EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENT IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS CONDUCTED BY EFL LEARNERS :A case Study of Post Graduate Program in English of UPI.

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “Expressing Disagreements in Academic Setting by EFL learners” is completely my own work. I’m fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from many sources. All quotations are properly acknowledged.

Bandung, February 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval i

Declaration ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgment iv

Preface v

Abstract vi

Table of Content vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Statement o the Problems 2

1.3. Purpose of the Study 2

1.4. Significance of the Study 3

1.5. Research Limitation 3

1.6. Research Methods 3

1.7. Thesis Organization 4

CHAPTER II: THEORIES OF POLITENESS 5

2.1 Introduction 5

2.1.1. Perspective on Linguistic Politeness 5

2.1.2. Goffman’s Face-work 6

2.1.3. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies 9

2.1.4. Grice’s Cooperative Principle 12

2.1.5. Leech’s Principle of Politeness 14

2.2. The Indonesian Conception of Politeness 19

2.3. Previous Studies on Refusal and Disagreements 24 2.4. Directness and Indirectness in Politeness Norms 27

2.5. Concluding Remark 28

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29

3.1. Research Design 29

3.2. Respondent of the Study 30

3.3. Data Resources 31

3.3.1. Data Resources 31

3.3.2. Methods of Collecting Data 31

3.4. Data Collection Procedures 34

3.5. Data Analysis Framework 35

3.6. Validity 36

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS 38 4.1. The Analysis of Strategies in Expressing Disagreement 38 4.2. The Analysis of Contextual Variables that Influence the Strategy

of Disagreement 50

4.2.1. Age 51

4.2.2. Gender 52

4.2.3. Institutional Based Power 54

4.2.4. Social Distance 56

4.3. Concluding Remarks 59

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 62

5.1. Major Finding and Their Significance 62

5.2. Implication of the Study 64

5.3. Recommendation for Further Study 64

References 65

EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENT IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS

CONDUCTED BY EFL LEARNERS

(A Case Study of Post graduate Program in English of Upi)

By: Yeni Andriyani

Approved by:

Main Supervisor

Prof. Fuad Abdul Hamied, M.A., Ph.D.

Co-Supervisor

PREFACE

Alhamdulillaahi Robbil ‘Aalamiin.

I finally finished my thesis entitled Expressing Disagreement in Academic Setting Conducted by EFL Learners (A Case Study of Post graduate Program in English of Upi), as a partial fulfillment of Master’s degree in English Education.

There were so many difficulties that I found during the process of this study, especially of the limited sources and time. But I did the best I could to make the thesis writing to come to completion.

I am very hopeful that this study contributes to the English Education in Indonesia and triggers further research on similar topic for the improvement of English teaching and learning in our country.

As the writer, I realize that this thesis is far from being perfect; therefore, corrections, suggestions, comments, and criticisms expressed by my supervisors, the member of Board Examiners and general readers will be fully appreciated for the improvement of this writing.

Bandung, February 2007 Yeni Andriyani

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Alhamdulillaahi Robbil “aalamiin. Thanks to Allah, this thesis has finally come to completion. There were a lot of good and bad experiences which broadened my knowledge and enriched my understanding about the issue under investigation.

In the completion of this thesis, there are so many people to thank. I would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisors, Prof. Fuad Abdul Hamied, M.A., Ph.D. and E. Aminudin Aziz, M.A., Ph.D., for their scholarly guidance, valuable advice and comfortable condition during supervising. My gratefulness is also extended Prof. H. A. Chaedar Alwasilah, M.A., Ph.D., Bachrudin Musthafa, M.A., Ph.D., Dr. Hj. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M.Pd., Emi Emilia, M.A., Ph.D., and the Board of Examiners for their invaluable feedback and suggestions.

I would also like to thank the EFL students of Post Graduate Program who became my respondents, for their participation and time for interview. Your contributions were the central part of this study.

My biggest gratitude is extended to my lovely husband, Supriyadi Sadikin, and my daughter Luvyna Khansa Nadhira, for their infinite love, support, and understanding during my thesis completion, I feel very sorry for abandoning you for so long. To my caring parents, especially Mamah (R.I.P) I’m extremely sorry for not being able to finish my study soon, I miss you so much. Also to my sisters, brother, and all my

nieces who always give me support, prayer and encouragement (Cha Yo, Bi Yeni!!). Finally, I would like to apologies if I have inadvertently omitted anyone to whom acknowledgement is due.

