POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REFUSAL EXPRSSED BY STUDENTS OF

ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM OF JAMBI UNIVERSITY

Taufiqo Amrullah

2018

taufiqoa@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Politeness is important social behavior in every kind of communication.

Moreover, the speech act of refusal is intrinsically face threatening acts, or in the

other meaning is her/his freedom of action is impeded. Therefore, the speaker to a

higher or lower extent threats the hearer’s face, hence, there is a need to put

politeness strategies into action in order to mitigate the threats, in other words, to

soften what the hearer might regard as an impingement on him/her. This research

aimed to figure out what kind of politeness strategies that are used by Students of

English Study Program of Jambi University. Six students were chosen based on

their discourse analysis score in fifth semester. Descriptive case study was chosen

as research design and the data were collected from the six Oral Discourse

Completion Tests (ODCTs) situations given to the students. The result showed that

all of the students frequently used positive politeness strategy rather than negative

politeness strategy, bald on record strategy and off-record strategy. However, some

the students transfer their source language (L1) to target language (L2) while doing

the Oral Discourse Completion Tests (ODCTs). Thus, the students need to be

enhanced more about grammatical competence, so they can have good ability to

recognize and to produce an effective communication.

Key words: speech act, politeness, refusal.

1. INTRODUCTION

Communication is very important part of human life in order to obtain

reciprocal interaction with other members of society. Therefore, to make successful

communication people need to be polite, to make their position appropriate and safe

in particular situation. According to Watts (2003), in communicating with others,

people should use language (verbal or nonverbal), act appropriately considering the

culture and context where the communication occurs to avoid misunderstanding,

uncomforting and disrespect.

One of challenging speech acts that need to be understood in communication is

refusal. In the refusals matter, the one have to say “no” in order to refuse kind of

request and invitation from others. “Given the fact that refusals are face threatening

speech acts that involve a certain level of offensiveness, applying inappropriate

refusal strategies may make FL learners sound rude and impolite in some situations”

(Martí and Salazar, 2013).

Based on the background above, the researcher is interested in conducting

research about Politeness Strategies in Refusal Expressed by Students of

English Study Program of Jambi University. This research is to investigate the

politeness strategies which are used by the students, Brown and Levinson´s

politeness theory is applied in this research, as it is the most influential and

comprehensive model of politeness.

1.1 Research Question

The purpose of this research is to find out what kind of politeness strategies that

are used by students of English Study Program of Jambi University in

expressing refusal?

1.2 Aim of the Research

The aim of this research is to figure out the politeness strategies in refusal

expressed by students of English Study Program of Jambi University.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Notion of Politeness

There are many attentions that have been paid to the phenomenon of linguistic

and semantic politeness realization. In this research, there are three politeness

notions about politeness which is utilized by Lakoff’s politeness rules, Leech’s

politeness principles, and Brown & Levinson’s politeness theory as the the most

influential and comprehensive model of politeness.

2.1.1 Politeness Rules-Robin Lakoff

Grice (1975) categorize four expectations that English speakers seen to use

in expressing something in conversation. These expectations are called as

conversation maxim, which work together with common principle that he say as the

Cooperative Principles. The maxims can be classified as follows (Grice, 1975:45-7):

Quantity: Informative as is required

Quality : Truthful

Relevance: Be relevant

Manner: Avoid ambiguity; be brief; be orderly

Cooperative Principles: Maximize effective exchange of information such is

required, in which it take places, through approved purpose or direction of the

conversational exchange in which you are fit together.

Lakoff (1973) in Hsieh (2009:39) argue that “politeness is a device used in

order to reduce friction in interpersonal interaction”. Regarding to the Grice’s view,

Lakoff (1973) in Bowe and Martin (2008:33) classify two rules of Pragmatic

Competence:

1. Be Clear (essentially Grice’s maxims)

2. Be Polite

Additionally, Lakoff purposes the sub-maxims:

Rule 1: Don’t impose (keep aloof);

Rule 2: Give options;

Rule 3: Make Hearer feel well (show sympathy).

