Pragmatic Competence Factors Underlying the Choice of the Strategies

157 communicative possibility. Based on the two examples above, the speakers selected the expressions to formulate the request acts especially the indirect one that also qualified based on the four strategies of requests. 340 Sorry, have you done yours? I need to copy the documents for the meeting and it will be soon begun. May I use it now? DM 199 341 Wow, congratulations I’m so happy for you. How about treat us some food later? DM 213 Pragmatic competence also enabled the speaker to opt the possibility of making choices based on flexibility which termed as negotiability. Since people used language based on certain purposes, they might have different strategies to be manipulated. Examples 340 and 341 empowered the speakers to negotiate the plea to the hearer by selecting different request strategy which aimed the same goals , like “I need to copy the documents for the meeting and it will be soon begun. May I use it now?” which indicated the speaker selected grounders and query preparatory strategy, meanwhile, on the other hand, in “I’m so happy for you. How about treat us some food later?”, the speaker opted supportive compliments along with the suggestory formula for asking requests. 342 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 135 343 Bro, I have an urgent thing to do right now. Do you want to help me to substitute my shift? DL 017 The other unique property of pragmatic competence is adaptability. Medical and Law students successfully employed the appropriate selection of words choice based on the context. This fulfilled the adaptability where the speakers possessed the ability to modulate and regulate communicative choices in relation to the communicative contexts faced by them. First example on 342 situated in a formal 158 situation where the notion of power, rank, and rank imposition were assessed. When the speaker talked to a higher person in position and power, shehe had to be very careful in selecting the request acts. The researcher found that the speaker employed appropriate way of requesting by using upgrader function of opener “boss”, and tailed by preparator and supportive reasonable justifications of “Can I talk to you about something? I need to tell you that I can’t take the responsibilities in my pre sent job. It is too hard for me to do”. Finally ended by indirect head acts to convey the main intent. It would be odd when the strategy in 342 was implemented for the 343 since the notion of power, distance and rank of imposition were not existed. Therefore, responding to this situation, the speaker employed simpler and common strategies by directly addressed the hearer with “bro” to be followed by not a very specific reason and ended by main request acts. Hence, speakers had ability to adapt to different speech contexts by opting distinct word choices as the request strategy. 344 Sir, I am sorry to say this . Actually, since I’ve done my job here, I feel like I couldn’t cope with my work as accounting staff. Would you give me another position, please? DM 141 345 Excuse me, sorry sir but this is urgent. Please let me do the photocopy first, okay? DL 198 As the other unit of the pragmatic competence property, salience noted the degree of the awareness reached by choices of the communicative expressions. It was verified that both Medical and Law students aware that their request might cause trouble to the hearer and burden on the other hand. Thus, realizing this issue, the speaker conveyed their apology by uttering “I am sorry to say this” and “sorry sir but this is urgent” to be stated before they carried out the main request acts. 159 346 Hello, congratulations for your new promotion. A good day to treat me and other office member, huh? DM 216 347 Hello, new boss. So happy to you. I am here to congratulate you, anyway. Seems that there will be a treat from our new team leader, right? DM 237 The last property of pragmatic competence explicated in this research is dynamicity. Dynamicity associated to the development of the communicative interaction. The researcher found that the less direct people in implying their want, the higher pragmatic competence they have. This issue agreed to examples 346 and 347 in which the speakers employed hints to do requests realized by the request acts “A good day to treat me and other office member, huh?” and “Seems that there will be a treat from our new team leader, right?”.

d. Request Size

According to Ditttrich et al 2011:3809 request size refers to the type of request that is made and how much of an imposition it has. Meyerhoff 2011:92 then gives an example of asking someone for the time is not considered as a big imposition. Meanwhile, if you have to ask someone to lend you money, it might be considered as a greater imposition. Medical and Law students were confirmed to employ different request strategies for different request size as seen below. 348 Miss, can you bring me a glass of water because I am very thirsty. Sorry to bother. Thank you. DM 69 349 I’m sorry, can you bring a glass of water for me now, please? DL 074 350 I am so excited to know that we have such talented person in our company. I want to have you on my team to do our new project next year. It will be great to work with you DM 270 351 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 242 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 160 Asking someone to take the drink and inquiring someone to handle a new upcoming big project were two different job to do. Slightly, the researcher directly noticed that there was different cost of imposition from these two situations. Specifically, when the speaker had higher power and rank, shehe was accepted to ask the employee to do or not to do something for hisher sake. Yet, even the speakers were given a more deliverance in making request, they still managed some strategies to get their request granted by the hearers. It was explained in 348 and 349 that the speakers wanted the hearers to get drink for them. However, by solely stating the main request acts such as “can you bring me a glass of water” and “can you bring a glass of water for me now, please?” without any explanations or justifications, the hearers obviously noticed that the speakers were thirsty and wanted water to drink. In contrast, 350 and 351 appealed greater imposition and forces to the hearers since what the speakers intended were not something small and easy. It needed great skills and hard work at the same time. Thus, to minimize this cost, the speakers, even when they were the boss and able to decide everything by themselves, they still asked the possibility of the request to the hearer. Some strategies then explicated. Firstly, to make the hearers felt ease toward the requests, often both Medical and Law students selected sweeteners as the gate before conveying their main request acts such as “I am so excited to know that we have such talented person in our compa ny”, “It will be great to work with you”, “I heard that you has done a great job managing marketing” and “I don’t have other candidate except you” which were potentially to built up the positive vibe between