The Analysis of Adjunct to Refusal Expressions in a Refusal Discourse: A Contrastive Study between Japanese Native Speakers and Indonesian Japanese Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/chie.v12i1.1515Abstract
The study reports on the analysis of Adjunct to Refusal Expressions used by Japanese Native Speaker (JNS) and Indonesian Japanese Learners (IJL) in a refusal discourse. The aims are to see whether both use Adjunct to Refusal Expressions in a refusal interaction and to observe what type of expressions they use when refusing in the interaction, investigating the similarities and differences in their use from the first refusal stage to the stage where the intent of refusal is accepted by the refusee. The mixed method research involved 60 participants consisting of 30 pairs JNS female university students and 30 pairs of IJL female university students. The male students were not involved in this study due to the lack numbers of those learning Japanese language in the university. IJL students represented beginner and intermediate levels (N5, N4, and N3). The data were collected by situating the participants in a role play based on the setting given while being videotaped. The setting is a refusal to a close friend’s request. The data were analyzed by using a semantic formula framework, focusing on Adjunct to Refusal expressions modified from Beebe et al (1990), Yoshida (2015) and Hayati (2020, 2023). The results showed that both JNS and IJL employed Adjunct to Refusal expressions in their refusal discourse. There was no significant difference in the use of Adjunct to Refusal by JNS and IJL with χ2(1) = 1.270, p = .2597. However, JNS used higher Adjunct to Refusal expressions (46,7%) than IJL (33,3%). Further, their preferences in using certain type of Adjunct to Refusal expressions were similar in that they highly used information request type, whereas the differences could be seen from the absent use of confusion as Adjunct to refusal in JNS and that of backchannel response in IJL.
Downloads
References
Ali, S. & Al-Kahtani, W. (2006). Refusals Realizations in Three Different Cultures: A Speech Act Theoretically Based Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of King Saud University.18. Lang. & Transl., pp. 35-57, Riyadh.
Brown, P., & Levinson. S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bulaeva, M.E. (2016). Multivariate Analysis of Refusal Strategies in Request Situations: The Case of Russian JFL Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7 (2), 829-840.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–73). New York: Newbury House.
Chang, Y-F. (2008). How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Science Direct, 31, 477–493.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the Ability to Perform Speech Acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2), 253-267.
Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. Martinez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2158–2187.
Finegan, E., Niko, B., David, B., & Peter C. (1992). Language: Its Structure and Use. Australia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp. 259-271). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gass, M.S., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 227–255.
Hayati, N. (2020). Kotowari seiritsugo no gengo koudou: Nihongo bogo washa to Indonesia jin Sundago bogowasha no taishou kenkyuu. [Linguistic behavior at the post-refusal stage: A contrastive study between Japanese and Sundanese native speakers]. Ningen Shakai Kankyou Kenkyuu [Human and Socio- Environmental Studies], no.40, 83-99.
Hayati, N. (2023). Nihongo bogowasha to Indonesia jin Sundago bogowasha no otowari danwa ni okeru gengo koudou no taishou kenkyuu: Kotowari hatsuwa ni itaru made no dankai wo chuushi ni. [A Contrastive Study of Refusal Discourse between Native Speakers of Japanese and Indonesian Native Speakers of Sundanese: Focusing on the Pre-Refusal. Shakai gengogaku enshuu ronbushuu [Sociolinguistics Seminar Paper Collection], 16, 2023, pp. 173-193.
Ikeda, R. (1993). Shazai no taisho kenkyu: Face to iu kanten karano kosatsu [A contrastive study of apology: from the perspective of “face”]. Nihongogaku [Japanese linguistics], 12(2), 13–21.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistics Politeness: Current Research Issues. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL. 9 (1): 1-33.
Kitao, K. (1997). Conversational constraints and refusals in British English. Doshinsha Women’s College Annual Reports of Studies, 48, 42–60.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 31, 339–364.
Laohaburanakit, K. (1997). Nihongo gakushusha ni mirareru kotowari no hyogen: Nihongo bogowasha to hikaku shite [Forms of refusal: A comparison of refusal forms used by learners of Japanese and Japanese native speakers]. Sekai no Nihongo kyoiku [Japanese Language Education around the Globe], 7, 97–112.
