakers intended. Even benefited typically the same time signals, it was deliberated that Law students utilized more time intensifiers than Medical students.
For other lexical upgraders’ alternative, both Medical and Law students chose commitment indicators and repetition as seen below.
283
Sorry, sir. I’m truly sorry. Actually I really need to use this photocopier before the meeting starts and I only have 15 minutes
before it begin. Can I use it first? DM 197
284 Sir, you have done a great in the job. There will be a big project for
our company, will you be able to take it? I really hope. DM253 285 Excuse me, sir. Help me please. Help me to open the door, sir.
Because I carry too many books on my hands. DM 40 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
140
286 Excuse me, sir. I want copying my documents so soon. This document
will be for the meeting and it is only 15 minutes left. Please help me to copy them, please. DL 201
Medical students found to more emphasize their commitment toward the requests they made by mentioning
“truly” or “really”. The same case also happened to some repetitions which were done through restating the important expression in carrying
request like using “please” two times. Whereas, Medical students were found to
employ more various variations of internal strategies, Law students employed greater occurrence of the internal modifiers both for the syntactical and lexical
modifications in making requests. Thirdly is the head acts or the main acts requests. Both groups selected same
conventionally indirect head acts as the query preparatory. On the other hand, as the key point to be noted, for the second most favored way to convey main request
acts, the Medical students chose the strong hints as the non-conventionally indirect head acts, meanwhile, Law students used want statements of direct head acts more
often than hints. This significant different use of head acts was shown by the occurrence of 27.57 for Law students and 25.07 for Medical students. To
validate this finding, the t-test result gave 0.039 of significant level which indicated that the different was noteworthy.
287 Sorry, sir. Would you help me to open the door
because I can’t open it? DM 031
288 Sorry, can you please wait a moment because I need to finish my
tasks? The boss is waiting. After I finished them, you can borrow it again. DM 110
289 Bro, can you help me? I have something urgent right now. Can you substitute my shift?
DL 003 290 Excuse me, sir. Can I speak with you right now? I feel my job is not
my specialty. I cannot cope the responsibilities on my present position. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
141
Will you change the job for me? I will make my best on the new
position you give me. DL 132 The opting of the query preparatory was the most common head acts used
by both Medical and Law students. This conventionally indirect head acts used equally by forming preparatory question to ask for
permission, willingness, hearer’s ability and convenience as well as the feasibility of requests. Commonly, query
preparatory initiated with modal verbs like “can”, “will”, or in past forms like
“would” and “could”. As alternative choice of indirect form of main request acts, the two groups also employed suggestory formula but only in few number of
amounts. 291 Excuse me, sir. It was a great job, but it is not mine.
I think it’ll be better for someone else
. Can I change my job? It is for me to maximize working on the suitable one. DM 122
292
Wow, congratulations I’m so happy for you. How about treat us some food later?
DM214
293 Excuse me, can you help me to get a glass of drink? Water will be good.
DL 087 294 I am so sorry, man. I must finish this job right now. Will you wait for
me? Or you look for another one? DL 101
Medical students provided a more general suggestory formulas compared to Law students. They might seem lees direct, yet, they stated that they wanted water and
pizza for instance. Thus, though mentioning the things they wanted, the Law students successfully directed the hearers implicitly to their goals.
On the other hand, to mark the different use of the head acts for the two groups, the finding revealed Medical students employed hints as the second most
common head acts in which infrequently used by the Law students. Hints, both for strong and mild hints, offered speakers to explicate their intention by strong or less
strong clues to the hearers and let the hearers to construe the requests by themselves. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
142
295 Hmmm, excuse me.
I’m so thirsty right now, can you bring me a
glass of water? DM 063
296 Hello, congratulations for your new promotion. A good day to treat me and other office member
, huh? DM 216
297 Can I bother you? Can you take the water for me, please? Sorry
before. Thanks. DM 077
298 Sir, are you busy? Can I use my computer for a while? I have to
complete the task as soon as possible. Thank you. DM 103 Strong hints shown in 296 and 297 were considered applicable based on the
situated contexts. This non-conventionally indirect head acts tactics, however, were still interpretable by the hearers. Conversely, the speakers also stated mild hints
seen in 298 and 299, which considered as the most indirect way to convey the speaker’s desire or want. For some cases presented in this research, the mild hints
were still considered as tolerable because it was followed by grounders. Law students were also assessed to employ hints, nevertheless it was merely in a few
occasion. In short, hints provided the chance for the speakers to put more concern on the hearer side, at the same time, the hearer were not lead to certain expected
answer, yet, either accepting or rejecting the requests. In contrast to Medical group, Law students favored the direct want
statements as the second most used head acts after query preparatory. It was not only want statements, but also other direct head acts such as mood imperatives,
performatives, and obligation statements, were repeatedly opted by the Law students. This gap made reasonably distinctive use of head acts by Law and Medical
group whom preferred the hints strategy after all.
299 Can you help me? Please, I want to substitute my shift with you
because I have something important this morning. DL 019
300 Excuse me, mam. I want to drink
. I’m very thirsty. Can you help me to bring a drink for me? DL 071
143
301 Excuse me, sir. I want to say something to you about my work. I want you to replace my position
to another one because in my opinion the responsibilities are too hard to do. This time I cannot continue this
anymore. DL 147 Bringing up Kobayashi and Rinnert 2003 study on requests, “wants”
strategy possibly emerged more face-threatening to the hearers since want statements directly conveyed the illocutionary intents of the speakers. For some
matters, this strategy was considered impolite moreover when the hearer had a higher position and rank compared to the speaker. Further, the other form of the
direct head acts carried out by mood imperatives.
