an investigation of indonesian efl learners' application...

1

AN INVESTIGATION OF INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS’

APPLICATION OF STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING USING

ENGLISH

Dewi Kusumawati Sofyan

Abstract

The current study aims at investigating Indonesian EFL learners‟ strategies in

expressing disagreement using English. In attempt to achieve the goal, 100 English

Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University were invited to participate

in this study. The participants were given a Discourse Completion Test (DCT)

modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe (1993) and Guodong and Jing (2005).

The data obtained through this test were analyzed based on taxonomy of disagreement

strategies by Muntigl (1995). The data was described in quantitatively. This study is

important because disagreement is perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA). The

findings revealed the tendency of IEFL learners to mitigate FTA by using

counterclaim as the most employed disagreement strategy by Indonesian EFL (IEFL)

learners. Based on the findings of this study, a course about pragmatic understanding

is suggested to offer in English Department in attempt to create more awareness of the

students in speech acts realization, especially disagreement. Hopefully the findings of

this study would provide additional information about strategies employed by IEFL

learners in expressing disagreement.

Key words: Disagreement, Strategies in Disagreeing.

INTRODUCTION

People can mean something quite different from what their words say, or even

just the opposite. According to Thomas (1995), “meaning is not something which is

inherent in the words alone, nor is it produced by the speaker alone, nor by the hearer

alone” (p. 22). Making meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of

meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance, and the meaning

potential of an utterance. The impact of what is being communicated is carried out in

2

terms of politeness If people cannot understand well how to speak to others, the

relationship between the interlocutors may be threatened.

The speech act of disagreement is a face-threatening act (FTA) when the

speaker ignores the social values of the speaking and this can cause a communication

breakdown (Niroomand, 2011, p. 205). Expressing disagreement, which is

unavoidable in everyday interaction, may threaten the relationship between the

interlocutors and this threat to the face of interlocutor can be softened by the use of

politeness strategies (Locher, 2004). Several studies revealed that in expressing

disagreement, people used different strategies to deal with the situation. Kreutel

(2007, as cited in Niroomand, 2011, p. 205) in his article I'm not agree with you,

analyzed the devices used by learners of English as a second language in order to

perform the speech act of disagreement in their L2. Kreutel (2007) found that NNSs

tend to use politeness strategies in expressing disagreement to mitigate FTA. It was

found that NNSs use mitigation devices, which are devices to mitigate FTA, such as

hedges or explanations less frequently than native speakers, but often resort to

undesirable features such as the blunt opposite or message abandonment which means

rude or impolite disagreement.

Nguyen (2009), in her paper, Politeness Strategies in Showing Disagreement

in Group Work compared and contrasted Vietnamese and American undergraduate

students‟ performances. It was found that both of the two groups of respondents prefer

using non-conflicting disagreement strategies (e.g. positive politeness, no FTA) than

conflicting ones (e.g. bald-on record) and they mostly express their disagreement in a

3

non-threatening way with the assumption that if they show their disagreement

aggressively, the group‟s relationship will be broken.

The study by Guodong and Jing (2005) is a contrastive study on disagreement

strategies for politeness between American English and Mandarin Chinese. Five

scenarios for disagreement were devised for college students in USA and Chinese

mainland to fill in what they would say when they disagree with the higher-status,

peers, and the lower-status. The findings reveal that, when disagreeing with the

superior, Chinese students employ more politeness strategies and address forms than

the American students do. In the case of peers, with the increase of social distance,

both the American and Chinese students apply less politeness strategies. Positive

correlation was found between the rates of disagreement and the change of the social

distance for the Chinese students while negative correlation for the American

students.

The studies by Kreutel (2007), Nguyen (2009), and Guodong and Jing (2005)

show various findings about NNSs‟ realization of disagreeing. Although several

studies have provided insights into the concept of politeness in disagreement in

numerous cultures (American, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.), up to the present day, only

a limited number of studies in Indonesian context has considered about similar study.

