�Syntax
Literate : Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia p�ISSN: 2541-0849
��e-ISSN : 2548-1398
�Vol. 6, No.
1, Januari 2021
THE STRATEGIES OF REFUSING REQUESTS BY STUDENTS OF
DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS
Arsen Nahum Pasaribu, Erika Sinambela, Tiara K. Pasaribu, Jubil Ezer Sihite, dan Rony Arahta Sembiring
Faculty of Language and Arts,Universitas HKBP Nommensen, Medan, Indonesia
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], dan [email protected]
Abstract
This study investigated the
strategies used by students of different ethnic groups (Batak, Javanese, and
Malay) in refusing requests. A total of 30 participants were involved in this
research. Each ethnic group was represented by 10 students that came from three
different universities in Medan, Indonesia. Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was
used to collect the data. Data were analyzed by using refusal categorization.
The results showed that the participants preferred to use indirect refusal strategies
to respond to lecturer�s requests, and followed by direct and adjunct
strategies respectively. This study also indicated that Batak students
performed refusal acts more direct than any other Javanese or Malay students.
Meanwhile Javanese students tend to employ refusals more indirect compared to
any other students. The Malay students performed the acts moderately. The
results indicated that the refusal strategies used by the students of three
different cultural backgrounds might be influenced by their cultural
circumstances. Future studies should be undertaken to investigate the phenomena
in different research settings with more participants to be involved.
Keywords: refusal strategies; different ethnic group; request; speech acts.
Coresponden Author
Email: [email protected]
Artikel dengan akses terbuka dibawah lisensi
Introduction
The study of refusal
strategy in social communication has shown a growing number for last few
decades. The application of speech acts in communication by speakers in any
social situation is meant to meet the goals of their communication as
categorized by (Searle
& Searle, 1977) comprising of commissives, declarations,
directives, expressives, representatives, and more
particularly acts like apologies, requests, complains and refusals (Kasper
& Rose, 2001). Refusals are face-threatening acts (Brown,
Levinson, & Levinson, 1987) and
belong to the category of commissives because they
commit the refuse to (not) performing an action (Searle
& Searle, 1977).
In social interaction,
people are expected to keep the communication running well. They endeavor to
avoid saying �no� to invitation, suggestion, offer, request, proposal, and
appeals. Therefore, in order to minimize the hurt feeling over the refusal,
they seek to find �proper ways� to be likely accepted by the interlocutors.
Choosing strategy to refuse a request, for example, may be varied in different
individuals and cultures. Moreover, refusal acts can be realized verbally or
non-verbally, like shaking our head spontaneously.
The act of refuse may
occur in all languages. However, the way of refusal is different in every
language. (Beebe,
Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990) asserted
that the differences may exist in the frequency of occurrence, the context of
use, and linguistic features that were varied according to culture. In a similar
vein, (Rubin,
1980) affirmed that speech acts are much influenced by a
culture of society. The way of people from different culture to say �no� is
interesting to investigate as the way they act to refuse may be diverse from
culture to culture.
The research in refusal
strategies, according to cultural basis, is mainly divided in two categories:
the refusals of a single language or culture and the refusals of across
different cultures or languages (Morkus,
2014). Several studies have been conducted to
examine the refusal acts in single or multi-cultures or languages. (Su, 2020) and (Lee, 2016) investigated the relation of power to
refusal strategies used by Chinese students. Su investigated the use of genuine
and superficial refusals among medical students responding to invitation and
offering, while Lee explored the use, form, order, and contents of refusals by
Cantonese learners of English. Both research revealed
that mandarin students performed varied strategies refusals when responding to
invitation offers. Genuine refusal, in the Su�s case is often delayed and
mitigated while superficial refusal is frequently directly projected. (Solihah
& Imperiani, 2020) investigated different strategies in refusal by
Sundanese students of different gender. This study confirms that both gender
have no significant difference in practicing strategies in refusal acts. (Harared, 2020), moreover, examined the refusal strategies
used in comedy. The research showed that direct refusal was dominantly used in
all situation of the communication. In addition, (Musniati,
2019) also had interest in investigating the strategies to
refuse by a taxi driver when serving the passenger in Lombok. This study
claimed that both direct and indirect strategies were used by the taxi driver
when responding to his taxi passengers� order or requests.
The research in refusal
strategies by a cross-culture people and language attract some scholars to
investigate. (Moafian,
Yazdi, & Sarani, 2019) explored the refusal of request speech act in Persian,
English, and Blauchi languages. This investigation
revealed the significant differences in frequency of using direct, indirect,
and adjunct strategies by the people in three languages. (Ismail,
2017), moreover, scrutinized the different ways
of Malay and Spanish students to refuse. This research indicated that there were
significant differences in frequency and method of refusal acts by the students
of both different cultures. In the similar vein, (Shishavan
& Sharifian, 2016) and (Shishavan
& Sharifian, 2016) studied the refusal strategies by learners of Iranian
English language and Anglo-Australian language. The research exposed that the
power of interlocutors influenced the refusal strategies used by the students.
