1

STRATEGI-STRATEGI MEMINTA MAAF YANG DIGUNAKAN OLEH PENUTUR ASLI BAHASA INDONESIA DALAM

BERBAHASA INGGRIS

STRATEGIES OF APOLOGY USED BY INDONESIANS IN SPEAKING ENGLISH

Ainun Fatimah, Abd. Hakim Yassi, Etty Bazergan

Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Hasanuddin

Alamat Korespondensi:

Ainun Fatimah Program Pasca Sarjana Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar, 90245 HP: 085255114200 Email: Ainunfatimah86@gmail.co.id

2

Abstrak

Bahasa dan budaya tidak dapat dipisahkan ibarat dua mata koin. Penelitian ini bertujuan (1) menemukan strategi-strategi meminta maaf dalam berbagai konteks yang digunakan oleh penutur asli Indonesia dalam percakapan bahasa Inggris dan (2) mengungkapkan pemunculan refleksi budaya penutur asli bahasa Indonesia melalui jenis-jenis strategi dan komposisi jenis-jenis strategi yang dipakai di dalam meminta maaf dalam bahasa Inggris. Penelitian ini berjenis kualitatif yang menggunakan dekripsi kuantitatif. Populasi penelitian ini ialah mahasiswa Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Hasanuddin yang berasal dari angkatan 2005-2007 yang telah mengikuti mata kuliah-mata kuliah keterampilan terpadu. Sampelnya ialah 50 orang mahasiswa yang diambil secara purposif. Selanjutnya, data dianalisis dengan menggunakan model Discourse Completion Test. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa (1) terdapat enam strategi meminta maaf yang digunakan oleh penutur bahasa Indonesia dalam berbahasa Inggris, (2) jenis-jenis strategi dan komposisi jenis-jenis strategi yang dipakai di dalam meminta maaf dalam bahasa Inggris merefleksikan budaya penutur asli bahasa Indonesia yaitu strategi pemberian alasan merupakan yang tertinggi penggunaannya, kemudian disusul oleh strategi permohonan maaf dan pernyatakan penyesalan. Pada posisi kebalikannya, yang terendah penggunaannya ialah strategi berjanji tidak akan mengulangi, kemudian secara berturut-turut diikuti oleh peduli terhadap korban, mengelak dari mengakui, menyatakan bersalah secara terbuka, dan tawaran perbaikan.

Kata Kunci: Permintaan Maaf, Strategi-Strategi dan Budaya

Abstract Language can not be separated from culture as they are assumed as two sides of a coin. The study aims (1) to find out the strategies of apology within variety of contexts which are used by Indonesians in speaking English and (2) To reveal the appearance of the cultural character reflections of Indonesian native speakers included in the strategy types and the stages of selected strategies of apology in speaking English. This study constitutes a qualitative research, using quantitatives description. The population of this research is the students of English Department of Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Hasanuddin University. They are from the grade of 2005--2007 and have taken the English Integrated skills subjects. Whereas the sample is fifty students taken purposively. Next, the data are analyzed by using the model of Discourse Completion Test.The study reveals that (1) there are six strategies of apology used by Indonesian in speaking English, i.e. (a) Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) such as an Expression of Regret, an Offer of Apology. and Request for Forgiveness, (b) Explanation or Account such as Objective Reason for the violation, (c) Taking on Responsibility such as Explicit Self-blame and Lack of intent, (d) Concern for the Hearer, (e) Offer of Repair, and (f) Promise for forbearance. (2) The strategy types and the stages of selected strategies of apology in speaking English by the samples reflects the cultural character of Indonesian native speaker i.e, they still have no habit of Taking on Responsibility materially. The most responsibility they have is performing Expression of Regret and Request for Forgiveness morally, but they are committed after performing Objective Reason before. Key words: Apology, Strategies and Culture

3

INTRODUCTION

Language and culture are close related where language is one aspect of

culture. Language is used as a tool of communication in doing activities in social life.

When it is used in the context of communication, it should be based on and related to

cultural context which has varying and more complex ways. Language can not be

separated from culture as they are assumed as two sides of a coin. They are different

but can not be separated because of language role that may express cultural and self

identity of speakers. In other words, we can say that language symbolizes cultural

reality (Kramsch, 1998; see also Frawley, 1992; Tickoo, 1995; Wardhaugh, 1987).

Austin (1962) defined about speech act that it is as all things the people did

with words when they spoke. Production of words or of sentence is called speech act.

Speech acts are difficult to be performed in a second language.

This research also aims to find out the strategies of apology within variety of

contexts which are used by Indonesians in speaking English. Also, to reveal the

appearance of the cultural characteristic reflection of Indonesian native speakers

included in the stages of selected strategies of apology in speaking English.

