A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN A Study Of Politeness Strategy In Refusal Used By English Teachers In Madiun Regency.

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL
USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN
REGENCY
THESIS

Submitted to
Postgraduate Program of Language Study
of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting
Magister Degree of Language Study of English

Written by:
MAYA HARTUTI
NIM. S. 200. 120. 033

POST-GRADUATE PROGRAM of LANGUAGE STUDY
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY of SURAKARTA
2014
i

NOTE OF ADVISOR 1 ST


Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum
The lecturer of language study of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta - Official
Note on This Thesis Student’s Thesis.

Dear,
The Director of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University.
Assalamu’alaikum wr. wb.
Having read, examined, corrected and necessarily revised towards the thesis:
Title

: A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL
USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN REGENCY

written by
Name

: Maya Hartuti

Nim


: S200120033

Focus on

: Pragmatics

I approve that the thesis is to be examined by board of examiners in the language
study of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta.
Wassalamu’alaikum salam Wr. Wb

Surakarta, … August, 2014
Advisor 1

Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum

i

NOTE OF ADVISOR 2 nd


Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D.
The lecturer of language study of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta - Official
Note on This Thesis Student’s Thesis.

Dear,
The Director of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University.
Assalamu’alaikum wr. wb.
Having read, examined, corrected and necessarily revised towards the thesis:
Title

: A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL
USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN REGENCY

written by
Name

: Maya Hartuti

Nim


: S200120033

Focus on

: Pragmatics

I approve that the thesis is to be examined by board of examiners in the language
study of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta.
Wassalamu’alaikum salam Wr. Wb

Surakarta, … August, 2014
Advisor 2

Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D.

ii

iii

M OTTO


" Do w hat you can, with w hat you have, w here you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

Follow the three R's: Respect for self, respect for ot hers and responsibility for all your
actions." - Dali Lama

iv

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to:
M y beloved parents, M y beloved husband,
And All my friends, classmates and family
“ Thanks for the love, support, and pray”

v

PRONOUNCEMENT

I hereby certify that this thesis, entitled “A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal

Used by English Teachers in Madiun Regency” has been composed by Maya Hartuti. It is not
a plagiarism or made by others. Anything related to others’ work is written in quotation, the
source of which is listed on the bibliography.
If then this pronouncement proves incorrect, I am ready to accept any academic
punishment, including the withdrawal of my academic degree.

Surakarta, August, 2014

Maya Hartuti

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin, praise to Allah SWT, The Most gracious, and the Most
Merciful. First of all, I would like to praise to Allah for the blessings endowed to me so that I
can accomplish this piece of work entitled “A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal Used
by English Teachers in Madiun Regency” as the requirement for getting master degree of
language study in English at Post-graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah
University of Surakarta. Secondly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my

beloved mother, Gijastuti and father, Hartojo who always support and back me up through
their never ending prayers and also their care. Thank you very much for everything. You are
my strength and this thesis is dedicated to you.
Although there are many difficulties, I realize that those are the ways to get success.
Therefore, I would like to express my special gratitude to:
1.

Prof. Dr. Khudzaifah Dimyati, S.H., M.Hum, as a director of post graduate program of
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta for giving me permission to write the thesis.

2.

Prof. Dr. Markhamah, M, Hum, the head of post graduate program of Language Study.

3.

Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum my thesis supervisor who has patiently given me her
precious help, comments, as well as suggestions for improvement my thesis during the
process of the writing.


4.

Agus Wijayanto, M.A, Ph. D as my second thesis supervisor, for his helpful guidance
and corrections during the process of writing this thesis. His insightful comments and
suggestions have shown the way to enhancement of my thesis.

5.

All English teachers of junior high school in Madiun regency as research participants, for
their willingness to provide the research data.

vii

6.

Last but not least my special appreciation to all of the lecturers of Magister program of
English education for giving me such priceless knowledge and experience.

7.


Thanks to beloved my husband, Jaiman for his patient, support, help, and pray. Thanks
also to all of my classmates for togetherness, kindness, the encouragement and
motivation. To all of them I dedicate this piece of work.
I understand well that this thesis is far from being perfect. I accept constructive

comments and suggestions from the readers. Hopefully, this thesis will to useful for everyone
who concerns with action research.

