APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISHDEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA Apologizing Strategies Used By The Students Of English Department Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.
APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department
By:
HINDRIA ARIYANTI RODIAH
A320130115
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2016
ii
iii
iv
MOTTO
“LOVE ALLAH”, (the writer)
v
DEDICATION
This research paper is specially dedicated to:
My beloved mother
(Hj. Sukiyem)
My beloved father
(H. Wakidi)
My beloved sister and brother
(Handayani Eka Wati and her family)
(Ripan Didik Kurniawan)
(Taufiqqurrohman Arrosyadi)
(Endah Imelda Nur Fadillah)
My beloved grandfather and grandmother
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Bismillahirrohmanirrahim
By saying the name of Allah, the most powerful, His goodness never can be
calculated,
so
the
researcher
can
finish
this
research
paper
entitled
“APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA”
this research paper is one of requirement to finish the study in English Department of
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. This research paper cannot be finished
without many helps from many people. So, the researcher would like to express big
thanks to:
1. Prof. Dr. H. Bambang Setiaji, the Rector of Muhammadiyah Unversity of
Surakarta.
2. Prof. Dr. Harun Joko Prayitno, the Dean of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta.
3. Mauly Halwat Hikmat, Ph.D. the Head of English Department of
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
4. Dra. Siti Zuhriah Ariatmi, M.Hum, as the consultant, who has given much
knowledge and guide to the researcher until this researcher paper finish.
5. Siti Fatimah, S.Pd, M.Hum who gives opportunity to take the data in the class
of speaking I.
6. All lecturers in English Department of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta for all the beneficial knowledge that has received by the researcher.
7. Her beloved family, her beloved father and mother who always give praying,
advice, support, and motivation in all situations.
8. All students of speaking I in Mrs. Fatimah’s class.
9. Her beloved friends who are always together from beginning semester (Anis,
Dita, Putri, and Karlena).
10. Her beloved friends who are always together to get consultation and to finish
this research paper (Sonia and Kinanthi).
vii
11. Her beloved friends who accompany at the examination of this research paper
(Lia, Grahita, and Weni)
12. Her beloved friends in Department of English Education.
13. All of staff who help the researcher in processing the administration.
14. Everybody who has helped the researcher.
Thanks for all kindness and support. The writher hopes that this research will
give advantages for everyone.
Surakarta, 16 January 2017
The Writer
Hindria Ariyanti Rodiah
A320130115
viii
SUMMARY
HINDRIA ARIYANTI RODIAH/ A320130115/ APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES
USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA. Research Paper. School
of Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
December, 2016.
This study aims at describing (1) the apologizing strategies of the utterance,
and (2) the politeness strategies of the apologizing utterance used by the students.
The data of this study are the utterances which are used by the students. The
technique of collecting data is DCT model. The techniques for analyzing data are
analysis, discussion, and conclusion. The data are analyzed by using apologizing
strategies theory of Trosborg (1995) and politeness strategies by using theory of
Brown and Levinson (1987).
The researcher found that: (1) there are twenty seven types of apologizing
strategies which are combined with the other strategies and other utterances by the
students. The types of Trosborg’s apologizing strategies are not independent because
they are used together by the students. The students have their own ways to choose
the utterances for expressing apology to the hearer. The students combine apology
with other utterances, namely: thanking, warning, asking punishment, asking for
feeling, offering the future acceptance, and persuading the hearer. They mostly use
combination of promise for forbearance for the hearer who has lower power and they
use combination of explicit explanation for the hearer who has equal and higher
social status. There are 44% students who use apologizing strategy appropriately and
56% students who use apologizing strategy inappropriately. There are 56% students
who are fail to choose appropriate apologizing strategies in relation with power
property of the speakers, relative age between the speakers, seriousness of the case,
and behavior, (2) there are three types of politeness strategies namely: bald on record
strategy takes 4%, positive politeness strategy takes 64%, and negative politeness
strategy takes 32%. There are 59% students who use politeness strategy
appropriately and 41% students who use politeness strategy inappropriately. There
are 41% students who are fail to choose appropriate politeness strategies in relation
with relative distance between the speakers and in relation with behavior. They
mostly use negative politeness strategy for the hearer who is familiar-equal and
unfamiliar-lower.
