152 Journal of Pragmatics Research Vol. 04, No. 02, (2022) pp.152-166 E-ISSN: 2656-8020 Website: http://e-journal.iainsalatiga.ac.id/index.php/jopr/index A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study of Request Strategies and Politeness in Javanese and Sundanese Permas Adinda Chintawidy Master's Program in Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia E-mail: permas.adinda.chintawidy-2021@fib.unair.ac.id Ni Wayan Sartini Master's Program in Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia E-mail: ni-wayan-sartini@fib.unair.ac.id DOI: https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v4i2.152-166 Copyright © The Author (s) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. How to Cite: Chintawidy, P., & Sartini, N. (2022). A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study of Request Strategies and Politeness in Javanese and Sundanese. Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v4i2.152-166 Submission Track: Received: 28-07-2022 Final Revision: 01-09--2022 Available online: 02-09-2022 Corresponding Author: permas.adinda.chintawidy- 2021@fib.unair.ac.id ABSTRACT This study aims to examine and compare request strategies and politeness of two groups of native speakers from two different ethnic groups in Indonesia, i.e., Javanese and Sundanese. The data were collected by using Discourse Completion Task (DCT) with 60 participants from 30 Javanese (East Java) and 30 Sundanese (West Java) speakers. The data were analyzed by using the classification of request strategies by Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and social contexts in terms of social power, social distance, and degree of imposition by Brown and Levinson (1987) to reveal the levels of directness and politeness of request employed by each group of speakers. The result of this study indicates that Direct Strategy in the form of mood derivable and Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form of query preparatory are two request strategies that are mainly employed by both Javanese and Sundanese speakers. In particular, Javanese speakers employ a more Direct Strategy than Sundanese speakers. However, the patterns of request strategies employed by Javanese and Sundanese speakers in most social contexts are similar. In addition, both groups of speakers can also adapt to the situations and employ appropriate requests to the hearer. Therefore, politeness and appropriateness in requests employed by each group of speakers in their DCT responses can reflect the local wisdom of each culture. Keywords: requests; social contexts; politeness; Javanese; Sundanese mailto:permas.adinda.chintawidy-2021@fib.unair.ac.id mailto:ni-wayan-sartini@fib.unair.ac.id https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ mailto:permas.adinda.chintawidy-2021@fib.unair.ac.id mailto:permas.adinda.chintawidy-2021@fib.unair.ac.id 153 INTRODUCTION Indonesia is known as the world’s largest archipelago which consists of around 17,000 islands with diverse cultures and ethnicity. Based on the latest data from Central Bureau of Statistics in 2010, there are 1,331 ethnic groups in all over the country. The data from population census in 2010 also shows that the largest ethnic group in Indonesia is Javanese, with a proportion of 40.05 percent of the total population, and the second largest ethnic group is Sundanese with 15.50 percent. Furthermore, other ethnic groups have a proportion with less than five percent of total population (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Due to the diversity of ethnic groups in Indonesia, it is beneficial to study more about ethnicity, particularly by focusing on the linguistic aspects of it. According to scholars from several academic fields, including linguistics, ethnicity is a social construct (Fought, 2006). It is different from race which is commonly associated with biologically based diversity as can be observed in people’s physical attributes (Bobo, 2001, in Fought, 2006). Cohen (1978, in Fought, 2006) defines ethnicity as a collection of cultural identifiers based on ancestry which are used to categorize people into groups that can determine the degree of inclusivity and exclusivity of the membership. Linguistically, people who belong in an ethnic group share the same language which can indicate their inclusivity in the group as well as their cultural expression. There are two possible relationships between language and culture; (1) “linguistic determinism” in which language structure and/or behavior may influence how members of a group perceive the world, as suggested by Whorfian hypothesis, or (2) “linguistic relativity” in which varieties of language that people use can reflect their regional, social, ethnic origins, and also their gender, as opposed to the previous statement (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015; Ottenheimer & Pine, 2019). In other words, based on linguistic relativity, cultural background of people in a particular group or society can