Regarding the background of this research above, all the things leading the

writer to state the research question are presented as follows. When speaking, we are

performing speech acts, for example making statements, giving commands, asking

question, making promises, making an apology, and so on. These acts are performed

in accordance with certain rules for the use of linguistic elements (Tanck, 2002).

This research is crystallized around the two following questions, those are

what are the strategies of apology within variety of contexts that are used by

Indonesians in speaking English?. Also, how many frequencies of identical types of

apology strategy occur in this study?

This research talks about speech act, in which apology strategy types are dealt

with. So, it can be said that, speech act is the umbrella applied in this study.

4

Therefore, in this literary review two points i.e., theory of speech act and theory of

apology are highlighted.

Blum-Kulka, et all (1984) gave a comprehensive list of strategies consisting

of a potential range of strategies that constitute an apology. These strategies can be

used one at a time or in combination ( Rojo, 2005; see also Ogiermann, 2009). Those

are, Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices, An Explanation or Account, Taking on

Responsibility, Concern for the Hearer, Offer of Repair, and Promise for Forbearance

(Chaemsaithong 2009).

Based on the statements of the problem above, the writer states that the

objectives of this research are to find out the strategies of apology within variety of

contexts which are used by Indonesians in speaking English and to mention the

frequency of identical types of apology strategy occur in this study.

INSTRUMENT AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, time and location of research,

population and sample, techniques and instruments in collecting data, and data

analysis.

Research Design

This study constitutes a qualitative research, using quantitatives description

i.e., the using of total number of identical types of apology strategies. Since it

describes the strategy types of apology within variety of contexts used by

Indonesians in speaking English and explains the frequency of the total number of

identical types of apology strategies, this study, then applies two methods i.e. library

research and field research.

Time and Location of Research

This study was carried out in June 2011--January 2012. It is conducted in

Makassar, the capital city of South Sulawesi province.

Population and Sample

5

From the population above the writer takes fifty students as the samples of the

research. The samples are regarded as purposive samples since the writer takes

samples which are appropriate with the purpose of this research.

Techniques and Instruments in Collecting Data

The data in this study was collected through a Discourse Completion Test

(DCT) based on Beebe and Cummings (in Naim, 2011) who claimed that DCT is a

highly effective method to gather a large amount of data in short periods. The DCT

used in this study included a brief description of the situations and one participant

dialogue. The DCT consists of 18 fixed discourse situations, which a university

student is likely to encounter in his/her daily language interactions. The students are

asked to relate to the situation and express their normal language reaction in such

situations.

FINDINGS

The model used in this study for data classification is called Discourse

Completion Test. Based on the result of the tests that can be seen on the table 1

Recapitulation of Total Number of Identical Apology Strategies, it can be said that,

Objective Reason (108) is the highest frequency of identical type of apology;

followed by Request for Forgiveness (93) and then Expression of Regret (69). In

other words, Objective Reason, Request for Forgiveness and Expression of Regret are

the most preferred apology sub-strategies by Indonesian speakers. However, the

lowest frequency of identical type of apology is Promise for Forbearance (2),

followed by Concern for the Hearer (3), and then Lack of Intent (4) and then, Explicit

Self-blame (8), and Offer of Repair (10). It means that the samples like more

Objective Reason, Request for Forgiveness, and Expression of Regret rather than

Promise for Forbearance, Concern for the Hearer, Lack of Intent, Explicit Self-blame,

and Offer of Repair.

6

DISCUSSION The followings are the discussions of this research: (1), Oh God!!!. I’m sorry

about that. I didn’t mean to do it. (data number 12), I’m really sorry about this

situation. I can’t handle it. (data number 5)

According to Levinson in Ogiermann (2009) ‘I’m sorry to + verb phrase’ was

only employed as an attention getter and not to address a ‘real’ offence. The use of

this phrase is very similar to the use of ‘excuse me’ when offered as a territory

invasion signal and as a way of alerting the H’s attention to an ensuing speech act. (1)

My application as soon as possible. I really need it for my tuition fees? (data 19) Um,

I’m terribly sorry to disturb you but would you mind processing. (2) Excuse me Sir,

I’m so sorry for disturbing this meeting, would I have some papers to put down some

notes of this meeting because I have my trip today to catch up and I’ll do my best for

this club. (data 30).

In the corpus ‘I’m sorry (that) Subject’ was also used as a phrase to announce

bad news: (1) Excuse me, I’m sorry I have to tell you this, it is better if you give this

task to the others because I will be very busy with my work. (data 114), (2) Damn

traffic… I am sorry for telling this because I’m in the middle of crowded vehicles

now and maybe I’ll be late to be there (data 84).

