-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
1/25
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I.1 Background
Human, language and communication are three points that have tight
relationship. Human has social characteristics, where they cannot live alone and
need others to complete their life. In the other word, to support and get a good life
they have to create a good communication among them. Reaching this is not so
easy, because they will face different people with different character and problem
in the different situation as well. People use language to ask questions, requests,
command, refusal, greet, giving direction and perform hundreds of other ordinary
action in daily life. In short, language serves a great social function and its power
can change the world.
Initially, the process of communication is mediated by language.
Language is used just as much to perform function as it is to carry meaning.
Kasher (1985) has called these communications and action, Steinberg (1982) has
termed proposition and purpose, but we may employ the more transparent labels
of information and intention for discussion here. When we speak, we not only
transfer information in a technical sense, but we also convey our intentions by
performing activities like suggesting, inviting, requesting, refusing, or even
prohibiting our co-locutors from doing something.
Even in cases in which a particular speech act is not completely described
in grammar, formal features of the utterance used in carrying out the act might be
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
2/25
2
quite directly tied to its accomplishment, as when we request something by
uttering an imperative sentence or invite someone but the other want to say no
with polite word in order to we will not feel offended with their rejecting or
refusing.
In example:
Alex : hi bob, you want to go to hang out with me in this afternoon?
Boby : I have many task and which one of that must be collect tomorrow
morning.
From the conversation above Alex try to invite boby to go to hang out with
him. But Boby refuse Alexs invitation with he cant go because he have many
task. So that the reason that he cant go with Alex. So, that is one of the way to
saying no in communication between Alex and Boby.
Based on the problem above the researcher want to investigate the act of
saying no in communication in daily communication on University Of
Muhammadiyah Bengkulu.
1.2 Research Question
Based on the background above, the researcher formulated the problem of
the research as follows:
1. What are the varieties of saying no as refusal act in the studentcommunication at English Department of UMB.
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
3/25
3
1.3 Research Objective
1. To identify the varieties of saying No in their communication.1.4 Significant of the Research
This research is expect to add insight to the perspective in studyding
pragmatics especially in saying no as refusal act in communication.
1.5 Limitation of the Research
This study is limited to the communication happen in English students of
UMB at fourth semester.
1.6 Definitions of Key Terms
The Definitions of Key Terms in this research are as follow:
1. Communication is a process in conveying or sending a message from thecommunicator to the communicant by using a media and brings some
effects.
2. Refusal is the act ofrefusing to accept something that someone offers you.3. Action-language involves a strategy (favoring the use of action verbs and
adverbs over nouns, adjectives, and the verbs have and be) for listening to,
acknowledging, translating, retranslating, interpreting, and organizing the
data or the modalities of action of the agent or his or her person, that is, the
analyzed, within the context of the transference and resistance.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=thehttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=acthttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=ofhttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=refusinghttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=tohttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=accepthttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=somethinghttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=thathttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=someonehttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=offershttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=youhttp://www.answers.com/topic/analysandhttp://www.answers.com/topic/analysandhttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=youhttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=offershttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=someonehttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=thathttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=somethinghttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=accepthttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=tohttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=refusinghttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=ofhttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=acthttp://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=the -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
4/25
4
CHAPTER IILITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Communication ProcessesCommunication comes from Latin; communis, communico,
communication, and communicare which means to make common. It means
communication suggest an equality of taught, meaning, or a message (Mulyana,
2001:41).
According to Effendy (2004), communication is a process of conveying or
transforming a message from the communicator to the communicant.
Communicator always tries to convey what she or he feels and thinks about to the
communicant. All people communicate with other all in the time such as at
homes, workplace, in a group we belong to, in a community and also in college.
The communication will be going smoothly if both the participants have the sae
understanding and knowledge about the topic, because the key of effective
communication is knowledge. In communication people often do certain acts and
produce request conciously or unconcously to ask for something from the other
people.
In the communication process there is also conversation analysis.