influence how they use the language and communicate with others, whether they are aware of it or not. In terms of communication, a particular society has their own cultural norms and values which may be different from one another. This can be studied further either by using cross-cultural pragmatics or intercultural pragmatics. However, these two concepts are frequently misunderstood and used interchangeably. Kecskes (2016) argues that cross-cultural pragmatics examines the variations and patterns when speakers of different languages and cultures using their own languages, while intercultural pragmatics is as a relatively new field which concerned in how speakers of various native languages and cultures interact when using a shared language. In order to analyze the language use of two groups of native speakers from two different ethnic groups, such as Javanese and Sundanese, conducting a study of cross-cultural pragmatics is more appropriate since it focuses on contrasting different groups when using their own languages. Wierzbicka (1991) states that the fundamental principle of cross-cultural pragmatics is how people communicate differently in various societies and groups reflects diverse cultural values. She 154 further states that a variety of independently developed cultural values and cultural goals can be used to explain the varying language use and communicative strategies. Therefore, it is essential to understand how the language is used of different cultures to avoid misunderstandings or any pragmatics failure. Specifically, Kecskes (2016) states that cross-cultural pragmatics explores various characteristics of language use to compare different cultures, such as speech acts, behavior patterns, and language behavior. In other words, the focus of cross-cultural pragmatics are the communicative differences based on cultures, situations, and interactions. Speech act is one of the most prominent and crucial theories in pragmatics. Speech acts are ways to perform many social functions by using speech, such as apologizing, requesting, thanking, accepting or refusing invitations, and many others (Cohen, 2010). This theory was firstly introduced by Austin (1962) who categorized this theory into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary act is the literal meaning of the utterance, illocutionary act is speaker’s intention or meaning behind the utterance, and perlocutionary act is the effect of the utterance to the hearer. This theory was later developed by his successor, Searle (1976), who classifies illocutionary acts into five major categories, namely representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations. Searle (1976, in Almujaibel & Gomaa, 2022) first mentioned speech act of request in 1975 by stating that request is a type of directive speech acts that aims to get the hearer to do something. Speech act theory is closely related to politeness which is reflected in face-threatening acts, such as apologies, complaints, requests, and thanking (Blum-Kulka et al.,1989). Request is classified as face-threatening act by Brown and Levinson (1978) in which both speaker's and the hearer's faces of the are threatened. When the speaker makes a request, he or she interferes the hearer's right from freedom of action and freedom from imposition (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984). Based on politeness theory, different social context may affect the use of certain strategies of speech act. Specifically, making a request is often influenced by three social factors, namely social power, social distance, and degree of imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) created a project named the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) that has become the fundamental framework to analyze speech acts in pragmatics, especially apology and request. In analyzing requests, they divide units of analysis that consist of three segments; address term(s), head act, and adjunct(s) to head act. The head act is the focus of analysis or “the minimal unit which can realize a request” (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 275). Based on the CCSARP, analysis of requests’ head act is classified into three levels of directness, namely (1) Direct Strategy, or the most explicit strategy, which is marked syntactically, such as imperatives, performatives, and hedged performatives; (2) Conventionally Indirect Strategy, which requires contextual preconditions as conventionalized in a certain language; and (3) Non- Conventionally Indirect Strategy, or the least direct strategy, which requires the hearer to interpret the request (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka et al, 1989). 155 Table 1. The Request Strategies by Blum-Kulka et al., (1989) No. Levels of Directness Types of Request Strategies Examples 1. Direct a. Mood derivable/Imperatives Open the window. b. Explicit performatives I’m asking you to open the window. c. Hedged performatives I’d like to ask you to open the window for me. d. Obligation statements You should open the window. e. Want statement I want you to open the window. 