Keywords: apologizing strategies, politeness strategies.
ix
RINGKASAN
HINDRIA ARIYANTI RODIAH/ A320130115/ APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES
USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA. Skripsi. Fakultas
Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Desember,
2016.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan (1) ungkapan strategi
meminta maaf, dan (2) strategi kesantunan bahasa dalam meminta maaf yang dipakai
oleh mahasiswa. Data dalam penelitian ini adalah ungkapan yang digunakan oleh
mahasiswa. Teknik untuk mengumpulkan data adalah model DCT. Teknik untuk
menganalisis data adalah analisis, pembahasan dan kesimpulan. Data dianalisis
dengan menggunakan teori strategi meminta maaf dari Trosborg (1995) dan strategi
kesantunan bahasa menggunakan teori Brown dan Levinson (1987).
Peneliti menemukan bahwa: (1) ada dua puluh tujuh tipe strategi yang
dikombinasikan dengan strategi yang lain serta ungkapan lain oleh mahasiswa. Tipe
strategi meminta maaf oleh Trosborg tidak dapat berdiri sendiri karena mereka
digunakan bersama-sama oleh mahasiswa. Mahasiswa memiliki cara mereka sendiri
untuk memilih ungkapan dalam mengekpresikan permintaan maaf kepada pendengar.
Mereka mengkombinasikan permintaan maaf dengan ungkapan lain, yaitu: terima
kasih, peringatan, menanyakan hukuman, menanyakan perasaan, menawarkan
persetujuan selanjutnya, dan membujuk pendengar. Mereka kebanyakan
menggunakan kombinasi perjanjian untuk pendengar yang memiliki kekuasaan lebih
rendah dan mereka menggunakan kombinasi penjelasan tersurat pada pendengar
yang memiliki status sosial sama dan pada status sosial yang lebih tinggi. Ada 44%
mahasiswa yang menggunakan strategi meminta maaf dengan tepat dan 56%
mahasiswa yang menggunakan strategi meminta maaf dengan tidak tepat. Ada 56%
mahasiswa yang gagal memilih strategi meminta maaf yang pantas dalam hubungan
dengan kekuasaan antar pembicara, umur antar pembicara, keseriusan kasus, dan
tingkah laku, (2) ada 3 tipe kesantunan bahasa yaitu: strategi bald on record (4%),
strategi kesantunan positif (64%), dan strategi kesantunan negative (32%). Ada 53%
mahasiswa yang menggunakan strategi kesantunan dengan tepat dan 47% mahasiswa
yang menggunakan strategi kesantunan dengan tidak tepat. Ada 47% mahasiswa
gagal memilih strategi kesantunan yang pantas dalam hubungan dengan jarak relatif
antar pembicara dan dalam hubungan dengan tingkah laku. Mereka kebanyakan
menggunakan kesantunan negatif pada pendengar yang akrab dan sama sosial
statusnya serta yang tidak akrab dan status sosialnya lebih rendah.
Kata kunci: strategi meminta maaf, strategi kesantunan.
x
TABLE OF CONTENS
TITLE ......................................................................................................................... i
TESTIMONY ............................................................................................................ ii
APPROVAL ............................................................................................................. iii
ACCEPTANCE ......................................................................................................... iv
MOTTO ..................................................................................................................... v
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACK ............................................................................................................. ix
ABSTRACK .............................................................................................................. x
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xiii
LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................................... xv
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ xvi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study................................................................ 1
B. Limitation of the Study .................................................................. 2
C. Problem Statement ......................................................................... 3
D. Objective of the Study.................................................................... 3
E. Benefit of the Study ....................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Underlying Theory
1. The Notion of Pragmatic.......................................................... 4
2. Pragmatic Competence............................................................. 5
3. Interlanguage Pragmatic........................................................... 7
4. Speech Act ............................................................................... 8
5. Expressive Utterance................................................................ 9
6. Apologizing Utterance ........................................................... 10
7. Types of Apologizing Strategies ............................................ 11
8. Politeness ............................................................................... 13
xi
B. Previous Study ............................................................................. 18
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Type.............................................................................. 23
B. Research Object ........................................................................... 23
C. Data and Data Source................................................................... 23
D. Technique of Collecting Data ...................................................... 23
E. Data Validity ................................................................................ 26
F. Technique of Analyzing Data ...................................................... 26
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Finding
1. Apologizing Strategies ........................................................... 27
2. Politeness Strategies............................................................... 54
B. Discussion
1. Apologizing Strategies ........................................................... 75
