POLITENESS STRATEGIES OF APOLOGIZING UTTERANCES
BY THE STUDENTS OF ELEVENTH GRADE OF SMA
MUHAMMADIYAH PK KOTTABARAT SURAKARTA
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department
by:
ILMA RIZQI PRIMADINI
A 320 140 115
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SURAKARTA
2018
1
POLITENESS STRATEGIES OF APOLOGIZING UTTERANCES BY THE
STUDENTS OF ELEVENTH GRADE OF SMA MUHAMMADIYAH PK
KOTTABARAT SURAKARTA
Abstrak
Fokus pada penelitian ini adalah tentang strategi kesopanan pada ungkapan
permintaan maaf yang digunakan oleh para siswa kelas sebelas SMA
Muhammadiyah PK Kottabarat Surakarta. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk
mendeskripsikan: (1) macam-macam atau tipe strategi permintaan maaf yang
digunakan oleh siswa, (2) apa saja strategi kesopanan dari strategi permintaan maaf
yang digunakan oleh siswa. Data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kalimat
permintaan maaf yang digunakan oleh parasiswa. Tehnik pengumpulan data adalah
discourse completion task atau DCT. Data-data tersebut dianalisis menggunakan
teori dari Trosborg (1995) untuk menganalisis ungkapan permintaan maaf, serta teori
dari Brown dan Levinson (1987) untuk menganalisis strategi kesopanan. Hasil
penelitian menunjukkan: (1) ada sebelas macam atau tipe dari ungkapan permintaan
maaf yang digunakan oleh para siswa, yaitu; explicit acknowledgement sebanyak
25%, offer of repair sebanyak 15.1%, promise for forbearance sebanyak 2.7%,
minimizing strategy sebanyak 1.8%, expression of regret sebanyak 24.4%, offer of
apology sebanyak 1.8%, request for forgiveness sebanyak 8.8%, explicit explanation
sebanyak 11.3%, explicit denial of responsibility sebanyak 0.2%, attacking the
complainer sebanyak 0.7%, blaming someone else sebanyak 0.2%, dan data yang
tidak valid sebanyak 8%. (2) ada tiga tipe strategi kesopanan yang digunakan oleh
parasiswa, yaitu; bald on record sebanyak 8.8%, positive politeness sebanyak 26.8%,
negative politeness sebanyak 52.5%, dan data yang tidak valid sebanyak 11.9%.
Kata kunci: strategi kesopanan, kesopanan, permintaan maaf, ungkapan permintaan
maaf.
Abstract
The focus of this research is about politeness strategies and apologizing strategies
used by the students of eleventh grade of SMA Muhammadiyah PK Kottabarat
Surakarta. This research aims to describe: (1) kinds of apologizing strategies used by
the students, (2) the politeness strategies of apologizing strategies used by the
students. The data of this research are apologizing utterance used by the students.
The technique of collecting data is discourse completion task or DCT. The data are
analyzed by theory of Trosborg (1995) to analyze the apologizing utterance, also
theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) to analyze the politeness strategies. The result
shows that; (1) there are eleventh types of apologizing strategy, namely; explicit
acknowledgement 25%, offer of repair 15.1%, promise for forbearance 2.7%,
minimizing strategy 1.8%, expression of regret 24.4%, offer of apology 1.8%,
request for forgiveness 8.8%, explicit explanation 11.3%, explicit denial of
responsibility 0.2%, attacking the complainer 0.7%, blaming someone else 0.2%, and
unvalid data 8%. (2) There are three types of politeness strategies, namely; bald on
2
record 8.8%, positive politeness 26.8%, negative politeness 52.5%, and unvalid data
11.9%.
Key word: politeness strategies, politeness, apologizing, apologizing utterances.
1. INTRODUCTION
In curriculum 2013, there are 4 aspects of learning that should be mastered by the
students; they are the aspects of spiritual, social, knowledge and skill. Spiritual
aspect refers to the students’ ability to implement religious values in their life.
Social aspect refers to the way the students behave properly in their social life.
Knowledge aspect is about mastery of the subject content and skill is the
implementation of the knowledge.
Beside those 4 aspects, in the subject matter of English language, there are 4
competences that must be achieved by the students, they are; interpersonal and
transactional communication, short functional text, and long functional text.
Related to the interpersonal and transactional communication, the students should
be able to implement the principles of communication properly. The
communication principle covers the ability of choosing the language features,
communication and politeness strategies which are suitable for the
communication intents.
According to Yule (1996: 60) politeness is “show awareness for another
person’s face”. Politeness is how the speaker tries to not make offend the hearer
by words. The student not only has interaction with the teachers or classmates, but
the student also has social interaction, which mean the student also has interaction
to everybody in student’s daily life, like how the student interacts to family, even
strangers. That is why politeness important to the student to learn.
