The Speech Act of Request: Analysis of Students’ Interaction with
Lecturers via Media Social
Ayumi and Ike Revita
English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia
Keywords: Education, Request, Speech Act.
Abstract: Being polite is very important since politeness is closely related to our relationship with others when
interacting. The politeness must be necessarily concerned. Otherwise, one may be labelled impolite. This
writing is aimed at describing how students construct their request to their lecturers via media social. The data
are the impolite utterances used by students when they are doing request via social media WhatsApp.
Observations, note- taking, and interviews were used in collecting data. The analysis was based on the
concept proposed by Culpeper (1996). The results of the analysis is presented narratively and descriptively
and indicates that students construct their request to their lecturers via WhatsApp using different sequences.
They are 1) 1 in 1 sequence; 2) 2 in 1 sequence; 3) 3 in 1 sequence; 4) 4 in 1 sequence and 5) multi in 1
sequence.
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the primary functions of language is to
maintain the continuity of relationships between its
users (Wardhaugh, 1986). Language is analogous to
a tool with very complicated rules that regulate how
a person speaks so that his interpersonal relationships
are always maintained (Wijana, 2014). The rules that
govern language use etiquette differ from one
community to another and from one language to
another. Thus, when an interaction occurs,
misunderstandings may potentially occur due to these
differences.
A speech event that demands a good ability to
speak with appropriate etiquette is making a request.
A request is a speech in which the message contained
makes the interlocutor act according to the purpose of
the speech (Revita, 2005). In other words, the purpose
of the request is the basis for the hearer's action.
Therefore, a request can cause interlocutor to lose
face because their freedom of action is imposed on
(Brown and Levinson, 1987).
The limitations of the interlocutor in acting will
become more evident if the form of speech chosen is
not appropriate, especially when directed towards a
hearer with a different cultural background. This can
lead to conflict because in a different culture a request
may be considered normal, while other cultures value
it very highly. For example, in Minangkabau culture,
requests are considered polite if done implicitly. They
are better preceded by pre-requests, such as questions
or ending with post-requests, such as reasons. That is,
the longer the speech that precedes the core of the
request, the politer the speech is. In other cultures, the
opposite may be true, a request is expected to be
delivered explicitly without being complicated
(Gunarwan, A. 1997).
To minimize the loss of face of the hearer with a
request speech act, the right strategy is needed (Felix-
Brasdefer, 2005). The strategy can be seen in the
method used or step chosen so that the hearer captures
the intent of the request.
The interactions between students and their
lecturers are susceptible to impoliteness particularly
when the student is making a request to the lecturer.
This paper describes impoliteness in the students’
interactions with their lecturer via social media. The
data are text messages containing a request that the
students sent to the lecturers via social media
WhatsApp. The research was conducted at English
Department Andalas University.
Ayumi, . and Revita, I.
The Speech Act of Request: Analysis of Students’ Interaction with Lecturers via Media Social.
DOI: 10.5220/0008678500110015
In Improving Educational Quality Toward International Standard (ICED-QA 2018), pages 11-15
ISBN: 978-989-758-392-6
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
11
2 METHOD
Data were collected through an observational method,
note-taking and interviewing. Text messages
containing impolite request were recorded using a
screenshot. The respondents were then interviewed to
find out the reasons for their choice of language.
Pragmatics and a referential identity method were
used in conducting the analysis. The result was then
presented using formal and informal methods.
3 REQUESTS AND
IMPOLITENESS
The request is utterance in which the speaker appeals
to the hearer to do something for the benefit of the
speaker. Bach and Harnish state that a request
expresses the speaker’s desire that the hearer does
something in which the hearer takes this desired
expression as the reason to act. A request does not
contain an obligation for the hearer to fulfil the
required act like a command does. It means that a
request has the potential to be granted or rejected.
Requests are closely related to the loss of face of
both the speaker and the hearer. The speaker will lose
face if the request is rejected or denied. On the other
hand, the hearer will lose face if the strategy used in
delivering the request is unsuitable. Thus, in order for
both the speaker and hearer to save face, a specific
strategy should be employed.
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain proposes nine strategies
in making a request: (1) mood derivable, (2)
performative, (3) hedged performative, (4) obligation
statement, (5) want statement, (6) suggestive
formulae, (7) query preparatory, (8) strong hint, and
(9) mild hind (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984).
The nine strategies are also found in Bahasa
Indonesia but with more varieties. The variations
appear due to contacts that have happened to the
speakers from a different culture. In delivering a
request, the speaker will consider both the speaker
and hearer’s cultural background. It will result in a
different strategy that does not put a certain culture
above the other.