Surakarta,

August 2014

Maya Hartuti

viii

TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE …………………………………………………………………………….
CONSULTANT NOTE ………………………………………………………..
ACCEPTANCE …………………………………………………………………

MOTTO ………………………………………………………….……………….
DEDICATION …..………………………………………………………………..
PRONOUNCEMENT …………………………………………………….……...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……….……………………………………………....
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……..…...……..…………………..…………………..
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................
LIST OF CHARTS ...……………..………………………………………….….
LIST OF APPENDICES .....................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................. …............................................
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study ……………………...…………….............................
B. Problem Statement …………………………..……………………………........
C. Research Questions …..………………..…………...……………………......…
D. Objectives of the Study …………………………………………......………….
E. Benefit of the Study ………………………………………………………...
F. Scope of the Study ………………………………………………………….
G. Thesis Organization ………………………………………………………...

i

ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
ix
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xxii

1
7
7
7
8
9
9

CHAPTER II
: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Previous Study ………………………………………………………………
B. Underlying Theory ………………………………………………………….
1. Pragmatics ……………………………………………………………...
2. Speech Act……………………………………………………………....
3. Refusal ……………………………………………………………...…..
4. Politeness ………...……………………………………………………......
a. Grice’s Cooperative Principle…………………………………….......
b. Lakoff’s Politeness Rule ………..…………………………….............
c. The Principle of Politeness of Leech ……………………….…….......
d. Brown and Levinson’s Face-Saving Strategy ……………,…….........
e. Watts’ conceptual distinction between Impoliteness and Politeness
f. Javanese politeness (Sopan-Santun) ……………………….……........

22
22
23
25
33
34
35
37
40
70
70

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Type of Study………………………………………………………...….......
B. Data and the Source of the Data ……………………………………...……..
C. The Method of Collecting Data ……………………………………………..
D. Data Analysis …………………….………………………………………....

73
74
74
77

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDING AND THE DISCUSSION
A. DATA ANALISIS ………………………………………………….….....…....
1. Refusal Strategies..................................…………………………….....…....
a. Refusal Strategies in Invitations …………………...……….………........
1) Refusal Strategies in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Higher Status.....
2) Refusal Strategies in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Equal Status.......

82
83
84
85
88

ix

3) Refusal Strategies in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Lower Status......
b. Refusal Strategies in Offers …………………………………................
1) Refusal Strategies in an Offer to a Collocutor of Higher Status…...
2) Refusal Strategies in an Offer to a Collocutor of Equal Status……
3) Refusal Strategies in an Offer to a Collocutor of Lower Status…...
c. Refusal Strategies in Suggestions ...……………………………………
1) Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Higher Status.....
2) Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Equal Status.....
3) Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Lower Status....
2. Politeness Strategies in Refusals ……………………………………….......
a. Politeness Strategies to Decline Invitations ….……………………..........
1) Bald-on-Record Strategy Used in Declining Invitations……….....
2) Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations ……..
3) Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations...…..
4). Off Record Strategies Used in Declining Invitations …………….
b. Politeness Strategies to Decline Offers ……………………………….
1) Bald-on-Record Strategy in Declining Offers ……………………..
2). Positive Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers ………………..
3). Negative Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers …………...….
4). Off Record Strategies in Declining Offers ………...………….......
c. Politeness Strategies to Decline Suggestions ……………….…...........
1). Bald-On-Record Strategy in Decline Suggestions …………..…….
2). Positive Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions ……….…
3). Negative Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions ………....
4). Off-Record Strategies in Declining Suggestions …………….........
3. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Status Levels ………………...…
a. Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Status Levels......
1). Politeness Strategies in Declining an Invitation to a collocutor of
Higher Status……………………………………...…………….....
2).Politeness Strategy in Declining an Invitation a collocutor of Equal
Status ………………………………………………………………..
3). Politeness Strategy in Declining an Invitation to collocutor of
Lower Status ………………………………………………………...
b. Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Status Levels ...…..…..
1). Politeness Strategy in Declining an Offer to Collocutor of Higher
Status …………………………………………………………….…..
2). Politeness Strategy in Declining an Offer to Collocutor of Equal
Status..................................................................................................
3). Politeness Strategies in Declining an Offer to Collocutor of Lower
Status ……………………………………………………..................
c. Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Status Levels.......
1). Politeness Strategies in Declining a Suggestion to Collocutor of
Higher Status …………………………………………………..........
2). Politeness Strategies in Declining a Suggestion to Collocutor of
Equal Status ...........……………………………………………….....
3). Politeness Strategies in Declining a Suggestion to Collocutor of
Lower Status …………………………………………………….......
4. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Different Genders …………….....
a. Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations conducted by Males and
Females …………………………………………………………..............
x

