1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

I.1 Background

Human, language and communication are three points that have tight

relationship. Human has social characteristics, where they cannot live alone and

need others to complete their life. In the other word, to support and get a good life

they have to create a good communication among them. Reaching this is not so

easy, because they will face different people with different character and problem

in the different situation as well. People use language to ask questions, requests,

command, refusal, greet, giving direction and perform hundreds of other ordinary

action in daily life. In short, language serves a great social function and its power

can change the world.

Initially, the process of communication is mediated by language.

Language is used just as much to perform function as it is to carry meaning.

Kasher (1985) has called these communications and action, Steinberg (1982) has

termed proposition and purpose, but we may employ the more transparent labels

of information and intention for discussion here. When we speak, we not only

transfer information in a technical sense, but we also convey our intentions by

performing activities like suggesting, inviting, requesting, refusing, or even

prohibiting our co-locutors from doing something.

Even in cases in which a particular speech act is not completely described

in grammar, formal features of the utterance used in carrying out the act might be
 2

quite directly tied to its accomplishment, as when we request something by

uttering an imperative sentence or invite someone but the other want to say “no”

with polite word in order to we will not feel offended with their rejecting or

refusing.

In example:

Alex : hi bob, you want to go to hang out with me in this afternoon?

Boby : I have many task and which one of that must be collect tomorrow

morning.

From the conversation above Alex try to invite boby to go to hang out with

him. But Boby refuse Alex‟s invitation with he can‟t go because he have many

task. So that the reason that he can‟t go with Alex. So, that is one of the way to

saying “no” in communication between Alex and Boby.

Based on the problem above the researcher want to investigate the act of

saying no in communication in daily communication on University Of

Muhammadiyah Bengkulu.

1.2 Research Question

Based on the background above, the researcher formulated the problem of

the research as follows:

1. What are the varieties of saying “no” as refusal act in the student

communication at English Department of UMB.

 3

1.3 Research Objective

1. To identify the varieties of saying “No” in their communication.

1.4 Significant of the Research

This research is expect to add insight to the perspective in studyding

pragmatics especially in saying “no” as refusal act in communication.

1.5 Limitation of the Research

This study is limited to the communication happen in English students of

UMB at fourth semester.

1.6 Definitions of Key Terms

The Definitions of Key Terms in this research are as follow:

1. Communication is a process in conveying or sending a message from the

communicator to the communicant by using a media and brings some

effects.

2. Refusal is the act of refusing to accept something that someone offers you.

3. Action-language involves a strategy (favoring the use of action verbs and

adverbs over nouns, adjectives, and the verbs have and be) for listening to,

acknowledging, translating, retranslating, interpreting, and organizing the

data or the modalities of action of the agent or his or her person, that is, the

analyzed, within the context of the transference and resistance.

 4

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

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. The relevance of the sociological background to the pragmaticist

is the methodological preferences that drive from it. Out of this background
 5

comes a healthy suspicion of premature theorizing and ad hoc analytical

categories; as far as possible the categories of analysis should be those that

participants themselves can be shown to utilize in making sense of interaction;

unmotivated theorical construct and unsubstantiated intuition are all to be avoid.

2.2 Speech Act 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

an act as:

asking or answering a question;

giving some information or an assurance or a warning;

announcing a verdict or an intention;

pronouncing sentence;

making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism;

making an identification or giving a description;

2. Illocutionary Act, the semantic “Illocutionary Force” of the

utterance, thus is its real, intended meaning. The concept of an

illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Although

there are numerous opinions as to what 'illocutionary acts' actually

 6

are, there are some kinds of acts which are widely accepted as

illocutionary, as for example promising, ordering someone, and

bequeathing. An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that

performed in the utterance of what Austin calls performatives,

typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I

sentence you to ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you

back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative

sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating,

sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the

sentence itself.

Examples :

Greeting (in saying, "Hi John!", for instance), apologizing

("Sorry for that!"), describing something ("It is snowing"),

asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request and

giving an order ("Could you pass the salt?" and "Drop your

weapon or I'll shoot you!"), or making a promise ("I

promise I'll give it back") are typical examples of "speech

acts" or "illocutionary acts".

In saying, "Watch out, the ground is slippery", Mary

performs the speech act of warning Peter to be careful.

In saying, "I will try my best to be at home for dinner",

Peter performs the speech act of promising to be at home in

time.
 7

In saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, please give me your

attention", Mary requests the audience to be quiet.

In saying, "Race with me to that building over there!", Peter

challenges Mary.