That is why it is considered to be important to investigate how speech act of

disagreement in L2 reflected in Indonesia. The study tries to answer the following

research question: What are Indonesian EFL learners‟ strategies in disagreeing using

English? The strategies used by the participants shows whether the participant want to

do FTA, mitigate FTA, or not doing FTA. The findings of this study create awareness

4

to IEFL learners on how they perform disagreement so that they can consider

appropriate strategy to be used in certain context for the sake of avoiding

communication breakdown.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Disagreement is generally perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA). FTA is

inevitable in terms of conversations in social interaction. Within Brown and

Levinson's (1987) framework, disagreement poses a threat to the addressee's positive

face since it indicates that the speaker does not share the addressee's wants or beliefs.

The act of disagreement may also pose a threat to the speaker's positive face if the

speaker cannot support or defend his position. Brown and Levinson (1987) defined

positive face in two ways: as "the want of every member that his wants be desirable to

at least some others executors", or alternately, "the positive consistent self-image or

'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and

approved of) claimed by interactants". There are four disagreement strategies

according to Muntigl (1995). They are irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction,

and counterclaim.

Irrelevancy claim is meta-dispute-act that comments on the conversational

interactions (Muntigl, 1995, p. 39). It shows that a previous claim is not relevant to

the discussion of the topic at hand. It is marked by discourse markers such as so or by

phrases such as It doesn’t matter, You’re straying off the topic, and It is nothing to do

with it. In uttering them, speakers seem to be questioning or undermining their

interlocutors‟ previous claims by stating that their claims are not relevant to the topic

under discussion.

5

Challenge refers to any negative thought, attitude, or action that a speaker

attributes to an addressee (Labov and Fanshel 1977, as cited in Muntigl 1995).

Challenge has typically the syntactic form of interrogative with question particles

such as when, what, who, why, where, and how. This type does not make a specific

claim (e.g. using Why? or Like who?). The use of no specific claim implicates that the

addressee cannot provide evidence for his or her claim. By posing a threat to the

positive face of the interlocutor, challenge might be considered as impolite.

Contradiction is the most conspicuous type of disagreement. In contradiction,

a speaker contradicts by uttering the negated proposition expressed by the previous

claim. It is often marked by negative markers like no or not. If speaker A utters X,

then speaker B will utter –X. It indicates that the contradiction of A‟s claim is true.

Pragmatically, contradiction directly repudiates someone‟s claim. As Brown and

Levinson (1987, p. 66) assert in their seminal paper, these acts make the hearer appear

to be wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issue, such wrongness being

associated with disapproval. Sometimes instead of having negative contradiction

markers, contradiction will have positive contradiction markers, like yes or yeah

which in contrast to the negated claim, but those state positive statements. If speaker

A utters –X, then speaker B will utter X. B‟s claim asserts the affirmative in contrast

to a negated A‟s claim.

Counterclaim does not have simple structure. Therefore it is more difficult to

identify and describe. With counterclaim, speakers propose an alternative claim that

does not directly contradict or challenge others‟ claim. Further negotiation of the

previous claim is provided by them. They tend to be preceded by pauses, prefaces,

6

and mitigating devices (e.g. maybe your right, but). The strategies of avoiding explicit

disagreement such as using positive markers, prefaced partial agreement, or hedges

can indicate indirectness and being polite in the speech act of disagreement.

However, conversations consist not only of what is said but what is not said –

the cold silence, the disapproving silence, the appreciative silence, the reverent

silence, the baffled silence (Schmitz 1994, as cited in Jasim and Aziz 2010, p. 1).

Disagreement is commonly mentioned as one of speech acts which tend to be

performed through silence in Japanese (Nakane, 2007). Silence is one FTA technique

utilized by the Japanese because there is always a threat to an individual's positive or

negative face through the verbal interaction between an addressee and a speaker.