92
96
96
99
103
107
107
111
115
118
120
121
123
126
128
130
130
132
134
135
136
136
138
141
143
145
145
147
148
149
149
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159

b. Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers conducted by Males and
Females.....................................................................................................
c. Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions conducted by Males
and Females ……………………………………………..........................
5. Findings …………………………………………………………………......
a. Refusal Strategies ……………………………………………………......
b. Politeness Strategies …………………………………………………......
c. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Status Level ……………..….....
d. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Different Genders …………......
B. Discussion of Findings ………………………………………………………..
1. Refusal Strategies ………………………………………………………….
a. Refusal Strategies to Invitations ………………………………………...
b. Refusal Strategies to Offers ………………………………………….….
c. Refusal Strategies to Suggestions ………………………………….…....
2. Politeness Strategies ………………………………………….....................
a. Politeness Strategies to Decline Invitations ……………………………...
b. Politeness Strategies to Decline Offers …………………………………..
c. Politeness Strategies to Decline Suggestions …………………………….
3. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Status Level …………………….....
a. Politeness Strategies to Decline Invitations across Status Levels ……......
b. Politeness Strategies to Decline Offers across Status Levels ………….....
c. Politeness Strategies to Decline Suggestions across Status Levels …..…..
4. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Different Genders ……………..…..
a. Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations conducted by Males and
Females ......................................................................................................
b. Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers conducted by Males and
Females …................................................................................................
c. Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions conducted by Males and
Females ....................................................................................................
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion ………...………………………………………………………......
B. Pedagogical Implication ……………………………………………………....
C. Suggestion ……………………………………………………………………..
1. To the Teachers..........................................................................................
2. To the Students..........................................................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................
APPENDIX............................................................................................................

xi

161
163
165
165
171
174
178
182
182
184
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
192
194
195
197
197
199

202
204
205
205
205
207
213

LIST OF TABLE

No

Table

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14

15

15

16
17
18
19

16
17
18
19

Name of Table

The use of Refusal Strategy in an Invitation to a Collocutor of
Higher Status on DTC 1
The use of Refusal Strategy in an Invitation to a Collocutor of
Equal Status on DTC 2
The use of Refusal Strategy in an Invitation to a Collocutor of
lower Status on DTC 3
The use of Refusal Strategy in an Offer to a Collocutor of Higher
Status on DTC 4
The use of Refusal Strategy in an Offer to a Collocutor of Equal
Status on DTC 5
The use of Refusal Strategy in an Offer to a Collocutor of Lower
Status on DTC no 6
The use of Refusal Strategy in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of
Equal Status on DTC 7
The use of Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of
Equal Status on DTC 8
The use of Refusal Strategy in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of
Lower Status on DTC 9
Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Status
Levels
Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Status Levels
Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Status
Levels
Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations Conducted by
Males and Females
Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers Conducted by Males
and Females
Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions Conducted by
Males and Females
The use of Refusal Strategies in Invitations
The use of Refusal Strategies in Offers
The use of Refusal Strategies in Suggestions
The Use of Refusal Strategy across Three Acts of Refusals

xii

Page

88
92
95
99
103
107
111
114
112
117
146
150
155
160
162
163
166
167
170

LIST OF CHART

NO
1
2
3
4
5

NO CHART
1
2
3
4
5

6

6

7
8
9
10
11

7
8
9
10
11

12

12

13

13

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

19

19

NAME OF CHART
Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations
Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations
Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Offers
Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Offers
Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Suggestions
Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining
Suggestions
Off-Record Strategies Used in Declining Suggestions
Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations
Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers
Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions
The Use of Politeness Strategies in the Acts of Refusal
Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Status
Level
Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Status Level
Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Status
Level
Politeness Strategies in Refusal across Status Level
Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across
Different Genders
Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Different
Genders
Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across
Different Genders
Politeness Strategies in Refusals Used by Different Genders

xiii

PAGE
126
128
133
135
140
143
145
172
173
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
180
181

LIST OF APPENDICES

No
1
2
3
4
5
6

NAME OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: DCT items in the questionnaire research
Appendix 2: Refusal strategies used by the participants
Appendix 3: Politeness Strategies in Refusal used by the participants
Appendix 4: The Result of questionnaire research
Appendix 4: Attending List
Appendix 4: Photo Activities Research of questionnaire