This is to certify that The Board of Examiners has approved the master thesis of Yeni Andriyani as the requirement of the Master Degree at English Education

Program

Board of Examiners:

Prof. H. Fuad Abdul Hamied, M.A., Ph.D.

H. E. Aminudin Aziz, M.A., Ph.D.

Dr. Didi Suherdi

Dr. Didi Sukyadi

Acknowledged by:

Director of Graduate School Indonesia University of Education

LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEW: 1. What do you think about the term “Politeness”? 2. Do you think you are a polite person? Please explain?

3. In the class setting, during the discussion session for example, sometimes you find the situations that stimulate you to disagree with your friend or even with your lecturer. Will you use any strategies in expressing your disagreement?

4. Could you mention those strategies?

5. Do you think the factors like age, gender, and social distance (power, social relationship) will affect you to perform different strategies to express disagreement? Why is it so? Please explain?

6. Based on my observation, many students expressed their disagreement by performing a long sentence to explain his/her opinions and using the word “but” at the middle of his/her explanation. Do you think it is the strategy to play safety?

7. In expressing disagreement, what do you prefer to use, direct or indirect strategies? Why?

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Communication takes place at anytime, everywhere and with who ever we want to be our addressee. In academic settings, communication happens mostly between students and their lecturers, between students and students, and between students and other staff members. In academic conversations especially those taking place inside the classrooms, the topics of conversation often center on academic matters such as explaining theories and arguments relevant to the topics. It is often the case that during such discussion students have different points of view, which often will lead to long conversation. Yet, it is not always the case that all people (i.e. students) can put forward their opinions straightforwardly, as there are some who will do it indirectly, although they feel quite certain about the ideas they wish to convey. This is believed to be related to some individual as well as social variables such as how the students regard the status of their lecturers (of being lecturer), and how he can establish or maintain the degree of formality and familiarity.

When distance is taken into account, communication between students and lecturers is characterized by a higher degree of formality than that of between students and students. In communicating with his students, sometimes a lecture does not use direct strategy in expressing disagreement. “He is not engage in direct confrontation with his students because he is expected to encourage rather than deter students to participate and voice their opinions. However, students when they possessed more knowledge about the subject matter, they become more confident to express their thought to their lectures without being hesitated” (Kakava, 1993).

In communicating with others, people sometimes need strategies in order to avoid misunderstanding among them. The term politeness then comes up in our mind. Let’s say that in certain occasion you heard someone telling you these kinds of utterances as we can see below:

(1) Could I just borrow a little bit of money which seems more polite than

(2) Give me some money

Now, which one do you think is more polite between the two utterances? For me, those utterances are polite, but they differ in the strategies they employ. Maybe you have different

point of view about this and we might have a long discussion to talk about it. As we all consider; people share a common principle that they always want to be polite but differ in the ways they express they want. In the Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) situations such as speech act of disagreement, people may choose a number of strategies to express his want without making his interlocutor loose his/her “face”. In the classroom setting, students and lecturer sometimes employ different ways and strategies when they disagree with each other. It is due to the need that they do not want to attack “the face” of their interlocutor. But why do they use different types of strategy in expressing disagreement? It is the situations like these that attract me to investigate further about the phenomena.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS

Based on the background, there are a number of problems which can be formulated as an attempt to investigate the phenomenon mentioned above. They are:

1. What strategies do the students use to express disagreements?

2. If there are variations in the realizations of the strategies, what factors influence such variations? Is it due to contextual variables for example social relationship, gender, age, etc?

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Based on the research problem above, I state the purposes of this research as follows: 1. To investigate the way students express their disagreement.

2. To investigate kinds of factors that influence variations in the realizations of strategies.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The findings of the research are expected to be able to:

1. Uncover types of strategies used by both students and lecturers in expressing disagreement in the classroom activities.

2. Find and uncover some information and data about communication patterns mostly in Face threatening Acts (FTA) situations. When the data gained, it is hoped that both students and lectures conduct a good communication transaction by using such information.

1.5. RESEARCH LIMITATION

This research was intended to describe kinds of strategies used by both EFL learners enrolled as postgraduate students and lecturers in the Department of English Education of UPI in expressing disagreement, and to describe the linguistic theories of politeness with regard to the strategies.

