T1 112010085 Full text
AN INVESTIGATION OF INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS’
APPLICATION OF STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING USING
ENGLISH
Dewi Kusumawati Sofyan
Abstract
The current study aims at investigating Indonesian EFL learners‟ strategies in
expressing disagreement using English. In attempt to achieve the goal, 100 English
Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University were invited to participate
in this study. The participants were given a Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe (1993) and Guodong and Jing (2005).
The data obtained through this test were analyzed based on taxonomy of disagreement
strategies by Muntigl (1995). The data was described in quantitatively. This study is
important because disagreement is perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA). The
findings revealed the tendency of IEFL learners to mitigate FTA by using
counterclaim as the most employed disagreement strategy by Indonesian EFL (IEFL)
learners. Based on the findings of this study, a course about pragmatic understanding
is suggested to offer in English Department in attempt to create more awareness of the
students in speech acts realization, especially disagreement. Hopefully the findings of
this study would provide additional information about strategies employed by IEFL
learners in expressing disagreement.
Key words: Disagreement, Strategies in Disagreeing.
INTRODUCTION
People can mean something quite different from what their words say, or even
just the opposite. According to Thomas (1995), “meaning is not something which is
inherent in the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer
alone” (p. 22). Making meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of
meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance, and the meaning
potential of an utterance. The impact of what is being communicated is carried out in
1
terms of politeness If people cannot understand well how to speak to others, the
relationship between the interlocutors may be threatened.
The speech act of disagreement is a face-threatening act (FTA) when the
speaker ignores the social values of the speaking and this can cause a communication
breakdown (Niroomand, 2011, p. 205). Expressing disagreement, which is
unavoidable in everyday interaction, may threaten the relationship between the
interlocutors and this threat to the face of interlocutor can be softened by the use of
politeness strategies (Locher, 2004).
Several studies revealed that in expressing
disagreement, people used different strategies to deal with the situation. Kreutel
(2007, as cited in Niroomand, 2011, p. 205) in his article I'm not agree with you,
analyzed the devices used by learners of English as a second language in order to
perform the speech act of disagreement in their L2. Kreutel (2007) found that NNSs
tend to use politeness strategies in expressing disagreement to mitigate FTA. It was
found that NNSs use mitigation devices, which are devices to mitigate FTA, such as
hedges or explanations less frequently than native speakers, but often resort to
undesirable features such as the blunt opposite or message abandonment which means
rude or impolite disagreement.
Nguyen (2009), in her paper, Politeness Strategies in Showing Disagreement
in Group Work compared and contrasted Vietnamese and American undergraduate
students‟ performances. It was found that both of the two groups of respondents prefer
using non-conflicting disagreement strategies (e.g. positive politeness, no FTA) than
conflicting ones (e.g. bald-on record) and they mostly express their disagreement in a
2
non-threatening way with the assumption that if they show their disagreement
aggressively, the group‟s relationship will be broken.
The study by Guodong and Jing (2005) is a contrastive study on disagreement
strategies for politeness between American English and Mandarin Chinese. Five
scenarios for disagreement were devised for college students in USA and Chinese
mainland to fill in what they would say when they disagree with the higher-status,
peers, and the lower-status. The findings reveal that, when disagreeing with the
superior, Chinese students employ more politeness strategies and address forms than
the American students do. In the case of peers, with the increase of social distance,
both the American and Chinese students apply less politeness strategies. Positive
correlation was found between the rates of disagreement and the change of the social
distance for the Chinese students while negative correlation for the American
students.
The studies by Kreutel (2007), Nguyen (2009), and Guodong and Jing (2005)
show various findings about NNSs‟ realization of disagreeing. Although several
studies have provided insights into the concept of politeness in disagreement in
numerous cultures (American, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.), up to the present day, only
a limited number of studies in Indonesian context has considered about similar study.
That is why it is considered to be important to investigate how speech act of
disagreement in L2 reflected in Indonesia. The study tries to answer the following
research question: What are Indonesian EFL learners‟ strategies in disagreeing using
English? The strategies used by the participants shows whether the participant want to
do FTA, mitigate FTA, or not doing FTA. The findings of this study create awareness
3
to IEFL learners on how they perform disagreement so that they can consider
appropriate strategy to be used in certain context for the sake of avoiding
communication breakdown.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Disagreement is generally perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA). FTA is
inevitable in terms of conversations in social interaction. Within Brown and
Levinson's (1987) framework, disagreement poses a threat to the addressee's positive
face since it indicates that the speaker does not share the addressee's wants or beliefs.
The act of disagreement may also pose a threat to the speaker's positive face if the
speaker cannot support or defend his position. Brown and Levinson (1987) defined
positive face in two ways: as "the want of every member that his wants be desirable to
at least some others executors", or alternately, "the positive consistent self-image or
'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants". There are four disagreement strategies
according to Muntigl (1995). They are irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction,
and counterclaim.
Irrelevancy claim is meta-dispute-act that comments on the conversational
interactions (Muntigl, 1995, p. 39). It shows that a previous claim is not relevant to
the discussion of the topic at hand. It is marked by discourse markers such as so or by
phrases such as It doesn’t matter, You’re straying off the topic, and It is nothing to do
with it. In uttering them, speakers seem to be questioning or undermining their
interlocutors‟ previous claims by stating that their claims are not relevant to the topic
under discussion.
4
Challenge refers to any negative thought, attitude, or action that a speaker
attributes to an addressee (Labov and Fanshel 1977, as cited in Muntigl 1995).
Challenge has typically the syntactic form of interrogative with question particles
such as when, what, who, why, where, and how. This type does not make a specific
claim (e.g. using Why? or Like who?). The use of no specific claim implicates that the
addressee cannot provide evidence for his or her claim. By posing a threat to the
positive face of the interlocutor, challenge might be considered as impolite.
Contradiction is the most conspicuous type of disagreement. In contradiction,
a speaker contradicts by uttering the negated proposition expressed by the previous
claim. It is often marked by negative markers like no or not. If speaker A utters X,
then speaker B will utter –X. It indicates that the contradiction of A‟s claim is true.
Pragmatically, contradiction directly repudiates someone‟s claim. As Brown and
Levinson (1987, p. 66) assert in their seminal paper, these acts make the hearer appear
to be wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issue, such wrongness being
associated with disapproval. Sometimes instead of having negative contradiction
markers, contradiction will have positive contradiction markers, like yes or yeah
which in contrast to the negated claim, but those state positive statements. If speaker
A utters –X, then speaker B will utter X. B‟s claim asserts the affirmative in contrast
to a negated A‟s claim.
Counterclaim does not have simple structure. Therefore it is more difficult to
identify and describe. With counterclaim, speakers propose an alternative claim that
does not directly contradict or challenge others‟ claim. Further negotiation of the
previous claim is provided by them. They tend to be preceded by pauses, prefaces,
5
and mitigating devices (e.g. maybe your right, but). The strategies of avoiding explicit
disagreement such as using positive markers, prefaced partial agreement, or hedges
can indicate indirectness and being polite in the speech act of disagreement.
However, conversations consist not only of what is said but what is not said –
the cold silence, the disapproving silence, the appreciative silence, the reverent
silence, the baffled silence (Schmitz 1994, as cited in Jasim and Aziz 2010, p. 1).
Disagreement is commonly mentioned as one of speech acts which tend to be
performed through silence in Japanese (Nakane, 2007). Silence is one FTA technique
utilized by the Japanese because there is always a threat to an individual's positive or
negative face through the verbal interaction between an addressee and a speaker.