The previous research
had similar in common that the focus and scope of the studies were around the
refusal strategies by people in single culture investigation or multi-cultural
investigation by different countries. However, the research on refusal
strategies by multi-cultural ethnic group in a country, such as in Indonesia
context is relatively unexplored. Accordingly, this study attempted to explore
the refusal strategies used by several university students in Medan that come
from three different ethnic groups: Batak, Javanese, and Malay.
Methodology
A total of 30
participants were involved in this research. They originated in three different
ethnic groups: 10 students of Batak (BS), 10 students of Malay (MS) and 10
students of Javanese (JS). All participants were students of different universities
in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia.�
Data were collected by
using a written Discourse Completion Test (DCT). The DCT was constructed in
requests with five different situations. The requests were written in
Indonesian Language as most of participants were unable to speak in English.
The DCT was created in Google forms and sent to the participants. The five
scenarios of the request can be seen in the following.
Request 1
Lecturer: Bisakah kamu datang ke
kantor saya jam 8 pagi besok? Ada hal yang ingin saya bicarakan dengan kamu. (Can you come to my
office at 8 o�clock tomorrow morning? I have something to discuss with you.)
Students:__________________________________________________________
Request 2
Lecturer: Tolong bawakan buku ibu
ke kantor, bawaan ibu sangat berat. (Please take my books to my office, my stuffs are
too heavy to take myself.)
Student:___________________________________________________________
Request 3
Lecturer: Tolong dibantu teman nya
dalam menyelesaikan soal yang saya berikan kemarin. (Please help
your friend to answer the questions I gave yesterday).
Student:___________________________________________________________
Request 4
Lecturer : Tolong kirimkan
paket ini ke pengiriman sore ini, saya tidak
waktu ke sana. (Please send this package to the courier agent this
afternoon, I have no time to go there).
Student:___________________________________________________________
Request 5
Lecturer: Tolong kamu pinjamkan buku dengan judul
ini ke perpustakaan
untuk ibu. (Please borrow
this book with this title to the library for me).
Student: ___________________________________________________________________
The procedures of data
collection were undertaken in following steps.
1.�� Creating
five requests.
2.�� The scenario
was set that students must refuse all the requests
3.�� The DCT was
sent to the students by using Google form.
4.�� Students
were demanded to complete the DCT in 3 days.
The completed forms of
DCT were analysed by (Beebe
et al., 1990) categorisation of refusal strategies. The refusal act was
analysed according to the sub-categories: direct,
indirect, and adjunct. The analysis of data was classified in number and
percentage according to the students by different ethnic groups. The results of
data analysis were input in a table that showed the number of refusal
occurrences in each category and the most dominant occurrences in whole refusal
studies.
Results and Discussion
Overall,
a total of 165 refusal strategies were produced by the students as the responses
to five requests. The data were analyzed by using (Beebe
et al., 1990) categorization of
refusal strategies. The strategies can be seen in the forms of direct,
indirect, and adjunct.
Table 1
The frequency and percentage of
refusal acts by students of three different ethnic groups
Refusal
Strategies |
Students |
Total |
|||
|
Batak |
Javanese |
Malay |
F |
% |
I. Direct a.
Non-performative Total |
10 10 |
4 4 |
8 8 |
22 22 |
10.91 22.42 |
II. Indirect a. Statement of regret b. Statement of wish c. Excuse/reason/ explanation d. Statement of alternative e. Promise for future acceptance f. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor g. Avoidance h. Resorting to the third party Total |
4 1 8 4 2 1 6 8 34 |
8 2 12 2 4 - 4 8 40 |
5 - 10 4 2 3 6 6 36 |
17 3 30 10 8 4 16 22 110 |
10.30 1.82 12.73 6.06 4.85 2.42 9.70 10.30 58.18 |
III. Adjunct a. Statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement b. Pause filler c. Showing respect d. Addressing with respect Total |
3 3 1 - 7 |
3 9 2 1 15 |
4 5 1 1 11 |
10 17 4 2 33 |
6.06 3.64 6.06 3.64 19.40 |
Total |
59 |
51 |
55 |
165 |
100 |
Table
1 indicates a total of 165 refusal acts were employed by students of different
ethnic groups in Medan. Generally, the refusal strategies were dominated by
indirect strategies (58.18%), and then followed by direct (22.42%) and adjunct
refusals (19.40%). JS most dominantly used indirect strategies, which is 34
(20.61%). On the other hand, BS and MS expressed 31 (18.79%) indirect
strategies respectively. The most dominant strategy used in indirect refusal
was excuse/reason/explanation, 21 (12.73%). In direct refusal strategies, BS
mostly used direct strategies with 19 occurrences, followed by MS and JS with
11 and 7 occurrences respectively. In adjunct, it was represented by 32 refusal
strategies (19.40%). MS employed strategies most dominantly with 13
occurrences, and followed by JS with 10 strategies, and BS with 9 strategies.