2. Politeness Strategies............................................................... 77
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion ................................................................................... 80
B. Pedagogical Implication............................................................... 82
C. Suggestion .................................................................................... 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 87
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MS
: Minimizing Strategy
EE
: Explicit Explanation
ER
: Expression of Regret
OA
: Offer of Apology
RF
: Request for Forgiveness
OR
: Offer for Repair
PF
: Promise for Forbearance
AEE
: Apology + Explicit Explanation
APF
: Apology + Promise for Forbearance
AEP
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Promise for Forbearance
AMS : Apology + Minimizing Strategy
AEW : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Warning
AERP : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Request for Forgiveness + Promise for
Forbearance
AFA
: Apology + Future Acceptance
AEF
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Future Acceptance
APFA : Apology + Promise for Forbearance + Future Acceptance
Aper
: Apology + Persuade
APL
: Asking for Feeling + Apology + Request for Forgiveness
EF
: Explicit Explanation + Promise for Forbearance
AER
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Offer for Repair
ET
: Explicit Explanation + Asking for Punishment
AOF
: Apology + Offer for Repair + Promise for Forbearance
AEPP : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Promise for Forbearance + Persuade
AERF : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Request for Forgiveness
ORP
: Offer for Repair + Promise for Forbearance
RE
: Request for Forgiveness + Explicit Explanation
AET
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Thanking
REP
: Request for Forgiveness + Explicit Explanation + Persuade
xiii
AOR : Apology + Offer for Repair
AT
: Apology + Thanking
AERR : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Offer for Repair + Request for
Forgiveness
PTA
: Promise for Forbearance + Thanking + Apology
ARP
: Apology + Request for Forgiveness + Promise for Forbearance
AEM : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Minimizing Strategy
BR
: Bald on Record
OFR
: Off Record
PP
: Positive Politeness
NP
: Negative Politeness
Comb. EE: Combination of Explicit Explanation
Comb. ER: Combination of Expression of Regret
Comb. OR: Combination of Offer for Repair
Comb. PF : Combination of Promise Forbearance
xiv
LIST OF TABLE
Table
Table 4.1.Category Classification of Discourse Completion Task (DCT) ...........24
Table 4.2.List of Percentage of the Appropriateness of Apologizing ...................75
Table 4.3.The Correlation Between Social Status and Familiarities with the
Apologizing Strategies ..............................................................................................76
Table 4.4.List of Percentage of the Appropriateness of Politeness Strategies .....77
Table 4.5.The Correlation Between Social Status and Familiarities with the
Politeness Strategies ..................................................................................................78
xv
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Data of the Research.......................................................................... 87
xvi
DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department
By:
HINDRIA ARIYANTI RODIAH
A320130115
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2016
ii
iii
iv
MOTTO
“LOVE ALLAH”, (the writer)
v
DEDICATION
This research paper is specially dedicated to:
My beloved mother
(Hj. Sukiyem)
My beloved father
(H. Wakidi)
My beloved sister and brother
(Handayani Eka Wati and her family)
(Ripan Didik Kurniawan)
(Taufiqqurrohman Arrosyadi)
(Endah Imelda Nur Fadillah)
My beloved grandfather and grandmother
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Bismillahirrohmanirrahim
By saying the name of Allah, the most powerful, His goodness never can be
calculated,
so
the
researcher
can
finish
this
research
paper
entitled
“APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA”
this research paper is one of requirement to finish the study in English Department of
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. This research paper cannot be finished
without many helps from many people. So, the researcher would like to express big
thanks to:
1. Prof. Dr. H. Bambang Setiaji, the Rector of Muhammadiyah Unversity of
Surakarta.
2. Prof. Dr. Harun Joko Prayitno, the Dean of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta.
3. Mauly Halwat Hikmat, Ph.D. the Head of English Department of
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
4. Dra. Siti Zuhriah Ariatmi, M.Hum, as the consultant, who has given much
knowledge and guide to the researcher until this researcher paper finish.
5. Siti Fatimah, S.Pd, M.Hum who gives opportunity to take the data in the class
of speaking I.
6. All lecturers in English Department of Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta for all the beneficial knowledge that has received by the researcher.
7. Her beloved family, her beloved father and mother who always give praying,
advice, support, and motivation in all situations.
8. All students of speaking I in Mrs. Fatimah’s class.
9. Her beloved friends who are always together from beginning semester (Anis,
Dita, Putri, and Karlena).
10. Her beloved friends who are always together to get consultation and to finish
this research paper (Sonia and Kinanthi).
vii
11. Her beloved friends who accompany at the examination of this research paper
(Lia, Grahita, and Weni)
12. Her beloved friends in Department of English Education.
13. All of staff who help the researcher in processing the administration.
14. Everybody who has helped the researcher.
Thanks for all kindness and support. The writher hopes that this research will
give advantages for everyone.
