appreciation strategy is more frequent to be used by Indonesians as a strategy which precedes the expressions of disaggrement or refusal. For example, ―Saya
sangat menghargai pendapat Anda, namun menurut saya teori ini lebih baik untuk diterapkan pada kasus ini. I really appreciate your opinion, but, for me, this
theory is better to be applied to this case.‖ Or, ―Saya sangat menghargai usahamu. Namun, saya tidak bisa mengizinkamu ujian akhir di hari lain. I really appreciate
your effort. But, I cannot let you to reschedule the final exam.‖
Thus, almost all INs never use appreciation strategy in expressing gratitude may potentially seem due to most Indonesians believe that the illocutionary force
of appreciation strategy is to precede and soften disagreement or refusal. But, once again, further studies are needed to ensure what illocutionary force which is
assigned in appreciation strategy for Indonesian. On the other hand, for AEs, appreciation strategy is able to express illocutionary act of thanking. This
condition potentially leads ELs as Indonesian learners of English to do negative pragmalinguistic transfer since illocutionarry force which is assigned in
appreciation strategy for AEs and INs is significantly incongruent.
c. Difference in the Use of Alerter Strategy
According to the categorization of expressions of gratitude which are made by AEs and INs, attention getter, title and name as three subcategories of alerter
strategy are used by AEs and INs in their expressions of gratitude. It indicates that, by pragmalinguistic approach, both American English as L1 of AEs and
Indonesian as L1 of INs provide alerter as one of strategies to support expressions of illocutionary act of thanking. Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper argue that an
alerter, either attention getter or address term, is functioned to precede the actual speech acts.
423
At any point, this argument is true. In the present study, every alerter is a supporting strategy since it cannot stand alone to express gratitude.
But, in line with Cheng‘s finding on expressions of gratitude which are made by NSs of American English and Chinese, the present study finds that, in
thanking situations, alerter is not only used to ‗precede‘ expressions of gratitude. In the present study, title and name, as the subcategories of alerter which is
functioned as address terms, are used by INs in the beginning, middle, or end of their expressions of gratitude. AEs using alerter strategy opt to use title or name in
the middle or in the end of their expressions gratitude. Attention getter is the only subcategory which is mostly used by AEs and INs to precede their gratitude. In
the present study, attention getter is never dominantly used by AEs and INs. Besides attention getter, title or name is never used by more than half of
AEs.
424
In contrast, in every given situation, except in situation 11 and 17, coming from different ethnic groups, more than half of INs always address the favor giver
by using at least one alerter, either title or name, in accompanying thanking strategy in their expressions of gratitude.
425
For example, ―… Terima kasih
banyak, Prof . … Thank you very much, Prof.‖
426
Or, ―Farhan makasih banget pinjaman bukunya. Farhan
thank you so much for lending me the book.‖
427
Situation 11 and 17 conditions the favor givers and the thankers to do not know each other at all. But, in situation 3, 4, 9, and 13 which situate the
423
Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. p. 49
424
Table 5.1-5.18 AEs Appendix 5
425
Table 5.1-5.18 INs Appendix 5
426
Table 5.2 IN 5 Appendix 5
427
Table 5.7 IN 6 Appendix 5
interlocutors as strangers, there are still more than half of INs who use at least one title or name to address the favor givers in accompanying their use of thanking
strategy in their expressions of gratitude as long as they identify title or name which can be used to address.
428
Situation 11 and 17 are special because, besides the interlocutors are strangers, names of the favor givers are not mentioned. In
those two situations, the favor givers are students. Hence, in situation 11 and 17, INs seem having no choice to address the interlocutors by any title or name.
429
In the case of alerter, Cheng finds that one noticeable difference between NSs of Chinese and American English is that the majority of NSs of Chinese
significantly use more alerter strategies functioned as address terms than Americans do in their expressions of gratitude.
430
This finding brings her into a conclusion that, in Chinese culture, not simp
ly to gain the favor givers‘ attention, the act of addressing the favor givers by using alerter strategies functioned as
address terms within the expressions of gratitude eventually has illocutionarry force of showing respectfulness, warmth and modesty to the favor givers.
431
Similarly, as what is found in this study, in general, INs significantly use more alerter strategies in the subcategories of title and name than AEs do.
Expressing gratitude requires the thankers to show proper demeanor to be respected by the favor givers through the thankers
‘ appearance and behavior; and proper deference relating to appreciation which have to be showed to the favor
givers through the thanker s‘ words and action of thanking in order to respect the
428
Table 5.3, 5.4, 5.9, 5.13 INs Appendix 5
429
Table 5.11 and 5.17 INs Appendix 5
430
Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. p. 101.
431
Ibid. p. 102.
favor givers.
432
Thus, there are two things which have to be considered by every thanker to express gratitude appropriately: demeanor and deference. Hence, if the
thankers feel that they do not express gratitude appropriately, there is either demeanor or deference which, according to the thankers, is not properly exhibited.
It can be concluded that it is extremely important for INs because, in thanking situation, using alerter in the subcategory of title or name to address the
favor givers to accompany their use of thanking strategy seems a kind of proper deference which, according to INs, needs to be exhibited by the thankers in their
expressions of gratitude in order to give the sense of respectfulness to the favor givers, whosoever they are, either people with lower, equal, or higher status level.
Thus, in line with Chinese culture, it seems clear that, for INs, in thanking, alerter strategy in the subcategory of title or name, normally for drawing the attention of
the hearer, has illocutionarry force of showing respect to the favor giver. Fond of using titles, as Wierzbicka stated, Japanese and Polish are
categorized as languages of respect which implicitly has politeness value of showing respect to every individual person.
433
In the present study, it is found that, in low-power situations, all INs as NSs of Indonesian are also fond of using
titles.
434
Hence, represented by INs, Indonesian seems also a language of respect. In the present study, besides fond of using titles, the presence of value of showing
respect in Indonesian culture is clearly manifested by the fact that, in every situation, more than half of INs are eager to show their respect to every favor
432
Miriam Eisenstein and Jean Bodman 1993, op.cit.,p. 67.
433
Anna Wierzbicka 2003, op.cit. p.57.
434
Table 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.8, 5.10, 5.13 INs Appendix 5
giver, whosoever they are, by addressing himher by using at least one alerter strategy, either title or name, in accompanying the use of thanking strategy.
For AEs, alerter in the subcategory of title or name seems having no contribution to make gratitude is successfully expressed since it is only used by
few AEs. It implies that, for AEs, title or name is only to alert th e hearer‘s
attention. As Wierzbicka argued, English or every culture, included American, which indiscriminately uses you to address everyone is a culture with high priority
to privacy since you is a distance-building device which keep everybody at a distance and does not allow anybody to come really close.
435
Addressing the hearer by mentioning any form of title or name may cause the interlocutors
becomes psychology close.
436
Thus, since to have privacy is a characteristic of Americans, it is not surprising that AEs infrequently use address terms.
There are statistically significant differences in the alternative of use of alerter strategy in the subcategory of title and name between AEs as NSs of L2
and INs as NSs of L1. This condition potentially lead EL as L2 learners doing negative pragmalinguistic transfer since the illocutionarry force of showing
respect which is assigned on alerter strategy in functioning as address terms in L1 is incongruent with what which is believed by L2 context.
2. Comparison by Sociopragmatic Approach
