In terms of system constraint as has been discussed, this relation can also be discussed in terms of ritual constraint; why offer and invitation are accepted and in
another case it is delayed before accepted.
4.3.1.3 Accusation-denial, Compliment-AcceptanceRejection, Complaint- Rejection
Levinson in Zang Ping, 2007: 38 presented denial as the preferred, and admission as dispreferred response. In TB, AP of accusation-denial is operated through
an accusation in FPP and a denial in SPP. So, denial as preferred in SPP is the unamarked form. The denial can be preceded by dispreferred response that has been
weakened. This AP can also be followed by a third turn realized in suggestion. This is a proof that AP is not always in a pair parts excerpt 30 and 31. The existence of the
third turn is because of the inability of the SPP to close the conversation so as to make the closing third sequence or minimal post expansion. By the occurrence of third
closing sequence, the speaker of FPP expects the required response from the recipient in SPP.
There are various forms of SPP of compliment based on studies by Ensaif 2009 and Billmyer in Juan Yu, 2007. Ensaif presented six responses to compliment:
acceptance or agreement, mitigation, rejection, non-acknowledgement, lack of knowledge, absence of compliment. Billmyer employed four responses in compliment:
downgrading, questioning, shifting credit, returning. Pomerantz, et.al in Fan Wang and Hua Tsai, 2003:125 listed 12 types of compliment responses in SPP: appreciation
Universitas Sumatera Utara
token, comment accpetance, praise upgrade, comment history, reasignment, return, scale down, question, disagreement, qualification, no acknowledgement, request
interpretation. From the empirical data, AP of compliment-acceptancerejection in TB is
operated through a compliment in FPP and a rejection by downgrading or diluting, scaling down in SPP. So this downgrading response is a preferred one. AP of
compliment can be a presequence to another AP and it is considered greeting to open a conversation. So this AP so treated can cause the occurrence of another AP as post-
sequence excerpt 32. The rejection in SPP can be preceded by implicit agreement before the dispreferred response. There are some markers of dilution used in SPP as
agreement responses but they are considered dispreferred excerpt 34-36. So in this case the compliment is actually rejected eventhough diluted or downgraded.
AP of complaint-rejection in TB is operated through a complaint in FPP and a rejection in SPP. The complaint in SPP is conveyed directly to the ccomplainee on his
retrospective behaviour. The complainee is one that is directed to responsible about his behaviour excerpt 37 and 38. Wyrwas in Cruz, 2009 : 1211, explained that “what is
clear is that complaint is the first part of an adjacency pair, and it has no streotypical corresponding second part, as it can be followed by a denial, rejection, justifica,
apology, excuse, etc”. Whereas Traverso 2008 : 3-4 found a response to complain in SPP formulated in affiliation to the complaint and the four sequences of complaint:
initiation, core part, complaint development, closing. The TB complaint AP is constructed in two sequences, and the reponse in SPP is a disafiliation.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
When the complaint is indirect the response in SPP is also a rejection. There are two condition of such indirect complaint. The first is that the recipient of complaint is
not the one who takes the responsibility of the speaker’s complaint. It is not directly addressed to the speaker of SPP. The second indirect complaint is addressed to the third
party via the second party and the response in SPP rejected differently than that of the first indirect complaint exceprt 40. The speaker of SPP here agrees with the complaint
but rejecting behaviour that is complained by the complainer. From the discussion of the three APs above, it is found that acusation,
compliment, and complaint have in each of them a rejection or denial in SPP. The following charts can be seen to see their operation and relation. Their cultural
connstrains will be discussed in subsequent part after this mechanism section. To see the relationship among Aps of accusation-denial, complement-rejection, and complaint-
rejection, the following chart can be referred
Chart 11 : Relationship among Ac-D, Cpm-Rj, Cpn-Rj
FPP Ac
FPP Cpm
SPP SPP
SPP CTS
POST AP Rj
RjDilution Rj
FPP Cpn
Universitas Sumatera Utara
4.3.1.4 TCU and TRP, Completion Point