Surakarta, 16 January 2017
The Writer
Hindria Ariyanti Rodiah
A320130115
viii
SUMMARY
HINDRIA ARIYANTI RODIAH/ A320130115/ APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES
USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA. Research Paper. School
of Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
December, 2016.
This study aims at describing (1) the apologizing strategies of the utterance,
and (2) the politeness strategies of the apologizing utterance used by the students.
The data of this study are the utterances which are used by the students. The
technique of collecting data is DCT model. The techniques for analyzing data are
analysis, discussion, and conclusion. The data are analyzed by using apologizing
strategies theory of Trosborg (1995) and politeness strategies by using theory of
Brown and Levinson (1987).
The researcher found that: (1) there are twenty seven types of apologizing
strategies which are combined with the other strategies and other utterances by the
students. The types of Trosborg’s apologizing strategies are not independent because
they are used together by the students. The students have their own ways to choose
the utterances for expressing apology to the hearer. The students combine apology
with other utterances, namely: thanking, warning, asking punishment, asking for
feeling, offering the future acceptance, and persuading the hearer. They mostly use
combination of promise for forbearance for the hearer who has lower power and they
use combination of explicit explanation for the hearer who has equal and higher
social status. There are 44% students who use apologizing strategy appropriately and
56% students who use apologizing strategy inappropriately. There are 56% students
who are fail to choose appropriate apologizing strategies in relation with power
property of the speakers, relative age between the speakers, seriousness of the case,
and behavior, (2) there are three types of politeness strategies namely: bald on record
strategy takes 4%, positive politeness strategy takes 64%, and negative politeness
strategy takes 32%. There are 59% students who use politeness strategy
appropriately and 41% students who use politeness strategy inappropriately. There
are 41% students who are fail to choose appropriate politeness strategies in relation
with relative distance between the speakers and in relation with behavior. They
mostly use negative politeness strategy for the hearer who is familiar-equal and
unfamiliar-lower.
Keywords: apologizing strategies, politeness strategies.
ix
RINGKASAN
HINDRIA ARIYANTI RODIAH/ A320130115/ APOLOGIZING STRATEGIES
USED BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA. Skripsi. Fakultas
Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Desember,
2016.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan (1) ungkapan strategi
meminta maaf, dan (2) strategi kesantunan bahasa dalam meminta maaf yang dipakai
oleh mahasiswa. Data dalam penelitian ini adalah ungkapan yang digunakan oleh
mahasiswa. Teknik untuk mengumpulkan data adalah model DCT. Teknik untuk
menganalisis data adalah analisis, pembahasan dan kesimpulan. Data dianalisis
dengan menggunakan teori strategi meminta maaf dari Trosborg (1995) dan strategi
kesantunan bahasa menggunakan teori Brown dan Levinson (1987).
Peneliti menemukan bahwa: (1) ada dua puluh tujuh tipe strategi yang
dikombinasikan dengan strategi yang lain serta ungkapan lain oleh mahasiswa. Tipe
strategi meminta maaf oleh Trosborg tidak dapat berdiri sendiri karena mereka
digunakan bersama-sama oleh mahasiswa. Mahasiswa memiliki cara mereka sendiri
untuk memilih ungkapan dalam mengekpresikan permintaan maaf kepada pendengar.
Mereka mengkombinasikan permintaan maaf dengan ungkapan lain, yaitu: terima
kasih, peringatan, menanyakan hukuman, menanyakan perasaan, menawarkan
persetujuan selanjutnya, dan membujuk pendengar. Mereka kebanyakan
menggunakan kombinasi perjanjian untuk pendengar yang memiliki kekuasaan lebih
rendah dan mereka menggunakan kombinasi penjelasan tersurat pada pendengar
yang memiliki status sosial sama dan pada status sosial yang lebih tinggi. Ada 44%
mahasiswa yang menggunakan strategi meminta maaf dengan tepat dan 56%
mahasiswa yang menggunakan strategi meminta maaf dengan tidak tepat. Ada 56%
mahasiswa yang gagal memilih strategi meminta maaf yang pantas dalam hubungan
dengan kekuasaan antar pembicara, umur antar pembicara, keseriusan kasus, dan
tingkah laku, (2) ada 3 tipe kesantunan bahasa yaitu: strategi bald on record (4%),
strategi kesantunan positif (64%), dan strategi kesantunan negative (32%). Ada 53%
mahasiswa yang menggunakan strategi kesantunan dengan tepat dan 47% mahasiswa
yang menggunakan strategi kesantunan dengan tidak tepat. Ada 47% mahasiswa
gagal memilih strategi kesantunan yang pantas dalam hubungan dengan jarak relatif
antar pembicara dan dalam hubungan dengan tingkah laku. Mereka kebanyakan
menggunakan kesantunan negatif pada pendengar yang akrab dan sama sosial
statusnya serta yang tidak akrab dan status sosialnya lebih rendah.