2. Conventionally Indirect f. Suggestory formulae Why don’t you open the window? g. Query preparatory Could you open the window? Would you mind to open the window? 3. Non-Conventionally Indirect h. Strong hints It's very hot in here. i. Mild hints What a sunny day! Over the years, there have been a lot of studies concerning various types of speech acts. In particular, recent studies related to speech act of request mostly describe the patterns of request strategy in the same language and examine pragmatic competence employed by English as Second or Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) learners (Hashemian & Farhang-Ju, 2017; Megaiab et al., 2019; Lenchuk & Ahmed, 2019; Nugroho & Rekha, 2020; Nugroho et al., 2021). Meanwhile, there is a limited number of recent studies focusing on request strategies employed in different languages from different cultures, especially local cultures in a specific country. Some of the studies regarding this have been carried out by Hilbig (2009), Tawalbeh and Al-Oqaily (2012), Yazdanfa and Bonyadi (2016), Balman et al., (2020), and Almujaibel and Gomaa (2022). To bridge the gap from studies above, the present study is designed to investigate a topic of cross-cultural pragmatics which has not yet been sufficiently explored. Therefore, this study aims to examine and compare request strategies and politeness of two groups of native speakers from two different ethnic groups in Indonesia, i.e., Javanese and Sundanese. The research questions that guide this study are: 1. What types of request strategies do Javanese and Sundanese employ? 2. What are the similarities and differences of request strategies and politeness employed by Javanese and Sundanese speakers? 3. What cultural values which are reflected in the way Javanese and Sundanese employ speech act of request and politeness? RESEARCH METHODS This study employed mixed methods since it combined qualitative and quantitative approach. The qualitative approach was used since it aims to analyze and interpret data in order to explore attitudes, behaviour, and experiences of a specific group of people (Dawson, 2002). In this study, the groups of people being explored are Javanese and Sundanese speakers in using requests. The quantitative approach was used to calculate the frequencies and percentages of the request strategies 156 employed by both Javanese and Sundanese speakers based on the results from online questionnaires in the form of Discourse Completion Task (DCT). Participants There were 60 participants who took part in this study. The participants were 30 Javanese speakers and 30 Sundanese speakers. The Javanese participants were those who live in East Java area (Surabaya, Sidoarjo, Malang, and Jember), while the Sundanese participants were those who live in West Java area (Bandung, Cimahi, Bogor, and Sukabumi). The age range was between 18- 45 years old. Procedures The data of this study were collected by using a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) adopted from the CCSARP by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984). According to Rose et al., (2020), Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) provides participants with a situation and/or prompt, allowing them to response in a variety of ways (oral, written, or cloze). DCTs are frequently used to investigate pragmatic competence, particularly specific speech acts, such as requesting, complaining or apologizing. They also claim that DCTs are effective data collection tools because the researcher can manipulate the language and its relation to particular aspects of the situation or prompt, as in social contexts which consist of power relations, social distance, and imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In this study, all of the participants were required to fill in the online DCT by responding to five situations in Google Forms provided by the researcher. Data Analysis First, after the data had been collected, all of the requests were initially identified by dividing each request structure into address term(s), head act, and adjunct(s) to head act (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1989). The focus of analysis was the head act which contained request strategy. Example 1 (in Javanese): “Aku arep nyilih bukue, aku lali ora nggawa buku.” (“I want to borrow your book, I forgot to bring mine.”) In Example 1, there is no address term. The head act is “Aku arep nyilih bukue” or the request, and the adjunct to head act is “aku lali ora nggawa buku”. Example 2 (in Sundanese): “Neng, bantuan mamah nyeuseuh acuk lantaran ieu meni seueur pisan.” (“Dear, help me to wash clothes because there are so many.”) In Example 2, the address term is “Neng”, the head act is “bantuan mamah nyeuseuh acuk” or the request, and the adjunct to head act is “lantaran ieu meni seueur pisan”. Second, the head acts were processed by using