Male and Female Mitigation in Institutional Conversation Setting:

Viewed from the Strategies in Speech Acts

Fatma, Sumarlam, Sarwiji Suwandi, and Ani Rakhmawati

Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Central of Java, Indonesia

Keywords: Directive Speech Acts, Communication Strategy, Mitigation Marker, Academic Situation.

Abstract: As a multidisciplinary field, pragmatics tries to explain meaning and language structure by refering to

aspects beyond the language itself. Phenomena in using language still demands an investigation on

sociopragmatic field completely. This research aims to investigate how academic society choose and utilize

mitigation in using speech acts especially directive speech acts. Besides investigating the mitigation marker,

the researcher also consider local language elements as a choice of communication strategy to show honor,

intimacy, and other values. Mitigation choice used in the context of interaction between male and female

becomes singular uniqeness in this field since it involves how they try to understand each other

linguistically. This research uses sociopragmatic approach with descriptive qualitative as the method. Based

on the use of linguistic strategies, several variables are found: (1) social distance between locutor and

interlocutor determined based on the general variable, socio-economic background, and culture; (2) social

stratification between locutor and interlocutor, (3) difference of mitigation between male and female in

academic situation. The use of mitigation is not only about the locutor’s choices to treat the interlocutor, but

also about a reflection of social causes and psychological causes which resemble the character in expressing

language. Through language, moral and value and behavior can be expressed; it includes saying thank you,

discussing with someone older or younger, and replying someone in academic situation.

1 INTRODUCTION

In many countries with rich of local tradition like

Indonesia, women have their own way to express

refusal. Specifically, utterance used by women

community has different choice of language

compared to those used by men, including in

expressing refusal (Al-rausan, Awal, & Salehudin,

2016: 19). This diversity of language is further used

as a gender marker (Andrade, 2014:21). The

specialness of women’s refusal acts can also be seen

in academic discourse context of female

undegraduates in Central Sulawesi. The variety of

studies on speech acts in academic discourse

becomes more important and interesting due to its

continuity and synergy towards the previous study

done by Saddhono& Fatma (2016); Fatma,

Sumarlam, Suwandi, & Rakhmawati (2017), dan

Kasim, Sumarlam, Suwandi, & Rakhmawati (2017).

In the international level, similar research which

studies on speech acts, gender, and ethnography of

communication has been done by Hasim, Alam, &

Yusoff (2014); Marshall (2015); Ying, Heng &

Abdullah (2015); Khan & Gorski (2016); as well as

Brock, Borti, Frahm, Howe, Khasilova & Kalen

(2017) on wide and multi-context scope. The refusal

acts on spoken academic discourse by the ethnicity

of Kaili, Bugis, and Manado in Central Sulawesi is

shaped by the use of body language, sign language,

implicit meaning, and the traits of the local accents

and dialects themselves. The refusal acts is used by

the women to express disagreement, unwillingness,

reluctancy, or to do or not to do something. Thus,

the variety of refusal acts viewed from gender,

ethnography of communication, and the use of local

accents are regarded as uniqe to be studied in this

research.

Until now, several relevant research about

gender, especially on the difference between men’s

and women’s choice of languages is so many. It is

proved simultaneously that research about discourse

construct related to gender still becomes popular

issue both in national and international levels. Some

of the research is done by Yeganeh dan Ghoreyshi

(2015), who study about the gender difference on the

use of academic discourse marker in Iran; and

Ishikawa (2015), about the difference of diction used

by female and male undergraduates in Asia.

Fatma, ., Sumarlam, ., Suwandi, S. and Rakhmawati, A.

Male and Female Mitigation in Institutional Conversation Setting: Viewed from the Strategies in Speech Acts.

DOI: 10.5220/0009019200002297

In Proceedings of the Borneo International Conference on Education and Social Sciences (BICESS 2018), pages 237-243

ISBN: 978-989-758-470-1

237

Similarly, in Indonesia, gender is also studied. Some

of the noticable research is conducted by Subandi

(2006), who studies about language deviation on

using men’s choice of language by women as a form

of resistance towards gender issue; Udasmoro

(2010), about gender study on intercultural society

in France; and Kentary, Ngalim, and Prayitno

(2015), about teacher’s illocution viewed from

gender and Javanese culture background.