Lakoff point out that Grice’s maxims already lose under her first rule of

politeness (Don’t impose), because it is only focus on the clarity of the

conversation. Not only that, she also argues the similarity between Grice’s

principles and her own politeness rules. “The rules of politeness may differ

dialectally in applicability, but their basic forms remain the same universally”

(Lakoff, 1973:303 as cited in Hsieh, 2009:40). It is indicate that when Grice claims

the universality of his conversation maxims, Lakoff also refer to the universal

applicability for her own rules same as Grice.

Even though Lakoff has not clearly determine what she thinks about

politeness is, but it can be interpreted from her politeness rules, if “be polite” means

that people shall to think what is good to others and avoid any impacts to others.

However, Brown (1976) argue that there is problem with Lakoff’s politeness

analysis. She did not utilize the linearity theory of her politeness rules as a

theoretical framework to the social relationships terms and the notion of human as

socialists.

In the same line, Tannen (1984) also state that Lakoff’s politeness rules

cannot clearly determine the complexity of politeness phenomenon, especially when

some of the terms used in the politeness rules are not satisfy utilized, such as keep

aloof and informal.

Moreover, Watts (2003) say that Lakoff’s politeness rules did not clarify

how speakers come in to the of form sentences that are categorized as politeness. It

is suggested that, if the relation between pragmatics rules and rules of politeness

does not explained yet in her politeness analysis.

2.1.2 Politeness Principles-Geoffrey Leech

Leech’s politeness notion is referred as a persistence aspect in

communication and a key determination of why people deliver meaning implicitly

(Leech, 1983). He concern of a goal-oriented speech context in which speaker uses

languages to create a particular effect in the hearer’s mind (Leech, 1983). He further

clarify that politeness between speaker and hearer as interpersonal rhetoric.

Leech (1983) point out that his politeness principle (PP) as a plan to

minimize the expression of impolite expectations, and maximize the expression f

polite expectations. Harmonies with Grice’s Cooperative Principle, politeness

principle (PP) are also contains of a set of maxims. These maxims are:

1) Tact maxim;

2) Generosity maxim;

3) Approbation maxim;

4) Modesty maxim;

5) Agreement maxim;

6) Sympathy maxim.

Based on Leech (1983), speaker has to always maximize an action in the

best other’s interest and try to minimize any possible of imposing hearer. Leech

look on his politeness principle (PP) as notions for the Grice’s maxims on-

observance.

He argue that cooperative principle (CP) and politeness principle (PP) are

integrated each other, because cooperative principle (CP) maxims are included to

examine how expressions are used to deliver a speaker’s indirect purpose, even

though politeness principle (PP) maxims are used to comprehend why a speaker

likely indirect. His analysis of the politeness indirect achievement is useful to utilize

this research, because Leech conclude the attached meaning from a speaker’s

purpose.

On one hand, Leech’s theory is not further criticized because it is provide

failure pragmatic phenomenon analysis. Leech’s principle is too doctrinaire, when

“there is no way of knowing which maxims are to be applied, what scales are

available, how they are to be formulated, and what their dimensions… and so on”

(Fraser, 1990: 227).

Harmony with Fraser, Mey (1993) also criticize that Leech in order to the

consequence in several illocutions such as orders, are not separately impolite and

others such as offers, are not separately polite. Additionally, she (1993) claim that to

examine what an act as polite or impolite is, between speaker and hearer need to

think with social hierarchy of speaker or hearer about situation. Both Fraser’s and

Mey’s critics suggest that Leech’s analysis is fail in considering aspect of cultural

and context toward pragmatic phenomena.

According to Brown & Levinson (1987); Lavandera (1988); Fraser(1990) as

cited in Reiter (2001), another main problem with Leech’s politeness maxims did

not utilize how many maxims may be needed to account the politeness phenomena,

therefore, the number of maxims need to be flexible and not just “vacuous” theory

of politeness.

Therefore, Brown& Levinson (1987) point out that instead of imposing

politeness as rule-governed, hearer have to try to form a kind of model in which

indicates the options of politeness which is did by speakers in conversation, not only

by interpersonal way, but also cross-cultural way.

2.1.3 Politeness Theory-Penelope Brown & Stephen Levinson

Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory particularly rooted and considered

in the term of face. They claim that face is the motivation behind politeness.

Furthermore, they argue that people have to maintain their “face” and try to make

their position safe.

