1

REFUSAL STRATEGY IN KERINCI DIALECT:

A SOCIOPRAGMATIC STUDY

Key Word: Refusal Strategy, Sociopragmatic, Dialect, Kerinci

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

A strategy is a manner of interaction, which is employed by the speakers to reach certain

communication goal (Asmah, 1996). A good communication strategy requires not only
linguistic knowledge but also an understanding of social factor, condition, and situation.
Then, the speakers who have good communication strategy are not only able to convey
information or share their thought and feeling, and maintain a relationship but also able
to mitigate the discrepancy expression and soften what the hearers might regard as an
impingement on them. In short, good communication strategy plays important role in
reaching a communication goal.

Refusal is one of speech acts that express a negative response to interlocutors

request (Siebold & Busch 2015). Houck & Gass (1995: 49) stated that Refusals are a
highly complex speech act primarily because they often contain lengthy negotiations as
well as face-saving maneuvers. Thus, performing refusal requires certain strategy (Felix-
Brasdefer, 2006) since failure to refuse appropriately might jeopardize the personal
relations between the speakers and the interlocutors. Moreover, declining to someone
request is an action that has a high potential for causing a miscommunication. Due to the
matter, having a good communication strategy might avoid such friction.

Furthermore, like another type of speech acts, a refusal is also universal and
occurs in all languages and cultures (Chojimah 2015, and Felix Brasdefer, 2006).
However, its form is varied from a language and culture to another because a language is
bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways (Kramch, 1998). The statement
supports Weirzbickas (1985) study about Different Culture, Different Language, and
2

Different Speech Act, in which she explained that every culture has its own speech act
system and its different from another culture. Its meant, speech act differs not only
from one language to another but also from a regional and social variety to another.

Her explanation, on the other hand, implies the existence of the refusal strategy in
a dialect because a dialect is a regional variation of a language, which is spoken in a
specific cultural norm and specific geographical area of a country (Holmes 2013, and
Chamber & Trudgill, 2004). A dialect has many variants and the diversity of a dialect is
found in vocabularies, grammars, and pronunciations. They arise because of the
speakers cultural and social distinction that resulting to the emergence of various
communication strategies (Werizbicka, 1985 and Hymes, 1974). The strategy includes
the way of performing speech act of refusal.

In relation to this, the performance of the refusal strategy in a dialect is the main
issue that will be investigated in this study. This study will be addressed to Kerinci
dialect; it is one of the regional dialects in Indonesia, which is spoken in Kerinci district.
According to Vein Reijn (1976), Kerinci dialect is a regional variation of Malay
language. Malay language and Kerinci dialect share similar features such as sound
pattern, vocabularies, and sentence structures. The similar statement also stated by
Usman (1988) and Mckinnon (2011) that Kerinci dialect has been closely linked with the
Malay language. However, the dialect has its own development and variety.

Furthermore, Asmah (2008) explained the division of Bahasa Indonesia into two
main groups namely Philippine-Formosa and Central Indonesia. Philippine-Formosa
comprises languages in Formosa, Philippine, and languages in Sabah and Brunei (Except
Malay and Lun Dayeh language). Meanwhile, Central Indonesia comprises Malay
language, languages in Sarawak, Kalimantan, and languages in some Islands of
Indonesia. Kerinci dialect belongs to the languages of Central Indonesia, which is spoken
in Sumatera Island. As the matter of fact, Kerinci dialect and other languages that are
spoken in the island have relation with the Malay Language.
3

This study, on the other hand, is an attempt to investigate the refusal strategy in
Kerinci dialect employed by the native speakers of the dialect in declining an offer,
request, and invitation from a person of different social status. This study consists of
three variables; the refusal strategies to a person of higher social status, to a person of
lower social status and to a person of equal social status. The study will investigate the
forms and the distinction of refusal strategy employed by the native speakers and will
examine their reason and perception regard to the refusal strategy based on politeness
theory proposed by Brown & Levinson (1987).