Conversation analysis of the sort that will be described in the rest of
sociolinguistic. The relevance of the sociological background to the pragmaticist
is the methodological preferences that drive from it. Out of this background
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
5/25
5
comes a healthy suspicion of premature theorizing and ad hoc analytical
categories; as far as possible the categories of analysis should be those that
participants themselves can be shown to utilize in making sense of interaction;
unmotivated theorical construct and unsubstantiated intuition are all to be avoid.
2.2 Speech Act Theory2.2.1. Austin Theory
Austin (Paltridge, 2000) argued that speech acts can be analyzed on
three levels such as:
1. Locutionary Act, the performance of an utterance: the actualutterance its ostensible meaning.
"In performing a locutionary act we shall also be performing such
an act as:
asking or answering a question;
giving some information or an assurance or a warning;
announcing a verdict or an intention;
pronouncing sentence;
making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism;
making an identification or giving a description;
2. Illocutionary Act, the semantic Illocutionary Force of theutterance, thus is its real, intended meaning. The concept of an
illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Although
there are numerous opinions as to what 'illocutionary acts' actually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
6/25
6
are, there are some kinds of acts which are widely accepted as
illocutionary, as for example promising, ordering someone, and
bequeathing. An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that
performed in the utterance of what Austin calls performatives,
typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I
sentence you to ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you
back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative
sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating,
sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the
sentence itself.
Examples :
Greeting (in saying, "Hi John!", for instance), apologizing
("Sorry for that!"), describing something ("It is snowing"),
asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request and
giving an order ("Could you pass the salt?" and "Drop your
weapon or I'll shoot you!"), or making a promise ("I
promise I'll give it back") are typical examples of "speech
acts" or "illocutionary acts".
In saying, "Watch out, the ground is slippery", Mary
performs the speech act of warning Peter to be careful.
In saying, "I will try my best to be at home for dinner",
Peter performs the speech act of promising to be at home in
time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
7/25
7
In saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, please give me your
attention", Mary requests the audience to be quiet.
In saying, "Race with me to that building over there!", Peter
challenges Mary.
3. Perlocutionary, its actual effect, such as persuading, convincing,scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do
or realize something, wheter intended or not. "In the perlocutionary
instance, an act is perfomed by saying something. For example, if
someone shouts 'fire' and by that act causes people to exit a
building which they believe to be on fire, they have performed the
perlocutionary act of convincing other people to exit the building. .
. . In another example, if a jury foreperson declares 'guilty' in a
courtroom in which an accused person sits, the illocutionary act of
declaring a person guilty of a crime has been undertaken. The
perlocutionary act related to that illocution is that, in reasonable
circumstances, the accused person would be convinced that they
were to be led from the courtroom into a jail cell. Perlocutionary
acts are acts intrinsically related to the illocutionary act which
precedes them, but discrete and able to be differentiated from the
illocutionary act."
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/perlocutionary.htm
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/perlocutionary.htmhttp://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/perlocutionary.htm -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
8/25
8
2.2.2. Searle Theory
Searle in Leech (1993) has set up of the following classification of
speech acts :
Assertive : Speech act that commit a speaker to the truth of
the expressed proposition, e.g. reciting a creed, statement, report,
opinion ergument.
Example :
"Thanks for your suggestion. I'll take that into consideration""No, I am not busy on Tuesday, but I want to keep it that way."Directive : speech act that are to cause the hearer to take the
partucular effect of action, e.g. command, advising, admonishing,
asking, begging, dismissing, excusing, forbidding, instructing,
ordering, permitting, requesting, requiring, suggesting, urging and
warning.
Commissive : speech act that commit a speaker to some future
action, e.g. promising, offering, agreeing, guaranteing, inviting,
swearing, volunteering. Example : I will be at home tonight.
Expressives : speech act that express the psychology speakers
attitude and emotions toward the proposition, e.g. thank,
congratulation, apology, and sympathy.
Constatives : affirming, alleging, announcing, answering,
attributing, claiming, classifying, concurring, confirming,
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
9/25
9
conjecturing, denying, disagreeing, disclosing, disputing, identifying,
insisting, predicting, ranking, reporting, stating, stipulating.
