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

(1)

i

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN

REFUSAL BY THE SECOND SEMESTER STUDENTS OF

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY IN SPEAKING CLASS

PUBLICATION ARTICLE

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education

in English Department

by:

NOVA NURJAYANTI

A 320 120 196

FACULTY OF TEACHING TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1 Nova Nurjayanti. A320120196. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLITENESS

STRATEGIES IN REFUSAL BY THE SECOND SEMESTER STUDENTS

OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS. Research

Paper. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. 2016

Abstrak

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan penggunaan strategi kesopanan dalam menolak yang diselenggarakan oleh mahasiswa jurusan Bahasa Inggris. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif dimana terdiri dari tiga puluh delapan mahasiswa semester dua prodi Bahasa Inggris Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Data bersumber dari percakapan menolak yang dikumpulkan dengan menggunakan Discourse Completing Task (DCT). Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan teori kesopanan dari Brown dan Levinson dan strategi menolak dari Felix. Penemuan dari penelitian ini dijelaskan berdasarkan permasalahan. Pertama, berdasakan pada penemuan penelitian penulis menemukan bahwa menolak secara langsung muncul paling banyak dalam strategi menolak dimana mempunyai nilai 46,2%. Posisi kedua adalah menolak secara tidak langsung 43% dan posisi terakhir adalah tambahan untuk menolak 10,8%. Penemuan kedua penulis menemukan bahwa bald on record paling sering muncul dalam strategi kesopanan yang mempunyai nilai 42,1%. Posisi kedua adalah kesopanan positif yang mempunyai nilai 29,5%. Posisi ketiga adalah kesopanan negative yang mempunyai nilai 26,6% dan posisi terakhir adalah off record yang mempunyai nilai 1,8%. Dalam penggunaan strategi menolak kebanyakan dari semua peserta menggunakan penolakan secara langsung daripada menggunakan penolakan secara tidak langsung atau tambahan untuk menolak. Sehingga penulis dapat menyimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa belum menguasai bagaimana penggunaan strategi menolak secara sopan. Kata kunci: strategi kesopanan, strategi menolak

Abstracts

This research aims at describing the use of politeness strategies in refusal conducted by English Department students. The study used descriptive qualitative research which includes thirty eight second-semester students at English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. The data are refusal utterances collected by using Discourse Completing Task (DCT) as the instrument. The data are analyzed by using theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson and refusal strategy by Felix. The finding of the research are described in line with the problem statements. First, the research finding shows that direct refusal is most appeared refusal strategy which has value 46,2%. The second place is indirect refusal 43% and the last one is adjunct to refusal 10,8%. Second, the writer found that bald on record is the most appeared politeness strategy which has value 42,1%. The second place, there is positive politeness which has value 29,5%. The third place, there is negative politeness which has value 26,6% and the last one is off record which has value 1,8%. In using refusal, almost all participants use direct refusal instead of using indirect refusal or adjunct to refusal. Thus, the writer can conclude that the students do not master yet how to use refusal strategy politely.

(6)

2

1. INTRODUCTION

People usually know certainly what other people are meant while describing their utterance and deciding them as polite persons. Usual way while describing a person as a polite one is through his/her behavior which shows his/her politeness. In English, politeness in a polite language which may be characterized by the used of; indirect speech, respectful forms of address system like Sir, Madam or the use of utterances like

please, excuse me, sorry, thank you, etc.

The politeness is not only for a certain society, but also all the people in the world. Language is a tool used by the people in daily conversation in order to interact with others. Using politeness in a conversation is aiming at making to feel appreciated, so the other as the listeners will give good responses for the speaker’s question. It is very important to create polite conversation between the speaker and listener.

According to Brown and Levinson (1987:61), rationality and face are the central themes of politeness, which are possessed by the speakers and hearers. People generally behave as if their expectations about the public self-image will be respected in their everyday social interaction.