Furthermore, this is a sociopragmatic study. Sociopragmatic is the sociological

interface of pragmatics that studies the way in which pragmatics performance is
subjected to specific social condition (Leech, 1983 in Blum-Kulka, house & Kasper,
1989), and (Leech, 1983). Additionally, Leech (1983) also defined sociopragmatics as
cultural-specific because sociopragmatic emphasizes a specific social situation, status,
and social condition, and then the aspect are the important factors, which determine the
variation in performing a speech act. Because of that, this study will be conducted based
on a specific social situation, status, and condition.

Sociopragmatic is an appropriate study to be applied in Kerinci dialect because

the dialect is spoken in a specific cultural norm, which adoptss a stratified hierarchical
system. The members of Kerinci society are distinguished by traditional social rank and
rules. Each village is led by a person called depati. The title is inherited respectively
based on matrilineal lineage succession act (Ali, 2005). Depati holds the highest rank
in Kerinci society. The distinction of social rank in Kerinci implies the existence of
distinct communication strategies among the people of Kerinci. The matter is the main
reason for this study.
4

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Based on the reviews of the previous studies, several researchers had investigated the
realization of refusal strategy from across different perspective, language and culture.
The studies encompassed various social settings, situation, and social variables and they
revealed a various form of the refusal strategy addressed by the speakers to interlocutors
from different social variable, either the study was conducted in cross-cultural,
interlanguage or intralingual studies.

However, most of the previous researchers conducted their studies in quantitative

design. They investigated the various refusal strategies in different social variables and
examined the distinction of the strategies based on quantitative statistical computation.
For instance, the study of Jordanian Arabic and American English refusal strategies by
Al-Shaboul & Huwari (2016), the study of refusals by Turkish EFL Learners conducted
by Han & Burgucu-Tazegl (2016), the refusal strategy in Spanish and German language
by Siebold & Busch (2015), refusal strategies by American and international students by
Moaveni (2014), and the refusal strategies by Malaysian teenagers by Primsuwan (2010).

Those studies did not investigate other factors that caused the selection of certain
refusal strategy addressed to a certain person in a certain situation. There was no analysis
due to the speakers reason for choosing a different strategy in different conversational
context and their perception regard to the strategy they used due to their cultural norms.
Those are the important aspects of the analysis that support quantitative finding
qualitatively but excluded in the studies. The absent of the aspects restricted the studys
outcome to quantitative findings. Thus, the outcome could not be validated in an overall
interpretation to generate a strong result.

Another study on the refusal strategies was conducted by Chojimah (2015)

refusal and politeness strategies in relation to social status, and Bella (2011) studied the
mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals. Those studies applied a mixed
analysis. The first one is quantitative analysis due to different refusal strategy used in
different conversational situation and context, and the last one, the strategy was analyzed
5

qualitatively by applying politeness theory in general. The studies were still a

quantitative research since the two set of the result were not converge for overall
interpretation and the main outcome was derived from a quantitative statistical result.

Furthermore, most of the previous studies were conducted on formal languages.

Then the analyses were conducted in a wide cultural context. In Indonesia, on the other
hand, some researchers had addressed their study to regional dialects such as the refusal
strategy in Minangkabau language by Triana & Aman (2012).They highlighted refusal
trend among modern Minangkabaus youngsters. Then the trends were associated with
Minangkabaus socio-cultural. It was an ethnography research; the natural data was
obtained through direct observations for a period of three months. However, this study
did not involve specific social variables and did not relate to politeness theory.

Then Vintoni (2008) conducted an ethnography study in Kerinci dialect in

Tanjung Pauh village. He examined the request strategy addressed by the buyers, and the
refusal strategy addressed by the merchants during bargaining process in a traditional
market. The natural data was obtained through deep observation, interview and audio
recording for a period of five months. Then, the exploratory analysis and overall
interpretation of the data was conducted qualitatively. The study was not relate to
specific social variables, and social status between the buyers and the merchants and the
analyses was not related to politeness theory.