Declarative : speech act that change the reality in accord with
the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptism, pronouncing some
guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife.
Example : Employer : you are fire!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act#Illocutionary_acts
1. RepresentativeHere the speaker asserts a proposition to be true. According to Yule (1996:53)
it is what the speaker believes to be the case or not. For example, affirm,
believe, conclude, deny and report.
a. The earth is flatb. It is a warm sunny day
2. DirectivesHere are the speaker tries to make the hearer do something. They express what
the speaker wants; it can be positive or negative. For example such words as:
ask, beg, challenge, comment, dare, invite, insist and request.
a.
Give me a cup of coffee, make it black.
b. Could you lend me a pen, please?3. Commissives
Here the speakers commit himself (or herself) to a (future) course of action.
They express what the speaker intends, it can be performed by the speaker
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
10/25
10
alone or by the speaker as a member of a group. They are guarantee, pledge,
refusal, threat, promise, swear, vow, undertake and warrant.
a. I will be backb. I am going to get it right next time.
4. ExpressivesThe speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affair or states the
speaker feels. They are pleasure, pain, welcome, apologize, regret, appreciate,
thank, congratulate, joy or sorrow.
a. I am really sorry.b. Congratulation!
5. DeclarationThe speaker alters the external status or condition of an object or situation,
solely by making the utterance. It can change the world via the utterances. The
speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to
perform a declaration appropriately.
b. Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.c. Employer: you are fire!People not only produce utterances containing grammatical structure and
words but they also perform such of actions via those utterances. Utterances are
used to accomplish things such as asking, promising, greeting and other verbal
actions in daily life.
Actually, those utterances not just as statements, but there is a deeply
sense beyond the words. For example, propose married and fire an employee. It is
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
11/25
11
known as speech act. Yule (1996:47) states: actions perform via utterance are
generally called speech act.
2.3 CrossCultural CommunicationScollon, Ron and Suzanne W Scollon (1995) argue the aspect of culture as
the major factors in intercultural communication.
1. Ideology: history and worldview, including believe, value and religion.This is the most familiar way of looking at cultures, by studying their
stories and the common worldview which arise out of these histories. Most
Asians are more likely to stress of moving more slowly, for not rushing to
conclusions or for taking a longer perspective on future development. In the
other hand, the westerns more likely to emphasize the need for quickness in
concluding negotiations, the need to bring about economic, political or social
,change and the need to keep up with world change.
2. Socializationa. Education, enculturation and acculturation
Education refers to the formal teaching and learning, enculturation for the
informal teaching and learning, and acculturation about the situation in
which two different cultures or social group come into contact.
b. Primary and secondary socializationPrimary socialization seems like enculturation. It consists of the processes
through which a child goes in the earliest stages of becoming a member of
his or her culture or society. Secondary socialization refers to those
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
12/25
12
processes of socialization which take place when the child begins to move
outside of the family.
c. Theories of the person and of learning3. Forms of discourse
a. Functions of language Information and relationship Negotiation and ratification Group harmony and individual welfare
b. Nonverbal communication Kinesics: the movement of our body Proxemics: the use of space Concept of time
4. Face systemsa. Kinships
In Asia, traditional kinship relationship is emphasized, any individual is
acutely aware of his or her obligations and responsibilities to those who
have come before as well as who came after. In the other hand, western
emphasize on individualism and egalitarianism.
b. The concept of the selfAsians tend to be more aware of the connection they have as members of
their social group and they tend to be more conscious of the consequences
of their action on other members of their group. Westerners, tend to
emphasize their independence.
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
13/25
13
c. Ingroupoutgroup relationshipMany people, eastern and western, have names or variants of their names
which are used only within the intimate circle of their friends or family,
and it feel quite embarrassing when some people from outside of that
group use that name.
d. Gemeinschaft and GesellschaftGemeinschaft refers to such an organic, community form of social
solidarity that based on the fact that individuals shared a common history
and common traditions. Gemeinschaft (community organization) are more
contractual, rational or instrumental. Gesellschaft refers to the form of
society by mutual agreement and to protect mutual interest corporate
society.