Brown & Levinson (1978) suggest that all people have two similar “face”

goals. There are two kinds of faces, namely positive face and negative face.

According to Brown & Levinson (1987:61):

• Positive face is an individual’s desire to be approved and appreciated by

others.

• Negative face is an individual’s desire to have the freedom to act without

being imposed.

Arndt & Jenney (1985:293) as cited in Hsieh (2009:44) harmony with

Brown & Levinson’s explanations and point out that “the desire to maintain face

and the fear of losing it are interpersonal universals transcending all socio cultural,

ethnic, sexual, educational, economic, geographical and historical boundaries.” Yet,

this universal state then embedded the best criticism to Brown & Levinson’s

politeness theory.

Brown & Levinson say that in normal situations, people will try keep away

from face-threatening acts (FTAs). The speaker or hearer will try to minimize the

threat caused thereby, unless FTAs is unavoidable. Furthermore, they introduces

that the degree of threat can be graded according to three culturally sensitive social

variables: 1) social distance (D) between interlocutors, 2) relative power (P) of the

participants, and 3) absolute ranking (R) of the impositions carried in the act in a

particular culture. In addition, there are three level of the seriousness of an FTA

which is also will be chosen by speaker and hearer in any given situations,

considering with their purposes. The speaker and hearer then select the appropriate

strategies in order to make their position safe. Below, there are five strategies

choices that proposed by Brown & Levinson:

1. Positive Politeness Strategies

According to Brown and Levinson (1978:15), positive politeness is

“characterized by the expression of approval and appreciation of the addressee's

personality by making him/her feel part of an in-group”. Additionally, Yule (2010)

claims that positive politeness determines both speakers want the same thing, and

have a common purpose. Therefore, such characteristics may be found in the

following strategies:

1) Grounded;

2) Repair or new solution;

3) Excuses;

4) Promise or future acceptance;

5) Express sympathy.

2. Negative Politeness Strategies

Based on the Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), negative politeness is a kind of

politeness which deals with satisfying hearer’s negative face. It concerns with

respect behaviour. Negative politeness concerns of the sides of the addressee’s face

wants, that are concentrated on the wish not be charged upon and is categorized by

self-abolition and formality. Therefore, such characteristics may be found in the

following strategies:

6) Conventionally indirect;

7) Be pessimistic;

8) Give deference;

9) State the FTA as a general rule;

10)Nominalize;

11)Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting hearer.

3. Bald on-record Strategies

Bald on Record strategy is to the point concept. It means that speaker tells

rodeos explicitly and directly what he/she wants towards hearer. In particular

contexts, sometimes we need to refuse someone’s request or invitation explicitly. It

is the best way to avoid misunderstanding, yet it has the greatest risk to threat

hearer’s face. Therefore, such characteristics may be found in the following

strategies:

12) Direct refusal;

13) Imperative statement or high intonation.

4. Off record Strategies

Off-record strategy also known as hints or non-conventional indirectness refers

to others. Yet, this strategy will make the speaker may or may not get response from

the hearer. In other word, the speaker may or may not obtain a wishes result as the

hearer can responses either the utterances have been heard or not. Therefore, such

characteristics may be found in the following strategies:

14) Give hints;

15) Be ambiguous or vague;

16) Evasion or transfer to another topic;

17) Use body language.

5. Don’t do the FTA

The strategy indicates when the speaker considers with the risk of face-

threatening is too great and chose to say or do nothing in order to stay away from

face loss.

2.2 The Speech Act of Refusal

The speech act of refusal occur when a speaker directly or indirectly say

“no” to a request or invitation. Chen (1996) say refusal is a face-threatening act to

the listener or requestor or inviter, because it contradicts his or her expectations, and

is often realized through indirect strategies. Therefore, a high level of pragmatic

competence is indispensable.

2.2.1 Refusal Strategies

Types of Refusal

Strategies

Strategies Example

Direct strategies -Performative "I can't".

-Non-performative "No".

"I can't. I won't be able to give it to you".

(negative willingness ability)

Indirect strategies -Regret statement "I'm sorry" or "forgive me".

-Wish "I wish I can do it for you, but…".

-Excuse or

explanation

"Sorry, but I have another plan. I'm going

to be working until late tonight".

