See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299135513

Pragmatic Transfer

Article  in  International Journal of Applied Linguistics · March 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 2,564

1 author:

Agus Wijayanto
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
19 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impoliteness by EFl learners View project

POLITENESS IN EFL REFUSALS: THE COMPARISON BETWEEN INDONESIAN AND THAI LEARNER OF ENGLISH View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Agus Wijayanto on 26 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1 Pragmalinguistic

Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage

Agus Wijayanto
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
agus_wijayanto@ums.ac.id

Abstract
The present study investigates pragmalinguistic competence of Javanese learners of
English in Indonesia as compared to native speakers of British English when realizing
refusal strategies. The research data was elicited through discourse completion tasks.
Refusal strategies by native speakers of Javanese were also considered so as to observe
whether or not the realization of refusal by the learners was influenced by the Javanese
language. The results indicated that the three groups broadly used similar types of
semantic formulae and adjuncts of refusal. Nevertheless the wording of those phrased
by the learners and the native Javanese speakers was more alike than either to those of
the native speakers of British English suggesting pragmalinguistic transfer.

Keywords: Pragmalinguistics; Pragmatic transfer; Interlanguage pragmatics; Refusal;

Pragmatic competence

1. Introduction
Pragmatic competence has been suggested as one of the most essential aspects of
communicative competence which will enable L2 or foreign language learners to
function appropriately in real-life communication. It is generally considered as “the
ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and understand
language in context” (Thomas 1983: 94) and it is the ability to relate utterances to their
meaning, the intention, and situational context (Bachman 1990). Based on the two
divisions of pragmatic modules of Leech (1983), pragmatic competence shall comprise
both sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics. The former refers to the knowledge to
perform linguistic actions under relevant situational contexts and different social
aspects such as gender, social status, power, and distance whilst the latter refers to the
ability to choose and apply particular linguistic resources to convey illocution. Both
competences have to be mastered by language learners so that they would be able to
function appropriately in any communicative situation, otherwise they will be involved
in communication difficulties.
Adult foreign language learners can promote the comprehension and production
of L2 pragmatics through universal pragmatic knowledge which has been internalized
in their L1 (Kasper and Rose 2002). It seems however that L2 pragmalinguistic aspects
should be given more learning since a number of cross cultural pragmatic studies have
revealed that L2 pragmalinguistics is in majority different from that of L1 (e.g. Al-Issa
2003; Blum-Kulka 1982; Saito and Beecken 1997; Seran and Sibel 1997). Moreover
although pragmalinguistics concerns linguistic resources, high grammar competence

1
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
would not necessarily enhance high pragmalinguistic performance since both are
independent (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Félix-Brasdefer 2003).
Cross cultural pragmatic research of refusal strategies have yielded insightful
results in L2 learners‟ specific pragmalinguistic variations in comparison with native
speakers of the target language regarding the use of semantic formulae and adjuncts
(e.g. Chang 2008; Nugroho 2000; Seran and Sibel 1997; Takahashi and Beebe 1993;
Wannaruk 2008). A cross cultural comparison of this area is claimed to be crucial as it
provides background knowledge of pragmatics of both L1 and L2 by which possible
pragmatic errors could be predicted whether the results from L1 transfer or from other
sources (Nelson et al. 2002). Conventionality of pragmalinguistic forms in particular is
very critical for interpersonal communicataion since it acts as an essential short
circuiting device by which other interlocutors can process or interpret illocution readily
(Blum-Kulka 1987). Nevertheless despite rich findings on pragmalinguistic strategies
of refusal by L2 learners have been reported, less attention has been paid to the
wording or pragmalinguistic forms of semantic formulae and adjuncts. A number of
studies have explored this area, yet they primarily focused on the specificity of the
contents of excuse/explanation and its influencing factors (e.g. Al-Kahtani 2005; Beebe
et al. 1990; Wannaruk 2008).
On that account this present study explores the use of L2 pragmalinguistic forms
or the wording of semantic formulae and adjuncts of refusal by foreign language
learners which have been understudied. This study compares written data of refusal
strategies between the learners‟ native language (Javanese), the learners‟ interlanguage,
and the target language (English) concerning the use of Inability, Unwillingness,
Inapplicability, Promise of future acceptance, Acceptance, Dissuasion,
Excuse/explanation, Asking for assurance, and Agreement.

