i

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN

REGENCY

THESIS

Submitted to

Postgraduate Program of Language Study

of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting

Magister Degree of Language Study of English

Written by:

MAYA HARTUTI NIM. S. 200. 120. 033

POST-GRADUATE PROGRAM of LANGUAGE STUDY MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY of SURAKARTA

2014

i

NOTE OF ADVISOR 1ST

Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum The lecturer of language study of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta - Official Note on This Thesis Student’s Thesis.

Dear,

The Director of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University.

Assalamu’alaikum wr. wb.

Having read, examined, corrected and necessarily revised towards the thesis:

Title : A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN REGENCY

written by

Name : Maya Hartuti

Nim : S200120033

Focus on : Pragmatics

I approve that the thesis is to be examined by board of examiners in the language

study of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta.

Wassalamu’alaikum salam Wr. Wb

Surakarta, … August, 2014

Advisor 1

Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum

ii

NOTE OF ADVISOR 2nd

Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D. The lecturer of language study of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta - Official Note on This Thesis Student’s Thesis.

Dear,

The Director of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University.

Assalamu’alaikum wr. wb.

Having read, examined, corrected and necessarily revised towards the thesis:

Title : A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGY IN REFUSAL USED BY ENGLISH TEACHERS IN MADIUN REGENCY

written by

Name : Maya Hartuti

Nim : S200120033

Focus on : Pragmatics

I approve that the thesis is to be examined by board of examiners in the language

study of Graduate Program of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta.

Wassalamu’alaikum salam Wr. Wb

Surakarta, … August, 2014

Advisor 2

Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D.

iii

iv

MOTTO

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."- Theodore Roosevelt

Follow the three R's: Respect for self, respect for others and responsibility for all your

actions."- Dali Lama

v

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to:

My beloved parents, My beloved husband,

And All my friends, classmates and family

“Thanks for the love, support, and pray”

vi

PRONOUNCEMENT

I hereby certify that this thesis, entitled “A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal

Used by English Teachers in Madiun Regency” has been composed by Maya Hartuti. It is not

a plagiarism or made by others. Anything related to others’ work is written in quotation, the

source of which is listed on the bibliography.

If then this pronouncement proves incorrect, I am ready to accept any academic

punishment, including the withdrawal of my academic degree.

Surakarta, August, 2014

Maya Hartuti

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin, praise to Allah SWT, The Most gracious, and the Most

Merciful. First of all, I would like to praise to Allah for the blessings endowed to me so that I

can accomplish this piece of work entitled “A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal Used

by English Teachers in Madiun Regency” as the requirement for getting master degree of

language study in English at Post-graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah

University of Surakarta. Secondly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my

beloved mother, Gijastuti and father, Hartojo who always support and back me up through

their never ending prayers and also their care. Thank you very much for everything. You are

my strength and this thesis is dedicated to you.

Although there are many difficulties, I realize that those are the ways to get success.

Therefore, I would like to express my special gratitude to:

1. Prof. Dr. Khudzaifah Dimyati, S.H., M.Hum, as a director of post graduate program of

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta for giving me permission to write the thesis.

2. Prof. Dr. Markhamah, M, Hum, the head of post graduate program of Language Study.

3. Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum my thesis supervisor who has patiently given me her

precious help, comments, as well as suggestions for improvement my thesis during the

process of the writing.

4. Agus Wijayanto, M.A, Ph. D as my second thesis supervisor, for his helpful guidance

and corrections during the process of writing this thesis. His insightful comments and

suggestions have shown the way to enhancement of my thesis.

5. All English teachers of junior high school in Madiun regency as research participants, for

their willingness to provide the research data.

viii

6. Last but not least my special appreciation to all of the lecturers of Magister program of

English education for giving me such priceless knowledge and experience.

7. Thanks to beloved my husband, Jaiman for his patient, support, help, and pray. Thanks

also to all of my classmates for togetherness, kindness, the encouragement and

motivation. To all of them I dedicate this piece of work.

I understand well that this thesis is far from being perfect. I accept constructive

comments and suggestions from the readers. Hopefully, this thesis will to useful for everyone

who concerns with action research.

Surakarta, August 2014

Maya Hartuti

ix

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE ……………………………………………………………………………. CONSULTANT NOTE ……………………………………………………….. ACCEPTANCE ………………………………………………………………… MOTTO ………………………………………………………….………………. DEDICATION …..……………………………………………………………….. PRONOUNCEMENT …………………………………………………….……... ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……….…………………………………………….... TABLE OF CONTENTS ……..…...……..…………………..………………….. LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................... LIST OF CHARTS ...……………..………………………………………….…. LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................. …............................................ ABSTRACT........................................................................................................

i ii iii iv v vi vii ix xii xiii xiv xv

xxii CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study ……………………...……………............................. B. Problem Statement …………………………..……………………………........ C. Research Questions …..………………..…………...……………………......… D. Objectives of the Study …………………………………………......…………. E. Benefit of the Study ………………………………………………………... F. Scope of the Study …………………………………………………………. G. Thesis Organization ………………………………………………………...

1 7 7 7 8 9 9

CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Study ……………………………………………………………… B. Underlying Theory …………………………………………………………. 1. Pragmatics ……………………………………………………………... 2. Speech Act…………………………………………………………….... 3. Refusal ……………………………………………………………...….. 4. Politeness ………...……………………………………………………...... a. Grice’s Cooperative Principle……………………………………....... b. Lakoff’s Politeness Rule ………..……………………………............. c. The Principle of Politeness of Leech ……………………….……....... d. Brown and Levinson’s Face-Saving Strategy ……………,……......... e. Watts’ conceptual distinction between Impoliteness and Politeness f. Javanese politeness (Sopan-Santun) ……………………….……........

22 22 23 25 33 34 35 37 40 70 70

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Type of Study………………………………………………………...…....... B. Data and the Source of the Data ……………………………………...…….. C. The Method of Collecting Data …………………………………………….. D. Data Analysis …………………….………………………………………....

73 74 74 77

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDING AND THE DISCUSSION A. DATA ANALISIS ………………………………………………….….....…....

1. Refusal Strategies..................................…………………………….....….... a. Refusal Strategies in Invitations …………………...……….………........

1) Refusal Strategies in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Higher Status..... 2) Refusal Strategies in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Equal Status.......

82 83 84 85 88

x

3) Refusal Strategies in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Lower Status...... b. Refusal Strategies in Offers …………………………………................

1) Refusal Strategies in an Offer to a Collocutor of Higher Status…... 2) Refusal Strategies in an Offer to a Collocutor of Equal Status…… 3) Refusal Strategies in an Offer to a Collocutor of Lower Status…...

c. Refusal Strategies in Suggestions ...…………………………………… 1) Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Higher Status..... 2) Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Equal Status..... 3) Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Lower Status....

2. Politeness Strategies in Refusals ………………………………………....... a. Politeness Strategies to Decline Invitations ….……………………..........

1) Bald-on-Record Strategy Used in Declining Invitations………..... 2) Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations …….. 3) Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations...….. 4). Off Record Strategies Used in Declining Invitations …………….

b. Politeness Strategies to Decline Offers ………………………………. 1) Bald-on-Record Strategy in Declining Offers …………………….. 2). Positive Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers ……………….. 3). Negative Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers …………...…. 4). Off Record Strategies in Declining Offers ………...………….......

c. Politeness Strategies to Decline Suggestions ……………….…........... 1). Bald-On-Record Strategy in Decline Suggestions …………..……. 2). Positive Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions ……….… 3). Negative Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions ……….... 4). Off-Record Strategies in Declining Suggestions …………….........

3. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Status Levels ………………...… a. Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Status Levels......