3. Perlocutionary, its actual effect, such as persuading, convincing,

scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do

or realize something, wheter intended or not. "In the perlocutionary

instance, an act is perfomed by saying something. For example, if

someone shouts 'fire' and by that act causes people to exit a

building which they believe to be on fire, they have performed the

perlocutionary act of convincing other people to exit the building. .

. . In another example, if a jury foreperson declares 'guilty' in a

courtroom in which an accused person sits, the illocutionary act of

declaring a person guilty of a crime has been undertaken. The

perlocutionary act related to that illocution is that, in reasonable

circumstances, the accused person would be convinced that they

were to be led from the courtroom into a jail cell. Perlocutionary

acts are acts intrinsically related to the illocutionary act which

precedes them, but discrete and able to be differentiated from the

illocutionary act."

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/perlocutionary.htm
 8

2.2.2. Searle Theory

Searle in Leech (1993) has set up of the following classification of

speech acts :

Assertive : Speech act that commit a speaker to the truth of

the expressed proposition, e.g. reciting a creed, statement, report,

opinion ergument.

Example :

 "Thanks for your suggestion. I'll take that into consideration"

 "No, I am not busy on Tuesday, but I want to keep it that way."

Directive : speech act that are to cause the hearer to take the

partucular effect of action, e.g. command, advising, admonishing,

asking, begging, dismissing, excusing, forbidding, instructing,

ordering, permitting, requesting, requiring, suggesting, urging and

warning.

Commissive : speech act that commit a speaker to some future

action, e.g. promising, offering, agreeing, guaranteing, inviting,

swearing, volunteering. Example : I will be at home tonight.

Expressives : speech act that express the psychology speaker‟s

attitude and emotions toward the proposition, e.g. thank,

congratulation, apology, and sympathy.

Constatives : affirming, alleging, announcing, answering,

attributing, claiming, classifying, concurring, confirming,

 9

conjecturing, denying, disagreeing, disclosing, disputing, identifying,

insisting, predicting, ranking, reporting, stating, stipulating.

Declarative : speech act that change the reality in accord with

the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptism, pronouncing some

guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife.

Example : Employer : you are fire!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act#Illocutionary_acts

1. 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
 10

alone or by the speaker as a member of a group. They are guarantee, pledge,

refusal, threat, promise, swear, vow, undertake and warrant.

a. I will be 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.

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
 11

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

generally called speech act”.

2.3 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.

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

 12

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

a. Kinships

In Asia, traditional kinship relationship is emphasized, any individual is

acutely aware of his or her obligations and responsibilities to those who

have come before as well as who came after. In the other hand, western

emphasize on individualism and egalitarianism.

b. The concept of the 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.

 13

c. 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.

d. 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.

2.4. Politeness Theory

Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the

affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees. First formulated in

1978 by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, politeness theory has since

expanded academia‟s perception of politeness. Politeness is the expression of the

speakers‟ intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts

toward another (Mills, 2003, p. 6). Another definition is "a battery of social skills

whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction". Being

polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for another.

Scollon, Ron and Suzanne W Scollon (1995) argue, in speaking to these

two men the vendor of copy Rolexes made a shift in register or communicative
 14

style. When he spoke to the first man (who was quite a bit younger than the

vendor) he use a very informal or familiar style. In this case the vendor used

somewhat limited linguistic resources to signal that he had perceive a social

difference between these two potential customers.

“Communicative style” is the term we prefer for this chapter on

interpersonal politeness and power because it is a more general term than

“register” used by most sociolinguistics to refer to either personal identities or

interpersonal relationships among participants.

2.4.1. Face-Threatening Acts

According to Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face exist

universally in human culture. In social interactions, face-threatening acts (FTAs)

are at times inevitable based on the terms of the conversation. A face threatening

act is an act that inherently damages the face of the addressee or the speaker by

acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Most of these acts are

verbal, however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such

as tone, inflection, etc) or in non-verbal forms of communication. At minimum,

there must be at least one of the face threatening acts associated with an utterance.

It is also possible to have multiple acts working within a single utterance.

a. Negative Face Threatening Acts

Negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intend

to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutor's freedom of action. It can cause

damage to either the speaker or the hearer, and makes the one of the interlocutors
 15

submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when

negative face is threatened. According to Yule, A person‟s negative face is the

need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by

others. The word „negative‟ have doesn‟t bad, it‟s just the opposite pole from the

„positive‟.

Damage to the Hearer

An act that affirms or denies a future act of the hearer creates

pressure on the hearer to either perform or not perform the act.

Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminding, threats, or

warnings.

An act that expresses the speaker‟s sentiments of the hearer or the

hearer‟s belongings.

Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions

of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e.g. hatred, anger, lust).

An act that expresses some positive future act of the speaker

toward the hearer. In doing so, pressure has been put on the hearer

to accept or reject the act and possibly incur a debt.

Examples: offers, and promises.

Damage to the Speaker

An act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of

the hearer.

Expressing thanks

Accepting a thank you or apology

 16

Excuses

Acceptance of offers

A response to the hearer‟s 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 interactor‟s feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants. Positive

face threatening acts can also cause damage to the speaker or the hearer. When an

individual is forced to be separated from others so that their well being is treated

less importantly, positive face is threatened. According to Yule, a person‟s

positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a

member of some group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by other.

Damage to the Hearer

An act that expresses the speaker‟s negative assessment of the

hearer‟s 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 hearer‟s 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.
 17

Examples: expressions of disapproval (e.g. insults, accusations,

complaints), contradictions, disagreements, or challenges.

An act that expresses the speaker‟s indifference toward the

addressee‟s positive face.

The addressee might be embarrassed for or fear the speaker.

Examples: excessively emotional expressions.

The speaker indicates that he doesn‟t have the same values or fears

as the hearer

Examples: disrespect, mention of topics which are inappropriate in

general or in the context.

The speaker indicates that he is willing to disregard the emotional

well being of the hearer.

Examples: belittling or boasting.

The speaker increases the possibility that a face-threatening act

will occur. This situation is created when a topic is brought up by

the speaker that is a sensitive societal subject.

Examples: topics that relate to politics, race, religion.

The speaker indicates that he is indifferent to the positive face

wants of the hearer. This is most often expressed in obvious non-

cooperative behavior.

Examples: interrupting, non-sequiturs.

The speaker misidentifies the hearer in an offensive or

embarrassing way. This may occur either accidentally or

 18

intentionally. Generally, this refers to the misuse of address terms

in relation to status, gender, or age.

Example: Addressing a young woman as "ma’am" 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 one‟s physical self

Inability to control one‟s emotional self

Self-humiliation

Confessions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory

2.5. Refusal Act Theory

Refusals, as all the other speech acts, occur in all languages. However,

not all languages/ cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable

refusing the same invitation or suggestion. According to Al-Eryani (2007), the

speech act of refusal occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says „no‟ to

request or invitation. He states that refusal is a face-threatening act to the listener/

requester/ inviter, because it contradicts his or her expectations, and is often

realized through indirect strategies. Thus, it requires a high level of pragmatic

competence. . Chen (1996) (in Al-Eryani: 2007) used strategies to analyze speech
 19

act sets of refusal (refusing requests, invitations, offers and suggestions), and

concluded that direct refusal as “NO” was not a common strategy for any of the

subjects, regardless of their language background. For example, an expression of

regret, common in Americans‟ refusals, was generally produced by the Chinese

speakers, which might lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an

American context.

2.5.1. The Nature of Refusal

Refusal can mean the disapproval or rejection of the interlocutor‟s idea

(in which in the present research, it is focused on those of requests), and therefore

a threat to the interlocutors‟ face. Essentially, it means “saying: No, I will not do

it” in response to someone else‟s utterance, in which he has conveyed to us that he

wants us to do something and that he expects us to do it (Thi Minh P.: 2006). Due

to their inherently face threatening nature, refusals are of an especially sensitive

nature, and a pragmatic breakdown in this act may easily lead to un-intended

offense and/or breakdowns in communication.

Refusals are also of interest due to their typically complex constructions.

They are often negotiated over several turns and involve some degree of

indirectness. In addition to this, their form and content tends to vary depending on

the type of speech act that elicits them (request, offer, etc.), and they usually vary

in degree of directness depending on the status of the participants. In most culture,

it tends to be indirect, include mitigation, and/or delay with the turn or across

turns (Beebe et. al.: 1990). The delay shows that the addressor or “refuser” has a
 20

certain reason for refusing the request and may imply that s/he would accept or

agree instead if it is possible of practical.

2.5.2. Strategies of Refusal

Refusals are known as a “sticking point” in cross-cultural

communication (Kwon: 2004). Refusals can be a tricky speech act to perform

linguistically and psychologically since the possibility of offending the

interlocutor is inherent in the act itself. As failure to refuse appropriately can risk

the interpersonal relations of the speakers, refusals usually include various

strategies to avoid offending one‟s interlocutors.