Consequently, social discretion through silence is an example of a no FTA strategy,
one of five politeness strategies defined by Brown and Levinson (1987). According to
Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness strategies, remaining silent is the
most polite manifestation since the speaker avoids the FTAs altogether. This strategy
involves maintaining the positive face of the addressee through the speaker's
avoidance of disagreement with the addressee. The speaker hides their misgivings and
disagreements from the hearer in polite and socially acceptable silence.
THE STUDY
Context of Study
This research was conducted in English Department, Satya Wacana Christian
University. It is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. This setting was chosen
because it suits with the aim of this study which is to investigate IEFL learners‟
strategies in expressing disagreement. Most students in Satya Wacana Christian
6
University are Indonesian. English is a foreign language for Indonesian. In Satya
Wacana Christian University, especially in English Department, students usually used
English for communication with friends or teachers, either inside or outside the class.
In addition, there were some students that usually used English for daily
communication. The interaction varied in contexts, including disagreement. The way
students expressing disagreement was analyzed to achieve the aim of the study.
Participants
The participants were 100 English major college students of Satya Wacana
Christian University. This study used purposive sampling or criterion-based selection
(Blackledge 2001, as cited in Zacharias 2013, p. 8) in choosing the participants. In
this sampling, the writer selected the participants purposefully; means the writer select
the participants that can meet certain criteria. The reasons why this study used
purposive sampling were to make sure that all participants were IEFL learners and to
get participants in relatively same language proficiency by giving certain criteria. In
this study, the criteria for the participants were English Department students of Satya
Wacana Christian University who never stayed in English-speaking countries, passed
all speaking courses (Interpersonal Speaking, Transactional Speaking, and Public
Speaking) in English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University, and English
was not their first language, filled in the Discourse Completion Test (DCT). The
participants‟ age ranged from 21 to 25.
Method of Research
This study was analyzed quantitatively. Quantitative study is analyzed by
counting the frequency distribution of the themes or the responses to a particular
7
question (Zacharias, 2012, p. 125). The questions were in the form of Discourse
Completion Test (DCT). The occurrences from the responses in the DCT were
classified based on five types of disagreement. Then it was described as the
application of politeness strategies. The aim of the present study was to describe some
politeness strategies used by IEFL learners in order to deal with disagreement.
Instrument and Data Collection
To investigate Indonesian EFL learners‟ politeness strategies when expressing
the speech act of disagreement, Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used.
Discourse Completion Test (DCT) had been popularly and effectively used in
pragmatic studies, especially about politeness in speech acts. Although Beebe (1985,
as cited in Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989) admitted the weaknesses of DCT,
they strongly support the use of DCT in pragmatic research. According to Beebe
(1985, as cited in Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, p. 11), the limitations of DCT are reflected
in the differences she found between the data from DCT and those from spontaneous
speech:
(1) actual wording used in real interpersonal interaction, (2) the range
of formulas and strategies used (some, like avoidance tend to get left
out), (3) the length of response or the number of turns it takes to fulfill
the function, (4) The depth of emotion that in turn qualitatively affects
the tone, content, and form of linguistic performance, (5) the number
of repetitions and elaborations that occur, or (6) the actual rate of
occurrence of a speech act – e.g. whether or not someone would
naturistically refuse at all in a given situation.
8
However, the naturalness was only one of many criteria for good data. It could not be
ignored that DCT provided several important strengths. Beebe (1985, as cited in
Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, p. 10) found that:
Discourse Completion Tests are effective means of: (1) gathering a
large amount of data quickly, (2) creating an initial classification of
semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech, (3)
studying the stereotypical perceived requirements for a socially
appropriate (though not always polite) response, (4) gaining insight
into social and psychological factors that are likely to affect speech
and performance, and (5) ascertaining the canonical shape of refusal,
apologies, partings, etc. in the minds of the speakers of that language.
A great advantage in the use of such questionnaire is that DCT can be given to a large
number of participants within a short period time. Furthermore, Beebe (1985, as cited
in Blum-Kulka et al. 1989) states that DCT creates model responses which are likely
to occur in spontaneous speeches. DCT also provides stereotypical responses for a
socially appropriate response. Considering the strengths of DCT, this study used DCT
as the instrument of data collection. In addition, in Usami‟s (2000) work of natural
language data gathered under controlled conditions. Yet the data which emerged
appeared natural according to follow-up surveys where participants were asked
whether they felt their speech was influenced by being recorded and so on. While
arranging these recordings and transcribing the conversations was most likely a fairly
time-consuming task, the data set generated is much richer than that obtained through
more traditional methods, such as Discourse Completion Tests (DCT). It also allows,
more importantly, analysis of politeness at the discourse level.
9
The participants were requested to write their natural responses to five
scenarios modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe (1993) and Guodong and
Jing (2005). The original scenarios from studies by Takahasi and Beebe (1993) and
Guodong and Jing (2005) consist of five disagreement scenarios with superior, peer,
and subordinate. Yet because some scenarios are not relevant to college students,
which are scenarios to disagree with employer, some scenarios were modified. The
DCT was in a form of questionnaire describing some natural situations to which the
respondents are expected to react, making disagreement. The DCT used was actually
with situation description followed by an incomplete dialogue. The subject for the
study was asked to fill an utterance that preceding the given utterance. In this case, the
DCT consisted of five scenarios in which the subjects were expected to disagree with
two higher status, two peers, and a lower status.
The procedures in collecting the data were covered approximately in a month.
The Demographic Survey and Discourse Completion Test (DCT) were given to 120
English Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University. Previously,
piloting has been done to 20 participants in a controlled area which was classroom. It
shows the participants need about 10 to 15 minutes to fill in the DCT. Because of the
reason, the participants were given fifteen minutes to complete the Demographic
Survey and DCT. They were expected to fill all information needed. The data
collection happened in classrooms after the participants done having classes. The
DCT consisted of five scenarios modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe
(1993) and Guodong and Jing (2005). They were asked to write their natural
responses for each scenario. 120 data of Demographic Survey and DCT out of 120
were returned.
10
Data Analysis
The participants‟ responses were analyzed in two steps. First, invalid data of
120 DCTs filled by the participants were eliminated and 100 valid data was
determined to be analyzed to the next steps. Invalid data was measured through the
participants‟ demographic information written in DCT. If the participants did not meet
the criteria, the DCT became invalid and could not be used in this study. The second
step was identifying the responses based on the taxonomy of Muntigl (1995), which
recognizes four types of disagreement: irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction,
and counterclaim. The taxonomy of Muntigl (1995) is used because this theory has
simple classification of disagreement strategies with clear nature of each strategy.
However, there was a high possibility that the participants tended to be silent with
various reasons. As a result, in the second step, the responses were identified based on
five categories instead of four categories. They were irrelevancy claim, challenge,
contradiction, counterclaim, and silence.
FINDINGS
In this part, the data collected from DCT is presented and discussed. The data
is in a form of responses in expressing disagreement. According to Muntigl and
Turnbull (1995), there are four strategies of disagreement: irrelevancy claim,
challenge, contradiction, and counterclaim. Yet conversations consist not only of
what is said but what is not said - the cold silence, the disapproving silence, the
appreciative silence, the reverent silence, the baffled silence, (Schmitz 1994, as cited
in Jasim and Aziz 2010, p. 1).
As a result, there will be five strategies of
11
disagreement that will be analyzed in this research; irrelevancy claim, challenge,
contradiction, counterclaim, and silence.
To make the data easier to recognize, participant will be abbreviated with P,
followed by number to differentiate the participants, and the interlocutor is
abbreviated with several classifications; Sup for superior, Peer for peer, and Sub for
subordinate. This study was analyzed quantitatively. Later on there will be
independent examination of each response for the five conditions. Frequency of
occurrence of these components as used by IEFL learners is presented in pie charts for
each situation.