1.6. RESEARCH METHODS

The study was conducted in three different classes at the Department of English Education of UPI during semester three and four in the year 2003. The classes were English Literature, Cross Cultural Understanding and Applied Linguistics (Critical Thinking).

The qualitative data were collected by doing classroom observation; conducting interviews with sample students who express certain strategies in making disagreement and videotaping the classroom activities. I analyzed the data as soon as I could after I had finished conducting the observation. The data were analyzed qualitatively through the following phases: (1) identifying the data, (2) categorizing the data, and (3) interpreting the data.

1.7. THESIS ORGANIZATION

The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter one explains the overall picture of the study, outlining the background, significance of the study, and the research methods.

Chapter two describes related theories in detail that include the perspective on linguistic politeness, some politeness strategies, and relevant study to the issue under investigation can also be found in this chapter.

Chapter three discusses detailed information about research methodology. This chapter also presents the research design, data collection method, and data analysis.

Chapter four provides the description and the analysis of the data. The analysis is guided by the research questions: the strategies do the students use in expressing disagreements, factors influence the variations in the realizations of the strategies, and how do theories of politeness explain to the strategies of expressing disagreements in the classes under study.

The last chapter highlights the research findings and their significance and implication to English teaching and learning. This chapter also concludes with recommendation for further study.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses methodology of the research. The methodology helps me to get intended data from which the analysis is done and the conclusion is drawn. There are five major sections in this chapter, namely: 1) Research Design, this section explains how the study was taken and conducted, 2) Respondent of the study, this section explains the research setting and the participants involved in the study, 3) Data Resources, this section explains the main data of the study and instrumentations of collecting the data, 4) Data collection procedures, this section explains phases of data collection and 5) Data analysis framework, this last section explains how the data are analyzed.

3.1 Research Design

The intent of the study is to identify the students’ and lecturers’ utterances when expressing disagreements in the classroom activities. This case study adopted a qualitative method considering that this is the most appropriate method in investigating the phenomenon in question, i.e. expressions of disagreement. Merriam (1988) stated that a qualitative case study is an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon or social unit. She also explained that a case study is a process, which tries to describe and analyze some entities in qualitative, complex and comprehensive terms not infrequently as it, unfolds over a period of time.

I used the observation method that involved observing the classes over a period of time. The observation was chosen together with the interviews to obtain the data and to get a fuller description about what was happening in the classes. In addition, the videotaping was also used and for the purpose analysis, the videocassettes were played several times to identity the activities occurred in the classes.

3.2 Respondent of the study

This study involved 23 EFL learners enrolled as postgraduate students at the Department of English Education of UPI. Investigation was conducted in three different classes with three different lecturers during semester three in the year 2003 and 2004. Postgraduate students were chosen because they were more critical in facing the problem that might emerge during their study. Besides, the social distance between the students and lecturer in the class was deemed to be relatively closed therefore active interaction among them will be more likely. The respondents of this study were all members of the class whom most of them were teachers at various levels. Some of the students were junior and senior high school teachers and some others were graduate program lecturers at various universities in Bandung.

In order to get more detailed information about the strategies used by the students in expressing disagreements, I interviewed selected students who performed certain strategies in uttering disagreements. Three students whose strategies of expressing disagreement indicate different strategies among different context were selected. Their real names and identities are not mentioned here. They were coded as #R1, #R2, and #R3. The following are their profiles: #R1 was 32 years old male. He completed S1 degree in English from IKIP Bandung (UPI). He works as an English lecture at UPI Bandung until now.

#R2 was 29 years old male. He completed S1 degree in English from IKIP Bandung (UPI). He is a lecturer at UPI and LIA English Course.

#R3 was 26 years old female. She completed S1 degree in English from Padjajaran University. Now she works as an English Teacher in one of the senior high schools in Bandung.

3.3 Data Resources 3.3.1Data Resources

The main data of the study were the utterances of disagreements, which were expressed by the postgraduate students in some recorded lectures at the Department of English Education of UPI. Some other data were the results of videotaping and interviews.

3.3.2Methods of Collecting Data

The methods of collecting data used in this study include: (a) classroom observations, (b) videotaping, and (c) interviews.