In fact, several people do not understand their attitudes while doing or saying something. When a person talks to his/her friends, family or someone else, he/she does not think about the diction or what they will say during conversation. Such thing probably make the conversation fail or goes not like as we expected before. It is due to the hearer cannot understand what is meant by the speaker or there is misunderstanding between them, so the hearer feels uneasy during the conversation. Misunderstanding among them and hearer feel uncomfortable with the speaker’s way in the conversation. Furthermore, politeness is needed to avoid misunderstandings, to build a good relationship and a good social interaction with the other people in the world.

Politeness strategies are also used in making refusal. In communication, both of speaker and hearer use politeness in refusal. Refusal is one of the classifications of the speech act that concern with the act of refuse for something or refuse to do something. It is a part of pragmatics study. This research took pragmatic approach because it considered how the speakers use the language in the social interaction with the others. The term of refusal has been attracted some researchers to conduct some researches in linguistics area. Refusal often occurs in everyday conversation. It makes refusal becoming a popular discussion.

Speech act of refusal can threaten positive face. Refusal speech act threatens positive face when the

speakers do not care about the listener’s wants. Speaker can show the refusal politely still. Examples of the utterances show how the speakers show refusal politely and impolitely made by the students as follows:

Context I

It is Friday afternoon. You meet your friend in the parking area. She says that she wants to go to the beach next Saturday and invites you to join, but you cannot go. You say:

(1)

I would not go to the beach with you.

(2) No, I have already promise with my mother before.

In the example above, the speaker does not care about the listener’s face and show the direct refusal impolitely by using a simple sentence “I would not to go” or using the word “No”. That utterance is

influenced by the social distance and status levels between the speaker and listener. Context II

You are leaving your campus, but your lecturer stops you and invites you to go to the seminar at auditorium. As you cannot go, you decline her invitation. You say:

(1) I am really sorry, Mam. I would like to come at next seminar.

In that example, the speaker shows the indirect refusal politely. It uses apology or regret refusal

strategy, marked by the word “sorry”. The speaker shows the respect to the listener who has higher social

level.

The writer analyzes the politeness strategies of refusal utterances to the second semester students of English Department in English speaking class. The reason of the writer choose the second semester

(7)

3

students because the material that is taught in the class is conditional situation where the students are given theme then they perform in front of the class. That way is same with the method of collecting data by using discourse of completing task. Discourse of completing task is preceded by a short description of the setting, situation, and social distance. Another reason is the writer taught that the second semester students are reputed be able to conduct the politeness in refusal utterances. The knowledge of production and comprehension of language in communication is called pragmatic competence. The speakers have various options and functions in interaction, they are able to select the appropriate act in a particular context. so, the people who use of pragmatic must master the competence of pragmatic. If they do not know, they will destroy the communication situation, destroy the social relation, and do failure in pragmatic. Based on the reasons, the writer choose the second semester students as the object to conduct the data. The writer hopes that this research will be useful as an additional reference in studying about politeness strategies in refusal.

Based on the background above, the writer is going to analyze the politeness strategies in refusal utterances. Having an interest in pragmatic study, the writer is willing to conduct politeness research in order to present some knowledge based on politeness strategies. For that reason, the writer has an intention to conduct a research under the title THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REFUSAL BY THE SECOND SEMESTER STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS.

2. RESEARCH METHOD

In this research, the writer uses descriptive qualitative research. According to Kirk and Miller (1986) qualitative research has purpose to understand the richness and complexity of social experience by attending closely to the actions, interactions, and social contexts of everyday life. It involves systematically seeing people in their territory or speaking with them in depth about their thoughts and feelings. In this research the writer finds out the description about the implementation of teaching politeness strategies used in refusal by speaking subject students in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

The object of this study is the implementation of politeness strategies in refusal in English speaking class of English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

The data of this research are utterances containing refusal produced by the second semester students of English department in speaking subject. The data source are taken from refusal utterances used by the students of Department of English Education at Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta using nine DCT scenarios.