Based on the review, there are three main gaps in previous studies. The first one,
the previous studies were quantitative-oriented. The analyses were focused on the
statistical analysis of semantic formulas that appeared in the refusal strategy. The second
one, the analysis of refusal strategy and politeness theory was joined together in a single
quantitative study, and then the politeness aspect emerged as minor analysis to interpret
quantitative findings. The last one, the study of refusal strategy in regional dialects in
Indonesia very limited in numbers, and the previous study of the refusal strategy in
Kerinci dialect did not involve specific social variables and politeness theory.
6

This study, however, intends to fill the gap. The study will apply both
quantitative and qualitative method and the equal weight. The quantitative method will
be used to investigate the form and to examine the distinction of the refusal strategy
based on a specific social variable. The analysis will be conducted quantitatively. Then,
unlike previous studies, this study will examine the factors, which cause the selection of
the strategy separately. It is due to the speakers reason for choosing the strategy and
their perception regard to the strategy. Then, the factors will be analyzed by applying
politeness theory. The analyses will be conducted qualitatively.

Then, the separate quantitative and qualitative result will be converged for overall
interpretation in order to validate and corroborate the overall outcome quantitatively and
qualitatively. This study, on the other hand, is different from Vintoni (2008) in some
aspect. Vintoni (2008) addressed his study on Kerinci dialect in Tanjung Pauh village,
while this study will be addressed on Kerinci dialect in Tanjung Tanah village. Both
dialects are distinguished by their vocabularies, sound, grammar and sentence structures.
Then, Vintoni (2008) did not use certain social variables. Conversely, this study will
apply three social variables and politeness analysis.

OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH

There are three objectives that will be reached in this study.

1. To investigate the form of the refusal strategy in Kerinci dialect based on the
speakers social distance and social power.

2. To analyze politeness aspect on the refusal strategy in Kerinci dialect based on

the speakers social distance and social power.

3. To explain the relationship of the refusal strategy in Kerinci dialect with the
politeness aspects.
7

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

There are three main contributions expected from this study. Firstly, it is expected to
give a contribution to the people of Kerinci in general. Then specifically, the outcome of
this study will give them a vivid knowledge about the realization of the speech act of
refusal in Kerinci dialect and also show them the distinction of the refusal strategy used
by native speakers based on linguistics point of views.

The second one, the outcome of the research is expected to be a reference for the
next language researchers who wish to carry out the speech act studies on another variant
of Kerinci dialect, which is spoken in a different geographical area. Then, the outcome of
this study will inform that by using precise methodological framework will give a clear
description about the realization of speech act in specific dialects.

Finally, this study is expected to be one of the information for the local and
national language and cultural department of Indonesia about the existence of Kerinci
dialect, cultural heritage, custom, and tradition. Kerinci dialect is one the regional dialect
in Indonesia that has a lot variant. Thus, the government should promote the dialect as
one of the countrys national heritage.

LIMITATION OF STUDY

Kerinci is one of regional dialect in Indonesia which has many variants. There are many
linguistic issues dealing with Kerinci dialect. However, this study is a sociopragmatic
study that will examine the form and the distinction of the refusal strategy in Kerinci
dialect, which is spoken in Tanjung Tanah; it is one of the village located in a rustic area
in Kerinci.
8

This study will examine the form of the refusal strategy based on the
classification of semantic formulae proposed by Beebe, Takashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990);
direct refusal, indirect refusal and the adjunct to the refusal. Direct refusal comprises
no or I refuse. Indirect refusal comprises the statement of regret, alternative or
reason. Adjunct consists of the statement of positive opinion, empathy, gratitude and
appreciation.

This study consists three social variables. Firstly, the refusal strategy to a person
of higher social status, second one refusal strategy to a person of lower social status and
the last one refusal strategy to a person of equal social status. The strategy will be
analyzed quantitatively based on the classification of semantic formula. Then, will be
analyzed qualitatively by using politeness theory by Brown & Levinson (1987).

METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

This part encompasses the procedure of how this research will be conducted. It starts
with design and the instrument of research, the subject who will participate in the
research, and a brief explanation of data analyzing procedure.

A. Design of Research

This research will apply a mixed method design. A mixed method research is a
combination of a quantitative and a qualitative research design, (Creswell & Plano Clark
(2007). It emphasizes the equal weight of quantitative and qualitative analysis in a single
study. A quantitative method is used to collect and measure the accuracy of numerical
data (Piaw, 2014). Meanwhile, a qualitative method emphasizes the importance looking
at researched object, exploring the problems, and developing a detailed understanding of
9

a central phenomenon through deep observation (Cresswell, 2009). Then, a mixed

method is the combination of the process in a single study.

This study, however, will apply a convergent parallel design. It is a one-phase

research design in mixed method research. This design has also been referred to as the
concurrent triangulation design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). In this design, the
quantitative and qualitative data collection is concurrent, happening in one phase of the
research study by emphasizing the equal weight of the two methods. However, the
collection and analyzing of both type data will be conducted separately. Then, the
different results are converged (by comparing and contrasting different results) for
overall interpretation.

Convergent parallel design or concurrent triangulation design is considered to be

a suitable model for this research because it is not a time-consuming process since it
allows the researcher to collect quantitative and qualitative data in one visit to the field,
to make separate analysis, and to make an overall interpretation of the two set data in
order to obtain a strong result.

B. The Subject of Study

The subject of this study will be selected based on purposive sampling technique.
Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique, which relies on the
judgment that a group of the respondent has certain characteristics and eligibility to be
chosen as research subjects (Piaw, 2014). In relation to this, a total of 30 subjects will be
selected to participate in the study. They are the native speakers of Kerinci dialect who
live in Tanjung Tanah village Kerinci. The age of the subject ranged from 18 to 25 years
old. They are all undergraduate students at the local college in Kerinci who actively
participate in a social organization in the village.
10

The reason for choosing the subject who actively participates in social
organization is to facilitate the process data collection. The students are the people who
frequently interact with other people from various social statuses in an academic setting
such the lecturers, thesis advisors, academics staff and their own classmates. Meanwhile,
their participating in a social organization implies that they are also the individual who
frequently interact with the people from different social status in the society such as the
leader of an organization, the head of villages, and other people from diverse social
background.

Based on this consideration, the students who actively participate in social

organization are considered meet the requirement of this study. They have wider
experience in many social interactions and with the people from of higher social status,
the people of lower social status and the people from equal social status. Their wide
interaction experience is expected to facilitate them understand the interaction context
and situation, which will be designed in the process of data collection procedure. Then
their experience will also facilitate them to give precise information during a semi-
structured interview.

C. Research Instruments

This study will apply two main instruments for data collecting procedure. The first one is
the instrument for collecting quantitative data, and another is the instrument for
collecting qualitative data. The quantitative and qualitative data will be collected at the
same time. But the process will be conducted separately. It will start with the process to
collect quantitative data, and then it will be followed by the process to collect qualitative
data.
11

a. Collecting Quantitative Data Procedure.

Quantitative data will be collected by applying a role-played method. Role-

played is an elicitation process that generates oral data. Marlyna Manos (2007:92) said
that role played method was closely similar to natural interaction. Prior to that Date
(2006) and Kasper & Dahl (1991) also state that the data that was generated by role-
played method is valid since the expression used are found to be natural and the
informants themselves are aware of the expression. Moreover, Date (2006) also stated
that the role-played method portrays the situation in daily life since role-played generate
oral data from natural expression.