(a). Observation

The observations were carried out during the process of study in the three different courses. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) stated that these (classrooms) are the places where subjects do what they normally do, and it is the natural settings that I want to study. I joined the classes and became a non-participant observer. The observation was conducted in two steps, first, pilot study and second, main observation. Pilot study was conducted four times in

Pragmatics Class. It began on May 28, 2003 until June 11, 2003. From this pilot study, I got

the insights of what was going on in the classroom activities. There were not much utterances of disagreement performed or made by both the students and the lecturers. In discussion sessions, many students focused only on the material that they had to present in front of the class. Therefore, in the discussion session there were only few students who contributed to the class. Unfortunately, I did not record all utterances made in the class by using a tape recorder and consequently I was not able to gain the data as much as I need.

The main observation was taken three times for each different course. It began on September 30, 2003 to November 17, 2003. I obtained data by using field notes and tape-recording all relevant contexts and utterances that occurred in the class.

(b) Videotaping

To enrich the data gained earlier, the last session of data collection was recorded with a video camera. The use of audiovisual tool was meant to gain and to complete the data that could not be collected before. Many utterances performed by the member of the class were missing because I could not write down all utterances of disagreement in a very limited time. Therefore, video camera was needed to record all activities and utterances made by the students and lecturers during the class sessions.

(c) Interviews

In this research I conducted interviews to three selected participants. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993), interviewing is an important way for a researcher to check the accuracy of to verify or refute the impressions he or she has gained through observations. In this research I had conducted semi structured questions and informal interviews. First type of interview was used because it is less formal, it consisted of a series of questions designed to elicit specific answers on the part of participants. Informal interview was used to ask unrecorded questions. In this type of interview, “the questions emerged from the immediate context and were asked in the natural course of events; there is no predetermination of question topics or phrasing” (McMillan, 2001).

I asked several questions to three selected respondents about their strategies and reasons in expressing disagreement during the class sessions. They performed different kind of strategies in uttering disagreement to their friends and lecturers. Beside that, I also asked their opinions about politeness phenomena in Indonesian culture especially in academic setting.

Interviews were administered directly with the participants and also through on line chatting. The last method was done because I found some difficulties in meeting the participant face to face due to limited time and opportunity.

3.4 Data collection procedures

I came and attended the class, three to four times for each course and became a non-participant observer. I could not attend the class more than four times because I began observations in the middle of the semester. Therefore I had only four chances to observe before the subject concluded at the end of the semester. I took notes all relevant speech events during the observations.

I also recorded the communication transactions in the class during class discussions or presentations, and then I wrote any utterances used by the students and lecturers in expressing their thought especially in expressing disagreement from one to another. The interviews were administered when I encountered any differences in expressing an utterance by certain participant in different subject and try to uncover the reasons.

The following table is the observation schedule done by the writer:

Date Time Course Lecture

September 30th, 2003 09.40 – 12.10 English Literature Note: 19 Students

BM October 6th, 2003 09.40 – 12.10 Critical Thinking/

Applied Linguistic Note: 19 students

ACA

October 13th, 2003 10.00 – 11.00 Critical Thinking/ Applied Linguistic Note: 21 Students

ACA

October 13th, 2003 13.15 – 15.00 CCU (Cross Cultural

Understanding) Note: 20 Students

EAA

October 14th, 2003 09.40 - 10.30 English Literature Note: 18 Students

BM November 17th, 2003

Video Shooting

09.40 – 10.30 Critical Thinking? Applied Linguistic Note: 14 Students

ACA

November 17th, 2003 13.00 – 14.00 CCU (Cross Cultural

Understanding) Note: 19 Students

EAA

Table 3.1 Observation schedule

3.5 Data analysis framework

I analyzed the data inductively after I had finished carrying out the observations and interviews. The data gathered in this study were analyzed in such a way that they gave a clear description of type of utterances and strategies in expressing disagreements. There are three kinds of analysis:

1. The Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID) (Searle, 1969, p. 64) appearance in every utterance coded by language specific realizations. IFID is an expression of the type shown in (1) where there is a slot for a verb that explicitly names the illocutionary act being performed. Such a verb can be called a performative verb (Vp).

(1) I (Vp) you that……..

The verb ‘promise’ and ‘warn’ would be the performative verb and, if stated, would be very clear IFIDs.

(2) “….so, when you said that linguist can not translate the political jargon, well I don’t agree with you, because….”

The verb ‘do not agree’ would be the performative verb and, if stated, would be very clear IFIDs.