2.4. Politeness Theory
Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the
affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees. First formulated in
1978 by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, politeness theory has since
expanded academias perception of politeness.Politeness is the expression of the
speakers intention to mitigateface threats carried by certain face threatening acts
toward another (Mills, 2003, p. 6). Another definition is "a battery of social skills
whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction". Being
polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for another.
Scollon, Ron and Suzanne W Scollon (1995) argue, in speaking to these
two men the vendor of copy Rolexes made a shift in register or communicative
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penelope_Brown&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Levinsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_%28self_image%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_%28self_image%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_%28self_image%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_%28self_image%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_%28self_image%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Levinsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penelope_Brown&action=edit&redlink=1 -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
14/25
14
style. When he spoke to the first man (who was quite a bit younger than the
vendor) he use a very informal or familiar style. In this case the vendor used
somewhat limited linguistic resources to signal that he had perceive a social
difference between these two potential customers.
Communicative style is the term we prefer for this chapter on
interpersonal politeness and power because it is a more general term than
register used by most sociolinguistics to refer to either personal identities or
interpersonal relationships among participants.
2.4.1. Face-Threatening Acts
According to Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face exist
universally in human culture. In social interactions, face-threatening acts (FTAs)
are at times inevitable based on the terms of the conversation. A face threatening
act is an act that inherently damages the face of the addressee or the speaker by
acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Most of these acts are
verbal, however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such
as tone, inflection, etc) or in non-verbal forms of communication. At minimum,
there must be at least one of the face threatening acts associated with an utterance.
It is also possible to have multiple acts working within a single utterance.
a. Negative Face Threatening Acts
Negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intend
to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutor's freedom of action. It can cause
damage to either the speaker or the hearer, and makes the one of the interlocutors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addresseehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_%28linguistics%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utterancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utterancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_%28linguistics%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addresseehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
15/25
15
submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when
negative face is threatened. According to Yule, A persons negative face is the
need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by
others. The word negative have doesnt bad, its just the opposite pole from the
positive.
Damage to the Hearer
An act that affirms or denies a future act of the hearer creates
pressure on the hearer to either perform or not perform the act.
Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminding, threats, or
warnings.
An act that expresses the speakers sentiments of the hearer or the
hearers belongings.
Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions
of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e.g. hatred, anger, lust).
An act that expresses some positive future act of the speaker
toward the hearer. In doing so, pressure has been put on the hearer
to accept or reject the act and possibly incur a debt.
Examples: offers, and promises.
Damage to the Speaker
An act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of
the hearer.
Expressing thanks
Accepting a thank you or apology
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
16/25
16
Excuses
Acceptance of offers
A response to the hearers violation of social etiquette
The speaker commits himself to something he or she does not want
to do
b. Positive Face Threatening ActsPositive face is threatened when the speaker or hearer does not care about
their interactors feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants. Positive
face threatening acts can also cause damage to the speaker or the hearer. When an
individual is forced to be separated from others so that their well being is treated
less importantly, positive face is threatened. According to Yule, a persons
positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a
member of some group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by other.
Damage to the Hearer
An act that expresses the speakers negative assessment of the
hearers positive face or an element of his/her positive face. The
speaker can display this disapproval in two ways. The first
approach is for the speaker to directly or indirectly indicate that he
dislikes some aspect of the hearers possessions, desires, or
personal attributes. The second approach is for the speaker to
express disapproval by stating or implying that the hearer is wrong,
irrational, or misguided.
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
17/25
17
Examples: expressions of disapproval (e.g. insults, accusations,
complaints), contradictions, disagreements, or challenges.
An act that expresses the speakers indifference toward the
addressees positive face.
The addressee might be embarrassed for or fear the speaker.
Examples: excessively emotional expressions.
The speaker indicates that he doesnt have the same values or fears
as the hearer
Examples: disrespect, mention of topics which are inappropriate in
general or in the context.
The speaker indicates that he is willing to disregard the emotional
well being of the hearer.
Examples: belittling or boasting.
