This study is intended to understand teaching quality of English student teachers when they conduct their teaching practicum. Teaching quality is conceptualized based on the principles of effective teaching resulted by teacher effectiveness studies. Thes


 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  77
  

 

The Comparison between Native Speakers of Indonesian and 
BIPA Learners in Producing Email Requests 

 
ANDIKA EKO PRASETIYO

1 

Abstract  

This study examined a comparison between Native Speakers (NS) of Indonesian and 
Indonesian language as a foreign language (Bahasa Indonesia untuk Penutur Asing - 
BIPA) learners in making email requests. In particular, this study analysed the 
different aspects of pragmatics of variations in structure and politeness in emails. 
This study involved nine NS of Indonesian who were studying master‟s level 
programs at the University of Melbourne, and eighteen BIPA learners who took the 
subject Indonesian 4 in Semester 2, 2018 at the University of Melbourne. Participants 
wrote an email request based on a given scenario, which was requesting leave in the 
context of a workplace in Indonesia. The data were obtained by providing 
participants a description of the scenario, which prompted them to write an email 
request asking permission to take time off work. However, participants had freedom 
in terms of the style and structure of the email. In general, this study aimed to 
examine how their pragmatics varies, especially in terms of structure and politeness. 

 

Keywords 
Email request, Indonesian language as a foreign language, L2-acquisition, pragmatics  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
1 A fulltime graduate student at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; andikaekop@gmail.com    

mailto:andikaekop@gmail.com


 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  78
  

 

Introduction 
 

Email is the most commonly used medium of communication in the workplace. Email 
is usually used to notify others of important work-related information either between superiors 
and employees or among colleagues. However, for Non-Native Speakers (NNS) in contexts of 
intercultural communication, producing emails is quite challenging. Linguistic and cultural 
differences, such as the required levels and markers of politeness, are sometimes matters that 
need to be considered when working in multicultural workplaces. For example, in terms of 
structure, emails written in Indonesian and English contexts differ significantly. Furthermore, 
regarding politeness, people in Indonesia and Australia follow different rules in using forms of 
address both in speaking and in writing, including email. For example, in Indonesia it is typical 
to use the forms of address "Bapak/Pak" for men and "Ibu/Bu" for women who have a higher 
age and/or social status or who are of equal status but situated in a formal context such as the 
workplace. However, in Australia, it is very common for colleagues to simply call each other 
directly by the given name. Romero, Holmes, Thy, and Steinberg (2016) state that in the 
workplace in the Australian context, social distance has a weaker effect because hierarchy is 
less prominent. Thus, it is very important for those working in multicultural environments to 
develop knowledge of pragmatics in email writing. 

To date, many researchers have discussed topics related to pragmatics in email. These 
studies have varied in focus, such as the teaching of producing email requests 
(Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2015; Nguyen, et al., 2015), the development of learners‟ pragmatics 
in email writing (Alcón-Soler, 2017; Chen, 2015), analysis of email writing errors of NNS 
(Burgucu-Tazegul, Han, & Engin, 2016; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011), analysis of politeness 
in email writing (Alcón-Soler, 2013; Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Kim & Lee, 2017; Savić, 2018), 
analysis of structure and politeness in email (Paramasivam & Subramaniam, 2018), and the 
effects of study abroad experiences on email writing (Alcón-Soler, 2015). In general, most of 
the studies on pragmatics in email writing are the ones that focus on analysis of interlanguage 
pragmatics. However, few studies have analyzed a comparison between NS and NNS in 
producing emails. 