2. Categorization according to strategies.

Head act or request proper (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper. 1989) is that part of the sequence which may serve to realize the act independently of other elements. Head acts can vary on two dimensions:

a. Strategy type b. Perspective

3. Continua of disagreement types and degree of directness adapted from Kakava 1993a:

Direct Indirect

---Strong Strong-yet-mitigated Mitigated

disagreement disagreement disagreement

---I disagree (no accounts) ironic statement accounts

No + (counter claim) Yes-but sequences Impersonal construction

Negative assessments I disagree+accounts questions+(hedges)

3.6. Validity

It is expected that the data found and gathered in a qualitative study have internal validity, the validity that deals with the question of how one’s finding match reality (Merriam, 1988: 66).

The data of this study were taken in a very natural setting. I took the data from the observation and interviews. The observation was used in order to find out kinds of strategies used by students and lecturers in expressing disagreement. Interviews were used to gain information from selected participants who performed certain strategies in making the utterances of disagreement.

I joined and observed the class without any advanced communication with the lecturer and the students except for asking permission to join their class. I only became a non participant observer; therefore the setting went through naturally. To analyze and interpret the phenomena of this study, all the data gathered during the investigation were used. The analysis would be based on the participants’ perspectives. This emic perspective adopted in this study would maintain the validity and reliability of the data.

3.7. Concluding Remarks

The purpose of the study is to observe, describe, and analyze the strategies of expressing disagreements conducted by the EFL students and lecturers. This study was designed based on the qualitative approach in order to explain the phenomena. The data were collected from observation sheets, interviews, and videotaped class activities in order to gain information of the phenomena under investigation. The data are then analyze and presented in the data analysis chapter as an attempt to answer the research questions.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

This chapter consists of three parts: 1) the major findings and the significance, 2) Implication of the study, and 3) the recommendations for further study. The major findings that presented in this chapter are based on qualitative data on types of disagreement strategy conducted by EFL learners. The findings of this study will bring some implication to the English teaching and learning in general. Further investigations are fully recommended due to the limitation and weaknesses of this study.

5.1. Major Findings and Their significance

To summarize the findings, I had shown that the lecturer’s types of disagreements ranged from Mitigated Disagreement (indirect) to Strong Disagreement (direct) and he also performed both discursive pattern of politeness namely deductive and inductive pattern. Sometimes he employed a more indirect means to express his disagreement. On the other hand, I also had illustrated the students’ type of expressing disagreement ranged from “strong-yet-mitigated” to “mitigated” and correlate with contextual variables he/ she possessed.

In this classroom setting, for the lecturer, institutional power did not correlate greatly with degree of directness expressed in his disagreement strategy. Whether the students’ disagreement types, it became the fact that strategies of disagreement they performed were greatly influence by the contextual variables of politeness. As has been shown in the course of discussion, the act of expressing politeness is influenced by age. It was found that when talking to an interlocutor of different age, a speaker would indicate different preferences at using strategies. To an interlocutor of the same age, a speaker was inclined to show more

direct strategies of disagreement. To the extent that the degree of influence becomes a matter of concern, age proves to be more powerful than gender in determining the deliverance of politeness. Respondents’ awareness of the need to speak politely to an older interlocutor, for instance, is more obvious than that of their concern about gender differences. Their awareness of the need to fully attend to an interlocutor’s seniority was evident in the use of strategies of disagreement.

The contextual variables namely institutional power and social distance had also influenced greatly of the speakers in expressing disagreements. The respondents put awareness to his/ her interlocutor status in power and social distance. The less power and social distance between the members of communication transaction, the more direct the utterance of disagreement would be. We can see that the power relation between Students and lecturer ranged from equal to high and the data also showed that the social distance relation between the SS and L ranged from close to intermediate.

The students also performed deductive discourse pattern in their disagreement strategy. It was counter to what Scollon and Scollon statement that person in lower social position normally expected to use the inductive one (a more indirect discursive strategy) rather than deductive pattern.

5.2. Implication of the study

This present study has direct application to the EFL Classroom mostly in Indonesian. It is due to intricacies of language use as it correlates with several contextual and cultural variables. Furthermore, in the case of disagreement, “EFL students would benefit from being exposed to different means of expressing disagreement within a language system” (Kakava,

1995). Not only that, the students can also jump to the linguistic, textual and paralinguistic means of expressing disagreement.

5.3. Recommendation for Further Study

This present study is a case study of strategy types used by the students and lecturer in expressing disagreement. Within its big limitations, this study has many weaknesses related to limited time to investigate and analyze deeper. Therefore, the further investigation is needed in the same or different cites and setting, and background in order to bring the better result. The additional studies may provide useful insights to confirm or disconfirm the result of this study.