The speaker increases the possibility that a face-threatening act
will occur. This situation is created when a topic is brought up by
the speaker that is a sensitive societal subject.
Examples: topics that relate to politics, race, religion.
The speaker indicates that he is indifferent to the positive face
wants of the hearer. This is most often expressed in obvious non-
cooperative behavior.
Examples: interrupting, non-sequiturs.
The speaker misidentifies the hearer in an offensive or
embarrassing way. This may occur either accidentally or
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
18/25
18
intentionally. Generally, this refers to the misuse of address terms
in relation to status, gender, or age.
Example: Addressing a young woman as "maam" instead of "miss."
Damage to the Speaker
An act that shows that the speaker is in some sense wrong, and
unable to control himself. Apologies: In this act, speaker is
damaging his own face by admitting that he regrets one of his
previous acts.
Acceptance of a compliment
Inability to control onesphysical self
Inability to control onesemotional self
Self-humiliation
Confessions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory
2.5. Refusal Act Theory
Refusals, as all the other speech acts, occur in all languages. However,
not all languages/ cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable
refusing the same invitation or suggestion. According to Al-Eryani (2007), the
speech act of refusal occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says no to
request or invitation. He states that refusal is a face-threatening act to the listener/
requester/ inviter, because it contradicts his or her expectations, and is often
realized through indirect strategies. Thus, it requires a high level of pragmatic
competence. . Chen (1996) (in Al-Eryani: 2007) used strategies to analyze speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_bodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_bodyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body -
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
19/25
19
act sets of refusal (refusing requests, invitations, offers and suggestions), and
concluded that direct refusal as NO was not a common strategy for any of the
subjects, regardless of their language background. For example, an expression of
regret, common in Americans refusals, was generally produced by the Chinese
speakers, which might lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an
American context.
2.5.1. The Nature of Refusal
Refusal can mean the disapproval or rejection of the interlocutors idea
(in which in the present research, it is focused on those of requests), and therefore
a threat to the interlocutors face. Essentially, it means saying: No, I will not do
it in response to someone elses utterance, in which he has conveyed to us that he
wants us to do something and that he expects us to do it (Thi Minh P.: 2006). Due
to their inherently face threatening nature, refusals are of an especially sensitive
nature, and a pragmatic breakdown in this act may easily lead to un-intended
offense and/or breakdowns in communication.
Refusals are also of interest due to their typically complex constructions.
They are often negotiated over several turns and involve some degree of
indirectness. In addition to this, their form and content tends to vary depending on
the type of speech act that elicits them (request, offer, etc.), and they usually vary
in degree of directness depending on the status of the participants. In most culture,
it tends to be indirect, include mitigation, and/or delay with the turn or across
turns (Beebe et. al.: 1990). The delay shows that the addressor or refuser ha s a
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
20/25
20
certain reason for refusing the request and may imply that s/he would accept or
agree instead if it is possible of practical.
2.5.2. Strategies of Refusal
Refusals are known as a sticking point in cross-cultural
communication (Kwon: 2004). Refusals can be a tricky speech act to perform
linguistically and psychologically since the possibility of offending the
interlocutor is inherent in the act itself. As failure to refuse appropriately can risk
the interpersonal relations of the speakers, refusals usually include various
strategies to avoid offending ones interlocutors.
However, the choice of the strategies which are employed by the
participants in having communication may vary across languages and cultures
(Kwon: 2004). For example, when Mandarin Chinese speakers wanted to refuse
requests, they express positive opinion (e.g., I would like to) much less
frequently than American English speakers. Mandarin Chinese informants
concerned that if they ever expressed positive opinions, then they would be forced
to comply. Softeners (e.g., Im afraid I cant, I really dont know), that are
most commonly used by English speakers to mitigate refusals to requests, offers,
and invitations, were used much less frequently by Egyptian Arabic speakers.
Gratitude was regularly expressed by American English speakers in refusing
invitations, offers and suggestions, but rarely by Egyptian Arabic speakers.
American English speakers favored more specific reasons in their refusals, while
the Japanese used reasons that were not specific as to place, time, or parties.