1). Politeness Strategies in Declining an Invitation to a collocutor of Higher Status……………………………………...……………..... 2).Politeness Strategy in Declining an Invitation a collocutor of Equal Status ……………………………………………………………….. 3). Politeness Strategy in Declining an Invitation to collocutor of Lower Status ………………………………………………………...

b. Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Status Levels ...…..….. 1). Politeness Strategy in Declining an Offer to Collocutor of Higher Status …………………………………………………………….….. 2). Politeness Strategy in Declining an Offer to Collocutor of Equal Status.................................................................................................. 3). Politeness Strategies in Declining an Offer to Collocutor of Lower Status ……………………………………………………..................

c. Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Status Levels....... 1). Politeness Strategies in Declining a Suggestion to Collocutor of Higher Status ………………………………………………….......... 2). Politeness Strategies in Declining a Suggestion to Collocutor of Equal Status ...........………………………………………………..... 3). Politeness Strategies in Declining a Suggestion to Collocutor of Lower Status …………………………………………………….......

4. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Different Genders ……………..... a. Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations conducted by Males and Females …………………………………………………………..............

92 96 96 99 103 107 107 111 115 118 120 121 123 126 128 130 130 132 134 135 136 136 138 141 143 145 145

147

148

149 149

151

152

153 154

155

156

157 158

159

xi

b. Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers conducted by Males and Females..................................................................................................... c. Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions conducted by Males and Females ……………………………………………..........................

5. Findings …………………………………………………………………...... a. Refusal Strategies ……………………………………………………...... b. Politeness Strategies …………………………………………………...... c. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Status Level ……………..…..... d. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Different Genders …………......

B. Discussion of Findings ……………………………………………………….. 1. Refusal Strategies ………………………………………………………….

a. Refusal Strategies to Invitations ………………………………………... b. Refusal Strategies to Offers ………………………………………….…. c. Refusal Strategies to Suggestions ………………………………….…....

2. Politeness Strategies …………………………………………..................... a. Politeness Strategies to Decline Invitations ……………………………... b. Politeness Strategies to Decline Offers ………………………………….. c. Politeness Strategies to Decline Suggestions …………………………….

3. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Status Level ……………………..... a. Politeness Strategies to Decline Invitations across Status Levels ……...... b. Politeness Strategies to Decline Offers across Status Levels …………..... c. Politeness Strategies to Decline Suggestions across Status Levels …..…..

4. Politeness Strategies in Refusals across Different Genders ……………..….. a. Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations conducted by Males and Females ...................................................................................................... b. Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers conducted by Males and Females …................................................................................................ c. Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions conducted by Males and Females ....................................................................................................

161

163 165 165 171 174 178 182 182 184 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 192 194 195 197

197

199

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ………...………………………………………………………...... B. Pedagogical Implication …………………………………………………….... C. Suggestion ……………………………………………………………………..

1. To the Teachers.......................................................................................... 2. To the Students..........................................................................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... APPENDIX............................................................................................................

202 204 205 205 205 207 213

xii

LIST OF TABLE

No Table Name of Table Page

1 1 The use of Refusal Strategy in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Higher Status on DTC 1 88

2 2 The use of Refusal Strategy in an Invitation to a Collocutor of Equal Status on DTC 2 92

3 3 The use of Refusal Strategy in an Invitation to a Collocutor of lower Status on DTC 3 95

4 4 The use of Refusal Strategy in an Offer to a Collocutor of Higher Status on DTC 4 99

5 5 The use of Refusal Strategy in an Offer to a Collocutor of Equal Status on DTC 5 103

6 6 The use of Refusal Strategy in an Offer to a Collocutor of Lower Status on DTC no 6 107

7 7 The use of Refusal Strategy in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Equal Status on DTC 7 111

8 8 The use of Refusal Strategies in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Equal Status on DTC 8 114

9 9 The use of Refusal Strategy in a Suggestion to a Collocutor of Lower Status on DTC 9 112

10 10 Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Status Levels 117

11 11 Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Status Levels 146

12 12 Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Status Levels 150

13 13 Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations Conducted by Males and Females 155

14 14 Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers Conducted by Males and Females 160

15 15 Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions Conducted by Males and Females 162