quantitative method to calculate the frequencies and percentages of the use of each request strategy based on the classification of Direct Strategy, Conventionally Indirect Strategy, and Non-Conventionally Indirect Strategy suggested by Blum- 157 Kulka and Olshtain (1989). Third, the patterns of request strategies from both groups of participants were compared to identify the similarities and differences. Fourth, the findings were discussed based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) social contexts (social power, social distance, and degree of imposition) in each situation. Fifth, the overall findings were also discussed to reveal the cultural values from each group of speakers, or Javanese and Sundanese cultures, which were reflected in the use of request strategies. Finally, the conclusion was made. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the results based on the data analysis by using the classification of request strategies by Blum-Kulka et al., (1989) in five different situations to 60 participants from 30 Javanese and 30 Sundanese speakers by using Discourse Completion Task (DCT). Each situation is distinguished based on social contexts in terms of social power, social distance, and degree of imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987) between the interlocutors to reveal the levels of directness of request employed by each group of speakers. The findings are presented in tables and chart which are followed by the discussion based on each research question. The Request Strategies Employed by Javanese and Sundanese Speakers in Each Situation Situation 1: You are a lecturer who is teaching in a class. You want to ask your students not to use cell phones during class. How do you say it? Table 2. Distribution of frequencies and percentages in Situation 1 Strategies Javanese Sundanese F % F % Mood derivable 30 100% 30 100% Explicit performatives 0 0% 0 0% Hedged performatives 0 0% 0 0% Obligation statements 0 0% 0 0% Want statements 0 0% 0 0% Suggestory formulae 0 0% 0 0% Query preparatory 0 0% 0 0% Strong hint 0 0% 0 0% Mild hint 0 0% 0 0% Total 30 100% 30 100% Table 2 presents the strategies employed in a situation where a lecturer whose social power is higher (+power) requests something to students whose social power is lower (-power), with no social distance (-distance) because they know each other, and low degree of imposition (- imposition). Based on the frequencies and percentages on table 2, it is obvious that in this situation both Javanese and Sundanese speakers use Direct Strategies in the form of mood derivable (100%). Examples of Direct Strategies – Mood Derivable: Javanese Speakers (JS): (1) Cah, hapene ojo digawe wektu perkuliahan iki yo. (You can’t use your cellphone during this class.) Sundanese Speakers (SS): 158 (2) Teu kenging muka HP salila di kelas ieu. (You can’t use your cellphone during this class.) Situation 2: You are a student. You want to ask your teacher to take a follow-up exam. How do you say it? Table 3. Distribution of frequencies and percentages in Situation 2 Strategies Javanese Sundanese F % F % Mood derivable 0 0% 0 0% Explicit performatives 0 0% 2 7% Hedged performatives 4 13% 3 10% Obligation statements 0 0% 0 0% Want statements 1 3% 2 7% Suggestory formulae 0 0% 0 0% Query preparatory 25 83% 23 77% Strong hint 0 0% 0 0% Mild hint 0 0% 0 0% Total 30 100% 30 100% Table 3 presents the strategies employed in a situation where a student whose social power is lower (-power) requests something to teacher whose social power is higher (+power), with no social distance (-distance) because they know each other, and low degree of imposition (-imposition). Based on the frequencies and percentages on table 3, the most preferred strategy by both groups of speakers is Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form of query preparatory; Javanese (80%) and Sundanese (77%). The second most preferred strategy is also the same in both groups of speakers, which is Direct Strategy in the form of hedged performatives; Javanese (13%) and Sundanese (10%). Examples of Conventionally Indirect Strategy – Query Preparatory: JS: (1) Kulo bade tanglet, Bu. Nopo kulo bisa melu ujian susulan nggih, Bu? (I want to ask something, Ma’am. Can I take a follow-up exam, Ma’am?) SS: (2) Punten, Pak/Bu. Abdi tiasa ngiringan ujian susulan? Kamari abdi teu damang. (Excuse me, Sir/Ma’am. Can I take a follow-up exam? I was sick yesterday.) Examples of Direct Strategy – Hedged Performatives: JS: (3) Ngapunten, Pak/Bu, kulo mboten iso ngikuti ujian. Kulo bade njaluk ujian susulan, Pak/Bu. (Excuse me, Sir/Ma’am. I couldn’t take the exam. I’d like to take follow-up exam, Sir/Ma’am.) SS: (4) Pak, punten ngawageul. Upami kersa, abdi bade ngiringan ujian susulan. (Sir, I’m sorry for interrupting. If it’s possible, I’d like to take follow-up exam). Situation 3: You are working on an assignment with your friend. Your pen has run out of ink and you want to borrow your friend's pen. How do you say