Condition 1:
Your supervisor questions the originality of the paper you submit. S/he says to you, "I
don't think these ideas are yours." However, they are yours.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your supervisor, “......................………………………...……….…”
2. Keep silent because…………………………………………..……………..
12
Silence
4%
Irrelevancy
Claim
2%
Challenge
15%
Counterclaim
42%
Contradiction
37%
Figure 1. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 1
In response to this situation, in which the speaker is disagreeing to his or her
supervisor, who questions the originality of the term paper s/he submits, contains
certain kind of formality, a power inconsistency exists between interlocutors. The
person, who the speaker is disagreeing with, is in a higher power and position than the
speaker. As illustrated in Figure 1, 42% IEFL learners employ counterclaim to
disagree with the superior. It is the biggest amount compared with the other strategies.
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
P41
: I made it by myself.
With counterclaim, they propose an alternative claim that do not directly contradict or
challenge the supervisor‟s claim about the originality of the paper. In using
counterclaim, usually there is partial agreement
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
13
P11
: I’m sorry it might look quite similar, but it is really mine.
The partial agreement is used to soften the disagreement since the interaction includes
lecturer or superior. Then it is followed by the word but with explanation. The second
most used strategy is contradiction with 37% occurrence. In this condition,
contradiction is marked by negative markers like no or not.
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
P25
: I’m sure, I didn’t do such plagiarism.
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
P34
: No, this is my idea.
or
Besides, the participants also use contradiction by uttering the negated proposition
expressed by the previous claim.
Sup
: I don't think these ideas are yours.
P7
: I think these ideas are originally mine.
Condition 2:
Your lecturer asks you and your classmates to submit the assignment today. You do
not make the assignment yet because you believe s/he said that the deadline is next
week.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your lecturer, “......................……………………...……..….........…”
14
2. Keep silent because…………………………………...………….…………..
Irrelevancy
Claim
1%
Silence
10% Challenge
13%
Contradiction
24%
Counterclaim
52%
Figure 2. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 2
In this condition, the participant is in an awkward position because in one side s/he
believes s/he do not have to submit the work that day because it is not the due date. In
other hand, the lecturer asks him or her to do so. This might be misunderstanding
between the lecturer and the participant. The same with the previous result, most
IEFL learners employ counterclaim to straighten out this condition with frequency
more than a half which is 52% as shown in Figure 2.
Sup
: (asking you and your classmates to submit the assignment today)
P54
: But you said that the deadline is next two weeks, Ma’am.
Sup
: (asking you and your classmates to submit the assignment today)
or
15
P57
: Excuse me Sir, but according to my note you said to submit it next
two weeks.
It indirectly implies that s/he cannot submit the work that day. Using counterclaim,
the IEFL learner tries to strive for safe zone where it will be okay if s/he do not
submit the work that day.
Condition 3:
You are going to watch a movie with your friend. S/he said, “Cartoon movie will be
great!”. In fact, you do not like cartoon movie. You think it is childish and fictional.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your friend, “...........................………..…………..……..…………”
2. Keep silent because……………………….…………………….…………..
Irrelevancy
Claim
0%
Silence
13%
Challenge
25%
Counterclaim
33%
Contradiction
29%
Figure 3. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 3
16
This condition is more casual compared to two previous conditions. It happens
between peers where they are going to watch movie, but they have not decided which
movie to watch yet. One of them proposes cartoon movie to be watched, the other one
is expected to disagree because actually s/he do not like cartoon movie. Figure 3
shows interesting finding about disagreement strategies in this condition. The same
with the two previous conditions that counterclaim is the most appeared strategy, in
this condition 33% of the participants tend to use counterclaim as the strategy to
disagree with peer. In this condition, IEFL learners use counterclaim by uttering very
indirect disagreement, like what is being presented below.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great!
P6
: Action movies are better.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great!
P42
: I will be sleeping during the movie.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great!
P96
: It would be great, but I think drama comedy is good for today.
or
or
P6 expressed his or her disagreement by saying Action movies are better that
indirectly implies that P6 did not agree to watch cartoon movie, but P6 wanted to
watch action movie instead. P42 uttered something that does not related to what the
interlocutor said. I will be sleeping during the movie indicates that P42 will not enjoy
cartoon movie so that s/he will be sleeping during the movie. P96 used partial
agreement by expressing It would be great, but…., but actually P96 wanted to watch
17
drama comedy instead of cartoon movie. All expressions uttered by P6, P42, and P96
are indirect disagreement as it is the nature of counterclaim. Counterclaim creates
ambiguity that the participants expect the interlocutor will get the „signal‟ so that they
will not watch cartoon movie. Compared to other conditions, silence is applied in
biggest amount which was 13%. Irrelevancy claim is not applied in this condition.
Condition 4:
You are working in the same group with Jessica and Alice for the final project. The
topic to be presented is free. Jessica has proposed her idea for the topic. However, you
think the topic is too large and ambitious for the project.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to Jessica, “..................……………..………….……………………...”
2. Keep silent because………………………….……………………………...
Silence Irrelevancy
Claim
6%
0%
Challenge
36%
Counterclaim
52%
Contradiction
6%
Figure 4. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 4
18
This condition happens in university setting where three students are working on their
final project. Having different opinion is usual thing in group work, so is in this
condition. The participants are expected to disagree because one of his or her group
member, named Jessica, has an idea which they think too large and ambitious for the
final work. As seen in Figure 4, counterclaim appears the most in this condition which
is 52%. In this condition, counterclaim is applied by expressing statement that does
not directly disagree with the previous claim, partial agreement is also present in this
condition
Peer
: (proposing idea for the topic)
P14
: I think it’s is too difficult for us.
Peer
: (proposing idea for the topic)
P39
: You have a good idea, but I think we can make a simple one.
or
Then the second most used disagreeing strategy is challenge with 36%
occurrence. Challenge is expressed by using interrogative sentence. It is mostly
applied in more polite way by using the word please.
Peer
: (proposing idea for the topic)
P1
: Can you please make it more specific?
Contradiction is applied in small frequency. It is only 6%. In addition, irrelevancy
claim does not occur in this situation.
19
Condition 5:
Your sister said “Boys who smoke are cool.” You do not think so. In your opinion,
smoking has no use. Instead, it is not good for health and environment.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your sister, “...................................…………………………………”
2. Keep silent because…………………………………………………………
Silence Irrelevancy
Claim
7%
1% Challenge
10%
Counterclaim
31%
Contradiction
51%
Figure 5. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 5
In this case, familial relationship exists between the interlocutors. The participants are
expected to respond as an older brother or sister.
Sub
: Boys who smoke are cool.
P20
: No, I totally disagree.
Sub
: Boys who smoke are cool.
or
20
P50
: I don’t think so.
Figure 5 shows interesting findings. Generally, all strategies are applied in this
condition. The most appeared disagreeing strategy in this condition (with
subordinates) is different with the previous four conditions (with superior and peers).
In the previous four conditions, the most employed disagreement strategy is
counterclaim, but in this case, where the IEFL learners have to disagree with
subordinates, they employ contradiction most with 51% occurrence. In disagreeing
with subordinates, IEFL learners tend to be bold and direct.
DISCUSSION
In this part, interesting findings of this study will be discussed. The first
interesting finding is about irrelevancy claim disagreement strategy that is not applied
in condition with peer. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, irrelevancy claim does not
occur. Irrelevancy claim is applied when the speaker want to say that the previous
claim is irrelevant. In condition 3 in the DCT, the previous claim is Cartoon movie
will be great, and in condition 4, the previous claim is about a group member
proposing an ambitious topic. The previous claims in all conditions apparently
influence the use of strategy. The previous claims shown in condition 3 and 4 might
be not stimulating enough to emerge irrelevancy claim strategy. That is why
irrelevancy claim does not exist in condition 3 and 4 which are about disagreement
with peers.