Several studies that developed comparisons between NS and NNS in producing emails 
have had limited focuses, such as politeness level analysis (Alcón-Soler, 2013) or the influence 
of hierarchical systems on politeness levels (Zhu, 2017), email structure analysis (Deveci & 
Hmida, 2017) and comparison between email writing in elicited and spontaneous situations 
(Chen, Yang, & Qian, 2015; Franch & Lorenzo-Dus, 2008). Regarding the level of politeness, 
Alcón-Soler (2013) conducted a study of comparing 145 email requests written by British 
English Speakers with 150 email requests written by international students. The analysis in this 
study focuses on the use of mitigation in writing email requests due to the existence of social 
distance. The results of this study indicate that NS are better at using their pragmalinguistic 
knowledge than international students. This is in line with the study by 
Economidou-Kogetsidis (2011) who found that pragmatic failures produced by NNS were 
caused by inadequate politeness due to their lack of pragmalinguistic knowledge. However, as 
far as pragmatic failures relating to forms of address, a study by Alcón-Soler (2013) found 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  79
  

 

varied results amongst both British English Speakers and international students. Similar to the 
study by Alcón-Soler (2013), Biesenbach-Lucas (2005) conducted a study comparing email 
writing by American NS of English and international students. The results showed that the 
strategies used by the NS in writing emails seemed to show greater initiative compared to the 
international students. The comparative studies above examining NS and international 
students illustrate that in general, the socio-pragmatic abilities of NS tend to be better than 
international students. Deveci and Hmida (2017) conducted a study comparing NS of English 
and Arabic learners of English in producing email requests addressed to a professor. The focus 
of their study was to find out what differences exist between NS and NNS in terms of use of 
structure and pragmatic strategies in writing email requests. The results of this study indicated 
that except for the expression of gratitude, overall the emails written by NNS did not meet 
satisfy criteria for good structure and were considered having failed in this regard. The results 
of the Deveci and Hmida (2017) study support another study by Burgucu-Tazegul, Han, and 
Engin (2016) who found that the structure of emails written by NNS showed greater 
directness due to inappropriate greetings and closing statements. Thus, it can be concluded 
that in general, email structures generated by NS tend to be more pragmatically appropriate 
compared to those written by NNS. 

From the literature review above, it is evident that most studies which analyse 
comparisons of emails written by NS and NNS usually focus on English as the target language. 
However, there are also comparative pragmatics studies written in other languages, such as 
Russian (Krulatz, 2012), Spanish (Bou-Franch, 2011) and Slovenian (Orthaber, 2017). On the 
other hand, there is no existing research comparatively examining email writing in Indonesian 
by NS and NNS of Indonesian in Indonesian settings. However, that is not to say that there is 
no research on Indonesian pragmatics at all. Studies investigating Indonesian pragmatics have 
been done by scholars, but are still limited (e.g., Ariputra, Rohmadi, & Sumarwati, 2018; 
Hassall, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2013, 2015; Primantari & Wijana, 2016; Suharsono, 2015). 
Research comparing speech acts involving requests by NS of Indonesian and Australian 
learners of Indonesian has been conducted by Hassal (2013). He found that Australian learners 
of Indonesian used the „Want‟ statement more often in producing requests. In addition, 
learners from Australia were also found to have reduced L1 transfer problems in line with their 
improvement in their target language proficiency. 

Similar to the study by Hassal (2013), Primantari and Wijana (2017) conducted an 
analysis comparing NS of Indonesian and BIPA learners from Korea in producing speech acts 
in Indonesian. They found that the lack of pragmatics in the speech acts produced by NNS 
was due to the weakness of their language proficiency. In addition, cultural differences and 
frequent exposure to informal Indonesian were also non-linguistic factors that influenced 
BIPA learners‟ pragmatics in producing speech acts. Therefore, given the limited available 
research on pragmatics in Indonesian, I was drawn to research speech acts in Indonesian 
pragmatics. However, the focus in this study was on request emails produced by NS of 
Indonesian and BIPA learners. An analysis of email requests was chosen because email has 
become a regular tool for communication in the modern age, especially in the education or 
workplace setting. In addition, this study also provided an overview about the aspects of 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  80
  

 

structure and culture that which can inform effective email writing in Indonesian. Finally, this 
research mirrored the research by Hassal (2003) which focuses on comparing NS and BIPA 
learners‟ requests in Indonesian. However, in this study I used an email request addressed to 
someone of a higher status in the workplace hierarchy as the focus of this study. To fulfill the 
objective of this study, I developed two research questions as follows: 

1. How does the usage of structure differ between NS and BIPA learners in writing an 
email request in an Indonesian context? 