Consequently, social discretion through silence is an example of a no FTA strategy,

one of five politeness strategies defined by Brown and Levinson (1987). According to

Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness strategies, remaining silent is the

most polite manifestation since the speaker avoids the FTAs altogether. This strategy

involves maintaining the positive face of the addressee through the speaker's

avoidance of disagreement with the addressee. The speaker hides their misgivings and

disagreements from the hearer in polite and socially acceptable silence.

THE STUDY

Context of Study

This research was conducted in English Department, Satya Wacana Christian

University. It is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. This setting was chosen

because it suits with the aim of this study which is to investigate IEFL learners‟

strategies in expressing disagreement. Most students in Satya Wacana Christian

7

University are Indonesian. English is a foreign language for Indonesian. In Satya

Wacana Christian University, especially in English Department, students usually used

English for communication with friends or teachers, either inside or outside the class.

In addition, there were some students that usually used English for daily

communication. The interaction varied in contexts, including disagreement. The way

students expressing disagreement was analyzed to achieve the aim of the study.

Participants

The participants were 100 English major college students of Satya Wacana

Christian University. This study used purposive sampling or criterion-based selection

(Blackledge 2001, as cited in Zacharias 2013, p. 8) in choosing the participants. In

this sampling, the writer selected the participants purposefully; means the writer select

the participants that can meet certain criteria. The reasons why this study used

purposive sampling were to make sure that all participants were IEFL learners and to

get participants in relatively same language proficiency by giving certain criteria. In

this study, the criteria for the participants were English Department students of Satya

Wacana Christian University who never stayed in English-speaking countries, passed

all speaking courses (Interpersonal Speaking, Transactional Speaking, and Public

Speaking) in English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University, and English

was not their first language, filled in the Discourse Completion Test (DCT). The

participants‟ age ranged from 21 to 25.

Method of Research

This study was analyzed quantitatively. Quantitative study is analyzed by

counting the frequency distribution of the themes or the responses to a particular

8

question (Zacharias, 2012, p. 125). The questions were in the form of Discourse

Completion Test (DCT). The occurrences from the responses in the DCT were

classified based on five types of disagreement. Then it was described as the

application of politeness strategies. The aim of the present study was to describe some

politeness strategies used by IEFL learners in order to deal with disagreement.

Instrument and Data Collection

To investigate Indonesian EFL learners‟ politeness strategies when expressing

the speech act of disagreement, Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used.

Discourse Completion Test (DCT) had been popularly and effectively used in

pragmatic studies, especially about politeness in speech acts. Although Beebe (1985,

as cited in Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989) admitted the weaknesses of DCT,

they strongly support the use of DCT in pragmatic research. According to Beebe

(1985, as cited in Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, p. 11), the limitations of DCT are reflected

in the differences she found between the data from DCT and those from spontaneous

speech:

(1) actual wording used in real interpersonal interaction, (2) the range

of formulas and strategies used (some, like avoidance tend to get left

out), (3) the length of response or the number of turns it takes to fulfill

the function, (4) The depth of emotion that in turn qualitatively affects

the tone, content, and form of linguistic performance, (5) the number

of repetitions and elaborations that occur, or (6) the actual rate of

occurrence of a speech act – e.g. whether or not someone would

naturistically refuse at all in a given situation.

9

However, the naturalness was only one of many criteria for good data. It could not be

ignored that DCT provided several important strengths. Beebe (1985, as cited in

Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, p. 10) found that:

Discourse Completion Tests are effective means of: (1) gathering a

large amount of data quickly, (2) creating an initial classification of

semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech, (3)

studying the stereotypical perceived requirements for a socially

appropriate (though not always polite) response, (4) gaining insight

into social and psychological factors that are likely to affect speech

and performance, and (5) ascertaining the canonical shape of refusal,

apologies, partings, etc. in the minds of the speakers of that language.

