Analysis Saying No Act varieties As Refusal Act In Daily Communication

THESIS
Presented as a Partial Requirement for Sarjana Degree In English Language Education Study Program Written by: FRANSISCO NPM. 0721111172

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU 2011

Analysis Saying No Act varieties As Refusal Act In Daily Communication

THESIS
By: Name NPM Study Program Department : Fransisco : 0721111172 : English Language Education : Language and Arts Approved By: Supervisor Co. Supervisor

Drs. Epi Wadison. M.Pd NBK. 131 485 183

Ivan Achmad Nurcholis. M.Pd NBK 084 871 411

Acknowledged by Dean of FKIP Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu

Drs. Mardan Waib. M.Pd NIP. 19560515 198603 1004

Analysis Saying No Act varieties As Refusal Act In Daily Communication By:

Fransisco 072 1111 172 Has been examined by the board of examiners of the English Language Education Study Program of Teacher Training and Education Faculty Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu August, 2011 Examiners Names 1. Sinarman Jaya, M.Pd Examiner I 2. Dra. Dian Susyla, M.Pd Examiner II 3. Drs. Epi Wadison, M.Pd Supervisor 4. Ivan Achmad Nurcholish M.Pd Co-Supervisor Signatures (.......) (...) (...) (...)

Acknowledged By Dekan FKIP Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu Drs. Mardan, M.Pd NIP. 195605151986031004

SURAT PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN SKRIPSI Yang bertanda tangan dibawah ini: Nama NPM Program Studi Jurusan Perguruan Tinggi : FRANSISCO : 0721111172 : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris : Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni FKIP UMB : Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu

Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa skripsi saya yang berjudul:

Analysis Saying No Act varieties As Refusal Act Communication

In Daily

Adalah karya sendiri. Apabila dikemudian hari ternyata karya tulis ini berindikasi sebagai karya plagiat, saya bersedia menerima sanksi yang berlaku di Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Muhammadiyah Bengkulu.

Bengkulu, Juni 2011 Mengetahui, Ketua Program Studi, Yang membuat pernyataan,

Ivan Achmad Nurcholis,M.Pd NBK. 084 871 411

Fransisco NPM. 0721111259

MOTTO AND DEDICATION MOTTO :

All the breaks you need in life wait within your imagination, Imagination is the workshop of your mind, capable of turning mind energy into accomplishment and wealth All successful people men and women are big dreamers. They imagine what their future could be, I deal in every respect, and then they work every day toward their distant vision, that goal or purpose. Dont be afraid to take a big step. You cant cross a chasm in two small jumps. Wise men do not see the results we have got rather than the process of how we get it. Family is a gift that can not be exchanged for anything imaginable in this world.

THIS THESIS IS DEDICATED TO:

My Greatest GOD, Allah SWT; I really say thanks to you because without your blessing Im nothing in this world. My beloved father ( Papa : AJI REMAS, S.Pd) and my beloved mother (Mama: TETY PUSPITA), I always realized that they are everything for me and they made me become an independent woman to solve every problem that comes in my life. Deep of my heart, they are a source of blessing for me to achieve success in the future. Thousand of thanks will never be able to reply to all their kindness. Until the end of my life, I will always love and respect them. Thank you very much for my lovely brother (FADEL CASTRO), my handsome brother (FREDERICK TRI MAS PUTRA) and my cousin (IRZA ANETA). You are always able to make me smile when I feel oppressed problem. Thank you very much for your support, pray and attention. My big family, thanks for your pray. My beloved Brother in Sister In Law (Dank Yusep Edison, S.TP, M.Si , Ayuk dr. Delfa Sagita n Abang dr. Rully Darma). And then My Father and My Mother in Law ( Mr. Firmansyah and Mrs.