2. How does politeness differ between NS and BIPA learners in writing an email request 
in an Indonesian context? 

 
Methodology 

Participants 

A total of eighteen students of BIPA learners in Indonesian 4 subject, and nine NS who 
were master students at the University of Melbourne involved in this study. Regarding the 
proficiency of the BIPA learners, the Indonesian 4 class is considered as intermediate level. Most 
of the students have studied Indonesian at high school. Moreover, to enter the Indonesian 4 
subject students must first take a placement test. Furthermore, when filling out the 
questionnaire, most of the students in the Indonesian 4 claimed that they have received 
instructions in writing emails in Indonesian class. Meanwhile, the NS of Indonesian were 
master students studying various majors. In general, the NS all had some measure of work 
experience, so they were familiar with email writing in the context of Indonesian workplaces. 
 

Data collection   

The scenario used for eliciting the writing on an email in this study was adapted from a 
similar task in an assignment in the IPC subject at the University of Melbourne. Participants 
were asked to write an email requesting to take leave in an Indonesian workplace setting. The 
following are the writing instructions given to the participants: 

 
Write a request email for the following scenario: 

You are working in one of the companies in Jakarta, Indonesia. It’s Thursday afternoon. You just 
found out that your cousin, who lives in Paris, will be in Jakarta on Monday and Tuesday. You 
grew up with your cousin and haven’t seen her in years, and you would really like to take Monday 
and Tuesday off to spend time with her. You need to ask your team leader, Michael Ewing, for time 
off.  

Furthermore, each participant was given a demographic questionnaire to collect data about 
gender, native language, and experience of instruction in email writing, and the length of time 
studying Indonesian. The collection of data relating to the BIPA learners was conducted prior 
to commencing normal learning activities in the Indonesian 4 class. They wrote an email 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  81
  

 

manually (handwriting on paper), and most of them completed the email in a duration of less 
than 20 minutes. Meanwhile, the NS wrote an email using electronic media, through an email 
application or What’s App. I asked them to use electronic media due to limited time to meet 
them individually.  

 
Procedures 

Before I asked all participants to write an email, I explained the objective of the study 
both to NS and BIPA learner participants. The purpose of the study was to examine the email 
request in Indonesian created by NS and BIPA learners. Then, I also explained to the 
participants that they should address an email in the Indonesian context based on their 
knowledge without looking at any sources. Secondly, I provided the participants of BIPA 
learners the demographic questionnaire and the form contained writing instruction in their last 
meeting of Indonesia 4 class. Meanwhile, for NS participants, I gave the instructions to nine 
Indonesian master students through What’s App. During the email writing process, I assisted 
the participants and responded to the following question regarding email writing or other 
questions. Lastly, then all data were collected and transcribed into a structural framework so 
that I can easily analyze the data, especially the data analysis regarding the email structure. 

 
Data analysis 

 
The research design used in this study analyzing email requests can be categorized as a 

case study (Paramasivam & Subramaniam, 2018). The analysis in this study used a qualitative 
and discourse analysis. Firstly, to analyze the email structure, I used „moves‟ in email requests 
by Ho (2011) as a guide to analyzing the email structure (for a more detailed description of the 
15 moves identified in email requests see Ho, 2011). However, for this study I had adjusted the 
categories into nine moves. These adjustments have been made due to the simpler request 
scenario. Another reason is because the participants of BIPA learners in this study were 
categorized as the learners in the intermediate level, and so some of the more complex moves 
were not relevant. In addition, I added the move category of „Greeting and Well-wishing‟ into 
the catalogue. The nine moves I adopted from Ho (2011) are as follows. 
 