A great advantage in the use of such questionnaire is that DCT can be given to a large

number of participants within a short period time. Furthermore, Beebe (1985, as cited

in Blum-Kulka et al. 1989) states that DCT creates model responses which are likely

to occur in spontaneous speeches. DCT also provides stereotypical responses for a

socially appropriate response. Considering the strengths of DCT, this study used DCT

as the instrument of data collection. In addition, in Usami‟s (2000) work of natural

language data gathered under controlled conditions. Yet the data which emerged

appeared natural according to follow-up surveys where participants were asked

whether they felt their speech was influenced by being recorded and so on. While

arranging these recordings and transcribing the conversations was most likely a fairly

time-consuming task, the data set generated is much richer than that obtained through

more traditional methods, such as Discourse Completion Tests (DCT). It also allows,

more importantly, analysis of politeness at the discourse level.

10

The participants were requested to write their natural responses to five

scenarios modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe (1993) and Guodong and

Jing (2005). The original scenarios from studies by Takahasi and Beebe (1993) and

Guodong and Jing (2005) consist of five disagreement scenarios with superior, peer,

and subordinate. Yet because some scenarios are not relevant to college students,

which are scenarios to disagree with employer, some scenarios were modified. The

DCT was in a form of questionnaire describing some natural situations to which the

respondents are expected to react, making disagreement. The DCT used was actually

with situation description followed by an incomplete dialogue. The subject for the

study was asked to fill an utterance that preceding the given utterance. In this case, the

DCT consisted of five scenarios in which the subjects were expected to disagree with

two higher status, two peers, and a lower status.

The procedures in collecting the data were covered approximately in a month.

The Demographic Survey and Discourse Completion Test (DCT) were given to 120

English Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University. Previously,

piloting has been done to 20 participants in a controlled area which was classroom. It

shows the participants need about 10 to 15 minutes to fill in the DCT. Because of the

reason, the participants were given fifteen minutes to complete the Demographic

Survey and DCT. They were expected to fill all information needed. The data

collection happened in classrooms after the participants done having classes. The

DCT consisted of five scenarios modified from studies by Takahashi and Beebe

(1993) and Guodong and Jing (2005). They were asked to write their natural

responses for each scenario. 120 data of Demographic Survey and DCT out of 120

were returned.

11

Data Analysis

The participants‟ responses were analyzed in two steps. First, invalid data of

120 DCTs filled by the participants were eliminated and 100 valid data was

determined to be analyzed to the next steps. Invalid data was measured through the

participants‟ demographic information written in DCT. If the participants did not meet

the criteria, the DCT became invalid and could not be used in this study. The second

step was identifying the responses based on the taxonomy of Muntigl (1995), which

recognizes four types of disagreement: irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction,

and counterclaim. The taxonomy of Muntigl (1995) is used because this theory has

simple classification of disagreement strategies with clear nature of each strategy.

However, there was a high possibility that the participants tended to be silent with

various reasons. As a result, in the second step, the responses were identified based on

five categories instead of four categories. They were irrelevancy claim, challenge,

contradiction, counterclaim, and silence.

FINDINGS

In this part, the data collected from DCT is presented and discussed. The data

is in a form of responses in expressing disagreement. According to Muntigl and

Turnbull (1995), there are four strategies of disagreement: irrelevancy claim,

challenge, contradiction, and counterclaim. Yet conversations consist not only of

what is said but what is not said - the cold silence, the disapproving silence, the

appreciative silence, the reverent silence, the baffled silence, (Schmitz 1994, as cited

in Jasim and Aziz 2010, p. 1). As a result, there will be five strategies of

12

disagreement that will be analyzed in this research; irrelevancy claim, challenge,

contradiction, counterclaim, and silence.

To make the data easier to recognize, participant will be abbreviated with P,

followed by number to differentiate the participants, and the interlocutor is

abbreviated with several classifications; Sup for superior, Peer for peer, and Sub for

subordinate. This study was analyzed quantitatively. Later on there will be

independent examination of each response for the five conditions. Frequency of

occurrence of these components as used by IEFL learners is presented in pie charts for

each situation.

