In adapting Eisenstein and Bodman‘s situation, the things which are followed by situation 16 in the present study are the theme of low-
imposition favor of handing something and the social status of the favor giver. However, in Eisenstein and Bodman, the favor is handing a
newspaper. In situation 16 in the present study, the favor is adapted and changed into handing
some sugar. Then, in Eisenstein and Bodman‘s the favor giver and the thanker are situated to have high-familiarity since they
know each other well as roommates. In situation 16 in the present study, the familiarity of the favor giver is adapted and changed into low-familiarity
since the favor giver and the thanker do not know each other very well.
17. Taking scattered papers high-status, low-imposition, equal-familiarity
You board a bus to go to your campus. On the bus, when you want to take your wallet from your bag, you accidentally drop your papers. A freshman
in your department who sits beside you on the bus take and give the papers to you. After you get the papers, you would say
Note:
This situation is adapted from a situation in a DCT developed by
Cheng in 2005 for a pilot study:
You are walking to class. You accidentally drop your papers and notes, which scatter all over the middle of a busy hallway. A student whom you
don‘t know is walking by and stops to help you pick up your papers and notes. When the student gives the papers and notes to you, what
do you say?
159
In adapting Cheng ‘s situation, the things which are followed by situation 17
159
Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit., p.121.
in the present study are the theme of low-imposition favor of taking papers and the familiarity of the favor giver. However, in
Cheng‘s, the favor giver and the thanker have equal social status. In situation 17 in the present study,
the favor giver as a freshman has lower-status level than the thanker who is situated as senior student.
18. Giving a paper high-status, low-imposition, high-familiarity
You and Bill, a junior in your university whom you know very well, are in the library of your university. You have to take some notes, but you do not
have any paper. You ask Bill for a paper. After he gives it to you, you would say
52
CHAPTER III DATA ANALYSIS
Expressions of gratitude which are made by AEs, INs, and ELs, as the data of the present study, are first categorized into thanking taxonomy which is built by
Cheng. Then, expressions of gratitude which are made by three groups in every situation are compared. After that, the data analysis is presented according to the
research questions. As baseline data, expressions of gratitude which are made by AEs and INs are first compared by pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
approaches. To investigate the evidences of pragmatic transfer, the expressions of gratitude which are made by ELs are compared with the baseline data.
Qualitative method is employed. All expressions of gratitude which are analyzed in the present study are originally elicited by DCT as the instrument of the study.
A. Categorization of Expressions of Gratitude
In 2005, Cheng built a thanking taxonomy which categorize expressions of gratitude into 8 thanking strategies: 1 thanking, 2 appreciation, 3 positive
feeling, 4 apology, 5 recognition of imposition, 6 repayment, 7 other, and 8 alerter.
160
In the present study, categorization of expressions of gratitude as responses to every given situation on the DCT into Cheng‘s thanking taxonomy is
completely presented in Appendix 5, Table 5.1 –5.18. All expressions of gratitude
which are in Appendix 5 are originally gathered by DCT which is employed in the present study. Some representative examples are presented as follow:
160
Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. pp. 40-49.