302 Excuse me, can you help me sir? Please change my shift because I
have to go to airport. DL 016 303
Excuse me, can you help me, please? I’m very thirsty, bring me a glass of water
. Thank you. DL 061 304 Sir, you are in a nonsmoking office. So please,
don’t smoke here.
You can do it in smoking area right there DL 160 The mood imperatives improved the impositive forces
of the Law students’ request. Grammatically, the imperatives did not need any modifications to make
them order or request by the speakers. Nevertheless supported by politeness marker “please” seen in 302, the illocutionary force of imperative was still strongly
embedded and felt by the addressee. Having the same impact as the imperatives and want statements, Law students were exposed to use the performatives a lot. By
employing performatives, the relevant illocutionary verbs were selected to make the statements orders, pleas or begging for the hearers which obviously cost more
force on the hearers.
305 Sir, please help me to open this door
. I can’t do it myself. DL 053 306 Excuse me, sir. I want copying my documents so soon. This document
will be for the meeting and it is only 15 minutes left. Please help me to copy them
, please. DL 201 307 Congratulations for your new position.
Let’s celebrate it DL 212
144
Selecting performatives inevitably directed the speakers to openly carry out the
intents through linguistic choices of possible representing illocutionary verbs. Similar to imperatives, when Law students decided to attach the politeness marker
like “please” to the head acts, it was never changed the oppressive impact much. The purpose of mitigating might be fail and the impositive force was still occurred.
Corresponding the other direct head acts, the obligation made possible to provide negotiation between the participants.
308 Excuse me, sir. I have something urgent to do this morning. May you
help me to substitute my shift? My wife is sick and we have to go to hospital.
DL 009
309 Congratulations, sir. You got a promotion, you deserve it. We must celebrate it
. How about having lunch at the café near here? DL 220 Bringing up the moral obligation could potentially diminish the force of the
illocutionary intent. Nonetheless, this strategy still left burdensome on the hearers therefore it was regarded as impositives. The complete findings revealed that
Medical students employed the direct head acts as well, yet not more much often than the Law students.
Lastly, the openers of the requests. Both group were found to manipulate the neutral openers as the most frequently used starter of the requests. The result
exhibited that Medical group employed more openers than the Law students. Statistically, it was given 14.75 for the Medical students in one hand, and 13.26
for the Law students on the other hand. The huge difference of the using of the openers between the two groups was confirmed over the t-test which ensued 0.000
of very significant distinction level. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
145
310 Andi, please return my computer that you borrowed before. I need
that computer right now. Thank you. DM 098
311 Excuse me, can you help me to open the door? My hand are full.
Thank you DM 033
312 Excuse me
, I’m very thirsty now. Can you bring me a glass of water? I c
an’t do it for myself now. DM 070
313 Excuse me, can I use my computer? I have many tasks and my boss
is waiting for me. DL 097 The researcher found that the neutral openers corresponded most of the situated
contexts. Whenever there was no issue of rank, it was considered as polite to address people using the basic neutral openers of
“excuse me”. Besides, when the context faced by the participants [-P], [-R] or sometimes in a formal setting, the neutral
openers were still observed as polite and conventional. In the same line, addressing someone by mentioning hisher name like 310 was comprehensively accepted for
common situation in real life interaction. Altogether, Medical students were explained to use more neutral openers than Law group.
Furthermore, to enhance the respectfulness to the addressee, Medical students engaged more openers with the upgrading function than the Law group in
the second place.
314 Sir
, can you help me to open that door? I can’t open it because I am carrying many books. DM 043
315 Sorry, boss.
Would you change my job because I can’t cope the responsibilities on my present position? Would you give me another
job to handle? DM 126
316 Excuse me, sir. Can you return my computer now? I want to finish
my task and my big boss is waiting for that. DL 098
317 Excuse me, boss. I want to have your time to discuss about my present
position. I think I cannot handle this job, it is too difficult for me. DL 131
Expressing reverence to the addressee might be easily noticed by the embedding of
the linguistic units to represent the politeness markers as well as honorifics. The PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
146
researcher dismantled that based on the way to convey their respect to the hearers, both Medical and Law students commonly began their
request by “excuse me” or “sorry” to be followed by the politeness markers of “sir” or honorific “boss”.
Meanwhile, it was possible to mention solely “sir” to simply start the plea.
Additional findings also presented very interesting fact of no openers as shown below.
318 Can you replace my work today? Unfortunately my mother was sick and she is now being treated in hospital. DL 024
319 Could you replace me in the morning shift? I am in a hospital right now because my wife is about to give a birth. DL 030
320 Would you bring a glass of water to me? I’m so thirsty. DL 073
321 Can you take a glass of water for me? DL 085 Another notable distinction of the openers’ usage perceived in this research
was that Law students often did not use any openers in making requests. This findings potentially led the speakers to lose the attention of the addressee, and at
the same point, were considered as impolite to be that straightforward because it increased the impositive forces carried out by the requests on the other hand.
Based on the elaborations above, the researcher denoted that both groups, Medical and Law students, even though they fulfilled the four strategies to make
requests, they selected distinct number of the frequency level for each of strategies. In short, Medical group suggested more indirect way of implying their wants,
meanwhile, Law students used more determined strategy to increase the benefit of the requesters. On the other hand, Medical group gave more options to the addressee
whether or not to accept the request by creating less impositive force through the using of more external modifications and hints in doing requests. Despite of its more
147
direct way, Law students found to be more to the point on the requests to direct the hearers take a solid “yes” or “no” on the requests implored.