Condition 1:

Your supervisor questions the originality of the paper you submit. S/he says to you, "I

don't think these ideas are yours." However, they are yours.

In response, you will: (please answer either number 1 or 2)

1. Say to your supervisor, “......................………………………...……….…”

2. Keep silent because…………………………………………..……………..

13

In response to this situation, in which the speaker is disagreeing to his or her

supervisor, who questions the originality of the term paper s/he submits, contains

certain kind of formality, a power inconsistency exists between interlocutors. The

person, who the speaker is disagreeing with, is in a higher power and position than the

speaker. As illustrated in Figure 1, 42% IEFL learners employ counterclaim to

disagree with the superior. It is the biggest amount compared with the other strategies.

Sup : I don’t think these ideas are yours.

P41 : I made it by myself.

With counterclaim, they propose an alternative claim that do not directly contradict or

challenge the supervisor‟s claim about the originality of the paper. In using

counterclaim, usually there is partial agreement


Irrelevancy

Claim

2%

Challenge

15%

Contradiction

37%

Counterclaim

42%

Silence

4%

Figure 1. Disagreement Strategies Used in Condition 1

14

P11 : I’m sorry it might look quite similar, but it is really mine.

The partial agreement is used to soften the disagreement since the interaction includes

lecturer or superior. Then it is followed by the word but with explanation. The second

most used strategy is contradiction with 37% occurrence. In this condition,

contradiction is marked by negative markers like no or not.


P25 : I’m sure, I didn’t do such plagiarism.

or


P34 : No, this is my idea.

Besides, the participants also use contradiction by uttering the negated proposition

expressed by the previous claim.

Sup : I don't think these ideas are yours.

P7 : I think these ideas are originally mine.

Condition 2:

Your lecturer asks you and your classmates to submit the assignment today. You do

not make the assignment yet because you believe s/he said that the deadline is next

week.


1. Say to your lecturer, “......................……………………...……..….........…”

15

2. Keep silent because…………………………………...………….…………..

In this condition, the participant is in an awkward position because in one side s/he

believes s/he do not have to submit the work that day because it is not the due date. In

other hand, the lecturer asks him or her to do so. This might be misunderstanding

between the lecturer and the participant. The same with the previous result, most

IEFL learners employ counterclaim to straighten out this condition with frequency

more than a half which is 52% as shown in Figure 2.

Sup : (asking you and your classmates to submit the assignment today)

P54 : But you said that the deadline is next two weeks, Ma’am.

or

Sup : (asking you and your classmates to submit the assignment today)

Irrelevancy

Claim

1%

Challenge

13%

Contradiction

24% Counterclaim

52%

Silence

10%


16

P57 : Excuse me Sir, but according to my note you said to submit it next

two weeks.

It indirectly implies that s/he cannot submit the work that day. Using counterclaim,

the IEFL learner tries to strive for safe zone where it will be okay if s/he do not

submit the work that day.

Condition 3:

You are going to watch a movie with your friend. S/he said, “Cartoon movie will be

great!”. In fact, you do not like cartoon movie. You think it is childish and fictional.


1. Say to your friend, “...........................………..…………..……..…………”

2. Keep silent because……………………….…………………….…………..

Irrelevancy

Claim

0%

Challenge

25%

Contradiction

29%

Counterclaim

33%

Silence

13%


17

This condition is more casual compared to two previous conditions. It happens

between peers where they are going to watch movie, but they have not decided which

movie to watch yet. One of them proposes cartoon movie to be watched, the other one

is expected to disagree because actually s/he do not like cartoon movie. Figure 3

shows interesting finding about disagreement strategies in this condition. The same

with the two previous conditions that counterclaim is the most appeared strategy, in

this condition 33% of the participants tend to use counterclaim as the strategy to

disagree with peer. In this condition, IEFL learners use counterclaim by uttering very

indirect disagreement, like what is being presented below.