REFERENCES

Allan, K. 1991. Cooperative principle. In W. Bright (ed.). Oxford International Encyclopedia of linguistics, vol.1. NY: Oxford University Press.

Allan, K. 1994. Speech act classification and definition. In R.E. Asher (ed.). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, K. & K. Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and dysphemism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alwasilah, Adeng Chaedar. 2002. Pokoknya Qualitatif (Dasar-dasar merancang dan melakukan penelitian kualitatif). Pustaka Jaya. Jakarta.

Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do things with words. (2nd edn. by J.O. Urmson & Marina Sbisa. Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Aziz, E. A. 1996. Refusing in Indonesian: Strategies & Politeness Implication. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Linguistics, Monash University.

Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Beebe, L.M. & M.C. Cummings 1985. Speech Act Performance: A function of the data collection method? Paper Presented at the TESOL Convention, New York.

Beebe, L.M. & T. Takahashi. 1989. "Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition". In S.M. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (eds.). Variation in second language acquisition. Vol. I: Sociolinguistic Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Beebe, L.M, T. Takahashi, & R. Ullis-Weltz. . 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R.C. Scarcella, E.S. Andersen, & S.D. Krashen. (eds.). Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). NY: Newbury House.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.

___________ 1987. Indirectness and politeness in request: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

___________ 1989. Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirect request. In Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

___________ 1990. You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 259-288.

Blum-Kulka, S. & E. Olshtain. 1986. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 47-61.

Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, P & S.C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed). Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction, 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

__________ 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deephuengton, P. 1991. Politeness in Thai: strategies of refusing and disagreeing. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Kansas.

Echols, J.M & H. Shadily. 1994. Kamus Indonesia-Inggris. 3rd edn. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Faerch, C. & G. Kasper. 1984. "Pragmatic knowledge: rules and procedures". Applied Linguistics. 5, 3, 214-225.

__________________ . 1989. Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realisation. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fraser, B. 1990. “Perspectives on politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: Anchor Books.

__________ 1963. Behavior in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

__________ 1967. Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3: speech acts. NY: Academic Press.

Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257. Gumperz, J.J. 1977. The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In E.L. Rose (ed.).

Interethnic communication. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

Ito, Y. 1989. "Strategies of disagreement: a comparison of Japanese and American usage". Sophia Linguistica, 27, 193-203.

Kakava, C. 1995. Directness and indirectness in professor-student interaction: the intersection of contextual and cultural constraints. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. 229-246.

Lakoff, R. T. 1975. Language and women’s place. NY: Harper Colophom.

__________ 1979. Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. New York Academy of Science Annals, 327, 51-78.

Levinson, S.C. 1979. "Pragmatics and social deixis". Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 206-263.

__________ .1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design (An Interactive Approach). Sage Publication. London.

Scollon, R & S.B.K. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

______________ . 1996. Intercultural communication. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

_______ . 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds). Syntax and semantics, vol.3: speech acts. NY: Academic Press.

_________ . 1979. Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. London: Oxford University Press. Stevens, P.B. 1993. "The pragmatic of "No!": some strategies in English and Arabic". Issues and

Developments in English and Applied Linguistics (IDEAL), 6, 87-112.

Takahashi, T. & L.M. Beebe. 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.

Takahashi, T. & L.M. Beebe. 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In S. Blum-Kulka & G. Kasper (eds.). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

direct strategies of disagreement. To the extent that the degree of influence becomes a matter

of concern, age proves to be more powerful than gender in determining the deliverance of

politeness. Respondents’ awareness of the need to speak politely to an older interlocutor, for

instance, is more obvious than that of their concern about gender differences. Their

awareness of the need to fully attend to an interlocutor’s seniority was evident in the use of

strategies of disagreement.

The contextual variables namely institutional power and social distance had also

influenced greatly of the speakers in expressing disagreements. The respondents put

awareness to his/ her interlocutor status in power and social distance. The less power and

social distance between the members of communication transaction, the more direct the

utterance of disagreement would be. We can see that the power relation between Students and

lecturer ranged from equal to high and the data also showed that the social distance relation

between the SS and L ranged from close to intermediate.

The students also performed deductive discourse pattern in their disagreement

strategy. It was counter to what Scollon and Scollon statement that person in lower social

position normally expected to use the inductive one (a more indirect discursive strategy)

rather than deductive pattern.