In analyzing the data, the writer uses descriptive qualitative research. To analyze the collected data, the writer takes these following steps:

a. The writer describes the type refusal utterances used by the students, by using Felix refusal theory (2008) b. The writer describes the type of politeness strategies, by using Brown and Levinson politeness theory

(1987)

3. RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Refusal Strategy, DCT

In close and higher DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 47,4%, indirect refusal 47,4%, and adjunct to refusal 5,2%. It is drawn as the following chart.

(8)

4

In close and higher DCT, the percentages of direct and indirect refusal have equal percentages, there is 47,4%. The value of direct refusal is very high if it is seen from the context where the speakers as a son/daughter speak with their father. The speakers have minus distance and power, so the usage of direct refusal is not appropriate. It is a problem for the lecturer to teach how the way to use refusal strategies politely.

3.2 Refusal Strategy, DCT 2

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 42,1%, indirect refusal 44,7%, and adjunct to refusal 13,2%. It is drawn as the following chart.

In close and equal DCT, indirect refusal has highest percentages. In the other hand, direct refusal is also high enough. Based on the context it is happened between close friends, which they have equal distance, power, or imposition. So the usage of direct refusal is valued as appropriate. Although the participants also use indirect refusal, it’s not a problem.

47.40% 47.40%

5.20% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.1 Refusal Strategy

Close-Higher (DCT 1)

Percentages of Refusal Strategy

42.10% 44.70%

13.20%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.2 Refusal Strategy

Close-Equal (DCT 2)

(9)

5

3.3 Refusal Strategy, DCT 3

In close and lower DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 42,1%, indirect refusal 34,2%, and adjunct to refusal 23,7%. It is drawn as the following chart.

In close and lower DCT, direct refusal has highest percentages. The usage of direct refusal is appropriate if seen from the context between the speaker and little brother. The speakers have higher distance, power, and imposition than the hearer. So, they can refuse the offer of helping directly. Although several speakers use indirect and adjunct refusal but it is not a problem.

3.4 Refusal Strategy, DCT 4

In unfamiliar-higher DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 63,2%, indirect refusal 34,2%, and adjunct to refusal 2,6%. It is drawn as the following chart.

In unfamiliar and higher DCT dominated by direct refusal with percentage 63,2%. This percentages valued too high if remember the context happen between the speaker and higher unfamiliar person. By using direct refusal with higher unfamiliar person is really uncertain. So, the lecturer should give the material about politeness to the students.

42.10%

34.20%

23.70%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.3 Refusal Strategy

Close-Lower (DCT 3)

Percentages of Refusal Strategy

63.20%

34.20%

2.60% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.4 Refusal Strategy

Unfamiliar-Higher (DCT 4)

(10)

6

3.5 Refusal Strategy, DCT 5

In unfamiliar-equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 29%, indirect refusal 68,4%, and adjunct to refusal 2,6%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From those chart above dominated by indirect refusal. In context of DCT it happens between the speakers with equal unfamiliar person. Although the power between speaker and hearer is same, but the

speaker still appreciate the hearer because they didn’t know each other before. This usage is appropriate.

3.6 Refusal Strategy, DCT 6

In unfamiliar-lower DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 31,6%, indirect refusal 42,1%, and adjunct to refusal 26,3%. It is drawn as the following chart.

By the chart above it can be concluded that the usage of refusal strategies is exact by the participants. Although the ability of the hearer is lower than the speaker, because the speaker did not know each other yet before so the speaker keep being polite with hearer.

29%

68.40%

2.60% 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.5 Refusal Strategy

Unfamiliar-Equal (DCT 5)

Percentages of Refusal Strategy

31.60%

42.10%

26.30%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.6 Refusal Strtategy

Unfamiliar-Lowes (DCT 6)

(11)

7

3.7 Refusal Strategy, DCT 7

In familiar-higher DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 44,7%, indirect refusal 36,9%, and adjunct to refusal 18,4%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From that chart above, it can be concluded that the participants not understand yet how to use the refusal strategy politely. This case happens between the speaker and higher person which has higher power than the speaker. The speaker should uses indirect refusal or adjunct to make utterances more politely.