2.Methods
2.1. Participants
The present study analysed three kinds of written data of refusal strategies elicited from
three groups of participants: (1) Javanese learners of English (referred to henceforth as
JLE), (2) Native speakers of British English (referred to henceforth as NSE), and (3)
Native speakers of Javanese (referred to henceforth as NJ). The JLE group consisted of
50 participants comprising thirty eight (38) female and twelve (12) male undergraduate
students studying at the English department of FKIP-Universitas Muhammadiyah
Surakarta in Central Java, Indonesia. They were in the third-year course of the degree
of English education. The age of the students ranged between 19-24 years old, with the
average age being 21.5 years. Their English proficiency was self-reported as upper
intermediate. The NSE group consisted of a total of 20 participants comprising sixteen
(16) students at a British university; three (3) members of the administrative staff at the
same university; and one additional adult British speaker. Six (6) participants were
male and fourteen (14) were female. The ages of the students ranged from19 to 25
years old. The ages of the others ranged from 42 to 52 years old. The NJ participants
were native speakers of Javanese living in two cities in Java: Surakarta and Yogyakarta.
They consisted of twenty-two (22) female and thirteen (13) male. Their ages were
ranging from 19 to 55 years old, with the average age being 33.4 years.

2
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Research instrument
The data obtained from JLE, NSE, and NJ was, respectively, referred to as
interlanguage data, target language data, and native language data. The data of the
study from the three groups comprised a series of written responses that were collected
by means of a series of discourse completion tasks (DCT). The DCT of this study
involved nine social situations (see appendix for full version), each of which
represented one of three different status levels (lower, equal, and higher status), three
different social distance (close, familiar, and unfamiliar) and three initiating acts of
refusals (invitation, offer, and suggestion) summarized as follows:
 DCT 1: declining an invitation to go to a boss‟s house warming party.
 DCT 2: declining a close friend‟s suggestion to relax.
 DCT 3: declining a boss‟s suggestion to leave a faulty motorcycle in the office.
 DCT 4: declining a close friend‟s offer to use his/her printer.
 DCT 5: declining a boss‟s offer to fix a faulty motorcycle.
 DCT 6: declining a close friend‟s invitation to go to the beach.
 DCT 7: declining a student‟s invitation to go to a party.
 DCT 8: declining a student‟s offer of help.
 DCT 9: declining a staff‟s suggestion to use a different operating system to
avoid computer virus.

2.3. Data analysis

To classify the use of refusal strategies by the three groups the present study adopted
the taxonomy of refusal proposed by Beebe et al. (1990). Refusal responses consisted
of semantic formulae, the main utterances to perform refusal and adjuncts to refusals,
utterances which by themselves do not express refusals but they go with semantic
formulae to provide particular effects to given refusals. A direct refusal strategy
consists of either:
 A performative refusal ( e.g. „I refuse‟)
 A non-performative statement expressing negative willingness or inability and
No directly (e.g. „I can‟t; „I don‟t think so‟; „No‟).
An indirect strategy is expressed by means of one or more semantic formulae of which
the following are the most common types:
 Apology/regret. (e. g. „I‟m sorry …, „I feel terrible ...‟, etc.)
 Wish. It is conducted by wishing that an interlocutor could do something. (e.g.
„I wish I could go to your party‟)
 Excuse, reason, explanation for not complying. (e. g. „My children will be home
that night‟; „I have a headache‟)
 Statement (offer or suggestion) of an alternative. (e.g. I can do X instead of Y e.
g. „I‟d rather ..., „I‟d prefer ...‟; Why don‟t you do X instead of Y e. g. „Why
don‟t you ask someone else?‟)
 Promise of future acceptance. (e.g. „I‟ll do next time‟)
 Statement of principle. It is a statement of an interlocutor‟s a standard or rule of
personal conduct (e.g. „I never do business with friend‟ )
 Set conditions for future acceptance. It is performed by providing a condition
over the acceptance of an invitation, offer, and suggestion. (e.g. „if I am not
busy I will..; if you asked me earlier I would have...‟)