Further, the selection of the strategies of refusal according to the status of
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
21/25
21
interlocutors has been reported to show cross-cultural variation. For instance, the
Japanese tended to be more inclined to make different responses to higher and
lower status people, while the Americans appeared to react similarly to status
unequal of both types, but gave different responses to an equal status person.
Another example, Egyptian Arabic speakers displayed more directness in refusing
an equal status person than did American English speakers.
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
22/25
22
2.6. Relevance Of Previous StudyTable 1. Previous Study
No Name Title Abstract
1. Entri Murti
2007
Realization of speech act
of requesting, refusing,
apologizing, and thanking
used by the students of
English Department of
UMB (a study in Bengkulu
language).
She concludes two situation,
1. Formal situation. The
form silahkan duduk pak
(would you like sit down
sir) the speaker used sir
because they have different
social status in context
namely, age, sex, and social
standing between addresser
and addressee. 2. Informalsituation. The form tunggu
sebentar yo (wait for me)
the speaker utterance like
this because from this social
context, they havesymmetrical social
relationship or between the
addresser and addresses
have the same status (as a
friend, colleagues, and have
small different age.
Based on that previous studies, entitled Realization of Speech Act of
Requesting, refusing, apologizing, and thanking Used by the students of the Home
Department of UMB (a study in Bengkulu language) the researcher to get some
idea and some input on what will be examined by researchers .
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
23/25
23
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
This study is conduct by using qualitative method, which try to describe
the perspective of politeness in the mediated communication through the act of
saying no. Fraenkel and Wallen (1993) argue that in the qualitative research,
researchers go directly to the particular setting or natural setting in which they are
interested to observe and collect their data in form of words of pictures than
numbers.
Therefore, the researcher use the qualitative method because the researcher
analyze the messages are in conversation, describe and interpret the result of it.
3.2 Subject of the Research
The subjects of the research are the discourses mediate conversation in
everywhere through the act of saying no. The subject of this study is for English
Student at University of Muhammadiyah Bengkulu, it could be from the students
in fourth semester. For that reason the researcher decide which data to emphasize
and which one to be left out. Clearly, this study employeee a purposive sampling
technique. It is base on the assumption that those subjects already represent other
population and only those subjects can give the data. Fraenkel and Wallen
(1993:87) state that researchers assume they can use their knowledge of the
population to judge whether or not a particular sample will be representative.
Additionally, Maxwell (1996:70) states this is a strategy in which particular
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
24/25
24
settings, persons, or events are select deliberately in order to provide important
information that can not be get as well from other choices.
Therefore, the data of this study are the conversations take by all of
English Student at University of Muhammadiyah Bengkulu, it could be from the
students in fourth semester.
3.3 Instrument
The main instrument that will be used by the research is tape recorder to
record Student conversation in daily communication among English Student at
Muhammadiyah University, camera phone, pen and paper to transform the data to
make the docummentation.
3.4 Data Collection Technique
The data of ths study will be take through direct observation. It means that
the researcher is in the condition while the speaker and the hearer are
communicating. Direct observation may be more reliable than what people say in
many instances, because it reveals what actually happen (Nisbet and Watt 1980 in
Jaya 1999). The reseerch will collect the data by using documentation
investigation. It is gathered from the record in tape recorder, which sent or receive
by conversation betweeen students in daily communication in Fourh Semester in
Muhammadiyah University.
3.5 Validity
The validity in this research is the correctness of the researcher description
and interpretation toward the data. According to Maxwell (1996:87) I use
validity in fairly straightforward, commonsense way to refer to the correctness or
-
8/7/2019 An Analyzing the Act of saying no in Communication created by Fransisco
25/25
25
credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of
account.
3.6 Data Analyzing Technique
Fraenkel and Wallen (1993:383) state thet analyzing the data in
qualitative research study essentially involve synthesizing the information the
researcher obstain from the various sources (e.g., observation, interview,
document analysis) into a coherent description of what he or she had observed or
otherwise discovered. So, the data will be analyzed by using politeness theory by
Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon.