Refusal Strategies Used By Multi-Nationality Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v8i1.14764Keywords:
refusal strategies, multi-nationality, inter-cultural communication, primary levelAbstract
This descriptive qualitative study was aimed at exploring refusal strategies used by the students of primary level of Gandhi Memorial Intercontinental School (GMIS) Bali in requesting, offering, inviting, and suggesting. The students being involved as the subject of this study were multi nationality (Indonesian, Indian, Russian, and Japanese) male and female students of the third, fourth and fifth grade which were determined using purposive sampling technique. Data collection was conducted through observation, recording, and note taking employing video recorder, camera, and field note as the instruments of the data collection. Data analysis in this study was done through four concurrent activities covering data collection, data reduction, data display, and conclusion. The result shows that, in context of request across nationalities, view from the frequency (percentage of refusals) it shows direct refusal is highly used by Russian while it is lowest used by Indonesian students. On the contrary indirect strategy is more often used by Indonesian students. while in context of refusing an offer. it reflects that Indonesian is mostly to refuse it in direct way but this is contrast with Russian who perform direct refusal in less frequent. This condition is in context of refusing in indirect way. the data reveals that Russian are more often to refuse the offering in indirect way while Indonesian is the lowest. In context of refusing invitation, nationality which is the highest used of direct refusal is Indian while nationality which was prefer to perform indirect refusal is Russian. In addition, in context of Suggestion, direct refusal is highly performed by Russian whereas indirect refusal is more often used by Japanese students.
References
Al-Eryani, A.A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9(2), 19-34.
Al –Issa , A. (2003). Sciocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27,581–601.
Al-Kahtani, W. (2005). Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A speech act theoretically based cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University, 18, 35-57.
Al-Shboul, Y. A. & Huwari, I.F. (2016). A comparative study of Jordanian Arabic and American English refusal strategies. British Journal of English Linguistics, 4(3), 50-62.
Atieh, F, & Yasin, S.Y.A .(2011). A descriptive-comparative analysis of apology strategies:The case of Iranian EFL and Malaysian ESL University Students. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education.
Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990)."Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals". In R.Scarcella, R., Anderson, E., Krashen, S.D. (Eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (chapter 22). Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Retrieved on July 8, 2018 from https://www.google.co.id/
Chojimah, N. (2015). Refusal and politeness strategies in relation to social status: A case of face-threatening act among Indonesian University Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(5), 906-918. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0505.04.
Farnia, M & Wu, X. (2012). An intercultural communication study of Chinese and Malaysian university students’ refusal to invitation. International journal of English linguistics, 2(1), 162-176. Doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p162.
Gass, S. & Houck.N. (1999) Interlanguage refusals: A cross cultural study of Japanese-English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Retrieved on May 10, 2018 from https://books.google.co.id/
Han, T. & Tazegul, A. (2016). Realization of speech acts of refusal and pragmatic competence by Turkish EFL learners. The reading matrix: An international online journal, 16 (1), 161-178.
Hedayatnejad, F., & Rahbar, B. (2014). The effect of gender on realization of refusal strategies in formal and informal situation among Iranian EFL learners. ELT Voices-International journal for teachers of English, 4 (6), 20-43.
Hedayatnejad, F., Maleki., & Mehrizi, A. (2016). The effect of social status and gender on realization of refusal of suggestion among Iranian EFL Intermediate Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7 (1),99-109. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0701.11.
Herman, Simanjuntak. T. & Eviliana. (2013). Strategi tindak tutur penolakan oleh mahasiswa semester II Jurusan Bahasa Inggris Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya Tahun Akademik 2011/2012. ILMIAH, 5(3), 1-70.
Illiadi, P. L. & Larina, T.V. (2017). Refusal strategies in English and Russian. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 8 (3), 531-542.
Li, X. & Sun, J. (2015). A pragmatic study on refusal strategies by Chinese college nursing majors. Cambridge journal of china studies, 10 (2), 67-85.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd.). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 86-107.
Mulyani, E.R. (2013). Two types of realization of making refusal in Sundanese context: A case study. ELTIN Journal, 1 (1), 11-22. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22460/ej.v1i1p%25p.52
Nadar, F.X., Wijana, I D. P., Poedjosoerdarmo, S., Djawanai, S. (2005). Penolakan dalam Bahasa Inggris dan Bahasa Indonesia. Humaniora, 17(2),126-224.
Nelson, G. , Al-Batal, M. & El-Bakary, W. (2002) . Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations ,26 , 39–57.
Sadeghi, K & Savojbolaghchilar, S. (2011). A comparative study of refusal strategies used by Iranians and Americans. International journal of academic research, 3(2), 601-606.
Sattar, A. Hibba. Q. A., Salasiah C. & Suleiman, Raja Rosina (2013). A study on strategies used in Iraqi Arabic to refuse suggestion. International journal of language society and culture, 30, 81-95.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2006). Intercultural Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(3), pp.434-437.
Tuncer, H. (2016). Refusal strategies used by Turkish university instructors of English. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(1), 71-90.
Umale, J. (2011). Pragmatic failure in refusal strategies: British versus Omani interlocutors. Arab World English Journal, 2(1), 18-46.
Wannaruck, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL Refusals. Sage Publications, 39 (3) 318-337. Doi: 1177/0033688208096844
Wardaugh, R. (2006). Introduction to Linguistics (5th ed.). McGraw Hill Book Company.
Wierzbicka, A. 1987. English speech acts verbs: A semiotic dictionary. London: Academic Press.
Wijayanto, A. (2013). The Emergence of the Javanese Sopan Santun (Politeness) on the Refusal Strategies Used by Javanese Learners of English. The Internet Journal Language Culture and Society. URL:http://aaref.com.au/en/publication/journal/. Accessed on June 29th, 2018.
Xiaoning, Z. (2017). Politeness strategies in requests and refusals. A Published Paper, 1-12. Retrieved on May, 20, 2018 from https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DYzYWRiN/ Request-Refuse.pdf
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford university Press
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with the Jurnal Pendidikan Indnesia agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. (See The Effect of Open Access)