Besides, interesting findings come from silence responses employed by the
IEFL learners while dealing in disagreement. The silence shows that some of IEFL
learners are trying to do no FTA. Silence can be regarded as a strategy to save the face
21
of the hearer. The reasons behind the silence are various, but silence mostly occur in
condition 3 where the IEFL learners are expected to disagree with a friend.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great.
P50
: (keeping silent to keep my friend‟s feeling)
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great.
P31
: (keeping silent for solidarity)
or
In this condition, silence happens between peers. Some IEFL learners choose to be
silent rather than saying something that might hurt their friends‟ feeling. Some
participants that choose silence as disagreement action in this condition stated their
reason are solidarity between friends. Although at that time they do not agree that
cartoon movie is great to watch, they follow what their friend want to watch carton
movie by employing silence strategy. In negative side, this might not be enjoyable for
the speaker to watch movie that they do not like but on the other hand it shows how
IEFL learners really consider the application of politeness in their real life, even with
peers.
CONCLUSION
The current study aims to find out IEFL learners‟ strategies in expressing
disagreement. Generally, all disagreement strategies were employed in all conditions,
except in condition with peer. In conditions where IEFL learners disagree with peers,
irrelevancy claim do not exist at all. Besides, the findings show that counterclaim is
22
the most employed strategy in disagreement. It opposed the result of a study by
Kreutel (2007) that believes non-native speakers use mitigation devices less
frequently than native speakers, but often resort to undesirable features. The findings
of this study show IEFL learners tend to mitigate FTA by applying counterclaim
strategy. On the other hand, the findings corroborated with Nguyen (2009) that stated
that both native and non-native speakers prefer using non-conflicting disagreement
strategies than conflicting ones and they mostly express their disagreement in a nonthreatening way.
This study has several limitations. This study limits the participants on IEFL
learners only. It is not a comparative study between native and non-native speakers.
This study tries to find what strategies employed by IEFL learners in dealing with
disagreement, not going deeper about reason or other factors such as culture that
might influence the choice of strategies. For further study, it is suggested to do similar
study about strategy in disagreement but with the additional focus on the reasons
behind the choice of certain strategy.
Hopefully, this study can give positive implications for IEFL learners. The
findings of this study create more awareness of IEFL learners about their language
use in applying strategy in disagreement. Moreover, the realization of a course about
pragmatic competence is suggested to offer in English Department Satya Wacana
Christian University to provide them with deeper understanding about pragmatic in
order to create awareness in interaction.
23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I believe the completion of this thesis writing is not only because of my effort, but it is
also because many people support me in all conditions. I would like to thank to God
Almighty, the One that gives me ability and faith so that finally I could finish this
final project for my Bachelor Degree. I also thank Papa, Mama, Ega, and my big
family. Since whenever I remember them, there will always be self-encouragement
that made me realize that I had to get my study finished soon. Besides, I got
sustainable guidance from my supervisor, Mr. Christian Rudianto, S. Pd. M. App.
Ling., and I‟m very thankful for the patience, advice, and comfortable atmosphere
during the consultations. In addition, thanks to Mrs. Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Ph. D.
who was willing to examine my paper and giving significant feedback. Thanks to all
my close friends; Boy, Dhea, Lintang, Adit, Nindy, Titan, and Zale, also my thesis
writing fellows; Annisaa‟, Elvira, Tiur, Rio, that had been struggling together with me
to graduate soon. Last but not least, I want to say thank you to all Tenners, for the
spirit and togetherness within my four-year study. Thanks, all of you.
24
REFERENCES
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (1989). Cross Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Guodong, L., & Jing, H. (2005). A Contrastive Study on Disagreement Strategies for
Politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese. Asian EFL
Journal, 7, 10 (1).
Jasim, M. & Aziz. F. (2010). Silence as Non-verbal Positive Politeness Strategy in
August Strindberg‟s The Stronger: A Pragma-Stylistic Study. Journal of
Missan Researchers, 7 (13).
Kreutel, K. (2007). “I‟m not agree with you.” ESL Learners Expressions of
Disagreement. TESL-EJ Top, 11(3).
Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in Oral
Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouten de Gruyter.
Muntigl, P. (1995). The Conversational Structure and Face Implications of Everyday
Arguing. Simon Fraser University.
Nguyen, T. P. T. (2009). Politeness Strategies in Showing Disagreement in Group
Work Used by Viatnemese and American Undergraduate Students. Hanoi.
Niroomand, M. (2011). An Investigation of Iranian EFL Learners‟ Use of Politeness
Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement across Different Proficiency
Levels. English Language Teaching, 4 (4), 204-220.
Nakane, I. (2007) Silence in intercultural communication: perceptions and
performance. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.
Takahashi, T. & L M. Beebe. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of
correction. In Kasper & Blum-Kulka (Eds,), Interlanguage Pragmatics, (pp.
138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. England:
Longman.
Usami, M. (2000). Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some
Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
25
Zacharias, N. T. (2012). Research Methods for Second Language Education. Satya
Wacana Christian University.
Zacharias, N. T. (2013). The Components of a Research Report. Satya Wacana
Christian University.
26
APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and Demographic Survey.
NIM : ……………….
Dear English Department students,
I am interested in researching Indonesian EFL learners‟ application of strategies in
expressing disagreement. I would be very grateful if you would kindly spare a few
minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire, as I think it should be very useful in
improving the teaching and learning of speaking in the future. Feel free to give your
opinion because there is no right or wrong answer, but please use English. Many
thanks.
Five scenarios are described below in which you are expected to pretend that you
really face those situations. Please give response with the ‘speaker’ by writing out
what you are going to respond in real life scenarios.
1.
Your supervisor questions the originality of the paper you submit. S/he says to
you, "I don't think these ideas are yours." However, they are yours.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
3. Say to your supervisor, “......................……………………...………….…”
4. Keep silent because………………………………………………………..
2.
Your lecturer asks you and your classmates to submit the assignment today. You
do not make the assignment yet because you believe s/he said that the deadline is
next week.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your lecturer, “......................……………………...……..….........…”
2. Keep silent because…………………………...………………….…………..
3.
You are going to watch a movie with your friend. S/he said, “Cartoon movie will
be great!”. In fact, you do not like cartoon movie. You think it is childish and
fictional.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your friend, “...................................…………..…..……..…………”
2. Keep silent because……………………….………………………………..
27
4.
You are working in the same group with Jessica and Alice for the final project.
The topic to be presented is free. Jessica has proposed her idea for the topic.
However, you think the topic is too large and ambitious for the project.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
3. Say to Jessica, “......................…………………..………….……………...”
4. Keep silent because………………………………….……………………...
5. Your sister said “Boys who smoke are cool.” You do not think so. In your
opinion, smoking has no use. Instead, it is not good for health and
environment.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
3. Say to your sister, “..............................................……………………….…”
4. Keep silent because…………………………………………………………
Demographic Information
1.
Age
: …… years old
2.
First language
: ……………………………………..
3.
Length of studying English
: …… years
4.
Have you ever stayed in English-speaking countries? Please put a check (√)
Yes, which is/are ……………………………
5.
No
Have you passed the following courses? Please put a check (√)
Interpersonal Speaking
Transactional Speaking
Public Speaking
If I need more information on your questionnaire, can I contact you for an interview?