3
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
 Statement of philosophy. It is a statement of a personal outlook or view point
(e.g. „one can‟t be too careful; things break any way; this kind of things
happen‟)
 Attempt to dissuade interlocutor with some strategies such as stating negative
consequences to the requester (e.g. „I won‟t be any fun tonight‟) or a guilt trip
(e.g. „I can‟t make a living off people who just order coffee‟ said by waitress to
a customer who wants to sit a while) or a criticism on the request or the
requester (e.g. „that‟s a terrible idea‟.) or a request for help, empathy, and
assistance by dropping or holding the request or letting off a hook (e.g. „That‟s
okay‟) or a self-defence (e.g. „I‟m doing my best‟.)
 Acceptance that functions as a refusal. Instead of refusing at first hand,
interlocutors initiate their refusals by giving an acceptance to the invitation,
offer, and suggestion. (e.g. „yes, but…; Ok I will but…; alright I would go,
but...)
 Avoidance: This may be expressed by means of a verbal act (such as changing
the subject, joking, or hedging), or by means of a non-verbal act (such as
silence, hesitation, or physical departure).
In addition Beebe et al. (1990) identify four adjuncts that may be added to either of the
two basic strategies:
 Positive opinion/feeling/agreement (e.g. „that‟s a good idea/ I‟d love to…‟)
 Empathy (e.g. „I realize you are in a difficult situation‟)
 Fillers (e.g. „uhh‟ „well‟ „oh‟ „uhm‟)
 Gratitude/appreciation (e.g. „thanks‟)
The refusal taxonomy is modified slightly in order to account for certain
patterns of the data from the present study. A sub-strategy is added to direct refusal:
statement of inapplicability (e.g. „I don‟t need it‟). Three further adjuncts were also
added: (1) Asking for assurance. It is applied by hearers over acceptance of an offer in
order not to suggest that they will directly accept the offer (e.g. „If I use your printer,
you will run out your ink, are you sure?‟). (2) Awkwardness. This adjunct is applied
mainly by NJ to show hesitation (e.g. „aku ra penak‟ which means I feel awkward). (3)
Wishing good luck. (e.g. „have a good time‟).
Thus for example Uhm I am sorry I can‟t make it, I have some work to do this night.
Thanks your invitation though is made up of Filler + Apology+ Inability +
Excuse/explanation + Gratitude.
Two native speakers of British English were involved in the classification system
who independently coded the English data produced by NSE and JLE. Two native
speakers of Javanese were trained in the classification system and then independently
coded the Javanese data produced by NJ. The coders mostly (98%) agreed each with
other for their coding.

3. Findings
The analysis on the different use of pragmalinguistic forms or wording by JLE and
NSE were emphasized in this study. It should be noted that grammar errors or mistakes
made by JLE were not considered and they were written as they are. The following
sections analyse the wording of some semantic formulae and adjuncts including
Inability, Unwillingness, Inapplicability, Promise of future acceptance, Acceptance,
Agreement, Dissuasion, Excuse/explanation, and Asking for assurance.