Table 1. The moves in writing email request 
 

Moves Example 

Addressing  Dear Dr. Ewing 
Greeting and/or Well-wishing I hope you are doing well. 
Acknowledging  I have had a very pleasant time in my first few months working at 

the company. 
Background information I am writing this email regarding a family matter that has come up. 
Requesting I want to ask permission to take leave on Monday and Tuesday.  
Elaborating I just received information that my cousin from Paris will be 

visiting Jakarta on Monday and Tuesday. I haven't seen him for a 
couple of years so there will be a family meeting on those two days. 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  82
  

 

Expressing ideas/ solution I will try to complete some work this weekend. 
Gratitude for requested help Thank you 
Closing Best regards, 
Signing off Andika 

In addition, for the second analysis, related to politeness, I used a model of a (in) directness 
strategy by Hassal (2011) as a guide in this study. He divided the level of (in) directness into 
three levels, which are direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect. 
However, in this study I condensed these into two levels, namely direct (e.g., „I want to ask the 
day off‟) and conventionally indirect (e.g. „Can I ask for day off?‟). In addition, forms of 
address used in Indonesian were analyzed in this study. 
 

Findings 
 
The structure of the email 

  
A total of eighteen emails by BIPA learners and nine emails by NS were analysed in 

terms of structure and politeness. Firstly, with regard to structure, I used analysis of moves in 
email requests by Ho (2011) that I have adjusted. The results showed that most NS and BIPA 
learners included the standard elements of email structure, such as addressing, background 
information, requesting, and gratitude for requested help, closing, and signing off. However, a 
small number of participants did not include elements of gratitude expression, closing, and 
signing off. Furthermore, surprisingly the data showed that BIPA learners were more likely to 
write greeting and/or well-wishing and elaboration in their emails. Meanwhile, another 
interesting finding about the data was that NS were more likely to include a move of proposing 
an idea/solution. The details of the results of the comparative data analysis between NS and 
BIPA learners in writing email requests can be seen in table 2 below. 
  
Table 2. Comparison between NS and BIPA learners in terms of structure of email 
 

Moves NS (N=9) n (%) 
BIPA learners (N=18) n 

(%) 

Addressing 9 (100%) 18 (100%) 
Greeting and/or Wishing 1 (11.11%) 8 (44.44%) 
Acknowledging  1 (11.11%) 0 
Background information 9 (100%) 18 (100%) 
Requesting 9 (100%) 18 (100%) 
Elaborating 2 (22.22%) 16 (88.88%) 
Expressing Ideas/ solution 6 (66.66%) 7 (38.88%) 
Gratitude for requested help 9 (100%) 15 (83.33%) 
Closing 7 (77.77%) 17 (94.44%) 
Signing off 8 (88.88%) 17 (94.44%) 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  83
  

 

Furthermore, after a closer look into the data, there were some differences in the 
ordering of structural elements between emails written by NS and BIPA learners. NS were 
more likely to write a request segment first, followed by background information. Whereas 
BIPA learners tended to write background information first which was then followed by the 
request. Thus, in general in this comparative study, I conclude that there are two types of email 
structure used by NS and BIPA learners. Table 3 below is a comparison of NS and BIPA 
learners in terms of the email structure. 
 
Table 3. The comparison between NS and BIPA learners in terms of email structure 
 

Structure NS (N=9) n (%) BIPA Learners(N=18) n (%) 

Structure 1 
Addressing, Background Information, 
Requesting, Gratitude for request help, 
closing, signing off. 

0 13 (72.22%) 

Structure 2 
Addressing, Requesting, Background 
Information, Gratitude for request help, 
closing, signing off.  

9 (100%) 5 (27.77%) 

From the data above, it can be seen that 13 (72.22%) of BIPA learners used Structure 1, that is 
providing background information first before making the request. While the remainder, 5 
(27.77%) of NNS used the second structure, that is conveying a request first, then followed by 
background information. On the other hand, all NS used Structure 2. Here is one example of 
emails written using Structure 1 by BIPA learners and Structure 2 by NS. 