Peer : Cartoon movie will be great!

P6 : Action movies are better.

or


P42 : I will be sleeping during the movie.

or


P96 : It would be great, but I think drama comedy is good for today.

P6 expressed his or her disagreement by saying Action movies are better that

indirectly implies that P6 did not agree to watch cartoon movie, but P6 wanted to

watch action movie instead. P42 uttered something that does not related to what the

interlocutor said. I will be sleeping during the movie indicates that P42 will not enjoy

cartoon movie so that s/he will be sleeping during the movie. P96 used partial

agreement by expressing It would be great, but…., but actually P96 wanted to watch

18

drama comedy instead of cartoon movie. All expressions uttered by P6, P42, and P96

are indirect disagreement as it is the nature of counterclaim. Counterclaim creates

ambiguity that the participants expect the interlocutor will get the „signal‟ so that they

will not watch cartoon movie. Compared to other conditions, silence is applied in

biggest amount which was 13%. Irrelevancy claim is not applied in this condition.

Condition 4:

You are working in the same group with Jessica and Alice for the final project. The

topic to be presented is free. Jessica has proposed her idea for the topic. However, you

think the topic is too large and ambitious for the project.


1. Say to Jessica, “..................……………..………….……………………...”

2. Keep silent because………………………….……………………………...

Irrelevancy

Claim

0%

Challenge

36%

Contradiction

6%

Counterclaim

52%

Silence

6%


19

This condition happens in university setting where three students are working on their

final project. Having different opinion is usual thing in group work, so is in this

condition. The participants are expected to disagree because one of his or her group

member, named Jessica, has an idea which they think too large and ambitious for the

final work. As seen in Figure 4, counterclaim appears the most in this condition which

is 52%. In this condition, counterclaim is applied by expressing statement that does

not directly disagree with the previous claim, partial agreement is also present in this

condition

Peer : (proposing idea for the topic)

P14 : I think it’s is too difficult for us.

or


P39 : You have a good idea, but I think we can make a simple one.

Then the second most used disagreeing strategy is challenge with 36%

occurrence. Challenge is expressed by using interrogative sentence. It is mostly

applied in more polite way by using the word please.


P1 : Can you please make it more specific?

Contradiction is applied in small frequency. It is only 6%. In addition, irrelevancy

claim does not occur in this situation.

20

Condition 5:

Your sister said “Boys who smoke are cool.” You do not think so. In your opinion,

smoking has no use. Instead, it is not good for health and environment.


1. Say to your sister, “...................................…………………………………”

2. Keep silent because…………………………………………………………

In this case, familial relationship exists between the interlocutors. The participants are

expected to respond as an older brother or sister.

Sub : Boys who smoke are cool.

P20 : No, I totally disagree.

or

Sub : Boys who smoke are cool.

Irrelevancy

Claim

1% Challenge

10%

Contradiction

51%

Counterclaim

31%

Silence

7%


21

P50 : I don’t think so.

Figure 5 shows interesting findings. Generally, all strategies are applied in this

condition. The most appeared disagreeing strategy in this condition (with

subordinates) is different with the previous four conditions (with superior and peers).

In the previous four conditions, the most employed disagreement strategy is

counterclaim, but in this case, where the IEFL learners have to disagree with

subordinates, they employ contradiction most with 51% occurrence. In disagreeing

with subordinates, IEFL learners tend to be bold and direct.

DISCUSSION

In this part, interesting findings of this study will be discussed. The first

interesting finding is about irrelevancy claim disagreement strategy that is not applied

in condition with peer. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, irrelevancy claim does not

occur. Irrelevancy claim is applied when the speaker want to say that the previous

claim is irrelevant. In condition 3 in the DCT, the previous claim is Cartoon movie

will be great, and in condition 4, the previous claim is about a group member

proposing an ambitious topic. The previous claims in all conditions apparently

influence the use of strategy. The previous claims shown in condition 3 and 4 might

be not stimulating enough to emerge irrelevancy claim strategy. That is why

irrelevancy claim does not exist in condition 3 and 4 which are about disagreement

with peers.