4
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________

3.1. Inability, unwillingness, and inapplicability

As JLE declined an invitation they often expressed Inability tentatively by involving
the English modal adverb maybe suggesting that they intended to mitigate their
inability to accept an invitation. For example when refusing an invitation to go to a
boss‟s house warming party (DCT 1), JLE phrased Inability tentatively.
(1) I am so sorry sir maybe I cannot come.
(2) Oh I am sorry boss maybe I cannot go.
JLE‟s pragmalinguistic forms of Inability were similar to those by NJ who commonly
used modal adverbs ketoke or koyone or mbok bilih (roughly equivalent to maybe) by
which they possibly intended to sound less direct or more polite.
(3) Waduh ketoke ra isoe nek Minggu iki lagi ono acara dewe.
„Oh maybe I can‟t go this Sunday I have other arrangement‟. (a response to
DCT 6)
(4) Ngapunten mbok bilih kulo mboten saget pak, sampun wonten acara
sanes.
„I am sorry maybe I can‟t sir I have other arrangement‟. (a response to DCT
1)
When refusing an invitation to go to a boss‟s house warming party (DCT1), JLE
phrased Inability which made them sounded as though they could not go to the boss‟s
house rather than to the party.
(5) I really can‟t come to your house.
(6) I am so sorry I can‟t come to your house because I have the other date.
(7) I cannot come to your new house.
A direct translation of Javanese ora iso melu („can‟t follow/join‟) was also done by
JLE, for example:
(8) Wah I am very interesting with it, but I am sorry I cannot join with you
because I have anything cannot cancel.
(9) I am sorry I can’t follow you because I have a business.
By contrast NSE commonly involved a short formulaic Inability „I can‟t‟.
(10) I‟m sorry I can’t I‟ve already arranged to visit my parents next weekend.
As for Unwillingness, JLE applied formulaic forms which resembled those of NSE, e.g.
I don‟t think so and I can‟t. Nevertheless JLE unlike NSE often hedged Unwillingness
in particular when they declined a suggestion to a higher status (DCT 3).
(11) Maybe no sir, I need my motorbike to do everything, so...
(12) Maybe I can’t sir I must go to some places. Taxi will be more expensive for
me.
(13) I think I can’t leave my motorbike here because it is not safe here and I
think my motorbike just have little trouble.
(14) Thank you about your advice, but I think I can't leave my motorbike
alone.
(15) Maybe I can't, taxi is expensive.

The English hedges I think and maybe are very common yet neither was used by NSE
to mitigate Inability and Unwillingness in this study. Rather most NSE used a formulaic
form I can‟t. The use by JLE of the hedged Inability or Unwillingness sounded more
like genuine uncertainty or a plausibility shield that is an uncertain or doubtful

5
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
commitment to a proposition (Fraser 2010). Such forms might therefore appear to
falsely state tentativeness.
Unlike NJ and NSE however, JLE involved disagreements to express
Unwillingness in particular to accept a suggestion, e.g.:
(16) I am sorry my friend I disagree with you. (a response to DCT 2)
(17) I‟m sorry I disagree with you. Maybe my computer just have little problem
and I can handle it. (a response to DCT 9)
To express Inapplicability JLE produced rather direct wording as compared with
NSE. For instance in the scenario in which they declined a close friend‟s offer to use a
printer (DCT 4), JLE involved strong rejections.
(18) Oh thank you, but I'm not need your help. I am not want you feel different
with me.
(19) No, I don't need your printer.
(20) Thanks for your help, but I don't need it now. Maybe next time.
Conversely NSE let hearers off hook which sounded less direct, for example:
(21) I’m alright, but thanks for the offer.

3.2. Promise of future acceptance

To decline an invitation both JLE and NSE involved Promise of future acceptance. NSE
in this study mostly opted for a short form of next time which was often used along
with maybe or perhaps.
(22) I‟d love to, but I have other plans maybe next time. (a response to DCT
6).
(23) Thank you for asking me but I‟m afraid I won‟t be able to come, perhaps
another time. (a response to DCT 7)
Whilst some JLE used the short form next time, they made a future acceptance which
was used neither by NSE nor NJ, for example the one used to respond DCT 7.
(24) I‟m so sorry I can‟t because I have another promise to fulfil. Give my
excuse to all of the students. Maybe on the next or the other occasion.
In the scenario declining an invitation from a close friend to go to the beach (DCT 6),
JLE phrased perhaps some other time which is normally a polite expression said by an
inviter whose invitation has just been declined rather than by an invitee who declines
an invitation.
(25) Sorry I have something else to do. Perhaps some other time, but thanks
anyway.
A number of JLE elaborated or modified this semantic formula which resulted in
verbose forms, in particular when they declined an invitation to go to a boss‟s house
warming party (DCT 1).
(26) I am sorry sir I can‟t come there. I have been promise with my family to
go to my mother. There is a party there. Maybe another times I and my
family go to your new house.
(27) Actually I would like to say thanks to you and your wife. But I would have
business next Saturday. Maybe I can come to your new house next time.
(28) Oh I am so sorry sir. I cannot come to your new house because I have
other plan. I cannot leave this event. But I promise I come to your house
next time.
Such a verbose form also frequently occurred in the data of NJ. Javanese commonly
elaborate or modify the indefinite promise next time to ease the potential over-