Role-played is divided into close and open role-played. A close role-played

provide no or very few opportunity to the subject to interact with interlocutors. Instead,
an open role-played gives the opportunity to interlocutor to freely interact in a
conversation (Sasaki (1998). However, this study only applies close role-played method.
The subjects of this research will be required to give a single turn response because the
main purpose of this study is to examine the refusal strategy at the first time responding.
Furthermore, it is easy to control the content of the conversation in close role-played than
in open role-played data collection method.

Close role-played instrument, which will be applied in this studies consist of nine
conversation situations, which are derived from three refusal forms; refusing to an offer,
request and invitation from a person of three different social statuses; a person of higher
social status, a person of a lower social status and a person of equal social status. Prior to
role-played, the subject will be coded and required fill demographic information about
gender, age, and educational background. Then, the researcher will explain the context
and the situation designed in the instrument. During the role-played, the subject will
interact with a friend, and the conversation will be coded and audio recorded.
12

b. Collecting Qualitative Data Procedure

The qualitative data is derived from an observation, the role-played data and from
semi-structured interviews. The interview will be addressed to the same subjects and will
be conducted immediately after the role play. The interview data will be coded and audio
recorded separately. Prior to semi-structured interview, the researcher will allow the
subjects to listen to their response in the role-played situation. Then they will be asked to
comment or give a reason about the strategy they used during the refusal interaction with
interlocutors from different social status. During the interviews, the researcher will also
use manual note-taking to save any important information during the interviews.

D. DATA ANALYSIS

The data of this study will be analyzed separately by using typical quantitative and
qualitative analytic procedure.

a. Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data is an oral interaction derived from a close role-played method. Firstly,
the data will be transcribed into written text based on Jefferson system of transcription
notation. Then, the refusal strategy will be classified by applying Beebe, Takashi, and
Uliss-Weltz (1990)s taxonomy; the direct refusal, indirect refusal and an adjunct to the
refusal.

Direct refusal is a formative action such the word I refuse. Then a non-
performative action such the expression of negative willingness or the expression of
negative ability such by saying I cant and I dont so.Then, indirect refusal
comprises eight strategies; statement of regret, wish, excuse, reason, explanation,
statement of alternative, setting a condition for future or past acceptance, set a condition
13

for future or past acceptance, statement of principle, statement of philosophy, and the
statement of persuasion.

The last one is the adjunct, it consists of four strategies; statement of positive
opinion or positive feeling or agreement such as thats a good idea. Statement of
empathy such as I realize you are in a difficult situation. Pause and fillers such
hhmm uh Then, the expression of gratitude or appreciation (Beebe, Takashi, and
Uliss-Weltz, 1990). The classification of the semantic formula will be analyzed
quantitatively by using descriptive and inferential statistical computation.

The descriptive statistic is used to examine the frequency of semantic formula

used by the speakers to person from different social status. Then, an inferential statistical
test is used to examine significant distinction of the strategies by applying one-way
variant analysis or ANOVA based on significant level p> 0.05.

b. Qualitative Data analysis.

The qualitative data is derived from a close role-played and the result of semi-
structured interviews. Firstly, the result of the interview will be transcribed into written
text. Then, the speakers comments and perception about the using of certain refusal
strategy will be noted, and then their comments will be compared with their response in
close role-played method. Then the two results will be converged and analyzed by
applying politeness theory by Brown & Levinson (1987).

The main qualitative analysis will be focused on the form of a face-threatening

act, and the forms of positive and negative politeness derived from refusal strategy.
Finally, the overall result (the separate results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis)
will be converged to an overall interpretation in order to corroborate and to validate both
results.
14

RESEARCH LOCATION

This research will be conducted in Tanjung Tanah, it is one of the villages in Kerinci
Regency. The village is located in the eastern part of and about twenty kilometers from
Sungai Penuh, The Capital of Town. The residents of the village belong to various social
roles, status and job position. Most of them are rice farmers, and the others are
fishermen, traders, workers, students and civil officers who work for various government
institutions such department of education, health, statistic and other government
institutions in Sungai Penuh.