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Apo

apology/regret

Acc

acceptance

Ass

asking for assurance

Alt

statements of alternative

Avo

avoidance

Awk

expressing awkwardness

BOR

Bald on Record

Dis

dissuasion

DCT

discourse completion task

Exc

excuse/explanation

Fil

fillers

Fut

future acceptance

Gra

gratitude

Ina

inability

No

No directly

NP

Negative Politeness

OR

Off-Record

Phi

statement of philosophy

Prin

statement of principle

Pos

positive opinion/feeling, and agreement

PP

Positive Politeness

Set

future acceptance with condition

Wig

wishing for good luck
xv

Wis

expressing a wish

xvi

ABSTRACT

MAYA HARTUTI, A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal Used by English Teachers
in Madiun Regency. Thesis, Surakarta, Post-Graduate Program of Language Study
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, 2014
The study investigated politeness strategy in refusal conducted by the English
teachers in Madiun regency relating to different social status levels and gender. The data
were elicited, using discourse completion tasks (DCT), from 38 English teachers, 14 male
and 24 female who teach in Junior high schools in Madiun regency. The collected data are
analyzed by using Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness strategy. The refusal strategies
were classified based on modified refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990).
The findings of the research are described in line with the problem statements as
follows: first, The English teachers of junior high school in Madiun regency applied two
semantic formulae indirect and direct strategies in conjunction to adjunct identified by Beebe
et al. (1990) across three refusals acts (invitations, offers and suggestions). The indirect
strategy was the prominent refusal strategy especially in declining offers and suggestions
where as the direct strategy was the highest strategy used in declining invitations. The
second, the English teachers used all four politeness strategies (BOR, positive politeness
(PP), NP, and OR) of Brown and Levinson (1987) across three refusals acts in more or less
the same frequency, except in declining offers they did not use OR strategy. In declining
invitations and suggestions, most of the English teachers applied PP strategy and the
dominant type was PP 13 Give reasons. The dominant strategy in declining offers was BOR
which most of them expressed gratitude. The third, the influence of social distance on
politeness strategy used by the English teachers in declining invitations, offers, and
suggestions was not significant. The most prevalent strategy in declining three acts of refusals
across status levels was PP strategy. PP strategy mostly dominated the refusals to collocutors
of equal and lower status but in refusals to collocutors of higher status, most of English
teachers used NP strategy. The last, gender differences virtually has no influence on the
choices of politeness strategy in three refusals acts across status levels. Both male and female
English teachers conducted the same politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson (1987) in
declining invitations, offers, and suggestions in more or less the same frequency. They used
PP significantly the highest and OR was the least dominant strategy. Females used PP and NP
little bit more often than males but males used BOR and OR little bit more often than
females.

Keywords: Politeness Strategy, Refusal Strategy.

xvii

Dokumen yang terkait

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REFUSAL BY THE SECOND SEMESTER STUDENTS OF The Implementation Of Politeness Strategies In Refusal By The Second Semester Students Of Muhammadiyah University In English Speaking Class.

0 2 19

THE REALIZATION OF POLITENESS STRATEGY USED BY THE STUDENTS IN SAHID TOURISM INSTITUTE OF SURAKARTA IN The Realization Of Politeness Strategy Used By The Students In Sahid Tourism Institute Of Surakarta In Phatic Utterances: A Pragmatic Perspective.

0 3 12

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEMENT USED BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Politeness Strategies In Disagreement Used By English Department Students Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.

0 1 12

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEMENT USED BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Politeness Strategies In Disagreement Used By English Department Students Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.

0 1 18

INTRODUCTION A Study Of Politeness Strategy In Refusal Used By English Teachers In Madiun Regency.

0 2 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY A Study Of Politeness Strategy In Refusal Used By English Teachers In Madiun Regency.

0 2 6

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN A Study Of Politeness Strategy In Refusal Used By English Teachers In Madiun Regency.

0 1 17

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES A Study Of Politeness Strategies Used By The Main Character In Persuasion Movie.

0 1 12

ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES USED BY TEACHERS IN ASSESSING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL : A Case Study of English Teachers in One Senior High School in Tasikmalaya.

0 6 22

POLITENESS IN INTERLANGUAGE REFUSALS BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN INDONESIA

0 0 13