However, the choice of the strategies which are employed by the

participants in having communication may vary across languages and cultures

(Kwon: 2004). For example, when Mandarin Chinese speakers wanted to refuse

requests, they express positive opinion (e.g., “I would like to…”) much less

frequently than American English speakers. Mandarin Chinese informants

concerned that if they ever expressed positive opinions, then they would be forced

to comply. Softeners (e.g., “I‟m afraid I can‟t”, “I really don‟t know”), that are

most commonly used by English speakers to mitigate refusals to requests, offers,

and invitations, were used much less frequently by Egyptian Arabic speakers.

Gratitude was regularly expressed by American English speakers in refusing

invitations, offers and suggestions, but rarely by Egyptian Arabic speakers.

American English speakers favored more specific reasons in their refusals, while

the Japanese used reasons that were not specific as to place, time, or parties.

Further, the selection of the strategies of refusal according to the status of

 21

interlocutors has been reported to show cross-cultural variation. For instance, the

Japanese tended to be more inclined to make different responses to higher and

lower status people, while the Americans appeared to react similarly to status

unequal of both types, but gave different responses to an equal status person.

Another example, Egyptian Arabic speakers displayed more directness in refusing

an equal status person than did American English speakers.

 22

2.6. Relevance Of Previous Study

Table 1. Previous Study

No Name Title Abstract

1. Entri Murti Realization of speech act She concludes two situation,

2007 of requesting, refusing, 1. Formal situation. The
apologizing, and thanking form “silahkan duduk pak”
used by the students of (would you like sit down
English Department of sir) the speaker used sir
UMB (a study in Bengkulu because they have different
language). 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
symmetrical social
relationship or between the
addresser and addresses
have the same status (as a
friend, colleagues, and have
small different age.

Based on that previous studies, entitled Realization of Speech Act of

Requesting, refusing, apologizing, and thanking Used by the students of the Home

Department of UMB (a study in Bengkulu language) the researcher to get some

idea and some input on what will be examined by researchers .

 23

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This study is conduct by using qualitative method, which try to describe

the perspective of politeness in the mediated communication through the act of

saying “no”. Fraenkel and Wallen (1993) argue that in the qualitative research,

researchers go directly to the particular setting or natural setting in which they are

interested to observe and collect their data in form of words of pictures than

numbers.

Therefore, the researcher use the qualitative method because the researcher

analyze the messages are in conversation, describe and interpret the result of it.

3.2 Subject of the Research

The subjects of the research are the discourses mediate conversation in

everywhere through the act of saying “no”. The subject of this study is for English

Student at University of Muhammadiyah Bengkulu, it could be from the students

in fourth semester. For that reason the researcher decide which data to emphasize

and which one to be left out. Clearly, this study employeee a purposive sampling

technique. It is base on the assumption that those subjects already represent other

population and only those subjects can give the data. Fraenkel and Wallen

(1993:87) state that “researchers assume they can use their knowledge of the

population to judge whether or not a particular sample will be representative”.

Additionally, Maxwell (1996:70) states “this is a strategy in which particular

 24

settings, persons, or events are select deliberately in order to provide important

information that can not be get as well from other choices”.

Therefore, the data of this study are the conversations take by all of

English Student at University of Muhammadiyah Bengkulu, it could be from the

students in fourth semester.

3.3 Instrument

The main instrument that will be used by the research is tape recorder to

record Student conversation in daily communication among English Student at

Muhammadiyah University, camera phone, pen and paper to transform the data to

make the docummentation.

3.4 Data Collection Technique

The data of ths study will be take through direct observation. It means that

the researcher is in the condition while the speaker and the hearer are

communicating. Direct observation may be more reliable than what people say in

many instances, because it reveals what actually happen (Nisbet and Watt 1980 in

Jaya 1999). The reseerch will collect the data by using documentation

investigation. It is gathered from the record in tape recorder, which sent or receive

by conversation betweeen students in daily communication in Fourh Semester in

Muhammadiyah University.

3.5 Validity

The validity in this research is the correctness of the researcher description

and interpretation toward the data. According to Maxwell (1996:87) “I use

validity in fairly straightforward, commonsense way to refer to the correctness or

 25

credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of

account”.

3.6 Data Analyzing Technique

Fraenkel and Wallen (1993:383) state thet “analyzing the data in

qualitative research study essentially involve synthesizing the information the

researcher obstain from the various sources (e.g., observation, interview,

document analysis) into a coherent description of what he or she had observed or

otherwise discovered. So, the data will be analyzed by using politeness theory by

Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon.