b. The similarities and the differences of refusal strategies to Interlocutor of
lower status
DCT scenario: You are a fifth semester student. A junior student a third semester student
asks you to borrow all your presentation slides that you used at the third semester, and you refuse the request.
Your junior : “Terrible, this year I get a lot of presentation and
assignment. Can I use your slide presentation? I heard that you were great at third semester.
You say : …………………….
The DCT is about refusal to request in lower status. The respondents have to decline a request from their junior who wants to borrow their slide
presentation. The researcher found ILE tended to be direct while TLE tended to be indirect. The data can be seen in the following comparison chart:
Chart 04: Refusal strategies in declining a request To interlocutor of lower status
The data showed that the percentage of direct strategies made by ILE were higher than TLE 33. On the other hand, the percentage of indirect
Direct Indirect
33 67
27 73
DCT2- Refusal strategy in declining request higher - lower
TLE ILE
strategies made by TLE became the highest percentage in DCT 2 73. The deep explanation can be seen in the following chart:
Chart 05: The comparison between refusal strategies in declining request to interlocutor of lower status
The data presented excuse in TLE was the highest strategies in DCT 2, it achieved 60. By contrast, ‘excuse’ in ILE occurred in low frequency 13.
However, ‘alternative’ of ILE was higher 33 and ILE was more dominant in using ‘inability’ 27 than TLE. In other strategies such as ‘acceptance’ and
direct ‘no’, ILE became dominant while no respondent of TLE used those strategies. Although ILE became frequent in acceptance and direct no, the
percentage of unwillingness was less than TLE. Based on the data, ILE used inability as head act. Commonly inability
was combined with apology and excuse, for examples:
Ina No
Unw Acc
Alt Exc
27 7
20 33
13
13 13
13 60
DCT2- Refusal strategy in declining request higher - lower
TLE ILE
I’m sorry, I can’t give you because my laptop has broken and my entire file has loss. [apo+ina+exc]
ILE042 I’m sorry Sist, you can’t borrow my presentation
slide, because some of them are lost. [apo+ina+exc] ILE122
In ILE, unwillingness appeared in low frequencies combined with alternative, for examples:
I can’t give you my slide presentation, you must do it by your self, I think it will be better. [unw+alt]
ILE1112
By contras, TLE did not use inability like ILE did. To express direct refusal strategies, TLE used unwillingness as head act, commonly unwillingness were
attached with apology and excuse, for example:
Sorry, I didn’t give you my presentation and assignment, because you must have the experience of
learning by doing and than you must make it. I believe you can. It is for your own good.
[apo+unw+exc] TLE022
I apologize but I will not give it to you, you must have the experience of learning by doing for your own
presentation. It’s for your own good.
[apo+unw+alt] TLE032
ILE indirect strategies commonly used ‘alternative’, and apology as politeness, for examples:
I’m sorry Sist, can you do it by your self? because if you are not know, you are looser.
[apo+alt] ILE032.
I’m sorry, but you have to make your own slide presentation. [apo+alt] ILE092
ILE sometimes used ‘acceptance as refusal’ as their indirect refusal strategies as the folowing examples:
Yes you can, but now I didn’t bring my slide presentation.
[acc] ILE102 I want, but I want to see your own effort [acc]
ILE022
Declining request to lower status, ILE used excuse but in low frequency, for examples:
Unfortunately, my laptop broken I lost all of the documents, I’am sorry. [exc+apo] ILE082
I forget where I save the presentation file. [exc] ILE012
Unlike ILE which has many variations in their indirect strategies, TLE was
dominated with excuse. In the following examples are indirect refusals
produced by TLE where ‘excuse’ became the head act of the strategy:
Sorry, I have deleted.
[apo+exc] TLE042
Sorry, I don’t save the data
. [apo+exc] TLE072
Sorry, my slide presentation is not complete.
[apo+exc] TLE102 However in very low frequency, TLE chose alternative to decline request as
follows:
Sorry dear, I think you must do it by yourself [apo+alt] TLE122
The comparison chart of semantic formula in lower status made by ILE and TLE can be seen such as the chart below:
Chart 06: The comparison chart of semantic formula in declining request to interlocutor of lower status
The data showed TLE apology 41 and excuse 35 was higher than ILE. However, in alternative 24 and acceptance as refusal 14, ILE was more
dominant than TLE. In other strategies, both of groups got low percentage with little deference of frequency.
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Apo Exc
Ina Unw
Acc No
Wish Alt
Fil ILE
24 17
10 3
14 3
3 24
TLE 41
35 3
9 9
3
DCT-2 Semantic formula in declining request higher - lower
c. The similarities and the differences of refusal strategies to interlocutor of
Kategori