Women are recognized by their grace, beauty,

emotionalism, and care while men are percieved by

their strenght, rationality, manliness, and might. The

shift of characteristics and traits from time to time

and from a place to another, or being different from

one class to another, is called as the concept of

gender. The expounding of characteristics and traits

is exchangable (Fakih, 2013: 8). The concept of

gender refers to the different characteristics of men

and women shaped by the society and culture. The

gender marker is caused by many factors including

social and cultural construct, empowerment, and

socialization (Genella, Stickels, Stickels, 2017: 1).

Such view on society causes marginalization on

women not only in working place, but also in the

house, society, and even culture. Gender is also a

part of power and discourse in the social change. For

Foucault (1980), power and knowledge are

important, especially in matter of that discourse and

knowledge can be the means to gain power.

Therefore, through the process of using knowledge,

power has been implemented into various aspects

like the social, ethnic, sexual, and religion

domination. Linguistics and feminism view explain

the gender difference on linguistic behavior.

Feminism theory has been widely used by experts in

studying the relation between language and gender

(Ogunsiji, Farinde, dan Adebiyi: 2012). It is not only

on the scope of society, but also on the level of

discussion and the use of discourse which are used

to comprehend the sole differences between men and

women, especially in basic spoken refusal acts in

power discourse context.

This study focuses on the refusal acts delivered

by female undergraduates viewed from gender by

using speech acts theory through the identification of

speech forms – declarative, imperative, and

interrogative. The focus of the research is based on

the view that any form of utterance can represent

and express certain act either directly or indirectly

(Baydak, 2015: 16). The difference of expression

also occurs on the female undergraduates’ choice of

language as well. Choice of language used in refusal

acts towards men’s speech tends to be different than

that is used to women’s.

2 METHODOLOGY

This research is qualitative with the approach of

SPEAKING ethnography of communication by

Hymes (1996) Pragmatic, gender, and ethnographic

views are used in this research to understand specific

local conditions based on cooperative and politeness

principles in which the female undergraduates use

refusal acts. In this research, not all the eight factors

are used to explain the problem. Communicative

design, in the perspective of this research, is based

on the use of language which contextually has

meaning; and it is used to know the social

communicative function (Mudiono, 2011: 162). The

speech context pragmatically eases the language

analysis process. This research emphasizes on the

use of speech context which involves extralinguistic

and linguistic context. The former refers to socio-

cultural aspect while the latter emphasizes on how

language is used. Praag, Stevens, and Houtte (2017:

393), on their research, state that in order to realize

the communication purpose, the speaker is

encouraged to use strategy and interpretation in

communication. Therefore, the implementation of

ethnography of communication method and gender

perspective is used to expound the cultural

background and social norms, like level of

education, gender, social status, intimacy, and the

others; in the real situation.

Qualitative approach is chosen since the data

collected from the subjects are majorly about the

subjects’ communication process. This research is

conducted in Tadulako University with its multi-

ethnical context with the female undergraduates as

the subjects of study – their multi-ethnicity is

emphasized. The data are in the form of spoken

speech in academic discourse (in lectures) both

formally and non-formally. The data analysis uses

Miles and Huberman’s interactive model (2014: 15-

24) which involves (1) data collection, (2) data

reduction, (3) data display, and (4) data verification

or conclusion drawing.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The finding depicts diversity of refusal acts used by

the female undergraduates towards their college

friends. By the diversity, reflected the characteristics

of choice of language used by the female

undergraduates in refusing their male college

friends’ speech. In terms of language use, it can be

inferred that both socio-cultural and situational

context influence their speech.

BICESS 2018 - Borneo International Conference On Education And Social

238

Hsia Lü (2017:14) states that there is a code

marker in intercultural academic context which

reflects individual’s style of communication and

verbal conflict. This equilibrium becomes the basis

to meet the purpose of communication since one can

paraphrase their social dimension by using their own

language or the other languages and referring to the

linguistic structure or their own linguistic ability

(Hamers & Blanc, 2000:9).

The expounding of several findings on the

process of interaction in Tadulako University, Palu

is as follows.

3.1 The Forms of Refusal Acts Refusal

Acts by Ordering

Utterance in the form imperative is a type of

utterance that makes use of its real function. Briefly,

Kunjana (2005:36) divides imperative sentence in

Indonesian language into five classifications. They

are (1) ordinary imperative sentence, (2) requesting

imperative sentence, (3) permissive imperative

sentence, (4) inviting imperative sentence, and (5)

demanding imperative sentence.

In relation to refusal acts of imperative sentence,

the interlocutor prefers to order the speaker back

(Gildersleeve & Hernandez, 2012).It can be seen in

the following dialogue.

Speaker : Tinggal sadikiini kupon. Ambe jo!

(a)

(there is only few coupons left, Just

take it!)

Interlocutor : Kase akang yang laeng jo. (b)

(give the coupons to others)

Speaker : Baku ganti lah kan torang te apa!

(c)

` (why don’t we do it alternately!)

Interlocutor : liatugas masing-masing jo. Nyanda

salah ngana bilang pa kita itu!

(just do our own responsibility. It is

not me that you should give an order

to!) (d)

In the above dialogue, the speech of Interlocutor

is a form of refusal acts shown by ordering Speaker

back. The thing that can be the reference is the

existence of imperative marker in Manado Language

which is the word jo. Moreover, it is supported by

speech act context. The context that underlies that

refusal acts is the setting, topic, and participants. In

their research findings, Su (2017: 72) and Pallawa

(2013: 176) state that there are various languages

that can be used in a speech act. Based on the

context, the use of local language gives more

pragmatics implication to Interlocutor. The use of

local language shows Indonesian multilingualism

means that can be retained to be used in informal

communication without neglecting its good language

structure.

3.2 Refusal Acts by Giving Comment

Speaker (Male) : Apa depe beda katu’ itu puisi

kontemporer dulu deng

sekarang, Mala?

(What is the difference

between contemporary

poetry in the past and

nowadays, Mala?)

Interlocutor (Female) : Ada di halaman berapa itu

depe penjelasan. Buka saja

itu bukunya W.S Rendra

yang torang so kopi kemarin,

dang.

(The explanation can be

found in W.S Rendra’s book

that has been copied. It must

be on a certain page.)

Yang penting nganapahami

dulu itu kontemporer koa’

apa.

(the most important thing is

that we should understand

what contemporary is first)

Without using any negation marker, the above

dialogue seems to be a common declarative

sentence. However, based on the underlying context,

Interlocutor refuses the order by explaining or

commenting that explaining the meaning of

contemporary is more important than asking. That

speech, semantically, shows refusal acts by using

direct declarative sentence functioning as direct

refusal.

In many definitions, culture describes many

things including how to represent each speech.

Speech reflects the speaker’s identity. In line,

Ogunsiji, Farinde, and Adebiyi (2012: 203) describe

that language (including the speech act) which has to

do with maintaining interaction, power, and

interpersonal norm is different from male and

female. Male speaker marks his every speech act

with powerful speech while female speaker marks

his every speech act with powerless speech.

Male and Female Mitigation in Institutional Conversation Setting: Viewed from the Strategies in Speech Acts

239

3.3 Refusal Acts by Satirizing

In expressing refusal, there is difference between

undergraduates if the topic of the speech is related to

subject matter that tends to be rigid, serious, and

formal. However, when the topic has nothing to do

with certain subject matter or academic things, the

undergraduates’ speech is more fluent. Sometimes, it

becomes unstructured and involves satire that ends

up on refusal acts. This thing is explained by Mills

(2003: 227) that there is a certain stereotype between

male and female in interpreting the form of

tendency in formal context or on topic discussed,

and whether the female participant uses face

threatening act or not.

Refusal acts by satirizing is expressed by using

speech that has different meaning to maintain the

speaker’s feeling, face saving act.

Speaker(Male) : Ki, So te ada bensinnya

barangkali ini sampe sigma.

(a)

(Ki, we run out of gasoline

to go to Sigma street.)

Speaker (Female) : Perasaan baru kemarin

diisi ini ech. (b)

(I think I have just filled the

gasoline.)

Interlocutor (Female) : Samadeng bohong. Ini

ngana pake lagi, bemana

mo Full. (c)

(It is a waste since you use

it again, the gasoline will

not be fully filled.)

Speaker (Male) : So itu. (d)

(I see.)

Based on the underlying context, sentence (b) is

an indirect refusal acts in the form of irony. It is

supported by sentence (d). Refusal acts involving

satire is expressed by using a sentence having

different form and intention to perform face saving

act.

3.4 Refusal Acts Strategy and Refusal

Acts Context

Refusal acts can be expressed directly or indirectly.

Direct speech is a type of speech in which the form

and the intention are the same (Halim dan Razak,

2014: 21). Declarative sentence is used to state,

imperative sentence is used to order, and

interrogative sentence is used to ask questions. It is

different from indirect speech. The strategy used in

indirect speech is functioning a certain sentence to

convey intention that is different from its form.

Interrogative sentence, for example, is used to order,

or declarative sentence is used to refuse, etc.

In his explanation, Mills (2003: 244) states that

female speakers used feminine strategy to show her

politeness in such a way that is different than male

speakers. The following is the indirect strategy

example used by female undergraduate to refuse

Interlocutor. One of the examples is as follows.

Speaker (Female) : Jam berapa selesai? (a)

(what time will you

finish it?)

Speaker (Male) : Kutunggu makinah?(b)

(I will wait, ok?)

Interlocutor(Female) : Sampe Sore kamasuk,

tapi Iyee nanti saya liat

dulu bemana bisajie

tidak.) (c)

(I will work till evening,

but let see if I can go or

not)

In the context of the above dialogue, there is

refusal acts in sentence (c) tough there is the use of

honorific in Bugis as a politeness marker or as a way

to show respect to the interlocutors. By using

dialect, the intention can be conveyed. Found by

Schwarz & Shahar (2017: 115) in their study about

classroom talk, it is found that certain dialect is

needed to show acceptance or refusal by using

specific opinion. Based on social and cultural factor,

it can be concluded that social status and race are

factors and reasons to convey indirect refusal acts

(Göҫtü, R. and Kir, M.: 2014).

This thing is emphasized by Imai, Kanero, dan

Masuda’s (2016: 70-71) finding that language is

influenced by the place where our culture is formed.

Culture and language influence one’s word choices.

Based on the social status underlying the speech, the

intimacy between Speaker and Interlocutor can be

seen through the use of linguistic marker iye that

means iya in Bahasa or ok in English. That linguistic

marker is usually used to speak to older people or

used to break the ice though the previous sentence

contains refusal to Speaker offer. This is used by the

female undergraduate to maintain Interlocutor’s

feeling as well as considering the norm and culture.

The intimate relation between Speaker and

Interlocutor shows solidarity and care supported by

the same cultural background. Secova (2017:3)

explains that the combination of social background

and linguistic conditioning between two languages

influence pragmatics function in a certain speech.

Refusal acts is actually not initiated by the speaker.

Instead, it is determined by the interlocutor based on

BICESS 2018 - Borneo International Conference On Education And Social

240

the previous order involving politeness strategy and

social status among interlocutors (Morkus, 2014:87).

Besides, the other things considered are ethnicity

and gender between SpeakerandInterlocutor. The

following is the example.

Speaker (Male) : Kase pinjam dulu, nga

pe doi Sra. (a)

: (Isra, Lend me your

money)

Interlocutor (Female) : Kita saja mo ba bayar

ini, Napa kost ba

tunggu e. (b)

(I should pay for my

boarding house, I have

been billed)

Speaker (Male) : Pinjam. Nya’ kita

minta. (c)

: (Lend me. I’m not

asking for free)

Interlocutor (Female) : Ede, pe enak e. Nga

kira kita pegawai

pegadaian ini. (d)

(Hmm, no way, I’m

not pawnshop

employee) (smiling)

The context of the speech emphasizes the

context that is related to setting, topic, and the

relation among participants, Speaker dan

Interlocutor. The effectiveness of oral

communication can be related to some

communication variables or components that are

interpersonal ideology, situation, the relation

between interlocutors, setting, intention, and the

intimacy (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Nur 2009: 23).

In communicating, female speakers tend to utter

linguistics forms that make the speech act more

polite (Göҫtü &Kir, 2014: 282-283).

Some people thatlisten to refusal acts in sentence

(b) and (c) may feel it to be rude since the female

speaker utters enak saja! (No way!). However,

considering the context and the intimacy between

SpeakerandInterlocutor, the female undergraduate’s

direct refusal acts is polite. Intimacy is expressed

based on the shared culture. Besides, the female

speech as stated by Lakof (2001) is characterized by

lexical marker, question tag, and high intonation in

uttering declarative sentence. They use polite form

and avoid the use of swearing words.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Refusal acts uttered by female speakers clearly

shows refusal whether it is expressed through satire

or other more understandable words. The use of

satire in refusal acts is not intended to satirize.

Instead, it is used to show care to the interlocutor

and to create more comfortable situation so that fun

conversation can take place (Filippova, 2015: 209;

Hassan, Z.M, 2014).In a different context, Nur

(2007) has been explored speech components used

by female and male speakers’ in the form of

informal refusal, invitation, and request.

Potentially, as a kind of verbal expression,

refusal acts is influenced by intimacy, sociocultural,

academic context, and multiethnic context between

the interlocutors. The forms, strategies, and contexts

of female speakers’ refusal acts are indicated by

negation markers as nyanda’andte. Negation marker

is equal with the word tidakin Bahasa and the word

no in English. Generally, while the communication

takes place, the female undergraduate faces informal

situation. Therefore, the use of the word tidakis rare.

The tendency to use the word tidakis simplified by

using the nda. This shows hownegation marker

nyada’andnda’ is used in refusal acts. Moreover,

there is the use of honorific honorifik kithat means

kitain Indonesian and we in English to respect older

interlocutor which is Interlocutor though there is the

same race and ethnic to express refusal acts between

SpeakerandInterlocutor. In addition, the topic and

the participants involved in the communication

influence the refusal acts chosen by female

undergraduates.

REFERENCES

Andrade, M.S. (2014). The Successful Educational

Journeys of American Indian Women: Forming

Aspirations Higher Education. International Journal

of Multicultural Education, 16(1), 21-38.

Al-rousan, M. Y., Awal, N.M., & Salehuddin, K. (2016).

Compliment Responses among Male and Female

Jordanian University Students. Gema online, 16(1),

19-34.

Baydak, A.V., Scharioth, C., & II’yashenco. I.A. (2015).

Interaction of Language and Culture in the Process of

International Educational. Procedia-Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 215, 14-18.

Brock, C.H., Borti, A., Frahm, T., Howe, L., Khasilova,

D., Kalen., K.V. (2017). Employing Autoethnography

to Examine Our Diverse Identities: Striving Towards

Equitable and Socially Just Stances in Literacy

Teaching and Research. International Journal of

Multicultural Education, 19(1), 105-125.

Brown & Levinson. Esther (Ed). (1987). Universal in

Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Male and Female Mitigation in Institutional Conversation Setting: Viewed from the Strategies in Speech Acts

241

Brown & Levinson. (1987). Politeness. New York:

Cambridge University.

Fatma, Sumarlam, Suwandi, S., & Rakhmawati, A.

(2017). Showing Respect in A Multicultural Society in

Central Sulawesi: A Sociopragmatics Study od

Directives Soeech Acts in A Local Language in

University Academic Environment. Special Issue

Edition of Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and

Humanities (S), 25(S), 99-114.

Fakih, M. (2013). Gender Analysis & Social

Transformation. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Filippova, E. (2014). Developing appreciation of Irony in

Canadian and Czech discourse. Journal of Pragmatics,

74, 209-223.

Gallena, S., Stickels, B., & Stickels, E. (2017). Gender

Perception After Raising Vowel Fundamental and

Formant Frequencies: Considerations for Oral

Resonance Research. Journal of Voice, 1-10.

Gildersleeve, R.E., Hernandez, S. (2012). Producing

(im)Possible Peoples: Policy Discourse Analysis, In-

State Resident Tuition and Undocumented Students in

American Higher Education. International Journal of

Multicultural Education, 14(2), 1-19.

Göҫtü, R. and Kir, M. (2014). Gender Studies in English,

Turkish, and Georgian languages in terms of

grammatical, semantic and pragmatic Levels.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 282-

287.

Hamers, J.F., & Blanc, M.H.A. (2000). Bilinguality and

Bilingualisme. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Halim A., N.A., and Razak A., N. (2014). Communication

Strategies of Women Leader in Enterpreneurship.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 21-28.

Hasim, N.M.H., Alam, S.S., & Yusoff, N.M. (2014).

Relationship between Teacher’s Personality,

Monitoring, Learning Environment, and Students’

EFL Performance. Gema Online, 14(1), 101-117

Hassan, Z.M. 2014. Language Contextualisation and

Culture. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,

136, 31-35.

Hsia Lü., P. (2017). When Different “Codes” Meet;

Communication Style and Conflict in Intercultural

Academic Meetings. Language & Communication, 1-

14.

Hymes, D. (1996). Etnoghraphy, Linguistics, Narrative

Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice.

London: Taylor & Francis.

Imai, M., Kanero, J., and Masuda, T. (2016). The Relation

Between Language, Culture, and Thought. Current

Opinion in Psychology Scient Direct (8), 70-77.