 
(1) Structure 1 by BIPA learners 

Addressing  : Selamat siang Michael Ewing Good Afternoon Michael Ewing 
Background 
Information 

: Siang jni, saya mendengar sepupu saya akan 
mendatang ke jakarta pada hari Senin dan 
Selasa. Sepupu saya tinggal di ibu kota Perancis, 
sehingga saya tidak melihat dia selama beberapa 
tahun. Saya tumbuh bersama sepupu saya 

This afternoon, I have heard my cousin will come 
to Jakarta on Monday and Tuesday. My cousin 
lives in the capital city of France, so I haven't 
seen him for several years. I grew up with my 
cousin 

Requesting : Sehingga saya akan sangat menghargai kalau 
Anda mengizin saya untuk cuti kerja pada hari 
Senin dan Selasa pada minggu depan. Jadi saya 
bisa bertemu dengan dia. 

So, I would really appreciate if you allow me to 
take time off from work on Mondays and 
Tuesdays next week. So, I can meet him. 

Gratitude for 
request help 

: Terima kasih untuk pertimbanganmu. Thank you for your consideration. 

Closing : Salam, Regards, 
Signing off. : Sarah O’Brien Sarah O’Brien 
    



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  84
  

 

(2) Structure 2 by NS 
 

Addressing  : Selamat siang Pak Ewing, Good Afternoon Mr. Ewing 

Requesting : Bersama dengan email ini, saya hendak 
mengajukan permohonan cuti untuk hari 
Senin, 8 Oktober 2018 sampai Selasa, 9 
Oktober 2018 

Along with this email, I would like to ask for 
leave for Monday, October 8, 2018 until 
Tuesday, October 9, 2018 

Background 
Information 

: karena ada urusan keluarga mendadak. Because there is a sudden family matter. 

[Expressing 
idea/ solution] 

: Apabila ada pekerjaan yang harus saya 
selesaikan untuk hari Senin dan Selasa, saya 
akan ambil jam lembur untuk 
menyelesaikannya di hari Sabtu dan Minggu. 

If there are jobs that I have to complete on 
Monday and Tuesday, I will take overtime to 
finish on Saturday and Sunday. 

Gratitude for 
request help 

: Terima kasih atas perhatiannya. Thank you for your attention. 

Closing : Salam, Regards, 

Signing off. : Iqbal Adam Iqbal Adam 

   
The politeness of the email 
 
Regarding the levels of politeness, I analyzed the request move segment using the (in) 

directness level model by Hassal (2011). The results of the analysis of the level of (in) 
directness comparing NS and BIPA learners can be seen in table 4 below.  

 
Table 4. In(directness) in request moves 
 

In(directness) NS (N=9) n (%) BIPA Learners (N=18) n (%) 

Direct  8 (88.88%) 8 (44.44%) 
Conventionally indirect 1 (11.11%) 10 (55.55%) 

Analysis of the data showed that BIPA learners used the conventionally indirect pattern more 
often in making requests. A total of 10 (55.55%) of BIPA learners used a conventionally 
indirect strategy in their request. Meanwhile, the data shows that only 1 of the NS (11.11%) 
used an indirect strategy in producing email requests. Thus, it can be concluded that NS tend 
to be more direct in making email requests. However, this does not necessarily mean that the 
NS were not polite, as this directness was phrased using more refined word choices, like „Saya 
bermaksud meminta izin” (I am intending to ask permission). Here are several examples of (in) 
directness emails by NS and BIPA learners. 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  85
  

 

(1) Direct pattern by native speakers. The NS of Indonesian produce a large 
proportion of direct requests. This is due to the email pattern that Indonesian people usually 
use when they write an email request. Examples of direct requests made by NS are as follows:  

a) Sehubungan dengan surat ini, saya ingin menyampaikan permohonan izin cuti selama dua hari 
minggu depan. (Regarding to this letter, I would like to request two days off next week.)  

b) Saya ingin mengajukan cuti untuk hari Senin dan Selasa depan. (I would like to ask the day off 
for Monday and Tuesday.) 

c) Dengan email ini saya bermaksud mengajukan cuti kerja selama dua hari untuk hari Senin dan 
Selasa. (In this email, I would like to request two days off on Monday and Tuesday.) 