-Alternative

statement

"I can do X in fact of Y".

"Why don't you do X instead of Y".

-Set condition for

future or past

acceptance

"Oh, if I'd checked my e-mail earlier, I

wouldn't have made other plans".

-Philosophy

statement

"Help one, help all".

-Principle

statement

"I don't believe in fad dieting".

-Promise of future

acceptance

"I'll do next time, let's make it another

day".

The taxonomy of direct and indirect refusal strategies

3. METHODS

This is a descriptive case study research in which the researcher will describe an

activity and a process or one individual deeply. The researcher used purposive

sample as method to select the participants. According to Fraenkel and Wallen

(2009), purposive sample purposes to select a sample (participant) when researcher

believes that a sample will result the best understanding regarding to what the

researcher looking for. This research involved totally 6 participants. They are

students of English Study Program of Jambi University from sixth semester.

Furthermore, theses 6 students were categorized into three classifications based on

their Discourse Analysis (DA) course score from fifth semester:

1) 2 students who get A, as high Discourse Analysis (DA) course score students.

2) 2 students who get B+ or B, as moderate Discourse Analysis (DA) course score

students.

3) 2 students who get C+ or C, as low Discourse Analysis (DA) course score

students.

In collecting the data, the participants were provided with Oral Discourse

Completion Tests (ODCTs) and the data is in audio visual recorded. It is composed

of six prompts taken from the research conducted by Al-Issa (2003). The ODCTs

prompts are created to elicit the specific speech act comprising the focus of the

research, refusals of requests. Participants were presented with oral situations, and

recorded in English audiovisual data. Participants are then asked to response what

they want to say in each situation given to them. Each situation is based on two

social variables: “relative power” and “social distance” between the interlocutors.

This research investigates politeness strategies in refusal of requests by different

Social Power (P) and Social Distance (D) interlocutors. The data from the

participants then transcribed and examined according to an adapted classification of

Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory, introduced five super

strategies for politeness in relation to FTAs: positive politeness, negative politeness,

bald on-record, off-record, and don’t do the FTAs.

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

After the researcher recorded and transcribed the participants’ responses, the

researcher find out that the participants realized different levels of politeness

strategies in refusal of requests by different Social Power (P) and Social Distance

(D) interlocutors, such as positive politeness strategies, negative positive politeness

strategies, bald on-record strategies, and off record strategies. 75 politeness

strategies were founded from six situations of Oral Discourse Completion Tests

(ODCTs) and the six participants were mostly used positive politeness strategies

(54.66%), negative politeness strategies (22.66%) and bald on-record strategies

(14.66%), followed by off-record strategies (8%).

Among the seventeen forms of politeness strategies that are explained by

Brown & Levinson’s theory, the researcher only found eleven forms of it. The

participants used positive politeness strategies in form of grounded 4 times (5.33%),

repair or new solution 8 times (10.66%), excuses 22 times (29.33%), promise or

future acceptance 6 times (8%) and express sympathy 1 time (1.33%). For negative

politeness strategies in form of conventionally indirect 15 times (20%) and

nominalize 2 times (2.66%). Meanwhile, for bald on-record strategies the

participants only used direct refusal form 11 times (14.66%). And the least off

record strategies, the participants employed give hints form 3 times (4%), be

ambiguous or vague form 2 times (2.66%) and evasion or transfer to another topic

form 1 time (1.33%).

4.1 The Use of Positive Politeness Strategies

This is the most preferred strategy which is used by the participants, with 40 out

of 75 politeness strategies (54.66%) expressed by the six participants. The

researcher found that the group participants (high, moderate, and low DA score

students) used this strategy in form of grounded, repair or new solution, excuses,

promise or future acceptance and express sympathy based on the six situations

given to them.

Based on the findings, it is shown that the participants most frequently

employed this strategy when the speaker has equal social status power, and has less

socially familiar toward the hearer. It appears that if the speaker and the hearer are

not close enough or just acquaintance, the indirectness will motivated even the

speaker and the hearer has equal social status.

This related to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) point out that the closeness of

one’s social distance with others could break the gap of social status between

speaker and hearer, the more social distance the speaker and the hearer, the more

indirect the one’s response would be.