Besides, interesting findings come from silence responses employed by the

IEFL learners while dealing in disagreement. The silence shows that some of IEFL

learners are trying to do no FTA. Silence can be regarded as a strategy to save the face

22

of the hearer. The reasons behind the silence are various, but silence mostly occur in

condition 3 where the IEFL learners are expected to disagree with a friend.

Peer : Cartoon movie will be great.

P50 : (keeping silent to keep my friend‟s feeling)

or

Peer : Cartoon movie will be great.

P31 : (keeping silent for solidarity)

In this condition, silence happens between peers. Some IEFL learners choose to be

silent rather than saying something that might hurt their friends‟ feeling. Some

participants that choose silence as disagreement action in this condition stated their

reason are solidarity between friends. Although at that time they do not agree that

cartoon movie is great to watch, they follow what their friend want to watch carton

movie by employing silence strategy. In negative side, this might not be enjoyable for

the speaker to watch movie that they do not like but on the other hand it shows how

IEFL learners really consider the application of politeness in their real life, even with

peers.

CONCLUSION

The current study aims to find out IEFL learners‟ strategies in expressing

disagreement. Generally, all disagreement strategies were employed in all conditions,

except in condition with peer. In conditions where IEFL learners disagree with peers,

irrelevancy claim do not exist at all. Besides, the findings show that counterclaim is

23

the most employed strategy in disagreement. It opposed the result of a study by

Kreutel (2007) that believes non-native speakers use mitigation devices less

frequently than native speakers, but often resort to undesirable features. The findings

of this study show IEFL learners tend to mitigate FTA by applying counterclaim

strategy. On the other hand, the findings corroborated with Nguyen (2009) that stated

that both native and non-native speakers prefer using non-conflicting disagreement

strategies than conflicting ones and they mostly express their disagreement in a non-

threatening way.

This study has several limitations. This study limits the participants on IEFL

learners only. It is not a comparative study between native and non-native speakers.

This study tries to find what strategies employed by IEFL learners in dealing with

disagreement, not going deeper about reason or other factors such as culture that

might influence the choice of strategies. For further study, it is suggested to do similar

study about strategy in disagreement but with the additional focus on the reasons

behind the choice of certain strategy.

Hopefully, this study can give positive implications for IEFL learners. The

findings of this study create more awareness of IEFL learners about their language

use in applying strategy in disagreement. Moreover, the realization of a course about

pragmatic competence is suggested to offer in English Department Satya Wacana

Christian University to provide them with deeper understanding about pragmatic in

order to create awareness in interaction.

24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I believe the completion of this thesis writing is not only because of my effort, but it is

also because many people support me in all conditions. I would like to thank to God

Almighty, the One that gives me ability and faith so that finally I could finish this

final project for my Bachelor Degree. I also thank Papa, Mama, Ega, and my big

family. Since whenever I remember them, there will always be self-encouragement

that made me realize that I had to get my study finished soon. Besides, I got

sustainable guidance from my supervisor, Mr. Christian Rudianto, S. Pd. M. App.

Ling., and I‟m very thankful for the patience, advice, and comfortable atmosphere

during the consultations. In addition, thanks to Mrs. Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Ph. D.

who was willing to examine my paper and giving significant feedback. Thanks to all

my close friends; Boy, Dhea, Lintang, Adit, Nindy, Titan, and Zale, also my thesis

writing fellows; Annisaa‟, Elvira, Tiur, Rio, that had been struggling together with me

to graduate soon. Last but not least, I want to say thank you to all Tenners, for the

spirit and togetherness within my four-year study. Thanks, all of you.

25

REFERENCES

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (1989). Cross Cultural Pragmatics: Requests

and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Guodong, L., & Jing, H. (2005). A Contrastive Study on Disagreement Strategies for

Politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese. Asian EFL

Journal, 7, 10 (1).

Jasim, M. & Aziz. F. (2010). Silence as Non-verbal Positive Politeness Strategy in

August Strindberg‟s The Stronger: A Pragma-Stylistic Study. Journal of

Missan Researchers, 7 (13).

Kreutel, K. (2007). “I‟m not agree with you.” ESL Learners Expressions of

Disagreement. TESL-EJ Top, 11(3).

Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in Oral

Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouten de Gruyter.

Muntigl, P. (1995). The Conversational Structure and Face Implications of Everyday

Arguing. Simon Fraser University.

Nguyen, T. P. T. (2009). Politeness Strategies in Showing Disagreement in Group

Work Used by Viatnemese and American Undergraduate Students. Hanoi.

Niroomand, M. (2011). An Investigation of Iranian EFL Learners‟ Use of Politeness

Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement across Different Proficiency

Levels. English Language Teaching, 4 (4), 204-220.

Nakane, I. (2007) Silence in intercultural communication: perceptions and

performance. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Takahashi, T. & L M. Beebe. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of

correction. In Kasper & Blum-Kulka (Eds,), Interlanguage Pragmatics, (pp.

138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. England:

Longman.

Usami, M. (2000). Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some

Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

26

Zacharias, N. T. (2012). Research Methods for Second Language Education. Satya

Wacana Christian University.

Zacharias, N. T. (2013). The Components of a Research Report. Satya Wacana

Christian University.

27

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and Demographic Survey.

NIM : ……………….

Dear English Department students,

I am interested in researching Indonesian EFL learners‟ application of strategies in

expressing disagreement. I would be very grateful if you would kindly spare a few

minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire, as I think it should be very useful in

improving the teaching and learning of speaking in the future. Feel free to give your

opinion because there is no right or wrong answer, but please use English. Many

thanks.

Five scenarios are described below in which you are expected to pretend that you

really face those situations. Please give response with the ‘speaker’ by writing out

what you are going to respond in real life scenarios.

1. Your supervisor questions the originality of the paper you submit. S/he says to

you, "I don't think these ideas are yours." However, they are yours.


3. Say to your supervisor, “......................……………………...………….…”

4. Keep silent because………………………………………………………..

2. Your lecturer asks you and your classmates to submit the assignment today. You

do not make the assignment yet because you believe s/he said that the deadline is

next week.


1. Say to your lecturer, “......................……………………...……..….........…”

2. Keep silent because…………………………...………………….…………..

3. You are going to watch a movie with your friend. S/he said, “Cartoon movie will

be great!”. In fact, you do not like cartoon movie. You think it is childish and

fictional.


1. Say to your friend, “...................................…………..…..……..…………”

2. Keep silent because……………………….………………………………..

28

4. You are working in the same group with Jessica and Alice for the final project.

The topic to be presented is free. Jessica has proposed her idea for the topic.

However, you think the topic is too large and ambitious for the project.


3. Say to Jessica, “......................…………………..………….……………...”

4. Keep silent because………………………………….……………………...

5. Your sister said “Boys who smoke are cool.” You do not think so. In your

opinion, smoking has no use. Instead, it is not good for health and

environment.


3. Say to your sister, “..............................................……………………….…”

4. Keep silent because…………………………………………………………

Demographic Information

1. Age : …… years old

2. First language : ……………………………………..

3. Length of studying English : …… years

4. Have you ever stayed in English-speaking countries? Please put a check (√)

Yes, which is/are …………………………… No

5. Have you passed the following courses? Please put a check (√)

Interpersonal Speaking

Transactional Speaking

Public Speaking

If I need more information on your questionnaire, can I contact you for an interview?

Please put a check (√) Yes No

If you say Yes, complete the following information:

Name :

Phone number :

Email :

Thank you

an investigation of indonesian efl learners' application...

Documents