The sequence of the request is another form of
request making strategy. Revita (2007) states that
there are four sequences used in making a request.
The four sequences are:
1. 2 in 1 sequence. This sequence uses two kinds
of strategies where one of them is the intended
request itself. The request can either be before
or after the supporting utterance. Either way,
the position influences the focus of attention.
A request where the main request precedes the
support is more focused than the other way
around.
2. 3 in 1 sequence. This contains three
consecutive strategies in which the main
request can be at the beginning, middle or end
of the whole utterance.
3. 4 in 1 sequence. This uses four different
strategies to achieve one goal of the request.
4. Multi in 1 sequence. Request with multi in 1
sequence is constructed using five or more
strategies. This form of request is not
commonly found.
To communicate is related to preserving the other
person's face. When talking to others, speaker or
hearer can threaten their interlocutor's face. This
means that both speaker and hearer may cause the
other to feel embarrassed or offended. Any utterance
that makes others feel embarrassed or offended can
be categorized as impolite. Culpeper calls this as
impoliteness (Culpeper, J. 2005)
Impoliteness is an attitude which threatens
another’s face. Impoliteness is reflected in an attitude
that creates discomfort to the hearer. The discomfort
is displayed through shame, anger, hurt, or being
offended. The feeling of shame or hurt, according to
Brown and Levinson in Eelen is called a Face
Threatening Act (FTA) (Eelen, 2001).
To avoid attacking or threatening people’s face,
suitable strategies are applied in communication.
Revita state that in communicating with others, a
speaker will use specific strategies so that what is
uttered will not hurt other people’s feelings (Revita,
2013).
Culpeper distinguishes two forms of impoliteness,
inherent and mock. Inherent impoliteness is any
utterance that is explicitly designed to attack face. For
example, a command, threat, or criticism [4] [12].
The utterance Kamu kira keberadaan mu
diperhitungkan?’ (Do you think your existence
counts?) is considered a criticism. This criticism is
seen as impolite because it is rude and anti-social and
not in line with the rules and norms applied in the
society. The impoliteness can visibly be identified if
it is said in order to degrade the hearer. Mock
impoliteness is superficially impolite, but the force is
not intended to attack face.
Impoliteness in communication can be avoided.
One of the ways to do that is by applying language
use rhetoric. Leech distinguishes two rhetorics, the
interpersonal and the textual rhetoric [12]. Textual
rethorics demands that when talking, one must be
clear, coherent, and relevant according to the
ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance
12
principle of cooperation proposed by Grice (1975).
Interpersonal rhetoric urges the participants to treat
others politely and uphold the principle of modesty.
Several factors motivate linguistic form selection.
The selection is made based on (1) the social distance
between speaker and hearer, (2) the magnitude of the
difference of power and domination between them,
(3) the relative status of speech acts in the culture
concerned. In another word, the utterance must be
considered not to be face threatening [12] [13] [14]
[15].
These factors are known as context. Context is
any background knowledge shared by the participants
that surround or is associated with the condition when
the utterance is produced. Different understanding of
an utterance can be influenced by social contexts,
such as the social role and status, right and
obligations, as well as the experiences of the said
participants.
Leech [12] states that context includes these
aspects:
1. Addressers or addressees (speaker/writer or
hearer/reader) that include aspects relating to
the participants of the given utterance, such
as age, socioeconomic background, gender,
level of familiarity, and other.
2. The context of utterance: all the physical
aspects and the relevant social setting of the
utterance in question [13] [14] [16]
3. The speaker's intended goal(s) of an
utterance.
4. Utterance as a form of act or activity,
referring to a verbal utterance that relates to
acts that occur in a specific situation.
5. Utterance as a verbal act. It means that the
utterance produced is a form of the verbal act.
Impoliteness comes in many different forms.
Culpeper [9] proposes five model of impoliteness, (1)
bald on record impoliteness, (2) positive
impoliteness, (3) negative impoliteness, (4) sarcasm
or mock politeness, and (5) withhold politeness.
4 DISCUSSION
The progress of sophisticated technology brings
about the change of the way people communicate [17]
[18]. The direct way or explicit utterances have
become the preference. However, this way of saying
something does not occur holistically. Minangkabau
people, for example, tend to speak implicitly [19].
They will not directly express what they want to say
but through the process of thinking and rethinking.
One process of thinking and rethinking is in the
strategy of speech acts used. Oishi[17] states that
speech as action via utterance. In the speech act, the
action is performed via utterance [18]. Five
performances exist in the speech act. They are
assertive, expressive, declaration, expressive, and
directive [20] [21] [22].