Please put a check (√)
Yes
No
If you say Yes, complete the following information:
Name
:
Phone number :
Email
:
Thank you
28
APPLICATION OF STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING USING
ENGLISH
Dewi Kusumawati Sofyan
Abstract
The current study aims at investigating Indonesian EFL learners‟ strategies in
expressing disagreement using English. In attempt to achieve the goal, 100 English
Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University were invited to participate
in this study. The participants were given a Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe (1993) and Guodong and Jing (2005).
The data obtained through this test were analyzed based on taxonomy of disagreement
strategies by Muntigl (1995). The data was described in quantitatively. This study is
important because disagreement is perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA). The
findings revealed the tendency of IEFL learners to mitigate FTA by using
counterclaim as the most employed disagreement strategy by Indonesian EFL (IEFL)
learners. Based on the findings of this study, a course about pragmatic understanding
is suggested to offer in English Department in attempt to create more awareness of the
students in speech acts realization, especially disagreement. Hopefully the findings of
this study would provide additional information about strategies employed by IEFL
learners in expressing disagreement.
Key words: Disagreement, Strategies in Disagreeing.
INTRODUCTION
People can mean something quite different from what their words say, or even
just the opposite. According to Thomas (1995), “meaning is not something which is
inherent in the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer
alone” (p. 22). Making meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of
meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance, and the meaning
potential of an utterance. The impact of what is being communicated is carried out in
1
terms of politeness If people cannot understand well how to speak to others, the
relationship between the interlocutors may be threatened.
The speech act of disagreement is a face-threatening act (FTA) when the
speaker ignores the social values of the speaking and this can cause a communication
breakdown (Niroomand, 2011, p. 205). Expressing disagreement, which is
unavoidable in everyday interaction, may threaten the relationship between the
interlocutors and this threat to the face of interlocutor can be softened by the use of
politeness strategies (Locher, 2004).
Several studies revealed that in expressing
disagreement, people used different strategies to deal with the situation. Kreutel
(2007, as cited in Niroomand, 2011, p. 205) in his article I'm not agree with you,
analyzed the devices used by learners of English as a second language in order to
perform the speech act of disagreement in their L2. Kreutel (2007) found that NNSs
tend to use politeness strategies in expressing disagreement to mitigate FTA. It was
found that NNSs use mitigation devices, which are devices to mitigate FTA, such as
hedges or explanations less frequently than native speakers, but often resort to
undesirable features such as the blunt opposite or message abandonment which means
rude or impolite disagreement.
Nguyen (2009), in her paper, Politeness Strategies in Showing Disagreement
in Group Work compared and contrasted Vietnamese and American undergraduate
students‟ performances. It was found that both of the two groups of respondents prefer
using non-conflicting disagreement strategies (e.g. positive politeness, no FTA) than
conflicting ones (e.g. bald-on record) and they mostly express their disagreement in a
2
non-threatening way with the assumption that if they show their disagreement
aggressively, the group‟s relationship will be broken.
The study by Guodong and Jing (2005) is a contrastive study on disagreement
strategies for politeness between American English and Mandarin Chinese. Five
scenarios for disagreement were devised for college students in USA and Chinese
mainland to fill in what they would say when they disagree with the higher-status,
peers, and the lower-status. The findings reveal that, when disagreeing with the
superior, Chinese students employ more politeness strategies and address forms than
the American students do. In the case of peers, with the increase of social distance,
both the American and Chinese students apply less politeness strategies. Positive
correlation was found between the rates of disagreement and the change of the social
distance for the Chinese students while negative correlation for the American
students.
The studies by Kreutel (2007), Nguyen (2009), and Guodong and Jing (2005)
show various findings about NNSs‟ realization of disagreeing. Although several
studies have provided insights into the concept of politeness in disagreement in
numerous cultures (American, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.), up to the present day, only
a limited number of studies in Indonesian context has considered about similar study.
That is why it is considered to be important to investigate how speech act of
disagreement in L2 reflected in Indonesia. The study tries to answer the following
research question: What are Indonesian EFL learners‟ strategies in disagreeing using
English? The strategies used by the participants shows whether the participant want to
do FTA, mitigate FTA, or not doing FTA. The findings of this study create awareness
3
to IEFL learners on how they perform disagreement so that they can consider
appropriate strategy to be used in certain context for the sake of avoiding
communication breakdown.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Disagreement is generally perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA). FTA is
inevitable in terms of conversations in social interaction. Within Brown and
Levinson's (1987) framework, disagreement poses a threat to the addressee's positive
face since it indicates that the speaker does not share the addressee's wants or beliefs.
The act of disagreement may also pose a threat to the speaker's positive face if the
speaker cannot support or defend his position. Brown and Levinson (1987) defined
positive face in two ways: as "the want of every member that his wants be desirable to
at least some others executors", or alternately, "the positive consistent self-image or
'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants". There are four disagreement strategies
according to Muntigl (1995). They are irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction,
and counterclaim.
Irrelevancy claim is meta-dispute-act that comments on the conversational
interactions (Muntigl, 1995, p. 39). It shows that a previous claim is not relevant to
the discussion of the topic at hand. It is marked by discourse markers such as so or by
phrases such as It doesn’t matter, You’re straying off the topic, and It is nothing to do
with it. In uttering them, speakers seem to be questioning or undermining their
interlocutors‟ previous claims by stating that their claims are not relevant to the topic
under discussion.
4
Challenge refers to any negative thought, attitude, or action that a speaker
attributes to an addressee (Labov and Fanshel 1977, as cited in Muntigl 1995).
Challenge has typically the syntactic form of interrogative with question particles
such as when, what, who, why, where, and how. This type does not make a specific
claim (e.g. using Why? or Like who?). The use of no specific claim implicates that the
addressee cannot provide evidence for his or her claim. By posing a threat to the
positive face of the interlocutor, challenge might be considered as impolite.
Contradiction is the most conspicuous type of disagreement. In contradiction,
a speaker contradicts by uttering the negated proposition expressed by the previous
claim. It is often marked by negative markers like no or not. If speaker A utters X,
then speaker B will utter –X. It indicates that the contradiction of A‟s claim is true.
Pragmatically, contradiction directly repudiates someone‟s claim. As Brown and
Levinson (1987, p. 66) assert in their seminal paper, these acts make the hearer appear
to be wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issue, such wrongness being
associated with disapproval. Sometimes instead of having negative contradiction
markers, contradiction will have positive contradiction markers, like yes or yeah
which in contrast to the negated claim, but those state positive statements. If speaker
A utters –X, then speaker B will utter X. B‟s claim asserts the affirmative in contrast
to a negated A‟s claim.
Counterclaim does not have simple structure. Therefore it is more difficult to
identify and describe. With counterclaim, speakers propose an alternative claim that
does not directly contradict or challenge others‟ claim. Further negotiation of the
previous claim is provided by them. They tend to be preceded by pauses, prefaces,
5
and mitigating devices (e.g. maybe your right, but). The strategies of avoiding explicit
disagreement such as using positive markers, prefaced partial agreement, or hedges
can indicate indirectness and being polite in the speech act of disagreement.
However, conversations consist not only of what is said but what is not said –
the cold silence, the disapproving silence, the appreciative silence, the reverent
silence, the baffled silence (Schmitz 1994, as cited in Jasim and Aziz 2010, p. 1).
Disagreement is commonly mentioned as one of speech acts which tend to be
performed through silence in Japanese (Nakane, 2007). Silence is one FTA technique
utilized by the Japanese because there is always a threat to an individual's positive or
negative face through the verbal interaction between an addressee and a speaker.