The refusals analysis by BS, JS, and MS are explained.
The
findings showed that the strategies used by the students to refuse the
lecturer�s requests were varied. The different acts of refusal were determined
by the diverse cultural backgrounds of the students as asserted by (Beebe
et al., 1990) and (Rubin,
1980). More specific findings
of the research uncovered that the students from the three different ethnic
groups have different ways of expressing refusal to the requests by the
lecturer. The method of BS to refuse the requests was more direct than more
direct compared to JS and MS. It explains that the culture and characteristics
of Batak people that speak straight forward. On the other hand, the students of
Javanese background employed the refusal acts to the requests were more
indirect than any other students of BS and MS. This result may appear as the
consequence of the cultural background of JS that tend to be indirect in the
way of communication. In the meantime, MS was relatively moderate in performing
the refusal acts to the requests.
The
results are in line with the studies by (Musniati,
2019) that confirmed that
Indonesian people like other asian countries tend to produce indirect method of
refusal to save the face of the interlocutors. However, in certain cases of
refusal acts by some ethnic group in Indonesia, like Batak, tend to perform
more direct if compared to any other ethnic groups in Indonesia. This study
also showed power played big roles to influence the interlocutors when
expressing refusals (Lee,
2016). Power seems more
influential than cultural background to deploy strategies when refusing to the
requests. This claim can be proved by the ways of BS, that are culturally more
direct in conversation, performed the refusal acts relatively indirect to the
lecturer�s requests.
Conclusion
Social
interactions need social rules in practice in order to avoid akwardness or even
dislike of the interlocutors. Most of the rules are unwritten, but real in
social communication. Being polite in conversation is one of examples of the
rules in social communication. Refusal to request, invitation, or suggestion is
considered being rude. Thus, people seek to deploy strategies of being polite
when having conversation, especial when refusing to requests. The strategies of
refusal are much influenced by the cultural background. Several studies have
shown evidence to this claim. As some scholars asserted that most Asian people
tend to perfom inderectly to refuse a request. This study was designed to confirm
the previous findings. Students from three diffrent ethnic groups : Batak,
Javanese, and Malay were studied to find the ways they perfomed refusal acts to
several reguests by a lecturer.�
Discourse completion test was deployed to collect the data. Using
refusal catefories by (Beebe
et al., 1990) the data analysis was
perfomed. The study finally reveal that cultural background of the
interlocutors influenced the ways of they expressed the refusal
strategies.� However, the power of the
interlocutors is likely more influential that cultural background.
REFERENCES
Beebe, Leslie M., Takahashi, Tomoko, &
Uliss-Weltz, Robin. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language, 5573.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C.,
& Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Harared, Nico. (2020). Investigating
Refusal Strategies in Situational Comedy: A Case Study of Sheldon Cooper, Ph.
D. 4th International Conference on Arts Language and Culture (ICALC 2019),
477�485. Atlantis Press.
Ismail, R. .. (2017). The difference of
speech act of refusal strategies between the Malays and Spanish. Cross-Cultural
Studies. The Social Sciences, 12, 1334�1343.
Kasper, Gabriele, & Rose, Kenneth R.
(2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Lee, Cynthia. (2016). Understanding refusal
style and pragmatic competence of teenage Cantonese English learners in
refusals: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(2),
257�282.
Moafian, Fatemeh, Yazdi, Naji, &
Sarani, Abdullah. (2019). The refusal of request speech act in Persian,
English, and Balouchi languages: A cross-cultural and cross-linguistic study. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1(ahead-of-print).
Morkus, Nader. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian
Arabic and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 86�107.
Musniati, Musniati. (2019). Cancelling and
Refusal Strategy used by the Grab Driver of Lombok When Interacting with
Customers. Fifth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics (PRASASTI
2019), 208�212. Atlantis Press.
Rubin, Joan. (1980). How to tell when
someone is saying" no.". Research in Culture Learning: Language
and Conceptual Studies. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Searle, John R., & Searle, John Rogers.
(1977). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626).
Cambridge university press.
Shishavan, Homa Babai, & Sharifian,
Farzad. (2016). The refusal speech act in a cross-cultural perspective: A study
of Iranian English-language learners and Anglo-Australian speakers. Language
& Communication, 47, 75�88.
Solihah, Rahmatillah, & Imperiani,
Ernie D. A. (2020). Refusal Strategies Among Sundanese Students: An Analysis of
Gender and Power Relation. Twelfth Conference on Applied Linguistics
(CONAPLIN 2019), 160�164. Atlantis Press.
Su, Yunwen. (2020). Yes or no: Ostensible versus
genuine refusals in Mandarin invitational and offering discourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 162, 1�16.