3.8 Refusal Strategy, DCT 8

In familiar-equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 63,1%, indirect refusal 31,6%, and adjunct to refusal 5,3%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From that chart above, the highest percentages is direct refusal. Remembering of the context happen between equal people, so the speaker has equal distance, power, and rank of imposition. The usage of direct refusal is appropriate. The participants have mastered the refusal strategies.

44.70%

36.90%

18.40%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.7 Refusal Strategy

Familiar-Higher (DCT 7)

Percentage of Refusal Strategy

63.10%

31.60%

5.30% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.8 Refusal Strategy

Familiar-Equal (DCT 8)

(12)

8

3.9 Refusal Strategy, DCT 9

In familiar-equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of refusal strategies. Those strategies are direct refusal 52,6%, indirect refusal 47,4%, and adjunct to refusal 0%. It is drawn as the following chart.

Chart 1.9 above, it shows that direct refusal has highest percentages. It is not a matter because the speakers speak with the people who has lower power. But, in the other hand there are several speakers use indirect refusal which makes the conversation more polite. Although the hearer is lower than the speaker

3.10 Politeness Strategy, DCT 1

In close and higher DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 47,3%, positive politeness (PP) 13,2%, negative politeness (NP) 39,5%, and off record (OR) 0%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.1 chart above, it shows that most of percentages is bald on record. Context of first DCT between the speaker with his/her father which has equal distance, lower power, and lower rank of imposition. In this case, bald on record is highest than the others, so it valued improper because bald on record less polite. It should use negative politeness.

52.60%

47.40%

0% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Direct Indirect Adjunct

Chart 1.9 Refusal Strategy

Familiar-Lower (DCT 9)

Percentages of Refusal Strategy

47%

13.20%

39.50%

0% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.1 Politeness Strategy

Close-Higher (DCT 1)

(13)

9

3.11 Politeness Strategy, DCT 2

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 13,2%, positive politeness (PP) 52,6%, negative politeness (NP) 28,9%, and off record (OR) 5,3%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.2 chart above, the most of percentage is positive politeness. It doesn’t matter because the

context between the speaker and his/her close friend. Based on the reason, the usage of positive politeness is proper. Although there are several speakers use negative politeness.

3.12 Politeness Strategy, DCT 3

In close and lower DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 39,5%, positive politeness (PP) 47,3%, negative politeness (NP) 13,2%, and off record (OR) 0%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.3 chart above, it can be seen that the most percentages is positive politeness. The context is between the speaker and her/his little brother, so the usage of positive politeness is appropriate. Although the speakers have plus distance, higher power and rank of imposition, the speakers still have to polite by using positive politeness.

13.20%

52.60%

28.90%

5.30% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.2 Politeness Strategy

Close-Equal (DCT 2)

Percentages of Politeness Strategy

39.50%

47.30%

13.20%

0% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.3 Politeness

Close-Lower (DCT 3)

(14)

10

3.13 Politeness Strategy, DCT 4

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 44,8%, positive politeness (PP) 10,5%, negative politeness (NP) 42,1%, and off record (OR) 2,6%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.4 chart above, it can be seen that bald on record is the highest. It is improper when the speakers speak with the higher people use bald on record. It valued impolite. They should use negative politeness to make the conversation more polite. It shows that the participants do not understand yet how the usage of politeness strategies is.

3.14 Politeness Strategy, DCT 5

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 5,2%, positive politeness (PP) 39,5%, negative politeness (NP) 55,3%, and off record (OR) 0%. It is drawn as the following chart.

negative politeness because they didn’t know each other before with the hearer, so the speakers speak politely.

44.80%

10.50%

42.10%

2.60% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.4 Politeness Strategy

Unfamiliar-Higher (DCT 4)

Percentages of Politeness Strategy

5.20%

39.50%

55.30%

0% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.5 Politeness Strategy

Unfamiliar-Equal (DCT 5)

(15)

11

3.15 Politeness Strategy, DCT 6

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 47,4%, positive politeness (PP) 34,2%, negative politeness (NP) 18,4%, and off record (OR) 0%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.6 chart above, it can be seen that the most dominant is bald on record. This is a proper usage of bald on record because the power is lower. But, the speakers have to show that they respect with the hearers by saying the word thanks.

3.16 Politeness Strategy, DCT 7

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 65,8%, positive politeness (PP) 23,7%, negative politeness (NP) 10,5%, and off record (OR) 0%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.7 chart above, the most of the percentages is bald on record. The context is between the speakers with their lecturer which the speakers have minus distance, lower power and rank of imposition. It is improper if the speakers use bald on record when they refuse. It is due to the speaker do not understand how to speak with the lecturer politely.

47.40%

34.20%

18.40%

0% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.6 Politeness Strategy

Unfamiliar-Lower (DCT 6)

Percentages of Pliteness Strategy

65.80%

23.70%

10.50%

0% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.7 Politeness Strategy

Familiar-Higher (DCT 7)

(16)

12

3.17 Politeness Strategy, DCT 8

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 65,8%, positive politeness (PP) 15,8%, negative politeness (NP) 13,2%, and off record (OR) 5,2%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.8 chart above, it can be seen that the most dominant is bald on record. The context is between the speakers and his/her friend which have equal power. It is not a problem if the speakers speak directly like using bald on record.

3.18 Politeness Strategy, DCT 9

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 47,4%, positive politeness (PP) 28,9%, negative politeness (NP) 21,1%, and off record (OR) 2,6%. It is drawn as the following chart.

From 2.9 chart above, it can be seen that the highest dominant is bald on record. The context is between the speaker and lower people which has minus distance, plus power, and plus rank of imposition. So the usage of bald on record is not a problem. But, their conversation would be more pleasant if they spoke politely although they speaking with the lower people.

65.80%

15.80% _13.20%

5.20% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.8 Politeness Strategy

Familiar-Equal (DCT 8)

Percentages of Politeness Strategy

47.40%

28.90%

21.10%

2.60% 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.9 Politeness Strategy

Familiar-Lower (DCT 9)

(17)

13

3.19 Refusal strategies used by the students.

This research aims at finding out refusal strategies that used by the students of English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta in speaking class by using DCT containing some speech acts in some scenarios. The scenarios were given to the students and they made conversations based on the situation of the scenarios. The writer has 9 scenarios that used as an instrument. The results of this research on pragmatic in teaching have provided by the writer with interesting findings on the research questions. This research found 3 strategies of refusal. DCT 1 found direct refusal 47,4%, indirect refusal 47,4%, and adjunct to refusal 5,2%. DCT 2 found direct refusal 42,1%, indirect refusal 44,7%, and adjunct to refusal 13,2%. DCT 3 found direct refusal 42,1%, indirect refusal 34,2%, and adjunct to refusal 23,7%. DCT 4 found direct refusal 63,2%, indirect refusal 34,2%, and adjunct to refusal 2,6%. DCT 5 found direct refusal 29%, indirect refusal 68,4%, and adjunct to refusal 2,6%. DCT 6 found direct refusal 31,6%, indirect refusal 42,1%, and adjunct to refusal 26,3%. DCT 7 found direct refusal 44,7%, indirect refusal 36,9%, and adjunct to refusal 18,4%. DCT 8 found direct refusal 63,2%, indirect refusal 31,6%, and adjunct to refusal 5,3%. DCT 9 found direct refusal 52,6%, indirect refusal 47,4%, and adjunct to refusal 0%. From the whole of the DCT, the writer finds out average percentage are 46,2% of direct refusal, 43% of indirect refusal, and 10,8% of adjunct to refusal.