In the example above, most NS started the request with the Dengan email ini „In this email‟ and 
followed by the direct request. The requests made by NS are categorised as direct requests, 
however, in Indonesian those direct requests are still considered polite since participants use 
polite word choice. In this case, word choice plays a vital role in determining the politeness of 
a request.     

(2) Conventionally indirect pattern by BIPA learners. BIPA learners tend to 
produce conventionally indirect requests. This contains indirect formulas that are 
conventionalised in the language as a means of requesting (Hassal, 2003). In this request type, 
Most BIPA learners use a relevant modal verb to request permission. Examples are these: 

a) Apakah [saya bisa minta izin] pada hari Senin dan Selasa di minggu depan? 
(Can I ask to take day off on Monday and Tuesday next week?) 

b) Boleh saya tidak menghadiri pekerjaan pada baik hari Senin dan Selasa? 
(May I not attend the work both on Monday and Tuesday?)  

c) Saya ingin tahu apakah saya bisa mengambil cuti dari pekerjaan supaya saya bisa pergi sekeliling 
Jakarta dengan sepupu saya? 
(I want to know whether I can take day off from work so that I can travel around 
Jakarta with my cousin?) 

The example from BIPA learners above, they prefer to use modal verbs to perform the 
request. Modal verbs that they tended to use are either bisa „can‟ or boleh „may‟. The use of 
modal verbs in students‟ requests is assumed that they perform transfer of English formula 
„Can I.‟  to Indonesian. 
 

Forms of address 
 
One of the strongest markers for showing politeness in the Indonesian context is the 

use of forms of address. In an Indonesian email, usually the openers „Yang terhormat‟ 
(Honorable) and „Bapak‟ (Mister/Sir) are used in addressing a male superior. In addition, the 
respectful second person pronoun „Anda‟ is used to show respect for people of a higher status 
rather than „kamu‟ which is used with those of equal or lower status. In table 5 below are the 
results of the analysis of the move of addressing comparing NS and BIPA learners. 

 
 
 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  86
  

 

Table 5. Comparison of addressing moves of NS and BIPA learners 
 

 NS (N=9) n (%) Learners (N=18) n (%) 

Bapak/Pak + Yang terhormat 4 (44.44%) 13 (72.22%) 
Bapak/Pak 4 (44.44%) 3 (16.66%) 
Without Bapak/Pak  1 (11.11%) 2 (11.11%) 

From the data above it can be seen that most of BIPA learners already have good knowledge 
about appropriate forms of address in writing an email in an Indonesian context. Only 2 
(11.11%) of BIPA learners students used the addressee‟s name directly in the addressing 
segment. In addition, it is very surprising that there was 1 (11.11%) NS who also only used the 
addressee‟s name in addressing. Therefore, it can be concluded that both NS and BIPA 
learners understand the culturally appropriate level of politeness in terms of addressing. 

 
Discussion 
 
This study aimed to analyze the differences between NS and BIPA learners of an 

intermediate level in writing email requests. In particular, the analysis is focused on the 
differences in use of structure and politeness between NS and BIPA learners in producing 
email requests. The results of the analysis led to the finding that both NS and BIPA learners 
included the standard elements of structure for email requests, such as addressing, background 
information, requesting, and gratitude for requested help, closing, and signing off. This finding 
confirms Zhu's (2017) study which found that both NS and NNS had similar capabilities in the 
use of moves in email requests. In addition, in terms of form of address, both groups of 
participants tended to use polite forms of address in Indonesian. This finding refutes the study 
done by Economidou-Kogetsidis (2011) which found that NNS failed in terms of politeness 
and pragmatics. Thus, it can be concluded that BIPA learners of Indonesian already had good 
pragmalinguistic knowledge like NS, although there were still some grammatical errors in 
BIPA learners‟ emails. 