However, this point is not obviously right, because the participants in this

research also combine positive politeness strategy followed by bald on-record

strategy in expressing their refusal, such in situation 1, situation 3 and situation 5

where the social distance between speaker and hearer are less socially familiar. It

appears that if the participants did not want to damage their interlocutor’s positive,

face, by conveying bald on-record strategy followed by positive politeness strategy

through approving and appreciating their interlocutor’s want.

4.2 The Use of Negative Politeness Strategies

This strategy is the second most preferred strategy by the six participants, with

17 out of 75 politeness strategies (22.66%) employed by the participants. The

researcher found that the group participants (high, moderate, and low DA score

students) used this strategy in form of conventionally indirect and nominalise based

on the six situations given to them.

Based on the findings, the researcher lies define that the participants used

negative politeness strategy in form of conventionally indirect and nominalize when

the hearer has equal social power/status than the speaker and when the interlocutor

are less socially familiar. Although they frequently used this strategy on the equal

social power situation, but the social distance between speaker and hearer are not

close. This is related to the Brown and Levinson’s (1987) argue that if the social

distance motivates indirectness, the more distance of one’s relationship, the more

indirect and therefore the polite response would be.

Moreover, some participants of this research also used this strategy where the

speaker has more social power than the hearer situation (1 and situation 2) and the

speaker has less social power than the hearer situation (situation 5 and 6) 5 times. It

seems that if the participants employed bald on-record strategy entirely as their

responses, it might impose to the hearer’s negative face. So that, the participants

employed negative politeness strategy in form of conventionally indirect and

nominalize in order to have the hearer’s negative face free without being imposed.

4.3 The Use of Bald On-record Strategies

This is the third most preferred strategy by the six participants of this research,

with 11 out of 75 politeness strategies (14.66%) found by the researcher in form of

direct refusal only.

Based on the findings, the researcher found that the participants employed bald

on-record strategy when the speaker has higher than the hearer. Whereas, the result

show that the speaker who has less social power most preferred used this strategy to

refuse their interlocutors request, but the social distance between the speaker and

hearer are familiar. It seems that the speaker stated that the hearer will keep on the

track with the speaker’s refusal regardless the gap of their social power.

Samransamruajkit and Getkham (2015) claim that based on the result of their

research between close friend and close co-worker tend to be more direct than

strangers and not close co-worker.

Therefore, the researcher stated that the use of bald on-record strategy by the

six participants is motivated by the influence of social power without any regard

towards the level of imposition.

4.4 The Use of Off-record Strategies

This is the least frequently strategy used by the participants of this research,

with 6 out of 75 politeness strategies (8%) found by the researcher in form of give

hints, be ambiguous or vague and evasion or transfer to another topic.

Regarding to the findings, the researcher found that this strategy preferred

mostly used by the participants when they have more social power than the hearer,

and have socially familiar toward the hearer. Additionally, it explained that high DA

students and low DA score students purpose did not want to damage the hearer’s

negative face and losing their own face although the speaker has higher social

power than their interlocutors. This harmony with Brown and Levinson’s (1987) off

record theory, where the speaker give “hint” to the hearer when the risks of losing

face and hurting the hearer’s face are high and such let the hearer define the

meaning of speaker’s response.

4.5 The Preferred Used Politeness Strategies

The result of this research shows that these six participants preferred using

positive politeness strategies. The reason why the participants mostly preferred

using this strategy is because they wanted to make people to be approved and

appreciated by the participants, through treating them as part of member. Thus, they

can reduce the impact of damaging someone’s face.

Additionally, the result also present that these six participants employed

politeness strategy using negative politeness strategy, bald on-record strategy and

off-record. In this case, the participants not only use one or single politeness

strategy in refusing the six request situations. Almost in every situation, the

participants mix or combine their refusal by giving one strategy then followed by

another strategy. The researcher formulate that the most preferred mixing politeness

strategies used semantic formulas were [conventionally indirect] or [direct refusal],

to start their refusals then followed by [excuses] then [repair or new solution] or

[promise or future acceptance].