strategies of refusal besides direct refusal, for example when the speaker refuses her dad’s offer to

take her to walk tonight. The speaker said “’I’m sorry Dad, maybe in another time”. As what the Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey said in Felix, indirect refusal means verbal messages that camouflage

and conceal speaker’s true intention in terms of their wants, needs, and goals in the discourse situation. So, the students refuse indirectly to be more polite. The writer also found adjunct to refusal made by the students with the situation are given. But, only a few students use this strategy. From explanation above, the writer concluded that the students of English Department not comprehensive yet the theory of refusal strategies.

3.20 Politeness strategies used by the students.

The second objective is to know the politeness strategy used by the students of English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.in speaking class. This research found 4 strategies of politeness. The writer has 9 scenarios that used as instrument. DCT 1 found BOR 50%, PP 13,2%, NP 36,8%, and OR 0%. DCT 2 found BOR 13,2%, PP 52,6%, NP 28,9%, and OR 5,3%. DCT 3 found BOR 39,5%, PP 47,3%, NP 13,2%, and OR 0%. DCT 4 found BOR 44,8%, PP 10,5%, NP 42,1%, and OR 2,6%. DCT 5 found BOR 5,2%, PP 39,5%, NP 55,3%, and OR 0%. DCT 6 47,4%, PP 34,2%, NP 18,4%, and OR 0%. DCT 7 found BOR 65,8%, PP 23,7%, NP 10,5%, and OR 0%. DCT 8 found BOR 65,8%, PP 15,8%, NP 13,2 %, and OR5,2%. DCT 9 found 47,4%, PP 28,9%, NP 21,1%, and OR 2,6%. From the whole of the DCT, the writer finds

(18)

14

out average percentage are 42,1 of BOR, 29,5 of PP, 26,6 of NP, and 1,8% of OR. The writer finds out BOR is mostly applied in all refusal used. Perhaps, the participants want to make a conversation containing refusal effectively and efficiently. Bald on record strategy is employed as the speakers directly address the other as a means of expressing their need. Positive politeness strategy is indicated by shortening the distance, it means the speakers want to show closeness and intimacy toward the interlocutor. The higher status of the speaker is employed negative politeness strategies which showed indirectness and deference. Negative politeness strategy is applied by the speaker to higher and unfamiliar interlocutor, perhaps the participants expressed their respect in terms of politeness to those considered higher level. The last strategy is off record. This strategy, the speakers do not address the other directly. The participants usually use it to give a hint to the other to show their want rather than saying it directly. From the explanation above, the researcher concluded that the students of English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta have not mastered yet the whole politeness in making refusal politeness.

4. CONCLUSION a. Refusal Strategies

Based on data analysis and discussion of the finding, the writer finds some interesting data. There are three types of refusal strategies, namely direct refusal, indirect refusal, and adjunct to refusal. The percentage of refusal strategies are 46,2% of direct refusal, 43% of indirect refusal, and 10,8% of adjunct to refusal. The occurrence of direct refusal type dominated the refusal strategies used by the participants. Indirect refusal is the middle position of refusal strategies. Meanwhile, adjunct to refusal type is the fewest refusal strategies used by the participant.

Aliakbari and Changizi’s finding on realization of refusal strategies by Persian and Kurdish speakers are direct refusal, regret, excuse and reason, wish, and postponement where the strategies dominated by direct refusal. It may be the same with the result of the writer, because the dominant of the strategy is direct refusal. Moreover, Hartuti found that refusal strategies used by English teachers in Madiun regency that indirect refusal is the prominent refusal strategy especially in declining offers and suggestions. It is different from the writer’s finding which the strategy dominated by direct refusal. It because the participants do not mastered yet how to use refusal strategies.

b. Politeness Strategies

In referring the second conclusion about the politeness strategies employed by the participants, the writer finds four strategies. They are bald on record (BOR), positive politeness (PP), negative politeness (NP), and off record (OR). Bald on record is the most appeared strategy which has value as 42,1%. The second place, there is positive politeness which has value as 29,5%. The third place, there is negative politeness which has value as 26,6%. And the last one, there is off record which has value 1,8%.