For interpersonal communication the students should handle the ability of
the use of English language to maintain the social relation, for example; greeting,
apologizing, thanking, introducing, congratulating and so on. Apologizing is an
attitude where the speaker admits if he or she is doing a mistake to the hearer. For
expressing apology, people can use utterances like, “I’m sorry, I’m not
intentionally ripped your book.”The speaker can use that utterance when he or she
3
not intentionally ripped the hearer’s book, so he or she express his or her apology
by saying “sorry” to the hearer. Another example, “Please forgive me, I didn’t
mean to do that” the speaker can use that utterance when he or she express to
someone older. “I’m sorry.” That words can be use to express to someone
younger than the speaker or has lower power than the speaker.
For transactional communication, the students should be able to use
language to make someone else to do something, for example; commanding,
requesting, suggestion, and so on. For short functional text, the students should be
able to give information to the hearer, for example; announcement, advertisement,
memo, invitation letter, and so on. For the long functional text, it is a little bit
different with short functional text, because the use of long functional text not that
often rather than short functional text in daily life.
The students should be able to use those kinds of apologizing
strategy.Therefore the researcher is interested to analysis the apologizing
utterance and politeness strategy. The title of this research is Politeness Strategies
of Apologizing Utterances by the Students of SMA Muhammadiyah PK Kottabarat
Surakarta.
2. METHOD
The type of this research is qualitative research. The focus of this research is
about politeness strategies and apologizing strategies used by the students of
eleventh grade of SMA Muhammadiyah PK Kottabarat Surakarta. The object of
this research is politeness strategies of apologizing utterance made by the
students. The data source is the response of DCT made by the students. This
research uses discourse completion task (DCT) to collect the data. There are some
steps of analyzing the data using theory of Trosborg (1995) to analyze the
apologizing strategies and theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) to analyze the
politeness strategies.
4
3. FINDING AND DISCUSSION
In this point, the researcher discusses about the apologizing strategies and
politeness strategies. Trosborg (1995) divided apologizing strategies into 21
strategies, namely; rejection (explicit denial of responsibility, implicit denial of
5
responsibility, justification, attacking the complainer), Minimizing the degree ofoffense (minimizing, querying precondition,
blaming someone else), acknowledgement of responnsibility (implicit acknowledgement, explicit acknowledgement, expression of
lack of intent, expression of deficiency, expression of embarrassment, explicit acceptance of the blame), explicit of account
(implicit explanation, explicit explanation), expression of apology (expression of regret, offer of apology, request for forgiveness),
offer of repair, promise for forbearance, and expressiong concern for the hearer. Brown and Levinson (1987) divided politeness
strategies into 4 strategies, namely; bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness and off-record. The result of data
finding is presented in the table below:
Table. 1 Result of Data Finding of Apologizing Strategies
EA OR PF MS ER OA RF EE EDR AC BSE UD
1 20.5% 38.6% 9.1% 2.3% 15.9% - 2.3% - - - - 9%
2 - - 4.5% - 20.5% 2.3% 2.3% 63.6% - - - 6.8%
3 54.5% 11.4% - - 6.9% 4.5% 18.2% 4.5% - - - 6.9%
4 27.3% 29.5% 4.5% - 22.8% - 11.4% - - - - 4.5%
5 56.8% 11.4% 2.3% - 9.1% 2.3% 4.5% - 2.3% - - 11.3%
6 13.6% 36.4% 4.5% - 20.5% - 18.2% 2.3% - - - 4.5%
7 6.8% - - 13.6% 61.4% - 2.3% 4.5% - - 2.3% 9.1%
8 22.7% 9.1% - - 50% 2.3% 4.5% - - - - 11.4%
9 22.7% - - - 13.6% 4.5% 15.9% 27.3% - 6.8% - 9.2%
100%Total% 25% 15.1% 2.7% 1.8% 24.4% 1.8% 8.8% 11.3% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 8%
6
Table. 2 Result of Data Finding of Politeness Strategies
DCT
Types of Politeness Strategies
Bald on
Record
Off
Record
Positive
Politeness
Negative
Politeness
Unvalid
Data
1 2.3% - 20.5% 61.4% 15.8%
2 2.3% - 36.4% 52.3% 9%
3 18.2% - 52.3% 18.2% 11.3%
4 11.4% - 13.6% 68.2% 6.8%
5 4.5% - 11.4% 68.2% 15.9%
6 18.2% - 31.8% 40.9% 9.1%
7 2.3% - 40.9% 50% 6.8%
8 4.5% - 9.1% 72.7% 13.7%
9 15.9% - 25% 40.9% 18.2%
TOTAL% 8.8% - 26.8% 52.5% 11.9%
Based on the data fiinding above, the researcher found 11 of 21 types
of apologizing strategies, there are Explicit Acknowledgement (EA) 25%, Offer
of Repair (OR) 15.1%, Promise for Forbearance (PF) 2.7%, Minimizing Strategy
(MS) 1.8%, Expression of Regret (ER) 24.4%, Offer of Apology (OA) 1.8%,
Request for Forgiveness (RF) 8.8%, Explicit Explanation (EE) 11.3%, Explicit
Denial of Responsibility (EDR) 0.2%, Attacking the Complainer (AC) 0.7%, and
Blaming Someone Else (BSE) 0.2%, also Unvalid Data (UD) 8%.The researcher
also found 3 of 4 types of politeness startegies, there are Bald on Record (BR)
8.8%, Positive Politeness (PP) 26.8%, and Negative Politeness (NP) 52.5%, also
Unvalid Data (UD) 11.9%.