Social Distance Politeness Strategy Social Power

Total S<H S=H S>H

+D (Strange)

Positive Politeness strategies 5 6 5 16

Negative Politeness strategies 4 1 4 9

Bald on-record strategies 2 2 1 5

Off record strategies 0 0 1 1

-D (Familiar)

Positive Politeness strategies 4 5 3 12

Negative Politeness strategies 1 5 1 7

Bald on-record strategies 3 1 2 6

Off record strategies 2 0 2 4

Politeness Strategy Used in Social Power and Social Distance

The result of the use of politeness strategy regarding to the Social Power

concern of Social Distance present that positive politeness strategies are the most

frequently politeness strategy used by the participants. Moreover, the result

followed by negative politeness strategies, bald on-record strategies and off record

strategies as the less politeness strategies used.

By looking at the table above, the result showed that these six participants used

positive politeness strategies as the most frequently politeness strategy and negative

politeness strategy as the second frequently politeness strategy used when they have

equal social power to the hearer, the social distance between them are not familiar.

It appeared that the social distance between speaker and hearer made the level of

indirectness motivated, and regardless the gap of social power between them.

The third most frequently politeness strategy used by the student is bald on-

record strategies. This strategy is most frequently used when the speaker has lower

social power than the hearer, and the social distance between them are familiar. It

referred the speaker believed the hearer will go along with the speaker’s refusal

regardless the social power between them.

The least frequently politeness strategy used by the student is off record

strategies. This strategy is most preferred used when the speaker has higher social

power than the hearer, and the social distance between them are familiar. It showed

that the speaker did not want to damage the hearer’s negative face and losing their

own face when this situation has high rank of impositions.

Level of directness Strategies

High DA

Student

Moderate DA

Student

Low DA

Student

Positive Politeness

strategies

Grounded 3

17

0

15

1

9

Repair or new

solution 3 3 2

Excuses 9 9 4

Promise or future

acceptance 2 2 2

Express Sympathy 0 1 0

Negative Politeness strategies

Conventionally indirect 7 7 5 6 3 4

Nominalize 0 1 1

Bald on-record

strategies Direct Refusal 2 2

6 6

3 3

Off record strategies

Give hints 1

3

0

0

2

3 Be ambiguous or vague 1 0 1

Evasion or transfer

to another topic 1 0 0

Total 29 27 19

The Use of Politeness Strategy Based on Group Classification

Moreover, by looking at the six participants based on the group classification

performances, the researcher found out that all group used more than one strategy

almost in every situation. The first group, High DA score student tend to use

politeness strategy in form of conventionally indirect then followed by excuses, to

start their refusal then used grounded or repair or new solution.

Based on the finding of the research, the researcher stated that the use of more

than one strategy or mixing strategy which is used by each group (High, Moderate

and Low DA score student) in expressing their refusal is influenced by dynamics

language as non-single or non-linear system. Language is grown under limited

resources, and it’s because language is a complex, non-linear system that contains

subsystems (Van Geert, 1991, 1994; Larsen-Freeman, 1997 as cited in Tilma,

2014).

5. CONCLUSIONS

Having utilized the findings found in this research, the researcher lies conclude

two major points. Firstly, based on the six Oral Discourse Completion Tests

(ODCTs) situations given the participants, who are students of English Study

Program of Jambi University, they most frequently used positive politeness strategy

in form of excuse, followed by negative politeness strategy, bald on record strategy

and off-record strategy. Furthermore, it appears that the participants tend to use

indirect refusal strategies in form of excuse or explanation. Moreover, the

researcher found out that conventional indirect strategies were the most preferred

politeness strategy in previous research on speech act of refusal (Chen, 1996;

Fukushima, 2003; Abed, 2011; Ibadurrahman, 2015).

Secondly, based on the six situations of Oral Discourse Completion Tests

(ODCTs) given to the participants of this research, the researcher formulate that the

participants employed [conventionally indirect] or [direct refusal], to start their

refusals then followed by [excuses] then [repair or new solution] or [promise or

future acceptance].

REFERENCES

Abed, A. Q. (2011).Pragmatic Transfer in Iraqi EFL Learners' Refusals.

Department of Translation, Faculty of Arts, The University of Al-

Mustansiriyah. Baghdad: Iraq.

Adrefiza. (2011). Responding to Apology: A Study of Australian and Indonesian

Speech Act Behaviors. Doctor of Philosophy’s Thesis. University of

Canberra.