Gaspie’s finding on politeness strategy used by English Department students that the dominant

of politeness strategy is bald on record. Moreover, Kuntsi’s finding on politeness strategy used by

lawyers in the Dover trial is dominated by positive and negative politeness. By the previous studies above, it can be seen that the students have not mastered yet the politeness strategies than the lawyer. It shows that the lecturers have to introduce the politeness early. So, the students can use politeness strategies properly.

This study also found the influence of distance, power, and rank of imposition to the way the participants obtain their politeness strategies. The participants make different ways in making refusal strategy when there is a distance between the speaker and the hearer. However, the participants cannot differentiate the use of politeness strategy while refuse to the higher level. It is found out in declining

(19)

15

the suggestion or offer by the participants to refuse who has higher status. It might be caused at the lack of politeness knowledge.

5. ACKNOWLEDGE

The writer would say thank you so much to Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta for permitting her to collected the data.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aliakbari, Mohammad and Changizi, Mahza. 2012. On the Realization of Refusal Strategy by Persian and Kurdish Speakers. Science Direct, 36(5): 659-668

Bills, Liz. 2000. Politeness in Teacher-Student Dialogue in Mathematics: Canada. FLM Publishing Association. Brown, H. Douglas. 2003. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices: California.

Longman.

Brown, Phenelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage: United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press.

Chaika, Elaine. 1982. Language the Society Mirror. Rowley Massachusetts: New House Publisher Inc. Fauziati, Endang. 2008. Teaching of English as a Foreign Language. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press. Fauziati, Endang. 2009. Applied Linguistics. Surakarta: Era Pustaka Utama.

Felix, J. Cesar. 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hartuti, Maya. 2014. A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal Used by English Teachers in Madiun Regency:

Surakarta. Unpublished Thesis. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction of Sociolinguistics. London: Longman Published.

Kuntsi, Piia. 2012. Politeness and Impoliteness Strategies Used by Lawyers in the Dover Trial. A Case Study: Finland. University of Eastern Finland.

Parvaresh, Vahid and Tavakoli, Mansoor. 2009. Discourse Completion Tasks as Elicitation. The Social Sciences, 4, 366-373

Prastyani, Wida. 2012. An Analysis of Positive and Negative Politeness in Oprah’s Transcript: Kudus. Unpublished Thesis. Muria Kudus University.

Renaldo, Gaspie. 2014. Politeness Strategies in Disagreement Used by English Department Students of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta: Surakarta. Unpublished Thesis. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An Introduction to Sociolinguistic: Australia. Balckwell Publishing.

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness: New York. Cambridge University Press.

Winerta, Violen. 2012. An Analysis of Politeness Strategies in Requesting Used in Real Human and Non-Human Conversation on Avatar Movie: Padang. Unpublished Thesis. State University of Padang.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zahar, Adrian Kurniawan. 2012. Strategi Kesopanan dalam Tindak Tutur tak Langsung pada Film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Unpublished Thesis: Padjadjaran University.

Virtual References http://www.aaref.com (accessed on 10 October 2015) http://grmmarabout.com (accessed 10 October 2015)

(1)

10

3.13 Politeness Strategy, DCT 4

3.14 Politeness Strategy, DCT 5

From 2.5 chart above, it can be seen that the most percentages is negative politeness. The context is the speaker and the hearer have minus distance, equal power and rank of imposition. The speakers use negative politeness because they didn’t know each other before with the hearer, so the speakers speak politely.