Yurdalensa). Many thanks for you are because you always give me spirit when I feel down with my Thesis. I Love You so Much My beloved close friends (Iyank Yundari Agustira, Prince Feri Oktarianto, Uda Herry, Cindtha Ms. Zemy Eryaningsi Sidabutar, S.Pd). Thank you because you have helped me prepare this thesis and always given spirit for me to finiHed my thesis.I love you so much. My Babe Drs. Epi Wadison, M.Pd. Thanks for your help and your advise when I still study in This College. My beloved Classmates in English faculty (Doni, Deddy Kurnia, Eldi , Redi Gokil, Mang Rudi, Een Vivany Yunita, Mbaq Yani, , Laila Singer, Eka Ice, Mbaq Masro Brown, Neng Kiki, Piki, Yuk Septi, Mama Nina Varo, Arleka Pratami, , Adjenk, Sri Wahyuri, Utami, Putri, dedek Tikha,). My Student in SMAN 6 (Achi Akbar, Agung Resera, Yudi Michael, Crist Adit, Novi Pudtria Sari, M.Iqbal Alridho, Guppy, M. Ilham Al-Qodry, Aga Arizen, etc) thank you because you have helped me prepare this thesis and always given spirit fo me to finiHed my thesis.I love you so much.Everything that we have passed will be a wonderful story in later old age. I hope we all can really successfully. I'm very fond of you all. All of My friends that I cant say one by one. My Green Almamater.

CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Fransisco Date of Birth: Mukomuko, 23rd of December 1989 Religion Nationality Address : Islam : Indonesia : Jl. Soekarno Hatta,No.04, Rt.05, Rw.02 Kota Bengkulu 38222

He was born on Mukomuko, 23rd of December 1989. He is the first son of Mr. Aji Remas, S.Pd and Mrs.Tetty Puspita. He graduated from elementary school No. 04 Mukomuko Utara in 2001. Then, He continued his study to Junior High School No. 02 now 03 Mukomuko and graduated in 2004. Later, He graduated from Senior High School No. 1 Mukomuko in 2007. After that, He continued his study in Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu (UMB) and took English Study Program and graduated in 2011.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, the researcher would like to say thanks to Allah SWT who has given the researcher chance, healthy, strength and also knowledge in finiHed this thesis which titled Analysis Saying No Act Varieties As Refusal Act in Daily communication. In writing this thesis, the researcher has been helped by many people. Therefore the researcher would like to say deeply many thanks to: Ivan Achmad Nurcholis, M.Pd., as the head of English Language Education Study Program Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu Drs. Epi Wadison, M.Pd., as the Supervisor Ivan Achmad Nurcholis, M.Pd., as the Co-Supervisor All of the English Lecturers and staff administration of FKIP UMB All of the researchers friends in English Study Program of FKIP UMB Finally, the researcher hopes that this thesis can be useful for the English lecturers especially for the Writing lecturers and the students of English Study Program of Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu. Bengkulu, Juni 2011

FRANSISCO NPM. 0721111172

LIST OF CONTENT
COVER .... ..........................................................................................................i APPROVAL .... ....................................................................................................ii APPROVAL OF EXAMINER ... .............................................................................iii LETTER OF ORIGINAL .... ....................................................................................iv MOTTO AND DEDICATION .... ............................................................................v CURRICULUM VITAE .... ................................................................................... . vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................viii LIST OF CONTENT ..... ...................................................................................... . ix LIST OF TABEL ... .............................................................................................. . x LIST OF APPENDIXES ..... .................................................................................. . xi ABSTRACT ..... ....................................................................................................xii A. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ........................................................................................... 1.2 Research Question .................................................................................. 1.3 Objective of the Research ...................................................................... 1.4 Significance of the Research .................................................................. 1.5 Limitation of the Research ..................................................................... 1.6 Definition of Key Term ..........................................................................

1 3 3 3 4 4

B. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Communication Process ........................................................................ 5 2.2 Speech Act Theory ................................................................................ 6 2.2.1. Austin Theory ..... ......................................................................... 6 2.2.2. Searle Theory ........ ....................................................................... 9 2.3 The Definition Politeness (face) ............... ..............................................12 2.3.1. The Factors of Politeness ............. .................................................13 2.3.2. Politeness Systems ............. ..........................................................13 2.3.3. Face Threatening Acts ............. .....................................................15 a. Negative Face Threatening Acts ...... .........................................15 b. Positive Face Threatening Acts ..... ...........................................17 2.4 Cross-cultural Communication ....... .......................................................19 2.5 Refusal Act Theory .......... ......................................................................22 2.5.1. The Nature of Refusal ..................................................................22 2.5.2. Strategies of Refusal ....................................................................23 2.6 Relevance of Previous Study .............. ....................................................25 C. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ....................................................................................26 3.2 Population and Sample ...........................................................................26 3.2.1 Population ..................................................................................26 3.2.2 Sample ........................................................................................27 9