These five performances are done via language.
As a means of communication, language plays a very
important role in human’s life [23] [24]. To express
feelings, to inform, or to direct are some of the
common functions of the use of language [13].
One common function of language is directive.
Directive means the utterance is used to direct
someone else [25]. The directive impinges on the
others’ face [22]. Thus, a directive has great
possibility to be regarded impolite if it is not correctly
done [26]. This is what is generally found in
interactions via social media. Impoliteness is more
common in the utterances the students use to
communicate with their lecturers.
Typing message in social media via android or
gadget results in these students disobeying the rules
of polite communication. For example, when they
make requests of the lecturers. There are at least four
strategies used by students to their lecturers in
requesting, some of which are regarded as impolite in
Minangkabau culture.
1)
Bu, saya mau bertemu Ibu hari ini. Pukul
berapa ibu bisa?
‘I want to see you today, Mam. When can I
see you?’
2)
Bapak ke kampus hari ini? Saya boleh
bimbingan tidak?
‘Are you going to campus today, Sir. Can I
be supervised?’
Undergraduate students delivered the above two
requests to the lecturers via WhatsApp. The students
wanted to see the lecturers for thesis supervising.
They used two utterances comprising information Bu,
saya mau bertemu Ibu hari ini and question Pukul
berapa ibu bisa? Both information and questions are
intended as a request. The main idea is available at
the first utterance Saya mau bertemu Ibu hari ini.
This is also similar with 2 in which the student
gives two questions1) Bapak ke kampus hari ini?
And 2) Saya boleh bimbingan tidak? The two
questions intended as a request.
Both 1 and 2 are regarded impolite since there is
no introduction preceding the utterance or closing or
other statements to end. This strategy is categorized
The Speech Act of Request: Analysis of Students’ Interaction with Lecturers via Media Social
13
as 2 in 1 in [27] [28] the sense that to deliver the
request, the speakers use two kinds of speech act.
The 2 in 1 strategy is one of four strategies [26]
used when making requests via social media. There
are three others ordered in frequency of occurrence--
3 in 1, 4 in 1, multi in 1, and 1 in 1. The 1 in 1 strategy
is categorized very impolite because the students
directly make the request to the lecturers. For
example, is as displayed in 3.
3)
Bu, saya mau bimbingan dengan ibu hari ini.
‘I want to be supervised by you today, Mam.
The utterance 3 is directly and explicitly stated. His
request to be supervised by the lecturer is delivered
by using a literal request [25]. No supporting
utterances are preceding or following the request.
Such kind of request is regarded impolite because of
the length, the strategy, the directness, and the choice
of words [29]. Such a strategy is sometimes used by
students who are not aware that they are
communicating with their lecturers. Furthermore, this
strategy needs to be avoided when addressed to one
older than the speaker in the Minangkabau culture--
the culture of both speakers and hearers-- people who
share a set of rules of speaking [25] .
Kato nan ampek ‘the four words’ has kato
mandaki ‘up grading’, kato manurun down grading’,
kato mandata ‘horizontal’, and kato malereang
‘sloping’. These four words consider mostly the age
of the hearers but the relationship and the power
among participants also play a role [26] [30]. Those
who fail to implement kato nan ampek in
Minangkabau context are regarded not only impolite
but also disrespectful [31].
The occurrence of the strategies in requesting via
media social from students to lecturers can be seen in
table 1.
It clearly seen that the use of 4 in 1 strategy is most
commonly used, followed by 2 in 1, 3 in 1, 2 in 1, and
1 in 1. Among these four, the multi in 1 is regarded
the politest because it is the longest. The longest the
utterance, the more polite it will be [3][14]. The use
of 2 in 1 and 1 in 1 is due to the lack of knowledge of
how to communicate with an older interlocutor [16]
and the character of students which ignore the aspect
of politeness.
The depiction of the occurrence of the strategy in
percentage is shown on fig 1 below.
Figure 1: The Occurrence of Strategy of Request from
Students to Lecturers via Media Social
5 CONCLUSIONS
As students who interact with their lectures in daily
basis, the strategies used by the undergraduate
students in making and delivering their requests to
their lectures who are older than them many could be
considered impolite. The occurrences of multi in 1
sequence are very low compare to the other strategies.