4. CONCLUSION
The researcher makes a conclusion as the answer of the object of study. From the
analysis data, the researcher found 11 types of apologizing strategies, namely;
explicit acknowledgement is when the speaker admit his mistake and the
researcher foud 25%, offer of repair the researcher found 15.1%,
7
and it is about the speaker pays about the trouble of the mistake, promise for
forbearance is when the speaker use a promise to express his apology and there
are 2.7%, data. Minimizing strategies is when the speaker using a question lilke
“are you okay?”to the herarerand there are 1.8% data, there are 24.4% data of
expression of regret, the researcher found 1.8% offer of apology, it is about the
speaker offer an apology to the hearer, request for forgiveness is the speaker
request a forgiveness to the hearer and there are 8.8%.
Explicit explanation is when the students explain about the real
situation and the researcher found 11.3%, explicit denial responsibility is the
speaker ignore the hearer and the researcher found 0.2%. Attacking the
complainer is when speaker attacking the hearer, the researcher found 0.7%, and
blaming someone else is when the speaker balaming someone else about his
mistake, and there are 0.2%data. There are 3 types of politeness namely: bald on
record, positive politeness, and negative politeness. Bald on record is the students
speak directly about what they need. The researcher found 8.8% of bald on record.
Positive politeness is a strategy of politeness which is the speaker uses an identity
marker or promise. There is 26.8% of positive politeness that the researcher
found. And negative politeness is the students use apology utterance “I’m sorry”
for softening the FTA. The researcher found 52.5% of negative politeness.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fauziati, Endang., et al. (2011). English Language Teaching and Learning: Theory
and Practice. Makassar: Universitas Negeri Makassar. Available on
http://docplayer.net/58655129-Endang-fauziati-siti-zuhriah-ariatmi-
malikatul-laila-djoko-srijono-agus-wijayanto-rini-fatmawati-aryati-
prasetyarini-nur-hidayat.html
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta:
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Available on
https://urip.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/kurikulum-2013-kompetensi-
dasar-sma-ver-3-3-2013.pdf
8
Mason, Jennifer. (2002). “Qualitative Researching”: London. SAGE Publication
Ltd. Available on www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Mason_2002.pdf
Rodiah, HindriaAriyanti. (2007). “Apologizing Strategies Used by Students of
English Departement of MuhammadiyahUniverity of Surakarta:.
Surakarta. Unpublished Thesis.Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Trosborg, Anna. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatic: Requests, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Available on
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=_crAfl2zi3kC&printsec=frontcover&
dq=trosborg+1995+complaints,+request+and+apologies&hl=en&sa=X&v
ed=0ahUKEwjKnbCUtMLYAhUdSI8KHQH6DyIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onep
age&q&f=false
Mason, Jennifer. (2002). “Qualitative Researching”: London. SAGE Publication
Ltd. Available on www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Mason_2002.pdf
Rodiah, HindriaAriyanti. (2007). “Apologizing Strategies Used by Students of
English Departement of MuhammadiyahUniverity of Surakarta:.
Surakarta. Unpublished Thesis.Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Trosborg, Anna. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatic: Requests, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Available on
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=_crAfl2zi3kC&printsec=frontcover&
dq=trosborg+1995+complaints,+request+and+apologies&hl=en&sa=X&v
ed=0ahUKEwjKnbCUtMLYAhUdSI8KHQH6DyIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onep
age&q&f=false
Yule, George. (1996). “Pragmatics”: New York. Oxford University Press. Available
on http://www.academia.edu/4369968/pragmatics_by_george_yule
Top Related