3.3 Instrument .............................................................................................27 3.4 Data Collection Technique ....................................................................28 3.5 Data Anayzing Technique .....................................................................28 D. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Findings ................................................................................................29 4.1.1. Refusal to his/ her Friends Inviting as Solidarity Politeness ........30 4.1.2. Refusal to his/ her Parents and Lecture Inviting as Hierarchical Politeness System .................................................32 4.1.3. Refusal to his/ her Brother and Sister as Different Politeness System .........................................................................................33 4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................36 E. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Coclusion ..............................................................................................37 5.2 Suggestion .............................................................................................38 REFERENCES APPENDIXES

10

LIST OF TABEL
Tabel 1. Previous Study Tabel 2. The Population of The Research Tabel 3. The Sample of The Research

11

LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix 1. Questionnaire Appendix 2. Surat Izin Penelitian Appendix 3. Surat Izin Selesai Penelitian

12

13

ABSTRACT
Fransisco. 2011. Analysis of Saying No Act Varieties as Refusal Act in Daily Communication. Supervisor : Drs. Epi Wadison, M.Pd Co-Supervisor : Ivan Achmad Nurcholis, M.Pd Key Words: Saying No, Act Varieties, Refusal Act The background of this research based on phenomena found that when we request something by uttering an imperative sentence or invite someone but the answer can be vary. One can be seen the answer from the interlocutor directly say no with polite word and the other indirectly say with some sentences but the meaning is rejection to someone inviting. The main objective in this research was To identify and describe the varieties of saying No as refusal acts in students communication at English Department of UMB. This design in this research was descriptive qualitative method. The sample in this research is randomly selecting 50% for each class, the total sample in this research is 92 students. The instrument in this research was questionnaires form . The data which had collected was analyzed by using Politeness Systems by Scollon (1995). The research found that the there are three politeness system in rejecting someone inviting in communication. First Hierarchical Politeness system where the respondent does not realize his/her rejecting directly because they have a different social position, second Politeness System where the participant is

considered to be equal or near equals but treats each other in a distance, and third Hierarchical Politeness System where in communication, the respondent looked at the social standing or social status and familiarity Mostly rejecting or saying NO communicated by the respondent that is directly saying respondent business without obeying to speaker inviting. The examples of saying no expression are Can you see, Im busy, Such as I am busy, I am sleepy, My friend is here, We are discussing, sister.

14

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
In this chapter will discuss about background, research question, research objective, significant of the research, limitation of the research and the definition of key term. I.1 Background Human, language and communication are three points that have tight relationship each other. 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 do not only transfer information in a technical sense, but we also convey our intentions by performing activities like

15

suggesting, inviting, requesting, refusing, or even prohibiting our co-locators 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 quite directly tied to its accomplishment, as when we request something by uttering an imperative sentence or invite someone but the answer can be vary. One can be seen the answer from the interlocutor directly say no with polite word and the other indirectly say with some sentences but the meaning is rejection to someone inviting. 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 invited Boby to go to hang out with him. But Boby indirectly refuse or reject Alexs invitation without answering No directly. Bob gave statement that he should do many task. However the sentence is statement, it is clear that the meaning of Boby statement refusing of Alexs inviting to go. So, this communication often happen in our daily communication to the people around us as one of acts in saying no. Of course the example above is not one kind of communication but there are many in doing interaction.

16

Based on the problem above, it interesting to investigate the act of saying No as refusal act in communication of fourth Semester Students at English Department of Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu.

1.2 Research Question Based on the background above, the researcher formulated the problem of the research as follows: What are the varieties of saying No as refusal act in students communication at English Department of UMB.

1.3 Research Objective To identify and describe the varieties of saying No as refusal acts in students communication at English Department of UMB.

1.4 Significant of the Research For The Students: 1. They can add their knowledge about in the speech acts particularly the varieties of saying No as refusal acts in communication 2. They can know the varieties of saying No as refusal acts in communication.

17

For the Lecturer The lectures can use the result of this research in teaching Discourse Analysis

1.5 Limitation of the Research This research is limited to investigate the refusal acts in students communication at English Department of UMB at fourth semester.

1.6 The Key Term of Definitions The Keys Term of Definitions in this research as follows: 1. Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. 2. Refusal act is the act of refusing; denial of anything demanded, solicited, of offered for acceptance. 3. The daily communication definition is the process of transferring information between a sender and a receiver through various methods in Daily activity.

18

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter will discuss about communication processes, speech act theory, the definition of politeness, cross cultural communication, refusal act theory, relevance of previous study.

2.1 Communication Processes Communication 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.

19

The relevance of the sociological background to the pragmaticist is the methodological preferences that drive from it. Out of this background 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 Theory 2.2.1. 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 actual utterance its ostensible meaning. In Performing a locutionary act we shall also be performing such as: Asking or answering a question; Giving some infromation 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 the utterance, thus is its real, intended meaning. The concept of an illocutionary act 20

is central to the concept of a speech act. Although there are numerous opinions as to what illucotionary acts actually 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 describe (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 snownig), asking a question (Is it Snowing?), making a request and giving an order (could you pass the salt? and drop your weapon or Ill shoot you!), or making a promise (I promise Ill 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.

21

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.

In saying, Ladies and Gentlemen, please give me your attention, Mary request the audience to be quiet.

In saying, Race with me to that building over there!, Peter challenge Mary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act#Illocutionary_acts

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 performed by saying something. For example, if someone ahouts fire and by the 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 other example, if a jury foreperson declares guilty in a courtroom in which an accused person sits, the illucotionary 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

22

related the illocutionary act which proceedes them, but discrete and able to be differentiated from the illocutionary act. http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/perlocuionary.htm 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. 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, conjecturing,

23

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! 1. Representative Here 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 flat b. It is a warm sunny day 2. Directives Here 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 alone or

24

by the speaker as a member of a group. They are guarantee, pledge, refusal, threat, and promise, swear, vow, undertake and warrant. a. I will be back b. I am going to get it right next time. 4. Expressives The 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. Declaration The 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.

25

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 known as speech act. Yule (1996:47) states: actions perform via utterance are generally called speech act.

2.3 The Definition Politeness (Face) Grundy (2000: 145) states that politeness principle has been considered to have wide descriptive power of language (Lakoff), to be major determinants of linguistics behaviour (Leech) and to have universal status (Brown and Lavinson). In addition, Yule (1996) says that politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness. Brown and Lavinson (www.logos.com) argue that politeness strategies are developed in order to safe the hearers face Face refers to the public self-image of a person. According to Yule (1996), it refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. Politeness can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person face. In short, politeness and face have a tight relationship. Politeness as the concept of polite social behaviour within a culture. In the other hand, face as what the person wants to be recognized, treated and awarded.

2.3.1 The Factors of Politeness

26

The face relationship between and or among the participants consist of two elements: an unmarked set of initial assumptions and a series of negotiation in which those unmarked assumption are either ratified or altered in some way. According to Scollon, Ron and Suzanne W Scollon (1995:27) there are two aspects of participants need to be taken into consideration: who they are and what roles they are taking. Scollon, Ron and Suzanne W Scollon also propose two main factors involved in the politeness or face system, as follows 1. Power (+P, P) +P (plus power) : indicates that there is a vertical disparity (different power/role) between the participants. P (minus power) : indicates that there is a little or no hierarchical different (have equality) between the participants. 2. Distance (+D, D) +D D : refers to the distance of the participants relationship. : refers to the closeness of the participants relationship.

2.3.2 Politeness Systems Scollon, Ron and Suzanne W Scollon (1995) offer three main types of politeness systems that can be observed in many different contexts. These are based

27

on the main factors in the politeness or face system, power difference (+P, P) and the distance between the participants (+D, D). They are: 1. Different politeness system (P, +D) In this system the participants are considered to be equals or near equals but treat each other in a distance. The characteristics of this system are: a. Symmetrical (P), the participants see themselves as being at the same social level. b. Distance (+D), each uses independent strategies speaking to the other. Speaker 1 < = = = = = = = = = = Independence = = = = = = = = = = > Speaker 2 [+D = distance between the speakers] 2. Solidarity politeness system (P, D) There are no feeling of either a power difference (P) or distance (D) between the participants. The characteristics of this system are: a. Symmetrical (P), the participants see themselves a being in equal social position. b. Close (D), both of the participants use politeness strategies of involvement. Speaker 1 < = Involvement = >Speaker 2 [D = minimal distance between the speakers] 3. Hierarchical politeness system (+P, +/ D)

28

The participants recognize and respect the social differences that place one in super ordinate position and the other in a subordinate position. The characteristics of this system are: a. Asymmetrical (+P), the participants see themselves as being in unequal social position. b. Asymmetrical in face strategies, the higher uses involvement face strategies and the lower uses independence face strategies. Speaker 1 (Involvement strategies)

Speaker 2 (Independence strategies)

2.3.3 Face-Threatening Acts According to Brown and Levinson (Richards J Watts: 89), positive and negative face exist universally in human culture. In social interactions, facethreatening 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

29

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 submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when negative face is threatened.

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, remindings, 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).

30

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 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 Acts Positive 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.

31

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. 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.

32

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 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 ones physical self 33

 Inability to control ones emotional self Self-humiliation Confessions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory

2.4 Cross Cultural Communication Scollon, 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. Socialization a. 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.

34

b. Primary and secondary socialization Primary 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 processes of socialization which take place when the child begins to move outside of the family. c. Theories of the person and of learning 3. Forms of discourse a. Functions of language Information and relationship Negotiation and ratification Group harmony and individual welfare

b. Non verbal communication Kinesics: the movement of our body Proxemics: the use of space Concept of time

4. Face systems 2. 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.

35

The concept of the self Asians 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. 3. Ingroup outgroup relationship Many 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.

4. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Gemeinschaft 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.

2.5

Refusal Act Theory Refusal, as all the other speech acts, occur in all language. However, not all

languages / cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable refusing 36

the same invitation or suggestion. Acoording to Al-Eryani (2007), the speech act or 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 throught indirect strategies. Thus, it requires a high level of pragmatic competence. Chen (1996) (in Al-Eryani: 2007) used strategies to analyze speech act sets of refusal (refusing request, invitations, offers and suggestions), and concluded that direct refusal as No was not a common strategy for any the subjects, regardless of their language background. For example, an expression of regret, common in Americans refusal, was generally produced by the Chinese speakers, wich might lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an American context.

2.5.1 The Nature of Refussal Refusal can mean the disapproval or rejection of the interlocutors idea (in which in the present research, it is focused on those of request), and therefore a threat to the interlocutors face. Essentially, it means saying : No, I will not do it, in respons to someone elsee 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.

37

Refusals are also of interest due to theit 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 has a certain reason for refusing the request and may imply thet she would 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 cab be a tricky speech act to perform linguistically and psychologically since the possibility of offending the interlocutoe is inherent in the act itself. As failure to refuse appropriately can risk the interpersonal of the speakers, refusals usually include various strategies to avoid offending ones interlocutors. However, the choice of the strategies wich 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 request, they express positive opinion (e.g., I would like to...) much less frequently than American

38

English speakers. Mandarin Chinese informants concerned that if they ever expressed positive opinions, then they would be forced to comply. Softeners (e.g., Im affraid I cant I really dont know), that are most commontly used by English speakers to mitigate refusals to request, offers, and invitations, were used much less frequently by Egyptian Arabic speakers. Gratitude was regularly expressed by American Englis speakers in refusing invitations, offers and suggestions, but rarely by Egyptian Arabic speakers. American English speakers favored more specific as to place, time, or parties. Further, the selection of the startegies of refusal according to the status of interlocutor has been reported to show cross-cultural variations. 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.

http://universal-79.blogspot.com/2008/09/speech-act-of-refusal.html

2.6

Relevance of Previous Study

Table 1. Previous Study No 1 Name Murti, E. 2007 Tittle Abstract

Realization of Speech Act She concludes two situations, 1. of Requesting, Refusing, Formal situation. The form Apologizing, and silahkan duduk pak (would you

39

Thanking Used by The Students of English Department of UMB (A study in Bengkulu Language)

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. Informal situation. The form tunggu sebentar yo (wait for me). The speaker utterance like this because from this social context, they have symmentrical social relationship or between the addresser and addressees have the same small different age.

Based on that previous studies, entitled Realization of Speech Act of Requesting, Refusing, Apologizing, and Thanking Used by The Students of English Department of UMB (A study in Bengkulu Language) the researcher to get some idea and some input on what will be examined by the researcher.

40

41

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

In this chapter will discuss about research design, population and sample, instrument, data collection technique, and data analyzing technique. 3.1 Research Design This research was conducted by using descriptive qualitative method, which tried to describe the varieties of saying No as refusal acts in students communication at fourth semester of English Department of UMB. Fraenkel and Wallen (1993) argued that in the qualitative research, researchers went directly to the particular setting or natural setting in which they were interested to observe and collect their data in form of words of pictures than numbers. Therefore, the researcher used the qualitative method because the researcher analyzed the data got from the students communication, describe and interpret the result of it.

3.2 Population and Sample 3.2.1. Population

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993:87) population was all members of any well-defined class of people, event, or objects. The population in this research is the fourth semester students of the English Department of UMB. They were 184 students. Which is divided into 5 classes they are IV A, IV B, IV C, IV D, and IV E as could be seen in this table bellow : 42

Table 2. The Population of The Research Classes Number IV A 38 IV B 41 IV C 36 IV D 46 IV E 33 Total 184 Source (English department ) 3.2.2. Sample The sample in this research is randomly selecting 50% for each class, the total sample in this research is 92 students. Table 3. the sample of the Research Classes IVA IV B IV C IV D IV E Total Number 19 20 18 18 17 92

3.3 Instrument

In getting the data, this research used the instrument. The instrument of this research was questionnaires form. The kind of questionnaire used Discourse Completion Test and it consists of 20 questions related to Refusal acts in students communication.

43

3.4 Data Collection Technique The data of this research would be taken through coming to the classroom and got the respondents in each class, The questionnaire was given to the students and they should answer the entire questionnaire.

3.5 Data Analyzing Technique The data which had collected was analyzed by using Politeness Strategies by Scollon (1995). The steps as follows: 1. 2. The data in each class was classified and grouped All of the data was analyzed and interpreted.

44

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the researcher explains the findings about the varieties of saying No as refusal acts in students communication. The researcher had collected the data from the questionnaire were answered by fourth semester of English Department Students. The result of the data was described as follows:

4.1 Findings In communication, people use different language or choice of words in different context. It happened because sometimes in different social situation, people are obligated adjust the choice of words to fit the occasion. Politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers face. It means that face refers to the respect that in individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that selfesteem in public or in private situation (Wang, 2006:1) In one communication the acts of refusal is related by cultural issues. One of cultural issues is politeness. Politeness is shown by direct and direct answer in communicating with another person. In this research, the difference of style is very clear in communication, the rejecting of someone inviting in certain situation have to be considered by the language users, as politeness is an important principle in language use (Wardaugh, 1998 in Sukarni, 2001:2). The result of the questionnaire was described as follows:

45

4.1.1. Refusal to his/her friends inviting as Solidarity Politeness There are many varieties that the English students answered the questionnaire to refuse someones inviting. It is related to the participant see themselves a being in equal social position that is their friends. There are 5 questions given in different situation such as inviting to go Holiday, to go to canteen, to help a assignment, to go to Prodi and to go to library. The data found that most of the respondents answer directly Im sorry, I can not. In this case, the respondents without having solidarity to his/her friend rejecting his/her friends inviting. This communication often happen in their daily communication because they think that they are the same level and it is not important to play with his/her language. Playing with a language also found from students answer in rejecting his/her friend inviting and it is interesting to show as finding in this research. Situation 1. (Rejecting to friends) Your friends invite you go to canteen after getting examination but you are not hungry. What would you like to say?