it? 159 Table 4. Distribution of frequencies and percentages in Situation 3 Strategies Javanese Sundanese F % F % Mood derivable 15 50% 8 27% Explicit performatives 1 3% 0 0% Hedged performatives 0 0% 1 3% Obligation statements 0 0% 0 0% Want statements 0 0% 0 0% Suggestory formulae 0 0% 0 0% Query preparatory 14 47% 21 70% Strong hint 0 0% 0 0% Mild hint 0 0% 0 0% Total 30 100% 30 100% Table 4 presents the strategies employed in a situation where someone asks his/her friend to do something. Hence, the social power between them is equal (=power), with no social distance (- distance) and low degree of imposition (-imposition). In this situation, Javanese and Sundanese speakers do not prefer the same strategy. Based on the frequencies and percentages on table 4, Javanese speakers mostly use Direct Strategy in the form of mood derivable (50%), while Sundanese speakers mostly use Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form query preparatory (70%). Moreover, the second most preferred strategy by Javanese speakers is use Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form query preparatory (47%), and by Sundanese is Direct Strategy in the form of mood derivable (27%). Examples of Direct Strategy – Mood Derivable: JS: (1) Rek, nyilih bulpen po’o, bulpenki entek tintane. (Bro, borrow your pen. My pen has run out of ink.) (2) Nginjeum pulpen, euy. (Borrow your pen.) Examples of Conventionally Indirect Strategy – Query Preparatory: (3) Rek, bolpenku entek. Iso nyilih bolpen siji ra? (Bro, my pen has run out of ink. Can I borrow one?). (4) Punten. Tinta pulpen abdi seep. Kenging nambut pulpen teu? (Excuse me. My pen has run out of ink. Can I borrow your pen?) Situation 4: Your best friend visits your house for having lunch together. You want to ask him/her to clean up afterwards. How do you say it? 160 Table 5. Distribution of frequencies and percentages in Situation 4 Strategies Javanese Sundanese F % F % Mood derivable 22 73% 23 77% Explicit performatives 4 13% 1 3% Hedged performatives 0 0% 0 0% Obligation statements 0 0% 0 0% Want statements 0 0% 0 0% Suggestory formulae 0 0% 0 0% Query preparatory 3 10% 6 20% Strong hint 1 3% 0 0% Mild hint 0 0% 0 0% Total 30 100% 30 100% Table 5 presents the strategies employed in a situation where someone asks his/her best friend to do something. The social power between them is equal (=power), with no social distance (-distance) and low degree of imposition (-imposition). Based on the frequencies and percentages on table 5, the most preferred strategy by both groups of speakers is the same, which is Direct Strategy in the form of mood derivable; Javanese (70%) and Sundanese (77%). However, the second most preferred strategy is the different. Javanese speakers still use the Direct Strategy in the form of explicit performatives (13%), while Sundanese speakers use Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form of query preparatory (20%). Examples of Direct Strategy – Mood Derivable: JS: (1) Tulung ewangi ngresiki. (Please help me clean this up.) SS: (2) Hayu urang beberes heula. (Let’s clean this up.) Example of Direct Strategy – Explicit Performative: JS: (3) Mas, aku nyuwun tulung diiwangi ngresiki siso panganan iki yo. (Bro, I’m asking you to help me clean this mess, okay.) Example of Conventionally Indirect Strategy – Query Preparatory: SS: (4) Punten. Tiasa ngabantosan abdi ngabersihkeun ieu teu? (Excuse me. Can you help me to clean this up?) Situation 5: You are on vacation. You want to ask other visitors to take your picture. How do you say it? 161 Table 6. Distribution of frequencies and percentages in Situation 5 Strategies Javanese Sundanese F % F % Mood derivable 1 3% 1 3% Explicit performatives 7 23% 0 0% Hedged performatives 2 7% 2 7% Obligation statements 0 0% 0 0% Want statements 0 0% 0 0% Suggestory formulae 0 0% 0 0% Query preparatory 20 67% 27 90% Strong hint 0 0% 0 0% Mild hint 0 0% 0 0% Total 30 100% 30 100% Table 6 presents the strategies employed in a situation where someone asks a stranger to do something. The social power between them is equal (=power), with social distance (+distance) because they do not know each other and a low degree of imposition (-imposition). Based on the frequencies and percentages in table 6, both groups of speakers mostly use the same strategy which is Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form of query preparatory; Javanese (67%) and Sundanese (90%). The second most preferred strategy by both groups of speakers are the same, but in different types. Javanese speakers use Direct Strategy in the form of explicit performatives (23%), while Sundanese speakers use Direct Strategy in the form of hedged performatives (7%). Examples of Conventionally Indirect Strategy – Query Preparatory: JS: (1) Permisi, Saget motokaken kulo sadhilit? (Excuse me. Can you take a photo of me just for a while?) SS: (2) Punten. Tiasa pangmotokeun abdi teu? (Excuse me. Can you take a photo of me?) Example of Direct Strategy – Explicit Performative: JS (3) Kulo njaluk tolong fotono, Mas/Mbak. (I’m asking you to take a photo of me.) Example of Direct Strategy – Hedged Performative: SS: (4) Punten ngawageul. Upami kersa, hoyong nyuhunkeun tulung pangmotokeun abdi. (Sorry for interrupting. If it’s possible, I’d like to ask your help to take a photo of me.) 162 The Similarities and Differences of Request Strategies and Politeness Employed by Javanese and Sundanese Speakers Figure 1. Distribution of Overall Request Strategies by Javanese and Sundanese Speakers Based on the figure above, there are two types of strategies which are mostly employed by both Javanese and Sundanese speakers, namely mood derivable (Direct Strategy) and query preparatory (Conventionally Indirect Strategy). Particularly, query preparatory is also mostly employed by the participants in Balman et al.’s (2020) study. In relation to this, Trosborg (1995) argues that many linguistic studies regarding politeness claim that query preparatory strategy is the universal method of making requests since it is appropriate in various situations, distances, and relations. Therefore, it can reduce the face-threatening act by not making it as an obligation to the hearer. On the contrary, none of speakers from both groups employ obligation statements (Direct Strategy), suggestory formulae (Conventionally Indirect Strategy), and mild hint (Indirect Strategy). Javanese speakers mostly employ Direct Strategies consisting of mood derivable, explicit performatives, hedged performatives, and want statements with total percentage of 58%, and Conventionally Indirect Strategies which consist of query preparatory with total percentage of 41%. Conversely, Sundanese speakers mostly employ Conventionally Indirect Strategies which consist of query preparatory with total percentage of 51%, and Direct Strategies which consist of mood derivable, explicit performatives, hedged performatives, and want statements with total percentage of 48%. Based on these findings, it can be said that Javanese speakers are more direct than Sundanese speakers. Each situation used in the DCT shows both Javanese and Sundanese speakers employ various request strategies. Low degree of imposition in all situations are the same, but the social power and social distance are different. Both groups of speakers mostly employ the same request strategies in Situation 1, 2, 4, and 5. In Situation 1, they mostly employ Direct Strategies from someone in higher social power to lower social power. These findings are also found by Almujaibel and Gomaa (2022) in Kuwaiti Arabic and British English speakers. In Situation 2, they mostly employ Conventionally Indirect Strategies from someone in lower social power to higher social power. In this type of situation, indirect speech acts are preferred to reduce the threat, prevent the risk of losing face, and maintain the conversational interaction (Hashemian & Farhang-Ju, 2017). In Situation 4, both Javanese and Sundanese speakers mostly employ Direct Strategy to a close friend who have equal social power and no social distance. In Situation 5, both groups of speakers 45% 8% 4% 0% 1% 0% 41% 1% 0% 41% 2% 4% 0% 1% 0% 51% 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% Mood derivable Explicit performatives Hedged performatives Obligation statements Want statements Suggestory formulae Query preparatory Strong hint Mild hint Jawa Sunda 163 mostly employ Conventionally Indirect Strategies when requesting something in low imposition to a stranger. However, the responses in Situation 3 are various. In Situation 3, Javanese speakers mostly employ Direct Strategy to a friend or someone in equal power with no social distance, while Sundanese speakers mostly employ Conventionally Indirect Strategies. From overall findings, the patterns of request strategies employed by Javanese and Sundanese speakers in most social contexts are similar, the only difference is in the interaction or context between friends. The Cultural Values Reflected in the Speech Act of Request As previously stated, the principle of cross-cultural pragmatics is examining how cultural values are reflected in the way people communicate in each of their groups by using their own languages. In other words, cultural values in a particular group or society can affect how the members of the group use the language. Hence, the appropriateness of speech acts is influenced by the use of different request strategies employed by speakers from different cultures based on certain cultural values and social norms (Almujaibel & Gomaa, 2022). Based on the analysis of this study, it can be seen that Javanese and Sundanese cultural values are reflected in the speech acts of request employed by the speakers in their responses. According to Nuryatiningsih and Pandanwangi (2018), Javanese language contains politeness values in terms of friendliness and respect. These values can be observed in one of the characteristics of Javanese language, namely undha usuk or the speech level system, that