6
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
directness implied in the short forms so as to show consideration to addressees, for
example:
(29) Lain kali wae ya golek wektu manehben isa bareng.
„Next time we find right time so that we can hang out together‟. (a
response to DCT 6).
(30) Mbok menawi sanes wekdal kulo sowan.
„Maybe next time I will come‟. (a response to DCT 1)
The application of prolix future acceptances by JLE suggested that they were
informed by the Javanese pragmalinguistics. The use of a short form of future
acceptances in Javanese refusal often implies unfriendliness or harshness which tends
to be avoided by one who intends to maintain a good interpersonal relationship with the
one being refused. Verbose forms of next time in Javanese are often meant to wrap a
bad impression of the refuser‟s disinterest to accept an invitation providing a payoff
that the refuser is tactful or polite or at least she or he is able to show an impression that
she or he is warm and friendly. To redresses the negative implication e.g. anger or
irritation of the use of the short forms, Javanese commonly verbalize a future
acceptance, e.g. sesok or mengko („next time‟) along with a particle ae or wae and a
question tag marker ya/nggih? e.g. sesok wae ya? („I would rather do/have/etc... next
time, isn‟t it okay?‟). For NSE the use of either forms of next time may not induce
different pragmatic meanings.
A more complex pragmalinguistic difference was the use of the Islamic
Insya'allah („God willing‟) to express a future acceptance. Like other Muslims
Javanese Muslims generally invoke Insya'allah as a prayer for blessing from God for
an event to occur in the future. JLE and NJ phrased this prayer to hedge the proposition
of a Promise of future acceptance, for example the ones used to decline an invitation to
go to a boss‟s house warming party (DCT 1).
(31) Insya'allah I will come to your party.
(32) Oh this is good news. If god willing I will come.
(33) Insya'allah dalem usahaaken menawi mboten alangan sanes.
„God willing I will do my best to come if I don‟t have other arrangement‟.
(34) Nggih, Insya'allah menawi mboten wonten alangan kulo sowan mriko
nggih?
„Yes, God willing I will probably come if I don‟t have other
arrangement‟.
3.3. Acceptance
A distinctive cross-cultural pragmalinguistic strategy arises from certain uses of yes in
Javanese. Javanese polite yes is one of several dissimulation strategies which functions
to avoid conflicts or tension that may arise in interpersonal communication. This
strategy is a common positive acknowledgement or response to certain speech acts of
directive, such as suggestion, command, request, invitation and the like in which an
agreement is preferred whilst a disagreement is strongly dispreferred. However it is
often intricate to distinguish a Javanese polite yes from a genuine acceptance. There are
some general indications of a genuine acceptance to an invitation, for example the
desire of the invitees to know further about the arrangement of time and place, and
repetitions of stating their acceptance. Inferring its meaning, e.g. as a response to a
request, suggestion and command, is complicated too. A genuine acceptance or

7
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
agreement generally can be seen through speakers‟ future action relating to the
directives.
Some refusals used by JLE and NJ in this present study included a Javanese polite
yes for example the ones used to decline an invitation to go to a boss‟s house warming
party (DCT 1).
(35) Okey I will go there.
(36) Injih pak mbok menawi dalem mangkih sowan mriko.
„Yes sir maybe I will come to your party‟.
This semantic formula resembled NSE‟s agreement functioning as an adjunct of refusal
to an invitation, i.e. „I‟d love to, but... Nevertheless JLE‟s agreement functioned as a
main refusal strategy whilst that of NSE was as an adjunct which generally did not
contain refusal. Indeed, the following acceptance has a similar function to NSE‟s
agreement but with a different in form.
(37) Thanks for the invitation I accept it but I am sorry I can‟t go. (a
response to DCT 1)
Stating an unspecific or indefinite agreement to accept was other strategy
employed by the Javanese groups by which they probably disguised their refusals. For
example the ones used to decline a boss‟s invitation (DCT 1).
(38) Thank you for your invitation sir, I will do my best.
(39) Thanks maybe I will come.
(40) Inggih pak kulo usahaaken.
„Yes sir I will do my best‟.
(41) Injih pak mbok menawi dalem mangkih sowan mriko.
„Yes sir maybe I will come to your party‟.
NSE in this study never used this type of strategy, but rather a formulaic agreement I‟d
love to, but... discussed in the following section.

3.4. Agreement
An agreement as one type of adjuncts commonly initiated refusal to an invitation in
which most NSE opted for a conventional form I‟d love to, but... For example it
commonly initiated refusal to an invitation to go to the beach (DCT 6).
(42) I’d love to, but I have plans. Have fun though.
(43) I’d love to, but I‟m a bit busy next Sunday.
To express this adjunct JLE used different wording in which they recurrently involved
actually along with willingness to agree reflecting NJ‟s strategy. This strategy not only
shows consideration to the addressee, but it is also understood that the addressee will
nevertheless interpret it as an indirect refusal. For this end JLE and NJ commonly used
an emphatic adverb such as sakjane or jane („actually or really‟).
(44) Actually I want to come to your house, but so sorry sir I have an
appointment with my friend. (a response to DCT 1)
(45) Actually I would like to come, but I‟m very busy. I have a meeting with
Prof. Dean. (a response to DCT 7)
(46) Actually I want to come, but I‟m so sorry I have to go to other place. (a
response to DCT 7)
(47) Wah sory. Aku sakjane kepengen melu ananging aku ora iso amargo
aku eneng kepentingan liyo, sory yo?.

8
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
„Oh I am sorry I actually would like to go, but I can‟t because I have
other arrangement, I am really sorry‟. (a response to DCT 6)
(48) Piye yo jane aku pengen tapi aku nduwe urusan maap yo.
„I am not sure actually I would like to go, but I have an arrangement, I
am so sorry‟ (a response to DCT 6)
Such examples imply, but do not express a continuation with the meaning of ... but I
can‟t, and so are interpreted as polite refusals. Although JLE‟s pragmalinguistic forms
of agreement might be acceptable in the target language, it was not usually used by
NSE who mostly opted for I‟d love to. JLE‟s pragmalinguistic forms might suspend the
illocutionary force of agreements in which JLE sounded as though they made partial or
incomplete agreements.
To express the same adjunct JLE also used other pragmalinguistic forms which
were much similar to the ones used by NJ. For example when declining a close friend‟s
suggestion to relax (DCT 2) JLE and NJ used agreements linguistically equal to OK
and yes in English.
(49) OK thanks for your advice, but I have to study hard to finish my
assignment.
(50) Yups friend thank you for your attention, but I just want stay at home.
(51) Yes that‟s a good idea, but I want to finish everything on time.
(52) Ya wis mengko gampang nek aku pengen hiburan mengko tak ajak.
„Yes don‟t worry if I need some entertainment I will invite you‟.
(53) Ya maturnuwun iki durung rampung je.
„Yes thank you but I have not finished my study yet‟.
Similar adjuncts were used by JLE and NJ to initiate refusals to an offer (DCT 4).
(54) Alright thank you, but I don't want to bother you, sometime I will.
(55) OK thanks for your help, but beside my house any type center so I can
printing in there.
(56) Oh ya maturnuwun disilihi ning printerku ki yo apik kok.
„Oh yes thank you for offering me your printer, but mine is alright
though‟.
(57) Ya matur nuwun rasah wae mengko tugasmu mundak tertunda.
„Yes thank you I can‟t as I will delay your assignment‟.