Like other villages in Kerinci, Tanjung Tanah is led by a head of village under
the auspice of three custom chiefs who referred as Depati. The Depati is responsible
for keeping the village traditional heritage, proposing and altering village legal authority.
The residents of Tanjung Tanah speak the Kerinci dialect in Tanjung Tanah accent in
their daily conversation. Most of them are monolingual and the native speakers of the
dialect who live there for generations.

DEFINITION OF TERM

a. Dialect

Chamber & Trudgill (2004) stated that, in common usage, of course, a dialect is a sub-
standard, low-status, and often rustic form of language, generally associated with the
peasantry, working class or other group lacking in prestige. Moreover, they also state
that dialect is also a term which is often applied to form a language, particularly those
spoken in more isolated part of the world, which has no written form.

Then, Holmes (2013) defined that, dialect consist of some linguistics varieties
such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. The speakers of a dialect are from
15

different social and regional group are differed in this way. Due to the fact, Kerinci
dialect is a regional dialect. It is spoken in a specific regional area in Indonesia. It has its
own vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, and then it has no written form.

b. Refusal

Felix-Brasdefer (2006) defined that refusal is typically complex construction of speech

act, and its often realized through indirect strategies. Then, Siebold & Busch (2015) said
that refusal is an expression of discrepancy to an offer, an invitation or a request.
Likewise, Salazar-Campillo et al (2006) also stated that refusal in a complex and
dispreferred message, which decline addressees request, invitation or suggestion either
directly and indirectly. On the other words, a refusal is a negative response to some offer,
request or invitation.

c. Sociopragmatics

Sociopragmatics is a pragmatics, which associated with sociology. It is less abstract to be

compared with and it studies the specific local condition of language use (Leech, 1983).
A sociopragmatics study is based on the fact that cooperative principle and the politeness
principle operate variably in different culture or language communities, in different
social condition and among different social class (Leech, 1983: 10).

Then, according to Zamzami (2007), in conducting speech act study, a researcher

cannot make general interpretation but the researcher should pay attention to a specific
social situation that causes the using of certain speech act. Additionally, a
sociopragmatics study is restricted to the using of language in a certain social situation
and bound up with specific conversation situation. Due to the fact, this study belongs to
sociopragmatic because it examines the realization of speech act in a specific social
situation, condition, and specific social variable.
16

DAFTAR RUJUKAN

Ali, Yunasril. 2005. Adat Bersendi Syara: Sebagai Fondasi Membangun Masyarakat
Madani di Kerinci. Jambi: STAIN Kerinci Press

Al-Shboul, Yasser., Ibrahim Fathi Huwari. 2016. A Comparative Study Of Jordanian

Arabic And American English Refusal Strategies. British Journal of English
Linguistics Vol.4, No.3, pp.50-62.

Ahangar, Abas Ali., Abdullah Sarani., Seddigheh ZeynaliS. 2012. Refusal Speech Act in
Sarawani Balochi Dialect: A Case Study of Male University Students. Iranian
Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(2)

Asmah Haji Omar. 1998. Susur Galur Bahasa Melayu. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka.

Asmah Haji Omar. 1996. Wacana Perbincangan, Perbahasan dan Perundingan. Kuala
Lumpur

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Beebe, Leslie., Tomoko Takahashi & Robin Uliss-Weltz.1990. Pragmatic Transfer In

Esl Refusals. In: Scarcella, R., Andersen, E., Krashen, S. (Eds.), Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House, New York,
pp. 5573.

Bella, Spyridoula. 2011. Mitigation And Politeness In Greek Invitation Refusals: Effects
Of Length Of Residence In The Target Community And Intensity Of Interaction On
Non-Native Speakers Performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6) 17181740

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies. New Jersey: Ablex, Norwood, NJ.