Consequently, social discretion through silence is an example of a no FTA strategy,
one of five politeness strategies defined by Brown and Levinson (1987). According to
Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness strategies, remaining silent is the
most polite manifestation since the speaker avoids the FTAs altogether. This strategy
involves maintaining the positive face of the addressee through the speaker's
avoidance of disagreement with the addressee. The speaker hides their misgivings and
disagreements from the hearer in polite and socially acceptable silence.
THE STUDY
Context of Study
This research was conducted in English Department, Satya Wacana Christian
University. It is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. This setting was chosen
because it suits with the aim of this study which is to investigate IEFL learners‟
strategies in expressing disagreement. Most students in Satya Wacana Christian
6
University are Indonesian. English is a foreign language for Indonesian. In Satya
Wacana Christian University, especially in English Department, students usually used
English for communication with friends or teachers, either inside or outside the class.
In addition, there were some students that usually used English for daily
communication. The interaction varied in contexts, including disagreement. The way
students expressing disagreement was analyzed to achieve the aim of the study.
Participants
The participants were 100 English major college students of Satya Wacana
Christian University. This study used purposive sampling or criterion-based selection
(Blackledge 2001, as cited in Zacharias 2013, p. 8) in choosing the participants. In
this sampling, the writer selected the participants purposefully; means the writer select
the participants that can meet certain criteria. The reasons why this study used
purposive sampling were to make sure that all participants were IEFL learners and to
get participants in relatively same language proficiency by giving certain criteria. In
this study, the criteria for the participants were English Department students of Satya
Wacana Christian University who never stayed in English-speaking countries, passed
all speaking courses (Interpersonal Speaking, Transactional Speaking, and Public
Speaking) in English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University, and English
was not their first language, filled in the Discourse Completion Test (DCT). The
participants‟ age ranged from 21 to 25.
Method of Research
This study was analyzed quantitatively. Quantitative study is analyzed by
counting the frequency distribution of the themes or the responses to a particular
7
question (Zacharias, 2012, p. 125). The questions were in the form of Discourse
Completion Test (DCT). The occurrences from the responses in the DCT were
classified based on five types of disagreement. Then it was described as the
application of politeness strategies. The aim of the present study was to describe some
politeness strategies used by IEFL learners in order to deal with disagreement.
Instrument and Data Collection
To investigate Indonesian EFL learners‟ politeness strategies when expressing
the speech act of disagreement, Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used.
Discourse Completion Test (DCT) had been popularly and effectively used in
pragmatic studies, especially about politeness in speech acts. Although Beebe (1985,
as cited in Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989) admitted the weaknesses of DCT,
they strongly support the use of DCT in pragmatic research. According to Beebe
(1985, as cited in Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, p. 11), the limitations of DCT are reflected
in the differences she found between the data from DCT and those from spontaneous
speech:
(1) actual wording used in real interpersonal interaction, (2) the range
of formulas and strategies used (some, like avoidance tend to get left
out), (3) the length of response or the number of turns it takes to fulfill
the function, (4) The depth of emotion that in turn qualitatively affects
the tone, content, and form of linguistic performance, (5) the number
of repetitions and elaborations that occur, or (6) the actual rate of
occurrence of a speech act – e.g. whether or not someone would
naturistically refuse at all in a given situation.
8
However, the naturalness was only one of many criteria for good data. It could not be
ignored that DCT provided several important strengths. Beebe (1985, as cited in
Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, p. 10) found that:
Discourse Completion Tests are effective means of: (1) gathering a
large amount of data quickly, (2) creating an initial classification of
semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech, (3)
studying the stereotypical perceived requirements for a socially
appropriate (though not always polite) response, (4) gaining insight
into social and psychological factors that are likely to affect speech
and performance, and (5) ascertaining the canonical shape of refusal,
apologies, partings, etc. in the minds of the speakers of that language.
A great advantage in the use of such questionnaire is that DCT can be given to a large
number of participants within a short period time. Furthermore, Beebe (1985, as cited
in Blum-Kulka et al. 1989) states that DCT creates model responses which are likely
to occur in spontaneous speeches. DCT also provides stereotypical responses for a
socially appropriate response. Considering the strengths of DCT, this study used DCT
as the instrument of data collection. In addition, in Usami‟s (2000) work of natural
language data gathered under controlled conditions. Yet the data which emerged
appeared natural according to follow-up surveys where participants were asked
whether they felt their speech was influenced by being recorded and so on. While
arranging these recordings and transcribing the conversations was most likely a fairly
time-consuming task, the data set generated is much richer than that obtained through
more traditional methods, such as Discourse Completion Tests (DCT). It also allows,
more importantly, analysis of politeness at the discourse level.
9
The participants were requested to write their natural responses to five
scenarios modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe (1993) and Guodong and
Jing (2005). The original scenarios from studies by Takahasi and Beebe (1993) and
Guodong and Jing (2005) consist of five disagreement scenarios with superior, peer,
and subordinate. Yet because some scenarios are not relevant to college students,
which are scenarios to disagree with employer, some scenarios were modified. The
DCT was in a form of questionnaire describing some natural situations to which the
respondents are expected to react, making disagreement. The DCT used was actually
with situation description followed by an incomplete dialogue. The subject for the
study was asked to fill an utterance that preceding the given utterance. In this case, the
DCT consisted of five scenarios in which the subjects were expected to disagree with
two higher status, two peers, and a lower status.
The procedures in collecting the data were covered approximately in a month.
The Demographic Survey and Discourse Completion Test (DCT) were given to 120
English Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University. Previously,
piloting has been done to 20 participants in a controlled area which was classroom. It
shows the participants need about 10 to 15 minutes to fill in the DCT. Because of the
reason, the participants were given fifteen minutes to complete the Demographic
Survey and DCT. They were expected to fill all information needed. The data
collection happened in classrooms after the participants done having classes. The
DCT consisted of five scenarios modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe
(1993) and Guodong and Jing (2005). They were asked to write their natural
responses for each scenario. 120 data of Demographic Survey and DCT out of 120
were returned.
10
Data Analysis
The participants‟ responses were analyzed in two steps. First, invalid data of
120 DCTs filled by the participants were eliminated and 100 valid data was
determined to be analyzed to the next steps. Invalid data was measured through the
participants‟ demographic information written in DCT. If the participants did not meet
the criteria, the DCT became invalid and could not be used in this study. The second
step was identifying the responses based on the taxonomy of Muntigl (1995), which
recognizes four types of disagreement: irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction,
and counterclaim. The taxonomy of Muntigl (1995) is used because this theory has
simple classification of disagreement strategies with clear nature of each strategy.
However, there was a high possibility that the participants tended to be silent with
various reasons. As a result, in the second step, the responses were identified based on
five categories instead of four categories. They were irrelevancy claim, challenge,
contradiction, counterclaim, and silence.
FINDINGS
In this part, the data collected from DCT is presented and discussed. The data
is in a form of responses in expressing disagreement. According to Muntigl and
Turnbull (1995), there are four strategies of disagreement: irrelevancy claim,
challenge, contradiction, and counterclaim. Yet conversations consist not only of
what is said but what is not said - the cold silence, the disapproving silence, the
appreciative silence, the reverent silence, the baffled silence, (Schmitz 1994, as cited
in Jasim and Aziz 2010, p. 1).
As a result, there will be five strategies of
11
disagreement that will be analyzed in this research; irrelevancy claim, challenge,
contradiction, counterclaim, and silence.
To make the data easier to recognize, participant will be abbreviated with P,
followed by number to differentiate the participants, and the interlocutor is
abbreviated with several classifications; Sup for superior, Peer for peer, and Sub for
subordinate. This study was analyzed quantitatively. Later on there will be
independent examination of each response for the five conditions. Frequency of
occurrence of these components as used by IEFL learners is presented in pie charts for
each situation.