On the other hand, there are significant differences in several aspects. Firstly, NS 
tended to provide a solution in the form of an offer to complete the task before leave or even 
express willingness to be contacted during leave. This is in line with the findings of 
Biesenbach-Lucas (2015) which found that NS use more initiative when making requests.  
Meanwhile, in this study, BIPA learners were more likely to include a greeting and/or 
well-wishing segment as well as providing elaboration. I assume that the inclusion of greeting 
and/or well-wishing is a result of transfer from English email-writing. It is unclear to what 
extent the inclusion of elaboration was due to this being a routine speech act as part of 
request-making, or simply due to translation from the scenario text. 

Furthermore, in terms of structure, BIPA learners were more likely to write 
background information first, followed by a request. Conversely, NS were more likely to make 
the request move first, and then follow with background information. In the context of an 
email request in Indonesian, normally the request is made first, then followed by the 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  87
  

 

background information. Furthermore, in accordance with (in) directness, BIPA learners were 
more likely to use a conventional indirect strategy, whereas NS were more likely to use a direct 
strategy. This finding confirms the theory that in unequal communication, Western culture 
tends more towards the use of indirect requests (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2006). This strategy is 
considered as providing a choice for the recipient as to whether they will grant the request or 
not (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). However, the indirectness produced by NS does not 
mean that their level of politeness was lower; rather the concept of politeness in writing emails 
in Indonesian is different from English contexts. In the context of Indonesian, the forms of 
address and word choices are the most important elements that determine the level of 
politeness. 

Conclusion 
 
This study showed that BIPA learners of the intermediate level were able to write 

emails using moves that were as good as the NS of Indonesian. However, BIPA learners were 
still strongly influenced by email-writing strategies used in their first language, such as the use 
of greeting and/or well-wishing. However, there are still some errors related to grammar 
aspects in the emails produced by the BIPA learners. Grammar errors are a result of their 
intermediate proficiency in Indonesian. Finally, this study provides an overview of the 
differences between NS and BIPA learners in writing email requests in Indonesian. In 
addition, the results of this study can be used as learning materials that are useful for teaching 
pragmatics to BIPA learners, especially in the context of writing emails in the workplace. Some 
important aspects of email-writing that can be taught to BIPA learners in writing emails are, 1) 
the structure, which is a request first before the background information, 2) directness, it is 
better to use direct sentences but phrased with polite word choices, 3) form of address, it is 
better to use „Yang terhormat’ and ‘Bapak/Ibu’ 4) greeting and/or well-wishing; in Indonesian 
emails the greeting and/or well-wishing are unnecessary. 
 

References 

Alcón-Soler, E. (2013). Mitigating e-mail requests in teenagers‟ first and second language 
academic cyber-consultation. Multilingua 2013; 32(6): 779–799. 

Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email 
communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 34-45.  

Alcón-Soler, E. (2017). Pragmatic development during study abroad: an analysis of Spanish 
teenagers‟ request strategies in English emails. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 
77-92. 

Ariputra, A. M., Rohmadi, M., & Sumarwati, S. (2018). Language politeness principle in 
Indonesia lawyers club talkshow on tv one. OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 12(1), 
115-124.  



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  88
  

 

Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005). Communication topics and strategies in e-mail consultation: 
Comparison between American and international university students. Language 
Learning & Technology, 9(2), 24-46. 

Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of 
e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & 
Technology, 11(2), 59-81. 

Bou-Franch, P. (2011). Openings and closings in Spanish email conversations. Journal of 
Pragmatics, 43(6), 1772-1785. 

Burgucu-Tazegul, A., Han, T., & Engin, A. O. (2016). Pragmatic failure of Turkish EFL 
learners in request emails to their professors. International Education Studies, 9(10), 
105-115. 

Chen, X., Yang, L., & Qian, C. (2015). Pragmatic usage in academic email requests: 
comparing written DCT and email data. Lingue e Linguaggi, 13, 75-85. 

Chen, Y. S. (2015). Developing Chinese EFL learners‟ email literacy through requests to 
faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 131-149. 

Deveci, T., & Hmida, I. B. (2017). The request speech act in emails by Arab university 
students in the UAE. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 194-214. 

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic 
failure in non-native speakers‟e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 
3193-3215. 

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2015). Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL 
classroom. Elt Journal, 69(4), 415-424.  

Franch, P. B., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2008). Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural 
speech act realisation: The case of requests in Peninsular Spanish and British 
English. Spanish in Context, 5(2), 246-277. 

Hassall, T. (1999). Request strategies in Indonesian. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the 
International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9(4), 585-606. 

Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. IRAL, 39(4), 259-284.  

Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12), 
1903-1928.  

Hassall, T. (2004). Through a glass, darkly: When learner pragmatics is misconstrued. Journal 
of pragmatics, 36(5), 997-1002.  



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  89
  

 

Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of 
address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1-17.  

Hassall, T. (2015). Individual variation in L2 study-abroad outcomes: A case study from 
Indonesian pragmatics. Multilingua, 34(1), 33-59.  

Ho, V. C. K (2011). A discourse-based study of three communities of practice: How 
members maintain a harmonious relationship while threatening each other‟s face via 
email. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 299-326.  

Kim, S. H., & Lee, H. (2017). Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean 
and American corporate employees. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(2), 207-238.  

Krulatz, A. M. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics in Russian: The speech act of request in email. 
(doctoral dissertation). The University of Utah, Salt Lake, USA. 

Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, A. T., & Pham, T. T. T. (2015). Teaching email 
requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective 
feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169-195.  

Orthaber, S. (2017). „Thank you in advance‟: Slovenian request emails and responses. Scripta 
Manent, 11(2), 54-75. 

Paramasivam, S., & Subramaniam, S. K. (2018). Superior–subordinate request email in 
workplace communication of a Malaysian organisation. Journal of Intercultural 
Communication Research, 47(3), 161-187.  

Primantari, A. N., & Wijana, I. D. P. (2016). Perbandingan bentuk tindak tutur meminta oleh 
pembelajar BIPA dari korea dan penutur asli bahasa Indonesia: Kajian bahasa 
antara. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 1(2), 95-104. 

Primantari, A. N., & Wijana, I. D. P. (2017). Tindak tutur meminta oleh pembelajar BIPA 
dari korea: Kajian pragmatik bahasa antara (interlanguage pragmatics). Jurnal Penelitian 
Humaniora, 18(1), 27-40. 

Romero, J., Holmes, C., Thy Luu, & Steinberg, H. (2016). Ethical customer service, cultural 
differences, & the big 5 in Australia, China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia & the United 
States. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy for Economics & 
Economic Education (AEEE), 19(2), 23–27. 

Savić, M. (2018). Lecturer perceptions of im/politeness and in/appropriateness in student 
e-mail requests: A Norwegian perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 52-72.  

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Introduction. In Intercultural Interaction (pp. 1-10). 
Palgrave Macmillan, London. 



 

 

IRJE | Vol. 3 | No. 1| Year 2019 |ISSN: 2580-5711  90
  

 

Suharsono, S. (2015). Pemerolehan klausa relatif pada pemelajar bahasa Indonesia bagi 
penutur asing (BIPA): Kajian bahasa-antara. litera, 14(1), 57-74. 

Zhu, W. (2017). A cross-cultural pragmatic study of rapport-management strategies in 
Chinese and English academic upward request emails. Language and Intercultural 
Communication, 17(2), 210-228.  

 

 
Biographical notes 
 
ANDIKA EKO PRASETIYO is a fulltime student at Melbourne University, 

Master of Applied Linguistics program. He holds a Bachelor of Education, concentration 
Indonesian Language and Literature Education at Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia. His 
research interest includes Indonesian education, language testing, and educational 
technology. Email: andikaekop@gmail.com 

mailto:andikaekop@gmail.com