This may be caused by the lack of knowledge of how
to communicate the right way according to the norm
and culture of Minangkabau. Education on Kato nan
ampek to students in Minangkabau should be given
more in schools so that they know how to interact
with people older than them politely and respectfully.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Huge thankful to Rector of Universitas Andalas and
Dean of Faculty of Humanities, for funding the
research. The Lecturers and Students around
Universitas Andalas, and the respondents thank you
for the kindness and cooperation in providing data.
Table 1: The occurrence of strategies in speech of request from students to lectures via media social.
Data Number
Total Number
2 in 1
3 in 1
4 in 1
Multi in 1
1 in 1
1, 3, 39, 24, 40, 42,
6
2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 26, 28, 35, 36,
9
6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 27,
29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38
19
11, 17, 22, 26, 28, 32, 33
7
14, 18, 23, 25, 41
5
ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance
14
REFERENCES
Blum-Kulka S. and E. Olshtain. 1984. “Request and
Apologies: A Cross Cultural Studiey of Speech Act
Realization Patterns (CCSARP),” Applied Linguistics,
no. Volume 5, pp. 196-213, 1 October.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. “Universals in
Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena,” Questions
and Politeness, p. 129.
Cahyono, B. Y. 1998. Kristal-kristal Ilmu Bahasa.
Surabaya: Airlangga University Press.
Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the Internet, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. 2005. Linguistic Impoliteness: Using
Language to Cause Offence. UK: Lancester Universit.
Dörnyei, Z., and P. Skehan. 2003. “Individual Differences
in Second Language Learning,” dalam The handbook of
second language acquisition, M. Long dan C. Doughty,
Penyunt., Malden, Blackwell P.
Eelen, G. 2001. Kritik Teori Kesantunan. Surabaya:
Airlangga University Press.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2005. “Indirectness and politeness in
Mexican requests,” dalam Selected Proceedings of the
7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA.
Gunarwan, A. 1997. “Tindak Tutur Melarang di dalam
Bahasa Indonesia di Kalangan Penutur Jati Bahasa
Jawa,” Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia, no. 15.
Leech, G. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. New York:
Longman.
Oishi, E. 2006. “Austin’s Speech Act Theory and the
Speech Situation,” Eser. Filos, p. 114.
Oktavianus, and I. Revita. 2013. Kesantunan Berbahasa.
Padang: Minangkabau Press.
Navies, A. Pemikiran Minangkabau Catatan Budaya A.A
Navies. Bandung: Angkasa.
Poedjosoedarmo, S. 1979. Tingkat Tutur dalam Bahasa
Jawa. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan
Bahasa Depdikbud.
Poedjosoedarmo, S. 2001. Filsafat Bahasa. Surakarta:
Muhamaddiyah University Press.
Revita, I. 2005. Tindak Tutur Permintaan dalam Bahasa
Minangkabau.
Revita, I. 2007. “Strategi Permintaan dalam Bahasa
Indoenesia (Kajian Lintas Budaya),” dalam Seminar
Internasional Austronesia, Bali.
Revita, I. 2010. “Konstruksi Tuturan Permintaan dalam
Komunikasi via SMS,” dalam Seminar Internasional,
Padang.
Revita, I. 2010. “Tindak Tutur Mahasiswa Kepada Dosen,”
dalam Seminar Internasional Multidisciplined
Linguistics, Padang
Revita, I. 2013. Pragmatik: Kajian Tindak Tutur
Permintaan Lintas Bahasa. Padang: FIB.
Revita, I., R. Trioclarise and N. Anggreiny. 2017.
“Politeness Strategies of The Panders in Women
Trafficking,” Bul. Al-Turas, no. XXIII(1), p. 191210.
Revita, I. 2017. “Women Trafficking dalam Bingkai
Sosiopragmatik,” Visigraf, Padang.
Revita, I. S. Wekke, and R. Trioclarise. 2017 “Empowering
the Values of Minangkabau Local Wisdom in
Preventing the Activity of Women Trafficking in West
Sumatera,” p. 3–6.
Revita, I. 2018. Kaleidoskop Linguistik. Padang: CV.
Rumahkayu Pustaka Utama.
Schneider, K. 2012. Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Studies in the theory of speech acts.
Searle, J., F. Kiefer, and M. Bierwisch. 1980. Speech act
theory and pragmatics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.
Oxford: Basil Blackwel.
Walters, J. 2005. Bilingualism. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbauam Associates Publishers.
Wijana, I. G. P. “Teori Kesantunan dan Humor,” in Seminar
Nasional Semantik, Universitas Sebelas Maret, 2004.
Yule, G. 2006. The Study of Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
The Speech Act of Request: Analysis of Students’ Interaction with Lecturers via Media Social
15