3.5. Dissuasion
To express dissuasion NSE commonly let addressees off hook involving a self-directed
strategy.
(58) I am alright thanks. (a response to DCT 8)
(59) Thanks for the offer I’m probably OK if it‟s all the same. I'll be on
campus anyway. (a response to DCT 4)
JLE similarly used self-directed strategies, but they phrased them in different wording.
For example in the situation in which an employee had a faulty motorcycle and
declined an offer of help from their boss (DCT 5) JLE overused I can do myself
strategies.
(60) Oh thank you, but I can do it myself.
(61) No thank you I think I can do alone sir.
(62) Thanks sir I am very glad if you help me but I try to do it alone.
(63) Thank you very much sir, but I want to try myself.

9
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
In addition, unlike NSE, JLE employed other-directed strategy which dissuaded
interlocutors from further action (of helping or offering).
(64) Oh no thanks let it be. (a response to DCT 8)
(65) No sir thank you, I think you can leave me. (a response to DCT 5)
(66) Oh you don't I think I just try repair my motor bike myself. (a response to
DCT 5)
Where such pragmalinguistic forms as leave me or let it be occur in the target language
usage, they function as an indirect request or a direct order (i.e. leave me alone), which
implies a firm rejection rather than polite dissuasion.

3.6. Excuse/explanation
The pragmalinguistics of Excuse/explanation produced by the three groups were
broadly similar. NSE and the Javanese groups used greater numbers of unspecific
Excuse/explanation than specific ones. There were some evidences however that JLE
unlike NSE attempted to sound more convincing without necessarily being specific by
naming an important preventing factor—for example business which in the Javanese
context refers to a pressing or elite undertaking, by contrast with the English context, in
which it can imply nothing more than things to do.
(67) I‟m sorry sir, I am very glad of your invitation, but I can‟t come in your
house warming party. I have other business at that day. (a response to
DCT 1)
(68) I‟d like to, but I have another business to do. (a response to DCT 7)
(69) I really want to, but I am sorry I can‟t. I have another business next
Sunday. (a response to DCT 6)
Other different strategy was intensifying or expanding the word busy, i.e. JLE and NJ
stated that they had important arrangements thus sounding pressing yet unspecific.
(70) I like to hear that, but I can‟t go to house warming party next Saturday
sir because I have important activity that I must do now. (a response to
DCT 1)
(71) Oh it is a good moment, but I have some important meeting with other
partner and it cannot failed on Saturday. Maybe just my wife who
present your house warming party. (a response to DCT 1)
(72) Nuwun sewu pas jam niku kulo wonten acara sanes ingkang
penting.
„I am sorry coincidentally I have other important arrangement‟.
(a response to DCT 1)
(73) Acarane apik kuwi tapi pangapurane ya aku ora isoteka awit ono
perlu sing luwih penting.
„That‟s a good programme, but I am sorry I can‟t go because I have a
more important arrangement to do‟. (a response to DCT 7)
(74) Aduh nyuwun ngapuro yo aku ana acara kang luwih penting ki.
„Oh I am sorry I have a more important arrangement‟. (a response
to DCT 6)
The Javanese groups, unlike NSE, commonly provided excuses in that they could not
cancel or leave a previous arrangement particularly when declining an invitation to a
collocutor of higher status (DCT 1).

10
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
(75) Oh I am so sorry sir. I cannot come to your new house because I have
other plan. I cannot leave this event. But I promise I come to your
house next time.
(76) Wah estu nyuwun agenging pangapunten kados pundi nggih
kawulo mboten saget sowan rawuh amargi wonten pedamelan
ingkang mboten saget kawulo tilar. Mbok menawi mbenjang sanes
wekdal kawulo sowan.
„Oh I am so sorry, I am not sure I can‟t go because I have an
arrangement which cannot be left. Maybe I go next time‟.
By contrast, NSE mostly involved busy.
(77) That sounds great. I think I might be busy next weekend though. I‟ll
check and get back to you. (a response to DCT1)
(78) Thanks. I’m busy that night, have a good party. (a response to DCT 7)
(79) That sounds really cool. I can‟t though, I’m busy. (a response to DCT 6)

3.7. Asking for assurance

This adjunct was used only by the Javanese groups particularly to decline an offer.
Whilst it is commonly employed by English speakers to sound polite for accepting an
offer, this adjunct was employed by the Javanese groups to decline an offer tentatively.
When declining a close friend‟s offer to use a printer (DCT 4) JLE and NJ involved this
adjunct.
(80) If I use your printer you will run out your ink, are you sure?
(81) Wah tenane? tapi opo rak mbok enggo dewe? ndak malah repot.
„Are you sure? but don‟t you use it?, I don‟t want to be hassle‟.

