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

i

ii

iii

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