Kata kunci: strategi meminta maaf, strategi kesantunan.
x
TABLE OF CONTENS
TITLE ......................................................................................................................... i
TESTIMONY ............................................................................................................ ii
APPROVAL ............................................................................................................. iii
ACCEPTANCE ......................................................................................................... iv
MOTTO ..................................................................................................................... v
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACK ............................................................................................................. ix
ABSTRACK .............................................................................................................. x
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xiii
LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................................... xv
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ xvi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study................................................................ 1
B. Limitation of the Study .................................................................. 2
C. Problem Statement ......................................................................... 3
D. Objective of the Study.................................................................... 3
E. Benefit of the Study ....................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Underlying Theory
1. The Notion of Pragmatic.......................................................... 4
2. Pragmatic Competence............................................................. 5
3. Interlanguage Pragmatic........................................................... 7
4. Speech Act ............................................................................... 8
5. Expressive Utterance................................................................ 9
6. Apologizing Utterance ........................................................... 10
7. Types of Apologizing Strategies ............................................ 11
8. Politeness ............................................................................... 13
xi
B. Previous Study ............................................................................. 18
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Type.............................................................................. 23
B. Research Object ........................................................................... 23
C. Data and Data Source................................................................... 23
D. Technique of Collecting Data ...................................................... 23
E. Data Validity ................................................................................ 26
F. Technique of Analyzing Data ...................................................... 26
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Finding
1. Apologizing Strategies ........................................................... 27
2. Politeness Strategies............................................................... 54
B. Discussion
1. Apologizing Strategies ........................................................... 75
2. Politeness Strategies............................................................... 77
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion ................................................................................... 80
B. Pedagogical Implication............................................................... 82
C. Suggestion .................................................................................... 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 87
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MS
: Minimizing Strategy
EE
: Explicit Explanation
ER
: Expression of Regret
OA
: Offer of Apology
RF
: Request for Forgiveness
OR
: Offer for Repair
PF
: Promise for Forbearance
AEE
: Apology + Explicit Explanation
APF
: Apology + Promise for Forbearance
AEP
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Promise for Forbearance
AMS : Apology + Minimizing Strategy
AEW : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Warning
AERP : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Request for Forgiveness + Promise for
Forbearance
AFA
: Apology + Future Acceptance
AEF
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Future Acceptance
APFA : Apology + Promise for Forbearance + Future Acceptance
Aper
: Apology + Persuade
APL
: Asking for Feeling + Apology + Request for Forgiveness
EF
: Explicit Explanation + Promise for Forbearance
AER
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Offer for Repair
ET
: Explicit Explanation + Asking for Punishment
AOF
: Apology + Offer for Repair + Promise for Forbearance
AEPP : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Promise for Forbearance + Persuade
AERF : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Request for Forgiveness
ORP
: Offer for Repair + Promise for Forbearance
RE
: Request for Forgiveness + Explicit Explanation
AET
: Apology + Explicit Explanation + Thanking
REP
: Request for Forgiveness + Explicit Explanation + Persuade
xiii
AOR : Apology + Offer for Repair
AT
: Apology + Thanking
AERR : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Offer for Repair + Request for
Forgiveness
PTA
: Promise for Forbearance + Thanking + Apology
ARP
: Apology + Request for Forgiveness + Promise for Forbearance
AEM : Apology + Explicit Explanation + Minimizing Strategy
BR
: Bald on Record
OFR
: Off Record
PP
: Positive Politeness
NP
: Negative Politeness
Comb. EE: Combination of Explicit Explanation
Comb. ER: Combination of Expression of Regret
Comb. OR: Combination of Offer for Repair
Comb. PF : Combination of Promise Forbearance
xiv
LIST OF TABLE
Table
Table 4.1.Category Classification of Discourse Completion Task (DCT) ...........24
Table 4.2.List of Percentage of the Appropriateness of Apologizing ...................75
Table 4.3.The Correlation Between Social Status and Familiarities with the
Apologizing Strategies ..............................................................................................76
Table 4.4.List of Percentage of the Appropriateness of Politeness Strategies .....77
Table 4.5.The Correlation Between Social Status and Familiarities with the
Politeness Strategies ..................................................................................................78
xv
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Data of the Research.......................................................................... 87
xvi