reflects some local wisdom in Javanese culture, such as andap asor (humble), empan papan (adaptable), aja dumeh (not arrogant), and tepa saliro (tolerant). In social interaction, Sasangka (2004, in Nuryatiningsih and Pandanwangi, 2018) explains that unggah-ungguh basa or language rules in Javanese language should be applied by the speakers based on situational context (formal and/or informal) and social context (social power, social distance, and social status). Therefore, the politeness of speech acts in Javanese can be realized by employing unggah-ungguh in the appropriate contexts. Meanwhile, Sundanese language in general contains politeness values as expressed in “someah hade ka semah” meaning “being nice and friendly to guests” and “hade tata, hade basa" meaning “using the appropriate language can show good attitudes and respect” (Nugraha, 2017). These values can also reflect local wisdom in Sundanese culture, “silih asih, silih asah, silih asuh”, which means “caring, guiding, guarding each other” (Susanti & Koswara, 2017). In social interaction, there are language rules in Sundanese language, undak usuk basa or the speech level system, that should be applied based on the social context, such as social power, social distance, and social status (Yudibrata et al., 1990 in Sudaryat, 2014). As a matter of fact, Sundanese’ speech level system is highly influenced by Javanese because Mataram Kingdom had been inhabiting the land of Sundanese in the 17th century for 55 years (Sudaryat, 2014). Hence, there are a lot of similarities in Javanese and Sundanese languages. 164 Based on the responses from Javanese and Sundanese speakers in this study, most of the speakers employ Conventionally Indirect Strategies to show politeness in certain social contexts. For example, in situations that require request from someone in lower social power to higher social power, and between two people who do not know each other which shows social distance. Besides, speakers tend to use more indirect request strategies to save the hearer’s face. As Haddad (2017) explains, politeness can change the request's level of directness and reduce imposition by preventing or minimizing the face-threatening act. Based on the responses in other social contexts, most of the speakers from both groups can also adapt with the situations and employ appropriate request to the hearer. For example, in situations that require request from someone in higher social power to lower social power, and from friend to friend. In addition, the use of word “ngapunten” in Javanese and “punten” or “hapunten” in Sundanese which mean “Excuse me”, or “I’m sorry” in most of the beginning of the requests employed by both groups of speakers can also signify politeness in both cultures. Finally, the appropriateness in employing speech act of request can contribute to maintain the social harmony in the society as expected by the local wisdom of each culture. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis of this study, it can be concluded that Direct Strategy in the form of mood derivable and Conventionally Indirect Strategy in the form of query preparatory are two request strategies which are mostly employed by both Javanese and Sundanese speakers. In particular, Javanese speakers employ more Direct Strategy than Sundanese speakers. However, the patterns of request strategies employed by both groups of speakers in most social contexts are similar, because they mostly employ the same request strategies in four out of five situations in DCT. In cross-cultural pragmatics, it is stated that cultural values and social norms can affect the language use by people in a particular group or society, including the politeness and appropriateness in making requests. Therefore, these are reflected in the responses of both groups of speakers by employing request strategies appropriately based on the social contexts. Furthermore, this can also reflect the local wisdom of each culture. For example, by using indirect request strategies in some contexts, or saying “ngapunten” or “punten” before making requests which are widely accepted by both cultures as a politeness marker. For further research, it is suggested to conduct another study of speech acts in other ethnic groups in Indonesia since it has not been much explored. Another suggestion is to involve more participants and using more data collection techniques other than DCT, such as role-play, focus group discussion, or interviews, so the scope of the study will be much bigger and deeper. REFERENCES Almujaibel, Y. B., & Gomaa, Y. A. (2022). Request strategies in Kuwaiti Arabic and British English: A cross-cultural pragmatic study. Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science (RIELS) Journal, 3(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v3i1.401 https://doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v3i1.401 165 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 Balman, R. P., Lee, S., & Inoue, N. (2020). Request strategies in email communication: The case of Indonesian graduate students in Japan. Studies in English Language and Education (SIELE), 7(2), 379-392. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16806 Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some language universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Central Bureau of Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik). (2015, 18 November). Mengulik data suku di Indonesia. Retrieved July, 7 2022, from https://www.bps.go.id/news/2015/11/18/127/mengulik-data-suku-di-indonesia.html Cohen, A. D. (2010). Coming to terms with pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), In teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 3-20). New York: Routledge. Dawson, C. (2007). A practical guide to research methods: A user-friendly manual for mastering research techniques and projects (3rd ed). Oxford: Howtobooks Ltd. Fought, C. (2006). Language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Haddad, M. (2017). The use of request strategies in L2 English: The case of upper-secondary students in a Swedish context. Bachelor’s thesis. School of Education, Culture, and Communication, Malardalen University, Sweden. Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2017). Cross-cultural Study of EFL/ESL learners’ request strategies. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(2), 35-35. Hilbig, I. (2009). Lithuanian and English request strategies and politeness. Lietuvių Kalba, 3, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.15388/LK.2009.22872. Lenchuk, I., & Ahmad, A. (2019). Are the speech acts of EFL learners really direct? The case of requests in the Omani EFL context. SAGE Open Journal, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018825018 Kecskes, I. (2016). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–19). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.29 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16806 https://www.bps.go.id/news/2015/11/18/127/mengulik-data-suku-di-indonesia.html https://doi.org/10.15388/LK.2009.22872 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018825018 166 Megaiab, M., Wijana, I. D. P., & Munandar, A. (2019). Politeness strategies of request used between Libyan students and their lecturers using English as a foreign language. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Translation (IJLLT), 2(4), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.4.20 Nugraha, H. S. (2017, September). Membangun karakter bangsa melalui penggunaan tatakrama bahasa Sunda yang baik dan benar. In A. A. Akhmar, et al. (Eds.), Prosiding Konferensi Internasional Ikatan Dosen Budaya Daerah Indonesia (IKADBUDI) 7 (pp. 165-172). Nugroho, A., & Rekha, A. (2020). Speech acts of requests: A case of Indonesian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 5(1), 1-16. Nugroho, A., Astuti, N. W., & Atmojo, A. E. P. (2021). Acts of requesting as realised by English for specific purposes students. Journal of Pragmatics Research, 3(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v3i1.46-5 Nuryantiningsih, F., & Pandanwangi, W. D. (2018). Politeness and impoliteness in Javanese speech levels. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 166. 383-387. Ottenheimer, H. J., & Pine, J. M. S. (2019). The anthropology of language: An introduction to Linguistic Anthropology, Fourth Edition. Boston: Cengage Learning Inc. Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Bafooe-Djan, J. B. (2020). Data collection research methods in Applied Linguistics. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Searle, J. R. (1976). A Classification of illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, (5)1, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837. Susanti, S., & Koswara, I. (2017). Concept of Silih Asih, Silih Asah, Silih Asuh in the acculturation in Bandung. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 140. 13-17. Sudaryat, Y. (2014, 30 September). Kesantunan berbahasa Sunda sebagai landasan membangun karakter bangsa. Retrieved July 9, 2022, from http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPBS/JUR._PEND._BAHASA_DAERAH/196302101987031- YAYAT_SUDARYAT/Artikel%20Kesantunan%20B.%20Sunda%20%28Bali%2C%2030-9- 14%29.pdf Tawalbeh, A., & Al-Oqaily, E. (2012). In-directness and politeness in American English and Saudi Arabic requests: A cross-cultural comparison. Asian Social Science, 8(10), 85-98. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter. Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics: Seventh Edition. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Yazdanfar, S., & Bonyadi, A. (2016). Request strategies in everyday interactions of Persian and English speakers. SAGE Open Journal, 6(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016679473 https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.4.20 https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v3i1.46-5 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016679473