Condition 1:
Your supervisor questions the originality of the paper you submit. S/he says to you, "I
don't think these ideas are yours." However, they are yours.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your supervisor, “......................………………………...……….…”
2. Keep silent because…………………………………………..……………..
12
Silence
4%
Irrelevancy
Claim
2%
Challenge
15%
Counterclaim
42%
Contradiction
37%
Figure 1. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 1
In response to this situation, in which the speaker is disagreeing to his or her
supervisor, who questions the originality of the term paper s/he submits, contains
certain kind of formality, a power inconsistency exists between interlocutors. The
person, who the speaker is disagreeing with, is in a higher power and position than the
speaker. As illustrated in Figure 1, 42% IEFL learners employ counterclaim to
disagree with the superior. It is the biggest amount compared with the other strategies.
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
P41
: I made it by myself.
With counterclaim, they propose an alternative claim that do not directly contradict or
challenge the supervisor‟s claim about the originality of the paper. In using
counterclaim, usually there is partial agreement
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
13
P11
: I’m sorry it might look quite similar, but it is really mine.
The partial agreement is used to soften the disagreement since the interaction includes
lecturer or superior. Then it is followed by the word but with explanation. The second
most used strategy is contradiction with 37% occurrence. In this condition,
contradiction is marked by negative markers like no or not.
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
P25
: I’m sure, I didn’t do such plagiarism.
Sup
: I don’t think these ideas are yours.
P34
: No, this is my idea.
or
Besides, the participants also use contradiction by uttering the negated proposition
expressed by the previous claim.
Sup
: I don't think these ideas are yours.
P7
: I think these ideas are originally mine.
Condition 2:
Your lecturer asks you and your classmates to submit the assignment today. You do
not make the assignment yet because you believe s/he said that the deadline is next
week.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your lecturer, “......................……………………...……..….........…”
14
2. Keep silent because…………………………………...………….…………..
Irrelevancy
Claim
1%
Silence
10% Challenge
13%
Contradiction
24%
Counterclaim
52%
Figure 2. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 2
In this condition, the participant is in an awkward position because in one side s/he
believes s/he do not have to submit the work that day because it is not the due date. In
other hand, the lecturer asks him or her to do so. This might be misunderstanding
between the lecturer and the participant. The same with the previous result, most
IEFL learners employ counterclaim to straighten out this condition with frequency
more than a half which is 52% as shown in Figure 2.
Sup
: (asking you and your classmates to submit the assignment today)
P54
: But you said that the deadline is next two weeks, Ma’am.
Sup
: (asking you and your classmates to submit the assignment today)
or
15
P57
: Excuse me Sir, but according to my note you said to submit it next
two weeks.
It indirectly implies that s/he cannot submit the work that day. Using counterclaim,
the IEFL learner tries to strive for safe zone where it will be okay if s/he do not
submit the work that day.
Condition 3:
You are going to watch a movie with your friend. S/he said, “Cartoon movie will be
great!”. In fact, you do not like cartoon movie. You think it is childish and fictional.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your friend, “...........................………..…………..……..…………”
2. Keep silent because……………………….…………………….…………..
Irrelevancy
Claim
0%
Silence
13%
Challenge
25%
Counterclaim
33%
Contradiction
29%
Figure 3. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 3
16
This condition is more casual compared to two previous conditions. It happens
between peers where they are going to watch movie, but they have not decided which
movie to watch yet. One of them proposes cartoon movie to be watched, the other one
is expected to disagree because actually s/he do not like cartoon movie. Figure 3
shows interesting finding about disagreement strategies in this condition. The same
with the two previous conditions that counterclaim is the most appeared strategy, in
this condition 33% of the participants tend to use counterclaim as the strategy to
disagree with peer. In this condition, IEFL learners use counterclaim by uttering very
indirect disagreement, like what is being presented below.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great!
P6
: Action movies are better.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great!
P42
: I will be sleeping during the movie.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great!
P96
: It would be great, but I think drama comedy is good for today.
or
or
P6 expressed his or her disagreement by saying Action movies are better that
indirectly implies that P6 did not agree to watch cartoon movie, but P6 wanted to
watch action movie instead. P42 uttered something that does not related to what the
interlocutor said. I will be sleeping during the movie indicates that P42 will not enjoy
cartoon movie so that s/he will be sleeping during the movie. P96 used partial
agreement by expressing It would be great, but…., but actually P96 wanted to watch
17
drama comedy instead of cartoon movie. All expressions uttered by P6, P42, and P96
are indirect disagreement as it is the nature of counterclaim. Counterclaim creates
ambiguity that the participants expect the interlocutor will get the „signal‟ so that they
will not watch cartoon movie. Compared to other conditions, silence is applied in
biggest amount which was 13%. Irrelevancy claim is not applied in this condition.
Condition 4:
You are working in the same group with Jessica and Alice for the final project. The
topic to be presented is free. Jessica has proposed her idea for the topic. However, you
think the topic is too large and ambitious for the project.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to Jessica, “..................……………..………….……………………...”
2. Keep silent because………………………….……………………………...
Silence Irrelevancy
Claim
6%
0%
Challenge
36%
Counterclaim
52%
Contradiction
6%
Figure 4. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 4
18
This condition happens in university setting where three students are working on their
final project. Having different opinion is usual thing in group work, so is in this
condition. The participants are expected to disagree because one of his or her group
member, named Jessica, has an idea which they think too large and ambitious for the
final work. As seen in Figure 4, counterclaim appears the most in this condition which
is 52%. In this condition, counterclaim is applied by expressing statement that does
not directly disagree with the previous claim, partial agreement is also present in this
condition
Peer
: (proposing idea for the topic)
P14
: I think it’s is too difficult for us.
Peer
: (proposing idea for the topic)
P39
: You have a good idea, but I think we can make a simple one.
or
Then the second most used disagreeing strategy is challenge with 36%
occurrence. Challenge is expressed by using interrogative sentence. It is mostly
applied in more polite way by using the word please.
Peer
: (proposing idea for the topic)
P1
: Can you please make it more specific?
Contradiction is applied in small frequency. It is only 6%. In addition, irrelevancy
claim does not occur in this situation.
19
Condition 5:
Your sister said “Boys who smoke are cool.” You do not think so. In your opinion,
smoking has no use. Instead, it is not good for health and environment.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your sister, “...................................…………………………………”
2. Keep silent because…………………………………………………………
Silence Irrelevancy
Claim
7%
1% Challenge
10%
Counterclaim
31%
Contradiction
51%
Figure 5. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 5
In this case, familial relationship exists between the interlocutors. The participants are
expected to respond as an older brother or sister.
Sub
: Boys who smoke are cool.
P20
: No, I totally disagree.
Sub
: Boys who smoke are cool.
or
20
P50
: I don’t think so.
Figure 5 shows interesting findings. Generally, all strategies are applied in this
condition. The most appeared disagreeing strategy in this condition (with
subordinates) is different with the previous four conditions (with superior and peers).
In the previous four conditions, the most employed disagreement strategy is
counterclaim, but in this case, where the IEFL learners have to disagree with
subordinates, they employ contradiction most with 51% occurrence. In disagreeing
with subordinates, IEFL learners tend to be bold and direct.
DISCUSSION
In this part, interesting findings of this study will be discussed. The first
interesting finding is about irrelevancy claim disagreement strategy that is not applied
in condition with peer. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, irrelevancy claim does not
occur. Irrelevancy claim is applied when the speaker want to say that the previous
claim is irrelevant. In condition 3 in the DCT, the previous claim is Cartoon movie
will be great, and in condition 4, the previous claim is about a group member
proposing an ambitious topic. The previous claims in all conditions apparently
influence the use of strategy. The previous claims shown in condition 3 and 4 might
be not stimulating enough to emerge irrelevancy claim strategy. That is why
irrelevancy claim does not exist in condition 3 and 4 which are about disagreement
with peers.