Al–Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural Transfer in L2 Speech Behaviors: Evidence and

motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581–

601.

Al-Kahtani, S. A. L. (2005) Refusals Realizations in Three Different Cultures: A

speech act theoretically-based cross cultural study, Language & Translation

(18): 35-57.

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F.(2003).Face and Politeness: New (insights) for old

(concepts). Journal of Pragmatics 35,1453–1469.

Bowe, H. & Martin, K. (2007).Communication Across Cultures: Mutual

understamding in a global world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. (1976). “Women and Politeness: A New Perspective on Language and

Society”, Reviews in Anthropology 240-49.

Chen, H.J. (1996). Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese

metapragmatics in refusal. Indiana University.(ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 408 860).Huang, Y. (2007).Pragmatics. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tilma, C. (2014). The Dynamics of Foreign Versus Second Language Development

in Finnish Writing. Academic Dissertation. The University of Jyväskylä.

Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2009).How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education (7th edition). Philippines: McGraw-Hill.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics. 14,219-236

Fukushima, S. (2003).Request and Culture: Politeness in British English and

Japanese. Ben: Peter Lang.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Gu,Y, (1990).Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics,

14,237-257.

Hassal, T. (1999). Request Strategies in Indonesia. Pragmatics, 9 (4), 585-606.

Hsieh, S.C. (2009). (Im)politeness in email communication: how English speakers

and Chinese speakers negotiate meanings and develop intercultural

(mis)understandings. Doctor of Philosophy’s Thesis. The University of

Birmingham.

Ibadurrahman. (2005). Request and Refusal Strategies Uttered by The Students of

State Senior High School 2 Muaro Bungo. Master’s Thesis, Jambi

University, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Indonesia.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals

of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3), 223-248.

Ji, S. (2000).‘Face’ and Polite Verbal Behaviors in Chinese Culture. Journal of

Pragmatics 32, 1059-1062.

Lavandera, B. (1988). The social pragmatics of politeness forms. In U. Ammon, N.

Dittmar, & K.J. Martheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international

handbook of the science of language and society (Vol.2, pp.1196-1205).

Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Linde, A. (2009). How polite can you get?: A comparative analysis of interlanguage

pragmatic knowledge in Spanish and Moroccan EFL university students.

Porta Linguarum, 12, 133-147.

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness

phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12,403-426.

Maxwell, J.A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry,

16 (6), 475-482.

Mey, J.L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction, second ed. Blackwell Publishers

[first edition 1993], Malden, MA and Oxford.

Nelson, G., Al Batal, M., & Bakary E. L. (2002). Directness vs. Indirectness:

Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 26, 39–57.

O'Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism.

Journal of Pragmatics 25, 1-32.

Olshtain, E.& Cohen.(1985). Apologies across languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.

House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 155-173).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Putri, L.P.A.A. (2013). Analysis of Politeness Strategies Used in Oprah Winfrey’s

Talk Show with Ricky Martin as the Guest Star. 24 june

2015.<https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/read/2828364/analysis-

ofpoliteness-strategiesused-in-oprah-winfrey-s-talk-show-with-ricky-martin-

asguest-star#page-null>.

Reiter, M. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A constrative study

of request and apologies. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Samransamruajkit, J. and Getkham, K. (2015).Factor Analysis of Polite Refusal

Strategies in Multicultural Corporations. National Institute of Development

Administration. Bangkok: Thailand.

Searle, J. (1977). A classification of illocutionary acts. In A. Rogers, B. Wall, and

J. P. Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performative,

Presupposition, and Implicature.27-45.Wasington DC: Centre of Applied

Linguistic.

Searle, J. and Vandervken, D. (1985).Foundations of Illocutionary Logic.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed) (2008). Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and

Politeness Theory.2nd edition. London: Continuum.

Tannen, D. (1984). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in

Conversational Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Werkhofer, K. (1992). ‘Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and

the power of politeness’, in R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds), Politeness

in language: studies in its history, theory and practice (Berlin: Mouton), pp.

155–199

Wierzbicka, K. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The Hazard as a Default Language.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 89-116

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd edition).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language (4thEdition). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.