Law Students Requests Pattern

109 who had a higher position or rank. It marked the impositives of the contexts. Meanwhile, it was also found that commonly the students of Law prefered to greet at first, before mentioning their desires. Seen in the following examples, the speakers greeted the hearers by “Good morning” and “Good evening”. In addition, the same as neutral openers, these upgraders were overratedly employed by the speakers to address the hearers’ attention as explained in example 123 and 124. 120 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 008 121 Hello sir, good morning . Today, I can’t go for my morning shift because I have problem with my car. Can you help me to change your shift with me? I will have night shift for today. Is that okay? DL 011 122 Good evening, sir. Would you like to change my job? Because I feel cannot cope with my position. DL 123 123 Excuse me, sorry sir. I want to copy my documents. DL 196 124 Excuse me, sir. Sorry, I want to open that door but my hands are so full now. Can you open it for me, please? DL 040 There were some conditions which considered that the speakers needed to pick carefully the words they said. 125 Excuse me, boy . Can’t you help me to open the door? My hands are busy. DL 051 126 Hey, bro . Can you bring me a glass of water? I’m so thirsty right now. DL 063 127 Hey, dude . Would you bring me a glass of water, please? Because I’m very thirsty right now. DL 077 At the moment when the speaker used inappropriate speech function or selected inapt linguistic units, it created downgraders function of the speech acts. In example 125, based on the context provided, addressing the elder using “boy” was regarded as impolite, the same as case presented in example 126 and 127 in which “Hey, bro” and “Hey, dude” were depreciated the hearers. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 110 2 Head Acts The head acts deal with the central attention of the requests. They conceivably could be either implicitly or explicitly stated by the speakers. The ability to make this acts less or more straightforward were governed to the intention and the competence of the speakers. The results explicated that Law students preferred the second way of conventionally indirect head acts most. 128 Bro, can you help me? I have something urgent right now. Can you substitute my shift? DL 003 129 Bro, I have an urgent thing to do right now. Do you want to help me to substitute my shift? DL 017 130 Sorry, can you help me to have a glass of water? DL 083 The conventionally indirect requests recognized by choosing the query preparatory such as “Can you substitute my shift?” and “Can you help me to have a glass of water?” in order to lessen the illocutionary force. On the other hand, the query preparatory was believed to be the best way to not overtly expressed the intent, yet, using the auxiliary ver b “do” in “Do you want to help me to substitute my shift?” might likely cost more force on the hearer. 131 Excuse me, can you help me to get a glass of drink? Water will be good. DL 087 132 I am so sorry, man. I must finish this job right now. Will you wait for me? Or you look for another one? DL 101 133 Congratulations, sir. We are happy for you. Anyway, let’s celebrate your promotion tonight. Pizza will be the best. DL 231 Another strategy of conventionally indirect requests was the implementation of the suggestory formula in head acts. Giving suggestions purposively as giving requests were commonly used by the requesters. This strategy might lessen the burdensome of the illocutionary intent. When expressing suggestion was the predictably indirect way, giving the choice which directed the hearer to what PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 111 exactly the speaker wanted like “Water will be good “ and “Pizza will be the best“ was the second most used indirect head acts by Law students. 134 Can you help me? Please, I want to substitute my shift with you because I have something important this morning. DL 019 135 Excuse me, mam. I want to drink . I’m very thirsty. Can you help me to bring a drink for me? DL 071 136 Hey, dude. Can you return my computer? I want to finish my tasks because my boss is waiting right now. DL 093 Different from the conventionally indirect head acts, the direct head acts equipped the Law students to use a direct way of request. Most of the speakers uttered frankly their desires by want statements like “I want to substitute my shift w ith you”, “I want to drink”, and “I want to finish my tasks”. Indeed, this linguistic units brought heighten cost to the addressee. 137 Excuse me, can you help me, please? I’m very thirsty, bring me a glass of water . Thank you. DL 061 138 Sir, you are in a nonsmoking office. So please, don’t smoke here. You can do it in smoking area right there DL 160 139 Congratulations on your new promotion. Don’t forget to treat us. DL 222 Similar to want statements, the mood derivables or imperatives were used as direct way of conveying request as well. It was specified by relevant imperatives either to do or no to do the speakers’ wants. Some of the examples used by Law students that found in this study were “Bring me a glass of water”, “Don’t smoke here”, and “Don’t forget to treat us”. 140 Hello sir, good morning. How are you? I have something urgent, my brother has an accident. So, I have to bring him to hospital. Can you help me to change my shift? DL 005 141 I am so sorry, man. I must finish this job right now. Will you wait for me? Or you look for another one? DL 101 142 Congratulations, sir. You got a promotion, you deserve it. We must celebrate it . How about having lunch at the café near here? DL 220 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 112 Make it obligation for the speaker or hearer should be taken, the speakers increase the speaker-dominance in which the requests governed were also the responsibility of the hearer to do, as seen in “We must celebrate it”. On the other hand, emphasizing the cost on the speakers, it was a good strategy to gain the hearer’s sympathy. 143 Hello, friend. Good job It’s awesome. Let’s have a meal together during the break time. DL 232 144 I would ask you to handle my project. I choose you because I know you do great in managing marketing. DL 241 The other direct way of request was the performatives that embedding the use of the certain illocutionary verbs. Through performatives, the speakers performed the utterances as the order, plea, or begging of the speakers intent. Law students selected some illocutionary verbs like “Let’s” and “I would ask you” as the pleas. 145 I’m sorry, I’m busy right now. Maybe you can wait me to finish my job first? Just 10 minutes. DL 107 146 Can’t you read that sign? This room is no smoking area DL 154 147 Sir, are you busy right now? I have urgent documents to photocopy. May I do it first, please? DL 197 Eventually, there were few numbers of non-conventionally indirect head acts employed by the Law students. For the strong hints, some expressions found were “I’m busy right now” which referred that the speaker could not do something at that moment, besides, “Can’t you read that sign?”, even when using the question form, this statement was not a query preparatory function, yet as the satire or sarcasm for the hearer’s behavior. In addition, the mild hints only once appeared. The example of utterance “Are you busy right now?” specifically construed the hearer to do something for the hearer through a less strong clue. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 113 3 Internal Modifications Functioning by means of modifying the main request acts, the internal modifications potentially created more or less burden to the hearers. Lexically the Law students interested to choose the dowgrader ones. The prevailing internal modifications found in this research was the use of the politeness markers to address the speakers’ respect to the hearer by inserting “Please”, “Excuse me”, and “Sir”. It was also revealed that often Law students employed the past verb “Would” rather than “Will” to mark the politeness to the addressee exampled in 151. 148 Good morning, mate. I have something so important and it makes me have to take your shift. Can you help me, please? DL 015 149 Hello, sir. Please help me to open this door because my hands so full. Can you help me? DL 035 150 Would you bring a glass of wa ter to me? I’m so thirsty. DL 073 151 Excuse me, sir. I can’t cope with the responsibilities on my present position. Please change my job, sir DL 128 Additionally, to state the civility, the speakers also selected the honorific terms to express the deference to the hearers. Mostly, the researcher found that to address person in the higher position or rank, the speakers inserted the formal form of honorific terms like “Boss” or “My boss” despite of neutral expressions such as “Mr.” or “Sir”. 152 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 131 153 I’m sorry, boss. Can I change my present job? I feel I cannot cope with my present duties. DL 133 154 Excuse me, my boss. I think I cannot do this job anymore. Please change my job. DL 136 For some purpose, the speakers stated explicitly what they wanted as their subjective thoughts. Choosing to insert a subjectivizer, for example “I think”, and PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 114 “I feel” chanced to decrease the assertive tones of the requests. Sometimes, Law students added more than one subjectivizer in a request shown in example 157 using “I think” and later followed by “I feel”. 155 May I change my job, boss? I think I cannot work on it. DL 122 156 Good evening, sir. Would you like to change my job? Because I feel cannot cope with my position. DL 123 157 Excuse me, sir. I think I will change my job because I feel I can’t handle it well. DL 142 Attaching a downtoner particle was also considered useful in making requests. The hearer might feel imposed by the ilocutionary intents expressed by the speakers, thus, inserting particles like “but” or “whereas” also applied by the Law students to lessen the burden on the addressee. 158 Sorry to trouble you, but could you open the door for me please? My hands are already full with goods. DL 058 159 Sorry to disturb you, but I need to finish my tasks since the boss is waiting for me. Can I use this computer now? DL 100 160 Excuse me, why do you turn on smoke? Whereas, there has been a warning that prohibited you to smoke here. Can you kill the smoke? DL 157 Besides, the downgraders of lexical choice might be recognized as a technique to gain the elicit response from the hearers. The speakers enclosed the statements by an appealer to check whether the hearer willingly took the requests or not. The appealers chosen by the Law students were various, for instance “May I?”, “Okay”, and “Right?” . 161 Sorry, sir. Can I replace my position to another job? May I? DL 149 162 Excuse me, sorry sir but this is urgent. Please let me do the photocopy first, okay? DL 198 163 Hey, congratulations for your promotion. It is a good idea to have a drink to celebrate it, right? DL 215 115 The internal modifications of the lexical downgraders affected the choice of the lexicons used by the requesters. Speakers often noticed the hearers by benefiting the delimiters to under-represent the illocutionary committed through saying requests. The lex icons “only” and “just” limited that the request would merely be carried only for that specific time or limit. 164 Can you help me sir? I need copies of this document and I only have 15 minutes. DL 185 165 You have finished the job so well. I need you to complete another big project since you have already been the only one I trust. DL 269 On the other hand, some other particular lexicons also chosen by the speakers as means to reduce and avoid the coercing tendency resulted from the requests. Some vague utterances utilized by the Law students in this study were “just” and “maybe”. 166 Can you help me? I must copy a lot of documents for a meeting, just for a while. Please. DL 202 167 Oh, you has just got a promotion. Congratulation, bro. Great job Maybe you can treat me and other office member to a meal together? Come on, we will make something happy for you. Okay? DL 211 In contrast, to build up the degree of the request acts, the speakers frequently added some time phrases to rise the urgency of the requests. By assigning time intensifier of “right now” and “now” the speakers expressed that there were insisting conditions needed to be fulfilled as soon. 168 I’m sorry, can you substitute my place right now? I have a very urgent business to do. DL 020 169 Excuse me, sir. Sorry, I want to open that door but my hands are so full now. Can you open it for me, please? DL 040 170 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 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 116 Another strategy for the upgrading modifications was the repetition of requests. The speakers emphasized some central points by stating them repeatedly. It was seen in ensuing examples that the word “please” were reiterated two or three times by the Law students in making requests. 171 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 139 172 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 201 173 I really look for capable person to manage our new project. I want to say this before but I just heard that you have great skills in this field. Let’s join my team. DL 253 The last lexical strategy for the upgrading purpose was the commitment indicator. As pres ented in example 173 above, the speaker mentioned “really” to fortify the degree of thisher commitment concerning the circumstance stated in the requests. 174 I have new project next year. Can you handle this project? I know you can do better than others. DL 260 175 Want you to help me this time? I have a great project upcoming. I will promote you after finishing this project. DL 268 The internal modifications were also embedded the changing of the syntactical forms of the requests. There were two syntactic downgraders used by Law students in making requests. The first and the most often chosen modification was the interrogative form of requests. Changing the statements into the interrogatives expressions helped the speakers to ease the force of the acts. The tailed question mark “?” signed in the request were “Can you handle this project?” and “Want you to help me this time?”. 176 Sorry, if you wish to borrow this computer again, you restore the computer now Because I have an urgent job to do. DL 117 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 117 177 Sir, can you please don’t do smoking in this room? If you want to, just do it outside. DL 167 Stay in line with the interrogative syntactical modification, the assistance of the conditional sentence was needed to diminish the resulted forces by the requests. The conditional statements marked by the word “if” as state of affairs pursuing the Law students to make requests. However, it was not encountered that Law students used the understater, hesitation marker, and reduplication. 4 External Modifications Did not belong to any head acts of requests placed the external modification to be put before or after them. The most occurrence of external modification found in this study was the using of the grounders for the downgraders, yet, mostly in short form. By adding some information about the reasons and justifications on the importance of doing the requests, Law students expressed: 178 Excuse me, sir. Can you help me to open the door? My hands are so full , sir. DL 045 179 Can you get me a glass of water? I was thirsty. DL 084 180 May I get my computer back? I have duties to do. DL 092 181 Boss, I want to change the job because I feel that I cannot cope with the responsibilities on my present position. DL 124 These examples showed that the speakers keenly conveyed their reasons to lessen the burden on the addressee. Some explanations given in this study were mostly the short ones as “My hands are so full”, “I was thirsty”, “I have duties to do”, and sometimes longer “because I feel that I cannot cope with the responsibilities on my present position”. 182 Hi, glad to know you had a promotion. Congratulations Anyway, can I ask you to treat us a nice meal for today? I t’s lunch time already. DL 229 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 118 183 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 250 184 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 Having the same tenacity as grounders, here the sweeteners also were employed by students of Law. The speakers gave compliments to the hearers regarding the potential ability of the requests. Law students found to overrate the use of this external modification to get the heart of the hearers. For example “Hi, glad to know you had a promotion”. In a persuasive situation, the speaker deviously stated more than one compliments as shown in “This person must be you. I think you can manage this project well” and “I see your job is so excellent. I am so proud of you… I trust you”. 185 Sorry to trouble you, but could you open the door for me please? My hands are already full with goods. DL 058 186 Sorry if I trouble you, can you get me a glass of water because I c an’t leave the meeting. DL 088 187 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 Besides, the choice of the apologies for the external downgraders could also be beneficial. Apology meant that the speakers knew the requests might trigger some troubles, thus, they anticipated those problems. Generally, the expression of “sorry” was most promising, it was seen in “Sorry to trouble you,” and “Sorry if I trouble you”. In other situation, the speaker employed double apologies strategy as presented in example 187, “I’m sorry, sir” and then repeated the apology “I’m so sorry for disappointing you”. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 119 188 Morning, sir. I want to talk to you about my job. I would like to change my job, sir. I cannot cope with the responsibilities in my position sir. Thank you. DL 121 189 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. DL 132 190 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 To prepare the potential readiness and consent before carrying the requests from the hearers, the Law students made some preparator statements. Commonly the speakers asked the hearer in the first place and after that, they carried out the requests. There were numerous examples of preparator external modifications by stating it directly “I want to talk to you about my job”, and employing interrogatives like “Can I speak with you right now?” and “May I speak with you?”. 191 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 201 192 Excuse me, would you allow me to copy mine first? Please, help me. DL 206 193 There will be a big project for us. Please help me, we want you to handle this project. DL 259 Begging for requests were proven as the useful strategy to be employed in doing requests. By conveying obvious appeal of requests, the hearer might accept the requests. Some of the examples were “Please help me to copy them, please” and “please help me”. The speakers tried to get the hearers to do what they wanted by saying “please” where it could be feasible for them to restate the “please” as described in example 191 to reinforce the hearer’s compliance to the plea. 194 Sorry, can you help me? I want to use my computer. I’m waiting for you DL 113 195 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 120 responsibilities are too hard to do . This time I cannot continue this anymore . DL 147 196 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 In order to make the requests succeeded, the strategy of eliminating possible refusal by the hearer was also done by the Law students. This external dowgrader known as disarmer. The disarmer statements used by the speakers were both shorts, “I’m waiting for you” and “It’s so urgent”, or more complicated one like “the responsibilities are too hard to do. This time I cannot continue this anymore”. After the speakers said these expressions, it was hard for the hearer to decline the requests. 197 Excuse me, can you help me, please? I’m very thirsty, bring me a glass of water. Thank you. DL 061 198 Excuse me, sir. I need to finish my tasks because the boss is waiting for me. Thanks. DL 115 199 Morning, sir. I want to talk to you about my job. I would like to change my job, sir. I cannot cope with the responsibilities in my position sir. Thank you DL 121 Right after stating their plea and request, to be polite and ease the hearer’s feeling, the speaker would mention their gratitude. However, the Law students did not frequently employ this external modification, yet, the researcher found that “Thanks” and “Thank you” were several times occurred in this study. 200 Hello, sir. Excuse me before, I want to change my job to administration because it’s my basic skill. How about that, sir? DL 125 201 Excuse me, boss. I cannot cope with my present job. What should I do? DL 145 202 Congratulations, sir. You got a promotion, you deserve it. We must celebrate it. How about having lunch at the café near here? DL 220 The most preferred external modification after the gratitude was the asking opinions strategy. This strategy enabled the speakers to also consider about the hearer’s opinion and feeling toward the request carried. Another consideration, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 121 putting this modification at the end of requests statement placed a more hearer- dominance effect on the addressee. Some examples originated from the study were “How about that, sir?”, “What should I do?” and “How about having lunch?”. 203 I’m sorry, I want to do my job right now . I don’t take a long time, you can wait for me . DL 103 204 I’m sorry, I’m busy right now. Maybe you can wait me to finish my job first? Just 10 minutes. DL 107 205 Sorry, can I interrupt you to copy this document? May I use this machine? Just a moment. DL 203 The hearers would practically consider the request whenever it did not harm them. Cost minimizer in request might realize it. Attempting to reduce the illocutionary forces to the requestee, the speakers tallying useful additional cost minimizers shown in “I don’t take a long time, you can wait for me”, “Just 10 minutes” or “Just a moment” to end the request. 206 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 . Data 402 207 Want you to help me this time? I have a great project upcoming. I will promote you after finishing this project. Data 538 208 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. Data 402 Encouraging the hearer by stating any potential reward in making requests was another external modification as downgraders. This strategy was a bid to get the hearer gra nted the requests. There were two examples provided, namely: “I will make my best on the new position you give me” and “I will promote you after finishing this project”. However, Law students, in fact, were found rarely employed PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 122 this modification. On the other hand, the speaker used humble statement as well to humbling hisherself to the addressee by stating “I feel my job is not my specialty”. 209 Sorry sir, this room is no smoking area. May you put your cigarette out this room? Thank you. DL 151 210 There has been a big sign right in front of you. Don’t you see it? DL 168 211 Sorry, can you put those cigarette out? It is really disturbing DL 173 Despite its downgrading function, the external modifications were also realized for its upgrading functions. The reprimanding was discovered to be the most reoccurred external upgraders. The speakers selected condemning statements both in direct and indirect way. Examples above presented “this room is no smoking area“, “There has been a big sign right in front of you”, and “It is really disturbing”, were several of reprimanders. 212 Sorry, can you help me to take a glass of water? That one, near to you. DL 090 213 Excuse me, congratulations on the new position. Can you buy us dinner for tonight? Will you? DL 217 Just in case to make the speakers sure that the hearer got the point of the demand, they rechecked and reconfirmed the request. Thus, they obtained the hearer to accept their pleas. Usually, this strategy embedded in the last part of the request, for example: “That one, near to you” and “Will you?”. 214 Sir, this is the room of no smoke. Can you throw away your cigarette? This is totally not good. DL 169 215 Excuse me, sir. Can you turn off the cigarette? Because it would interfere the comfortable of other people in this room . DL 177 Finally, as the last external modification used by the Law students, moralizings were also promising. Stating the moral value about what was good and bad, the hearers might possibly had the same thought as what the speakers’ 123 implored. F or example: “This is totally not good” and “it would interfere the comfortable of other people in this room” potentially stopped the hearer to do the thing they did for certain ethical case as provided by the context. Nonetheless, there were two external strategies not used by Law students such as self-introduction and joking. To summarize, Law students also fulfilled the four sequences of request strategies. As the most dominant strategy used by Law students, internal modifications enabled the speakers to manipulate the structures of the request internally by inserting particular lexicons of politeness markers and honorifics, yet, syntactically, Law students favored to use the interrogatives to make request and employed more subjectivizers. Conversely, the external strategies commonly used by Law students were the grounders but the short ones and these made the request seemed straightforward. The Law students were found to employ overated compliments that made them sounded unnatural and inflexible, then, disarmers were utilized to benefit the speakers. Besides the query preparatory, the head acts used by Law students were predominantly in form of want statements and imperatives direct head acts which worsen the burden and force, also the suggestory formula that implicitly led the hearer to accept and do the requests. At last, even Law students employed most neutral openers, it was discovered that many of requests had no openers.

2. Comparison of Medical and Law Students’ Request Strategies

Considering that fields of study have never been investigated before in making requests, in this thesis, the researcher focused on examining the potential 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