Besides, interesting findings come from silence responses employed by the
IEFL learners while dealing in disagreement. The silence shows that some of IEFL
learners are trying to do no FTA. Silence can be regarded as a strategy to save the face
21
of the hearer. The reasons behind the silence are various, but silence mostly occur in
condition 3 where the IEFL learners are expected to disagree with a friend.
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great.
P50
: (keeping silent to keep my friend‟s feeling)
Peer
: Cartoon movie will be great.
P31
: (keeping silent for solidarity)
or
In this condition, silence happens between peers. Some IEFL learners choose to be
silent rather than saying something that might hurt their friends‟ feeling. Some
participants that choose silence as disagreement action in this condition stated their
reason are solidarity between friends. Although at that time they do not agree that
cartoon movie is great to watch, they follow what their friend want to watch carton
movie by employing silence strategy. In negative side, this might not be enjoyable for
the speaker to watch movie that they do not like but on the other hand it shows how
IEFL learners really consider the application of politeness in their real life, even with
peers.
CONCLUSION
The current study aims to find out IEFL learners‟ strategies in expressing
disagreement. Generally, all disagreement strategies were employed in all conditions,
except in condition with peer. In conditions where IEFL learners disagree with peers,
irrelevancy claim do not exist at all. Besides, the findings show that counterclaim is
22
the most employed strategy in disagreement. It opposed the result of a study by
Kreutel (2007) that believes non-native speakers use mitigation devices less
frequently than native speakers, but often resort to undesirable features. The findings
of this study show IEFL learners tend to mitigate FTA by applying counterclaim
strategy. On the other hand, the findings corroborated with Nguyen (2009) that stated
that both native and non-native speakers prefer using non-conflicting disagreement
strategies than conflicting ones and they mostly express their disagreement in a nonthreatening way.
This study has several limitations. This study limits the participants on IEFL
learners only. It is not a comparative study between native and non-native speakers.
This study tries to find what strategies employed by IEFL learners in dealing with
disagreement, not going deeper about reason or other factors such as culture that
might influence the choice of strategies. For further study, it is suggested to do similar
study about strategy in disagreement but with the additional focus on the reasons
behind the choice of certain strategy.
Hopefully, this study can give positive implications for IEFL learners. The
findings of this study create more awareness of IEFL learners about their language
use in applying strategy in disagreement. Moreover, the realization of a course about
pragmatic competence is suggested to offer in English Department Satya Wacana
Christian University to provide them with deeper understanding about pragmatic in
order to create awareness in interaction.
23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I believe the completion of this thesis writing is not only because of my effort, but it is
also because many people support me in all conditions. I would like to thank to God
Almighty, the One that gives me ability and faith so that finally I could finish this
final project for my Bachelor Degree. I also thank Papa, Mama, Ega, and my big
family. Since whenever I remember them, there will always be self-encouragement
that made me realize that I had to get my study finished soon. Besides, I got
sustainable guidance from my supervisor, Mr. Christian Rudianto, S. Pd. M. App.
Ling., and I‟m very thankful for the patience, advice, and comfortable atmosphere
during the consultations. In addition, thanks to Mrs. Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Ph. D.
who was willing to examine my paper and giving significant feedback. Thanks to all
my close friends; Boy, Dhea, Lintang, Adit, Nindy, Titan, and Zale, also my thesis
writing fellows; Annisaa‟, Elvira, Tiur, Rio, that had been struggling together with me
to graduate soon. Last but not least, I want to say thank you to all Tenners, for the
spirit and togetherness within my four-year study. Thanks, all of you.
24
REFERENCES
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (1989). Cross Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Guodong, L., & Jing, H. (2005). A Contrastive Study on Disagreement Strategies for
Politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese. Asian EFL
Journal, 7, 10 (1).
Jasim, M. & Aziz. F. (2010). Silence as Non-verbal Positive Politeness Strategy in
August Strindberg‟s The Stronger: A Pragma-Stylistic Study. Journal of
Missan Researchers, 7 (13).
Kreutel, K. (2007). “I‟m not agree with you.” ESL Learners Expressions of
Disagreement. TESL-EJ Top, 11(3).
Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in Oral
Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouten de Gruyter.
Muntigl, P. (1995). The Conversational Structure and Face Implications of Everyday
Arguing. Simon Fraser University.
Nguyen, T. P. T. (2009). Politeness Strategies in Showing Disagreement in Group
Work Used by Viatnemese and American Undergraduate Students. Hanoi.
Niroomand, M. (2011). An Investigation of Iranian EFL Learners‟ Use of Politeness
Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement across Different Proficiency
Levels. English Language Teaching, 4 (4), 204-220.
Nakane, I. (2007) Silence in intercultural communication: perceptions and
performance. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.
Takahashi, T. & L M. Beebe. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of
correction. In Kasper & Blum-Kulka (Eds,), Interlanguage Pragmatics, (pp.
138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. England:
Longman.
Usami, M. (2000). Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some
Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
25
Zacharias, N. T. (2012). Research Methods for Second Language Education. Satya
Wacana Christian University.
Zacharias, N. T. (2013). The Components of a Research Report. Satya Wacana
Christian University.
26
APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and Demographic Survey.
NIM : ……………….
Dear English Department students,
I am interested in researching Indonesian EFL learners‟ application of strategies in
expressing disagreement. I would be very grateful if you would kindly spare a few
minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire, as I think it should be very useful in
improving the teaching and learning of speaking in the future. Feel free to give your
opinion because there is no right or wrong answer, but please use English. Many
thanks.
Five scenarios are described below in which you are expected to pretend that you
really face those situations. Please give response with the ‘speaker’ by writing out
what you are going to respond in real life scenarios.
1.
Your supervisor questions the originality of the paper you submit. S/he says to
you, "I don't think these ideas are yours." However, they are yours.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
3. Say to your supervisor, “......................……………………...………….…”
4. Keep silent because………………………………………………………..
2.
Your lecturer asks you and your classmates to submit the assignment today. You
do not make the assignment yet because you believe s/he said that the deadline is
next week.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your lecturer, “......................……………………...……..….........…”
2. Keep silent because…………………………...………………….…………..
3.
You are going to watch a movie with your friend. S/he said, “Cartoon movie will
be great!”. In fact, you do not like cartoon movie. You think it is childish and
fictional.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
1. Say to your friend, “...................................…………..…..……..…………”
2. Keep silent because……………………….………………………………..
27
4.
You are working in the same group with Jessica and Alice for the final project.
The topic to be presented is free. Jessica has proposed her idea for the topic.
However, you think the topic is too large and ambitious for the project.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
3. Say to Jessica, “......................…………………..………….……………...”
4. Keep silent because………………………………….……………………...
5. Your sister said “Boys who smoke are cool.” You do not think so. In your
opinion, smoking has no use. Instead, it is not good for health and
environment.
In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)
3. Say to your sister, “..............................................……………………….…”
4. Keep silent because…………………………………………………………
Demographic Information
1.
Age
: …… years old
2.
First language
: ……………………………………..
3.
Length of studying English
: …… years
4.
Have you ever stayed in English-speaking countries? Please put a check (√)
Yes, which is/are ……………………………
5.
No
Have you passed the following courses? Please put a check (√)
Interpersonal Speaking
Transactional Speaking
Public Speaking
If I need more information on your questionnaire, can I contact you for an interview?
Please put a check (√)
Yes
No
If you say Yes, complete the following information:
Name
:
Phone number :
:
Thank you
28