Ishikawa, Y. (2015). Gender Different in Vocabulary Use

by University Students. Procedia Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 192, 593-600.

Kasim, F., Sumarlam., Suwandi, S. & Rakhmawati, A.

(2017). A Cross-cultural and Intercultural of

Indirectness Speech Act: The Use of – Interference

Local Language in Academic Discourse at Central of

Sulawesi. International Journal of Pedagogy and

Teacher Education, 2, 117- 126.

Kentary, A., Ngalim, A., & Prayitno, J.H. (2015).

Teaching Teacher’s Discourse Behind the Culture of

Java: Gender Perspective. Jurnal Penelitian

Humaniora, 16(1).

Khan, M., & Gorski. (2016). The Gendered and

Heterosexist Evolution of the Teacher Exemplar in the

United States: Equity Implications for LGBTQ and

Gender Nonconforming Teachers. International

Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(2), 15-38.

Kunjana, R. (2005). Imperative Politeness in Indonesian

Language. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Lakoff, R. (2001). Language and Woman’s Place. New

York: Harper & Row Publisher.

Marshall, P.L. (2015). Using My ‘You Lie Moment’ to

Theorize Persistent Resistance to Critical Multicultural

Education. International Journal of Multicultural

Education 17(2), 117-133.

Morkus, N. (2014). Refusal in Egyptian Arabic and

American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 86-107.

Mudiono, A. (2011). Ethongraphic Study of

Communication of Indonesian Assertive Illocution in

Informal EducationJurnal Pendidikan dan

Pembelajaran, 2011, Vol 18 (2).

Nur, Y. (2009). Women’s Language in Contextual (A

Pragmatics Review). Malang: Surya Pena Gemilang

Publishing.

Nur, Y. (2007). Expression of Refusal Speech in a Gender

Perspective (A Theoretical Review). Malang: Surya

Pena Gemilang Publishing.

Miles, B. Matthew., A. Michael Huberman. (2014).

Qualitative Data Analysis. Penerjemah:Tjejep

Rohendi Rohidi. Jakarta: UI Press.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness (Studies in

Interactional Sociolinguistics). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Ogunsiji, Y., Farinde, & Adebiyi. (2012). Language,

Gender, and Culture. British Journal of Art and Social

Sciences 6(2), 202-210.

Pallawa, B.A. (2013). Function Words of Andio Language

Viewed from Syntactical Aspect. Academic Journal of

Interdiciplinary Studies, 2(2), 175-185.

Praag, L.V., Stevens, P.A.J., & Houtte, M.V. (2017). How

Humor Makes or Breaks Student-Teacher

Relationships: A Classroom Ethnography in Belgium.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 393-401.

Saddhono, K.., & Fatma. 2016. The Form and Function of

Local Language in Directive Speech Act at A

University in Central of Sulawesi. Jurnal Lingua

Cultura, 10 (1), 37-42.

Secova, M. 2017. Discourse-pragmatics Variation in Paris

French and London English: Insight from General

Extenders. Journal of Pragmatics 114 (2017) 1-15.

Schwarz, B.B., & Shahar, N. (2017). Combining the

Dialogic and the Dialectic: Puting Argumentation into

Practice in Classroom Talk. Journal Learning,

Culture, and Social Interaction 12, 113-132.

Su, H. (2017). Local grammar of speech act An

exploratoty study. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 72-83.

Subandi. (2006).Deviation of Male Language Use by

Female Speakers as a Form of Reflection on the

BICESS 2018 - Borneo International Conference On Education And Social

242

Condition of Mental Contrast to Gender Differences.

LENTERA Jurnal Studi Perempuan, 2(2).

Udasmoro, W. (2010). Discourse Subaltern in the

Intercultural Society: Observing the Gender Relations

of Hijab and Woman Headed in France. Journal of

Social and Political Sciences

14 (1), 1-22.

Yeganeh, T.F., & Ghoreyshi, M., S. (2015). Exploring

Gender Differences in the Use of Discourse Markers

in Iranian Academic Research Article. Procedia Social

and Behavioral Sciences 192, 684-689.

Ying, H.S., Heng, C.H., Abdullah, A.N. (2015). Language

Vitality of Malaysian Languages and Its Relation to

Identity. Gema Online, 15(2), 119-136.

Male and Female Mitigation in Institutional Conversation Setting: Viewed from the Strategies in Speech Acts

243