Respondents answer: Id love it but I have already breakfast this morning Thank you These answer statements are not rejecting because the respondents answered with the positive statements but it is clear that the respondents rejecting his/her

46

friends inviting. On the other hand, the respondents seemed to be doubt whether being said NO in the real meaning. According to Scollon (1995), these statements are included in Solidarity Politeness System where in this situation the participants are no feeling of either a power difference between the participants. And , the second data said that, Situation 2. (Rejecting to friends) Your friend invite you to accompany him/hers to Prodi but you are very hungry. What would you like to say

Respondents answer: Wait a minute, Im very tired I must go to canteen These answer statements are the same to the explanation above. The respondents are not directly answer NO but they answered with the positive statements. The positive statements mean reject to his/her friend inviting. On the other hand, this situation is similar where the respondents seemed to be doubt whether being said NO in the real meaning. Referring to this situation, Scollon (1995) said that, these statements are included in Solidarity Politeness System where in this situation the participants are no feeling of either a power difference between the participants. And , the second data said that, 4.1.2. Refusal to his/her parents and lecturer inviting as Hierarchical Politeness System

47

In language community there are some ways that is used to answer someone inviting. Sometime in rejecting people, the people look at the social standing or social status and familiarity. So the data got the differences in rejecting someone inviting because of the difference power. Situation 1. (Rejecting to Parents) Your mother commands you to sweep the house but you should do your homework. What would you like to say? Respondents answer: Wait a minute Wait a moment I should finish my homework Ill do later I have homework Ask someone From the answers above, it can be seen out that the respondent does not realize his/her rejecting directly because they have a different social position; the respondent has lower social status than the parents. However, the statements did not realize that the respondent reject directly but the meaning is clear to say NO because of the respondents was doing homework. And the respondent felt that it would spend long time to sweep the floor and in the same time the respondent should do his/her assignment because of time. Situation 2. (Rejecting to lecturer) 48

Your lecturer command you to copy the paper but you come late at another class, What would you like to say? Respondents answer: I have a class, sir I am late to class, sir From the second situation between respondent and lecturer, the answer can be seen that the respondent does not realize his/her rejecting directly because they know, they have a different social status; in this case, the respondent has lower social status than the lecturer. It is true that the students did not realize his/her rejecting but the meaning is clear that is to say NO because of some reasons above. And the respondent felt that they would not have a time because they should enter the class or they are late to his/her class.

4.1.3. Refusal to his/her brother and sister as Different Politeness System

Because of there is dimension with solidarity in one communication. The social change shows instability of rejecting. In the third politeness can be seen from the different Politeness System in which the participants are considered to be equal or near equals but treat each other in a distance. For instance, the communication to brother and sister show deference. Situation 1. (Rejecting to brother)

49

Your brother commands you to switch on the television but you study hard What would you like to say? Respondents answer: I am busy Can you see, Im busy I am tired I am sleepy The data showed that refusal or rejecting can be varying because of social status in our community. Sometimes in communication indirectly answer can be understood as daily communication but when we try to understand the statement, we found often in one communication the language user do not use adjency pair. One interaction can run smoothly because of the daily habit. The hearer often doesnt care to the meaning but it is enough to understand in thinking because the other people did it. Communication between sister and sister or brother and brother has many varieties because they do not think to the politeness and they can use independent strategies speaking to other. Situation 2. (Rejecting to sister) Your sister invite you to go to cinema together but still have a friend in your room, What would you like to say? Respondents answer: My friend is here We are discussing , sister

50

From the respondent answer, it can seen that the respondent gave a reason to sister by saying my friend is here and we are discussing. It can happen in one communication to say NO, the respondent can say the different answer and sometime the answer is not relevance to the question. And in this communication, the respondent felt that they do not have responsibility to follow one inviting.