The use of the phrase in (4) has the aim of prefacing the giving of bad news

and indicating that the situation is out of personal control hence the speaker abdicates

responsibility. This lexical phrase appears to have a very similar function to the use of

‘I’m afraid’ in: (1), I am sorry, I’m afraid I can’t promise to finish these ads by

tomorrow morning. I am very tired and can’t stay late. Is it okay for you to take it

the day after tomorrow? (data 101)

The use of ‘I’m sorry S’ and ‘I’m afraid’ in (6) serve the same purpose as an

adverb such as ‘unfortunately’ and does not constitute a ‘real’ apology but a ‘ritual’

one. It should be noted that ‘I’m afraid’ was only employed in situation 12.

7

The expression of apology was intensified by means of modal verbs, auxiliary

emphatic ‘do’ as can be seen in the examples to follow: (2). I do apologize Sir! I’ve

just made this vacuum doesn’t work. I’ll try to repair it (data 40).

Apology is not only a speech act but also a social act. As a social act, it is “a

response to the accusation of wrongdoing that recognizes the offense, accepts

responsibility, expresses regret, and makes a promise (Trimbitas, et all, 2005).”

According to Deutschmann in Trimbitas, et all (2005) definitions of apology include

four basic elements: the offender, the offended, the offense and the remedy. The

offender is the person who offends by saying something wrong, the offended is the

victim of the offense, the offense is the offending incident itself, and the remedy is

considered to constitute the apologetic act.

This formula has a direct link to the speaker’s cost and loss of face which

results from performing the speech act of apology. The speaker admits responsibility

for the offence by choosing strategy from a number of sub-formulas: lack of intent

and Explicit Self-blame (Ogiermann, 2009). Within these sub-formulas the speaker

shows how much responsibility s/he is prepared to take for the offence as can be seen

in data (1), (3), (9), (10), (11), and (17) in this case is “explicit self-blame” and (12),

(17), (18), and (44) in this case is “lack of intent”.

In choosing ‘explicit self-blame’ the speaker explicitly acknowledges that s/he

has been at fault and thus accepts a high level of responsibility. This direct level of

responsibility is two-fold. While it redresses the addressee’s ‘negative’ face and

threatens the speaker’s ‘positive’ face it also, even if only indirectly, helps to

accentuate the speaker’s ‘positive’ face in that the speaker avoids any kind of

disagreement and deepens his/her sympathy with the hearer. This sub-formula was

only employed by the Indonesian in situations 1 (knock a framed picture) in (8) and

(9), situations 2 (knock a vase) (10), (11), and (12) above: (9)Oh my mistake, it

shouldn’t happen again (data 1). (10). Ups, sorry, it’s my fault. (data 3) (10) oh,

forgive me. This is my fault. (data 9). (11).Oh my God. This is my fault. Forgive me.

8

(data 10). (12) Sorry sir, this is my bad, I didn’t do that on purpose. I’m getting tense

for my first interview (data 17).

In using this sub-strategy, as suggested by the term itself, the speaker

explicitly expresses that the offence was non-intentional and in so doing mitigates the

offence. Here are some examples: (13) Oh, God!!! I’m sorry about that. I didn’t

mean to do it. (14) I am so sorry. I am not intend to break it, I promise I’ll repair it as

soon as possible (data 44).

Explanations or accounts, where the speaker expresses the reasons which

(in)directly brought about the offence, are given in addition of the expression of

apology. The ‘goodness’ of an account depends on the extent to which the apologiser

can transfer the responsibility of the offence to another party or source.

Below are some examples of the strategy in other situations: (15) I’m very sorry for

coming late; I got caught in heavy traffic jam. (data 82) (16) Hello, Sorry, Andy,

well, could you do a favor for me right now? I have my time for picking up my Mom

in the airport now and at the same time; there I’ll be a repair person coming to my

room to fix the wash machine. Could you please escort him when I ain’t here (data

93)

This formula is only appropriate when actual damage has occurred

(Ogiermann, 2009). The strategy was employed in situation 5 (broke vacuum) as an

offer of compensation, as can be seen in example above.(17) Hey Bro, I’ve dropped

the vacuum cleaner and now it doesn’t work at all but I’ll repair it (data 37). (18)

Excuse me, I am sorry Ma’am, this morning when I’ve using the leaseholder’s

vacuum, I dropped it and now it does not work. I am very sorry Ma’am. But I promise

to be responsible for it (data 38). (19) I do apologize Sir! I’ve just made this vacuum

doesn’t work. I’ll try to repair it. Really Sorry for this (data 40). (20) Oh Sir, I am

sorry. I will fix the vacuum and get chores back by next week (data 41). (21) Excuse

me Ma’am, I accidently dropped the vacuum but you don’t have to worry because I’ll

9

bring it to the service centre (data 42). (22) I am so sorry. I am not intend to break it,

I promise I’ll repair it as soon as possible (data 44).