44.80%

10.50%

42.10%

2.60%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.4 Politeness Strategy

Unfamiliar-Higher (DCT 4)

Percentages of Politeness Strategy

5.20%

39.50%

55.30%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.5 Politeness Strategy

Unfamiliar-Equal (DCT 5)

(2)

11

3.15 Politeness Strategy, DCT 6

3.16 Politeness Strategy, DCT 7

47.40%

34.20%

18.40%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.6 Politeness Strategy

Unfamiliar-Lower (DCT 6)

Percentages of Pliteness Strategy

65.80%

23.70%

10.50%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.7 Politeness Strategy

Familiar-Higher (DCT 7)

(3)

12

3.17 Politeness Strategy, DCT 8

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 65,8%, positive politeness (PP) 15,8%, negative politeness (NP) 13,2%, and off record (OR) 5,2%. It is drawn as the following chart.

3.18 Politeness Strategy, DCT 9

In close and equal DCT, the writer finds out that the speakers use three kinds of politeness strategies. Those strategies are bald on record (BOR) 47,4%, positive politeness (PP) 28,9%, negative politeness (NP) 21,1%, and off record (OR) 2,6%. It is drawn as the following chart.

65.80%

15.80% _13.20%

5.20%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.8 Politeness Strategy

Familiar-Equal (DCT 8)

Percentages of Politeness Strategy

47.40%

28.90%

21.10%

2.60%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

BOR PP NP OR

Chart 2.9 Politeness Strategy

Familiar-Lower (DCT 9)

(4)

13

3.19 Refusal strategies used by the students.

From the findings it can be said that direct refusal is mostly used by the students in all scenarios. Participants make a refusal with many explanations perhaps by incorporating a lot of explanations given in DCT scenario. DCT is also used by the previous study (Gaspie, 2014). Participants translated all the sentences given in the situation. The participants gave explanation before head the DCT scenarios. Explanation in DCT also functioned as the refusal. It may be because the participants lack of the knowledge about making refusal. In this case, participants made their effort to translate the scenarios in Indonesian to English. The direct refusal made the conversation clearer to the interlocutor. While, there are three strategies of refusal, but the students mostly used direct refusal in making clearer conversations. Whereas, the students can use the other strategies of refusal besides direct refusal, for example when the speaker refuses her dad’s offer to take her to walk tonight. The speaker said “’I’m sorry Dad, maybe in another time”. As what the Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey said in Felix, indirect refusal means verbal messages that camouflage and conceal speaker’s true intention in terms of their wants, needs, and goals in the discourse situation. So, the students refuse indirectly to be more polite. The writer also found adjunct to refusal made by the students with the situation are given. But, only a few students use this strategy. From explanation above, the writer concluded that the students of English Department not comprehensive yet the theory of refusal strategies.

3.20 Politeness strategies used by the students.

(5)

14

4. CONCLUSION

a. Refusal Strategies

b. Politeness Strategies

Gaspie’s finding on politeness strategy used by English Department students that the dominant of politeness strategy is bald on record. Moreover, Kuntsi’s finding on politeness strategy used by lawyers in the Dover trial is dominated by positive and negative politeness. By the previous studies above, it can be seen that the students have not mastered yet the politeness strategies than the lawyer. It shows that the lecturers have to introduce the politeness early. So, the students can use politeness strategies properly.

(6)

15

the suggestion or offer by the participants to refuse who has higher status. It might be caused at the lack of politeness knowledge.

5. ACKNOWLEDGE

The writer would say thank you so much to Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta for permitting her to collected the data.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aliakbari, Mohammad and Changizi, Mahza. 2012. On the Realization of Refusal Strategy by Persian and Kurdish Speakers. Science Direct, 36(5): 659-668

Longman.

Brown, Phenelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage: United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press.

Felix, J. Cesar. 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hartuti, Maya. 2014. A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal Used by English Teachers in Madiun Regency: Surakarta. Unpublished Thesis. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction of Sociolinguistics. London: Longman Published.