5.2. Implication of the study

This present study has direct application to the EFL Classroom mostly in Indonesian.

It is due to intricacies of language use as it correlates with several contextual and cultural

variables. Furthermore, in the case of disagreement, “EFL students would benefit from being

exposed to different means of expressing disagreement within a language system” (Kakava,

1995). Not only that, the students can also jump to the linguistic, textual and paralinguistic

means of expressing disagreement.

5.3. Recommendation for Further Study

This present study is a case study of strategy types used by the students and lecturer in

expressing disagreement. Within its big limitations, this study has many weaknesses related

to limited time to investigate and analyze deeper. Therefore, the further investigation is

needed in the same or different cites and setting, and background in order to bring the better

result. The additional studies may provide useful insights to confirm or disconfirm the result

of this study.

REFERENCES

Allan, K. 1991. Cooperative principle. In W. Bright (ed.). Oxford International Encyclopedia of

linguistics, vol.1. NY: Oxford University Press.

Allan, K. 1994. Speech act classification and definition. In R.E. Asher (ed.). The encyclopedia of

language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, K. & K. Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and dysphemism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alwasilah, Adeng Chaedar. 2002. Pokoknya Qualitatif (Dasar-dasar merancang dan melakukan

penelitian kualitatif). Pustaka Jaya. Jakarta.

Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do things with words. (2nd edn. by J.O. Urmson & Marina Sbisa. Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Aziz, E. A. 1996. Refusing in Indonesian: Strategies & Politeness Implication. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Linguistics, Monash University.

Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Beebe, L.M. & M.C. Cummings 1985. Speech Act Performance: A function of the data collection

method? Paper Presented at the TESOL Convention, New York.

Beebe, L.M. & T. Takahashi. 1989. "Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition". In S.M. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (eds.). Variation in second language acquisition. Vol. I: Sociolinguistic Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Beebe, L.M, T. Takahashi, & R. Ullis-Weltz. . 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R.C. Scarcella, E.S. Andersen, & S.D. Krashen. (eds.). Developing communicative

competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). NY: Newbury House.

Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied

Linguistics, 3, 29-59.

___________ 1987. Indirectness and politeness in request: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

___________ 1989. Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirect request. In Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

___________ 1990. You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: parental politeness in family discourse.

Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 259-288.

Blum-Kulka, S. & E. Olshtain. 1986. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure.

Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and

apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, P & S.C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed). Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction, 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

__________ 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deephuengton, P. 1991. Politeness in Thai: strategies of refusing and disagreeing. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Kansas.

Echols, J.M & H. Shadily. 1994. Kamus Indonesia-Inggris. 3rd edn. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Faerch, C. & G. Kasper. 1984. "Pragmatic knowledge: rules and procedures". Applied Linguistics. 5, 3, 214-225.

__________________ . 1989. Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realisation. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests

and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fraser, B. 1990. “Perspectives on politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: Anchor Books.

__________ 1963. Behavior in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

__________ 1967. Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3:

speech acts. NY: Academic Press.

Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257. Gumperz, J.J. 1977. The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In E.L. Rose (ed.).

Interethnic communication. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

Ito, Y. 1989. "Strategies of disagreement: a comparison of Japanese and American usage". Sophia

Linguistica, 27, 193-203.

Kakava, C. 1995. Directness and indirectness in professor-student interaction: the intersection of contextual and cultural constraints. Georgetown University Round Table on Language

and Linguistics. 229-246.

Lakoff, R. T. 1975. Language and women’s place. NY: Harper Colophom.

__________ 1979. Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. New York Academy of Science

Annals, 327, 51-78.

Levinson, S.C. 1979. "Pragmatics and social deixis". Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 206-263.

__________ .1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design (An Interactive Approach). Sage Publication. London.

Scollon, R & S.B.K. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

______________ . 1996. Intercultural communication. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

_______ . 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds). Syntax and semantics, vol.3:

speech acts. NY: Academic Press.

_________ . 1979. Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. London: Oxford University Press. Stevens, P.B. 1993. "The pragmatic of "No!": some strategies in English and Arabic". Issues and

Developments in English and Applied Linguistics (IDEAL), 6, 87-112.

Takahashi, T. & L.M. Beebe. 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.

Takahashi, T. & L.M. Beebe. 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In S. Blum-Kulka & G. Kasper (eds.). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.