Brown, Penolope and Stephen C Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in

Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Chamber, J.K, Peter Trudgill. 2004. Dialectology 2nd Ed. United Kingdom. Cambridge
University Press
17

Chojimah, Nurul. 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, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 906-918

Creswell, John. W., 2009. Resesarch Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Method Aproach. Los Angeles: Sage Publication

Date, Komiko. 2006. An Analysis of Japanese Language Learners Communication

Strategies: The Use of Indirect Expression of Refusal. PhD dissertation Universiti
Malaya: Malaysia

Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar. 2006. Linguistics Politeness in Mexico: Refusal Strategies

Among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics. (38) 2158-2187.

Gass, Susan M,. & Joyce New. (1995). Speech Act Across Culture. Mouton de Gruyter:
New York.

Han, Turgay & Asiye Burgucu-Tazegul. 2016. Realization of Speech Acts of Refusals
and Pragmatic Competence by Turkish EFL Learners. An International Online
Journal. 16 (1) 161-178.

Holmes, Janet. 2013. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics 4th Ed. London and New York:
Taylor and Francis.

Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach . Great

Britain: Tavistock Publication.

Kasper, Gabriele., Merete Dahl. 1991. Researach Method in Interlanguage Pragmatics.

SLLA. (13) 215-247

Kramch, Claire. 1998. Language and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. The Principle of Pragmatics. Singapore: Longman London

and New York

Maros, Marlyna. 2007. Penyelidikan Lakuan Bahasa: Pemilihan Kaedah dan Pola
Penemuan. Akedemika (71) 91-115
18

Mckinnon, Timothy Andrew. 2011. The morphophonology and morphosyntax of kerinci

word-shape alternations. Phd dissertation. University of delaware.

Morkus, Nader. 2014. Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Journal of
Pragmatics (70) 86107

Moaveni, Hiroko Tsuiki. 2014. A Study of Refusal Strategies by American and

International Students at an American University. PhD Dissertation. Minnesota
State University Mankato

Peng-liang, Zao & Gao Min. 2013. Politeness Strategies in Refusal. Sino-US English
Teaching, 10(12) 920924.

Piaw, Chua Yan. 2014. Kaedah Penyelidikan. Malaysia: McGraw-Hill

Primsuwan, Phaveena. 2010. A Study of Refusal Strategies Used by Malaysian Teenager.

Master Thesis. University of Malaya.

Salazar, Campillo., Patricia, Safort-Jorda, M. Pilar, Codina-Espurz, Victoria, 2009.

Refusal strategies: a proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. Rev. Electro n.
Linguist. Apl. 8, 139-150.

Sasaki, Miyuki. 1998. Investigating EFLs Students Production of Speech Act: A

Comparison of Production Questionnaire and Role Plays. Journal of Pragmatics
30 457-484

Siebold, Kathin., Hannah Busch. 2015. (No) Need For Clarity - Facework In Spanish
And German Refusals. Journal of Pragmatics (75) 5368

Triana, Hetty Waluati & Idris Aman. 2011. Lakuan tutur menolak generasi muda
Minangkabau: Cermin budaya popular dalam interaksi sosial. GEMA Online
Journal of Language Studies, 11(1) 1734.

Usman, A. Hakim. (1978). Struktur bahasa Kerinci, dialek Sungai Penuh: fonologi,
morfologi dan sintaksis: laporan penelitian. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan
Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
19

Van Reijn, E.O. (1976). The reduction of diphthongs to cardinal vowels in the dialects of
North-Kerintji (Sumatra). Actes du XXIXe Congres International des
Orientalistes. Indonesie 3:173-176

Vintoni, Aridem. 2008. Strategies of Requests and Refusals Used by Traders and
Customers at Morning Traditional Marketplace in Tanjung Pauh Mudik Kerinci.
unpublished thesis, Universitas Negeri Padang.

Weirzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different Culture, Different Language, Different Speech Act.
Journal of Pragmatics (1985) 145-178