Murai, M. (2009). Kotowari Koui ni okeru Koukan to Fukaikan wo Ketteisuru Youin wa Nani Ka –Supiichi Reberu to Houryaku no Futatsu no Housaku kara [What are the factors determining positive and negative impressions upon the acts of refusal? – considering speech level and semantic formulae]. Tsukuba Daiguka Chiiki Kenkyuu [Area Studies Tsukuba] 30.17-30.
Moaveni, H.T. (2014). A Study of Refusal Strategies by American and International Students at an American University (Master Thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato, 2014). Retrieved from: http:cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds. Accessed on: January 20th 2016.
Moriyama, T (1990). Kotowari no horyaku: taijin kankei chosei to komyunikeshon [Refusal strategies: Interpersonal relationship adjustment and communication]. Gengo [Language], 19(8), 241–254.
Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic anSad American English. Journal of Pragmatics. 70, 86–107.
Osuka, N. (2009). Japanese’ Learners’ Refusal and Apology Problems: A Pilot Study, In A.M. Stoke (Ed.). JALT2009 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT
Salazar, P., Jorda, P.S. (2009). Refusal Strategies: A Proposal From Sociopragmatic Approach. Revista Electronica de Linguistica Applicada, 8: 139-150.
Shimura, A. (1995). Kotowari to iu hatuswa koi ni okeru taigu hyogen toshite no shoryaku no hindo, kino, kozo ni kansuru chukan gengo goyoron kenkyu [A study of interlanguage pragmatics on the frequency, mechanism and structure of ellipsis as politeness expression in refusal speech acts]. Keio gijutsu daigaku hiyoshi kiyo Gengo bunka komyunikeshon [The Hiyoshi Review of Communication Language and Culture], 15, 41–63
Soepriatmadji, L. (2010). Recognizing Speech Act Refusals. Dinamika Bahasa &Ilmu Budaya, 1, 52-68. Retrieved from: https://liduaeka.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/7/6/10761275/04_recognizing_liliek_jan_10.pdf. 5 Januari 2019.
Tanck, S. (2004). Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of Native and non-native English Speaker’s Production. TESOL Working Papers. 4 (2): 1-22
Tuncer, H. (2016). Refusal Strategies Used By Turkish University Instructors of English. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 10 (1), 71-90.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 53. Cross- Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin; New York: Mouten de Gruyter.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. United States of America: Newbury House Publishers.
Yamagashira, H. (2001). Pragmatic Transfer in Japanese ESL Refusals. Kagoshima Immaculate Heart College, English Department, 259-275.
Yamaoka, M. (2004). Nihongo ni okeru hairyo hyogen kenkyu no genjo [Present state of Japanese politeness expression]. Nihongo nihon bungaku [Japanese and Literature], 14, 17–39.
Yim, H.S (2003). Nikkan ryogengo ni okeru kotowari no sutorateji: gengo hyogen no chigai to sutorateji shifuto o chushin ni [Refusal strategy used by Japanese and Korean: Focused on the difference between language expression and strategy shift]. Kotoba [Language], 23, 60-77.
Yim, H. S. (2004). Nihonjin to kankokujin no gengo kodo ・higengo kodo: Kotowari danwa o chushin ni [Japanese and Korean verbal and nonverbal behavior: focused on refusals discourse]. Kwansei Gakuin University Press.
Yim, H. S. (2012). Nikkan kotowari ni okeru fukaa maka: Taijin kankei chosetsunokanten kara [Negative ability marker in Japanese and Korean: From the viewpoint of interpersonal relationship adjustment]. Tezukayama gakuin daigakukenkyu ronshu riberaruatsu [Journal of Liberal Arts], 47, 33–51.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yoshida, Y. (2015). Kannyu ni taisuru kotowari no kenkyu: Nihongo bogowasha to Manadogo bogowasha [A study of refusal towards invitation: A comparison of Japanese native speakers and Manado native speakers]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ochanomizu Women’s University Graduate School of Human Culture and Creation Science, Location.
Downloads
Article ID
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Novia Hayati (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Terms
The copyright of the received article once accepted for publication shall be assigned to the journal as the publisher of the journal. The intended copyright includes the right to publish the article in various forms (including reprints). The journal maintains the publishing rights to the published articles.
In developing strategy and setting priorities,Chie: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jepang recognize that free access is better than priced access, libre access is better than free access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses. We should always achieve what we can when we can. We should not delay achieving free in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with free when we can achieve libre.
Chie: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jepang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