16 16 The use of Refusal Strategies in Invitations 163 17 17 The use of Refusal Strategies in Offers 166 18 18 The use of Refusal Strategies in Suggestions 167 19 19 The Use of Refusal Strategy across Three Acts of Refusals 170

xiii

LIST OF CHART

NO NO CHART NAME OF CHART PAGE 1 1 Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations 126 2 2 Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Invitations 128 3 3 Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Offers 133 4 4 Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Offers 135 5 5 Positive Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Suggestions 140

6 6 Negative Politeness Strategies Used in Declining Suggestions

143

7 7 Off-Record Strategies Used in Declining Suggestions 145 8 8 Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations 172 9 9 Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers 173 10 10 Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions 173 11 11 The Use of Politeness Strategies in the Acts of Refusal 174

12 12 Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Status Level

175

13 13 Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Status Level 176

14 14 Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Status Level

177

15 15 Politeness Strategies in Refusal across Status Level 178

16 16 Politeness Strategies in Declining Invitations across Different Genders

179

17 17 Politeness Strategies in Declining Offers across Different Genders

180

18 18 Politeness Strategies in Declining Suggestions across Different Genders

180

19 19 Politeness Strategies in Refusals Used by Different Genders 181

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

No NAME OF APPENDICES 1 Appendix 1: DCT items in the questionnaire research 2 Appendix 2: Refusal strategies used by the participants 3 Appendix 3: Politeness Strategies in Refusal used by the participants 4 Appendix 4: The Result of questionnaire research 5 Appendix 4: Attending List 6 Appendix 4: Photo Activities Research of questionnaire

xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Apo apology/regret

Acc acceptance

Ass asking for assurance

Alt statements of alternative

Avo avoidance

Awk expressing awkwardness

BOR Bald on Record

Dis dissuasion

DCT discourse completion task

Exc excuse/explanation

Fil fillers

Fut future acceptance

Gra gratitude

Ina inability

No No directly

NP Negative Politeness

OR Off-Record

Phi statement of philosophy

Prin statement of principle

Pos positive opinion/feeling, and agreement

PP Positive Politeness

Set future acceptance with condition

Wig wishing for good luck

xvi

Wis expressing a wish

xvii

ABSTRACT

MAYA HARTUTI, A Study of Politeness Strategy in Refusal Used by English Teachers in Madiun Regency. Thesis, Surakarta, Post-Graduate Program of Language Study Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, 2014

The study investigated politeness strategy in refusal conducted by the English teachers in Madiun regency relating to different social status levels and gender. The data were elicited, using discourse completion tasks (DCT), from 38 English teachers, 14 male and 24 female who teach in Junior high schools in Madiun regency. The collected data are analyzed by using Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness strategy. The refusal strategies were classified based on modified refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990).

The findings of the research are described in line with the problem statements as follows: first, The English teachers of junior high school in Madiun regency applied two semantic formulae indirect and direct strategies in conjunction to adjunct identified by Beebe et al. (1990) across three refusals acts (invitations, offers and suggestions). The indirect strategy was the prominent refusal strategy especially in declining offers and suggestions where as the direct strategy was the highest strategy used in declining invitations. The second, the English teachers used all four politeness strategies (BOR, positive politeness (PP), NP, and OR) of Brown and Levinson (1987) across three refusals acts in more or less the same frequency, except in declining offers they did not use OR strategy. In declining invitations and suggestions, most of the English teachers applied PP strategy and the dominant type was PP 13 Give reasons. The dominant strategy in declining offers was BOR which most of them expressed gratitude. The third, the influence of social distance on politeness strategy used by the English teachers in declining invitations, offers, and suggestions was not significant. The most prevalent strategy in declining three acts of refusals across status levels was PP strategy. PP strategy mostly dominated the refusals to collocutors of equal and lower status but in refusals to collocutors of higher status, most of English teachers used NP strategy. The last, gender differences virtually has no influence on the choices of politeness strategy in three refusals acts across status levels. Both male and female English teachers conducted the same politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson (1987) in declining invitations, offers, and suggestions in more or less the same frequency. They used PP significantly the highest and OR was the least dominant strategy. Females used PP and NP little bit more often than males but males used BOR and OR little bit more often than females.

Keywords: Politeness Strategy, Refusal Strategy.