This particular strategy had a very low incidence in Indonesian language and

it was only employed in situation 1 (24), situation 10 (25), situation 14 (26) where it

is in the speaker’s interest to save his/her own ‘face’ and redress that of his/her boss

since s/he might need to borrow money from his/her employers again. Here are some

examples: (23) Oh my mistake. It shouldn’t happen again (data 1). (24) I apologize

for being late, I got traffic jam. Sorry for my irresponsibility. I’ll do better next (data

89).

(25) I’m really sorry for being late! I promise it would never happen again (data 121)

It can be showed from the data 58 and 59 in situation 7.Sir, pardon, I really

need this car to use in a trip! I’ll pay more if you fix it soon. Would you? (data 58,

situation 7). Sir, I beg your pardon, I will pay you double if you can fix it by

tomorrow morning. I really used your help (data 59, situation 7).

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

There are six strategies of apology used by Indonesian in speaking English,

i.e. (a) Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) such as an Expression of

Regret, an Offer of Apology. and Request for Forgiveness, (b) Explanation or

Account such as Objective Reason for the violation, (c) Taking on Responsibility

such as Explicit Self-blame and Lack of intent, (d) Concern for the Hearer, (e) Offer

of Repair, and (f) Promise for forbearance.

The total number of identical strategies of apology used by samples showed

that Objective Reason is the highest frequency of identical type of apology; followed

by Request for Forgiveness and then Expression of Regret. On the contrary, the

lowest frequency of identical type of apology is Promise for Forbearance, followed

by Concern for the Hearer, and then Lack of Intent, and then, Explicit Self-Blame,

and Offer of Repair. This is because of the cultural character of the samples hardly

have had the habitual attitude of taking on responsibility materially yet. The most

10

responsibility they prefer is performing Expression of Regret and Request for

Forgiveness morally, but they are committed after performing Objective Reason

before.

The writer realized that there are still many things uncovered in this study.

Therefore, it is hoped for the next researchers to explain more about the realization of

speech acts of apologizing varies according to the number of social variables, namely

social distance, social power and the total ranking of the imposition. For further

researcher, it would be better to explore also more about the comparison between the

speech acts of apologizing consider the power, distance and imposition realized by

Indonesian native speakers and by the English native speakers.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Olshtain. (1984). “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics, VoL 5, No. 3, page 131–146.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Olshtain. (1984). “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics, VoL 5, No. 3, page 131–146.

Chaemsaithong. (2009). “A Historical Pragmatic Study of Apologies: A Case Study of The Essex Pauper Letters (1731–1837)”. Manusya: Journal of Humanities, Special Issue No.17, page 1–17.

Frawley, William. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kramsch, Claire. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Naim, Saida Anssari. (2011). The Speech Acts in Moroccan Arabic: An Intercultural Approach. València: Servei de Publicacions.

Ogiermann, Eva. (2009). On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Rojo, Laura. (2005). “Te Quería Comentar un Problemilla…”The Speech Act of Apologies in Peninsular Spanish: A Pilot Study, page 63-80. Hipertexto: Arizona State University

Tanck, Sharyl. (2002). “Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of Native and Non-Native English Speakers’ Production”. This paper was originally written for TESL 523 Second Language Acquisition at American University, Washington, DC.

Tickoo, Makhan L (ed.). (1995). Language and Culturein Multilingual Societies: Viewpoints and Visions. Singapore: Seameo Regional Language Centre.

Trimbitas, Oana, Yang Lin, and Kathleen D. Clark. (2005).“Arta de a Cere Scuze in Cultura Romaneasca: Use of Apology in Ethnic Romanian Culture “ in Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian

12

Communication Association. Vol. 10, No. 4, page 401–420, University of Akron.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. (1987). An Introduction to Sosiolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell.

.

13

Table 1. Recapitulation of Total Number of Identical Apology Strategies

Strategy of Apology ∑ Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) An expression of regret 69 An offer of apology 7 A request forgiveness 93 Explanation or Account Any external mitigating circumstances: Objective Reason for the violation 108 Taking on Responsibility Explicit self-blame 8 Lack of intent 4 Expression of self-deficiency 0 Expression of Embarrassment 0 Self-dispraise 0 Justify Hearer 0 Refusal Acknowledge guilt 0 Denial of responsibility 0 Blame the Hearer 0 Pretend to be offended 0 Concern for the hearer 3 Offer of repair 10 Promise for Forbearance 2