4.2 Discussions Based on the result of the data above, refusal or rejecting in one communication such as someone inviting and someone command occur in all language. One can be noted that the people say NO as refusal or rejecting in normal communication but factually there are many varieties can be found in saying No. The varieties show that in rejecting someone can respond without caring to the inviting and sometimes respondents ask again to the inviting. Acoording to Scollon (1995), the speech act or 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 throught indirect strategies. This explanation can be concluded that direct refusal as No was a common strategy for many subjects. One can be discussed in this finding that refusal can mean the disapproval or rejection of the interlocutors idea, and therefore a threat to the interlocutors face. Essentially, it means saying : No, I will not do it, in respons to someone elsee

51

utterance, in which he has conveyed to us that he wants us to do something and that he expects us to do it. 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 inviting or commanding that elicits them (request, offer, etc). Refusal is usually varied in degree of directness depending on the status of the participants. In my research finding, the data showed that refusal tend to be indirect,. The data shows that the addressor or refuser has a certain reason for refusing an inviting and a commanding in practical. The data showed that there three main types of politeness systems that can be found in many different situation. They are Different Politeness System, Solidarity Politeness System and Hierarchical Politeness System referring to the Scolon (1995) the choice of sentence without saying NO but the meaning is NO wich are employed by the respondents in having communication may vary across languages.

52

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In this chapter will discuss about conclusions and suggestions. 5.1 Conclusions After investigating the research about the varieties of saying No as refusal act in students communication at English Department of UMB, the researcher can conclude that there are three politeness system in rejecting someone inviting in communication. First Hierarchical Politeness system where the respondent does not realize his/her rejecting directly because they have a different social position, second Politeness System where the participant is considered to be equal or near equals but treats each other in a distance, and third Hierarchical Politeness System where in communication, the respondent looked at the social standing or social status and familiarity Mostly rejecting or saying NO communicated by the respondent that is directly saying respondent business without obeying to speaker inviting. 5.2 Suggestions At the end of this research, the researcher would like to give some suggestions for: 1. For the students It is suggested that the students should care to their communication and understand the meaning of their communication.

53

It is suggested that the result of this research can be used as guiding to know the varieties of saying no as refusal act in people communication

2. For the next researcher It is suggested for the next researcher to continue doing this research in Discourse Analysis particularly to understand Speech Acts in

communication. Such as: the differences between male and female in saying no as refusal act in daily live. Finally, this research is not perfect yet so commenting and suggesting are hoped to make this research better than now.

54

References

Brown and Levinson. 2006. Politeness. http://www.yahoo.com Brown, G and Yule, G. 1998. Discourse Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press. Cipollone, Steven, and Sharavan. 1998. Language Files. Ohio State University Press Columbus Effendi, O.U. 2006. Ilmu Komunikasi dan Praktek. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Fraenkle, J.R. Wallen. N.E.1993. How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Singapore. Mc. Braw-Hill.Book Finegan, Besnier, Blair and Collins. 1992. Language (Its Structure and Use). Australia. Harcout Brace Jovanovich Group (Australia) Pty.Ltd http://universal-79.blogspot.com/2008/09/speech-act-of-refusal.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act#Illocutionary_acts http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/perlucotionary.htm Hudson. 1980. Sociolinguistics. London: cambridge University Press.

Hirnby, A S. 1989. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. Oxford University Press Kess, Joseph. F. 1993. Phsycolinguistics (Phsycology, Linguistics and the Study of Natural Language). Amsterdam/ Philadelpia. John Benjamin Company. Lyons, J. 1997. Language and Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press. Mill, Sarah. 2003. Gender and Politeness (Studies In Interactional Sociolinguistics 17). United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. 55

Mulyana, D. 2007. Ilmu Komunikasi. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Murti, Entri. 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).Bengkulu: Unpublished Thesis of UMB. Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1995. Intecultural Communication (A Discourse Approach). USA: Basil Blackwell Inc. Wardaugh, R. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford Blackwell. Second Edition. Watt, J. Richards. 2003. Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. UK: Cambridge University Press. Yule, George. 1995. Pragmatics. Hawaii: Oxford University Press.

56