4. Discussion
JLE used target pragmalinguistic functions broadly similar to NSE although they used
them in different wording, some aspects might explain this. English is the first foreign
language included in the Indonesian national curriculum in which communicative
competence by Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) has been adopted as the foundation of its
teaching. Unfortunately as a foreign language it is not spoken on a daily basis. This
could make English good in teaching and learning, but poor in its practical application.
The findings suggest that the home country setting has provided the English
learners (JLE) poor pragmalinguistic input. In foreign settings (Indonesia) English
learners in general have limited opportunities to use target language for real-life
purposes and they lack access to engage in direct contacts with native speakers. This
may contribute to JLE‟s disparate target pragmatic version in particular
pragmalinguistic conventionality. A previous study asserted that having low recognition
to target pragmalinguistic routines could induce non-target like use (Bardovi-Harlig
2009). Chances to observe native speakers‟ real life communication should be made
available otherwise language learners have limited access to exemplary language usage
(Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2007).
The use by JLE of unconventional pragmalinguistic forms supports Koike‟s
(1989) findings that there is a lag between the development of grammatical skills and
that of pragmalinguistic competence. Indeed grammar competence does not necessarily
help developing learner‟s pragmalinguistic competence to become native-like (Kasper
and Rose 2002). It was reported that a high level of grammar competence did not
necessarily correlate to ideal pragmatic performance (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Félix-

11
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Brasdefer 2003). A number of findings of this study are also in line with Kasper and
Rose (2002) that the English learners had knowledge of grammatical structures but they
used them to express pragmalinguistics that were not conventionalized in the target
language. However although a number of JLE‟s pragmalinguistic forms differ from
those of NSE, they may not necessarily lead to misunderstanding as the differences
only emphasize the foreignness of the learners. For example the use of verbose future
acceptance, see (26)-(28), and prolix Excuse/explanation, see (67)-(69).
When declining an invitation the three groups commonly involved
Excuses/explanation which ideally should be specific and plausible so as to sound
convincing. Grice‟s (1975:45) maxim of quantity states “make your contributions as
informative as required” and hence providing credible excuses is one of an indication
of cooperation between a speaker and a hearer. This may however be culturally
specific. For example Beebe et al. (1990) found that American NSE used much more
specific Excuse/explanation as compared with Japanese learners of English who opted
for vague contents of excuse. In this present study, British NSE and Javanese speakers
produced greater numbers of unspecific Excuse/explanation than specific ones.
Nonetheless, they might use unspecific contents for different sociopragmatic meanings.
As individual privacy is highly maintained and valued by British NSE (Hickey and
Orta 1994; Sifianou 1992), they might apply unspecific Excuse/explanation to protect
their privacy or personal territory. By contrast in Javanese context vague
Excuse/explanation is a common strategy. When Javanese coul not find a good excuse
for refusing they even involved white lies (Oktoprimasakti 2006).
A number of data by JLE reflected L1 (Javanese) pragmalinguistic use in which
they employed L1 forms and functions to express those of L2 (English) suggesting
pragmalinguistic transfer that is the process whereby the illocutionary force or
politeness value assigned to particular linguistic materials in L1 influences learner‟s
perception and production of form-function mapping in L2 (Kasper 1992), for instance
the use by JLE of tentative inability or unwillingness above. In the Javanese
interpersonal communication contexts, refusing strikes both refuser and the person who
is refused and hence it tends to cause upset and discomfort for the speakers and
disappointment to the hearers. To anticipate this Javanese people tend to obscure
disagreements so that on the surface the interaction looks harmonious even though
inwardly both participants feel otherwise (see Section 4.3). JLE and NJ also employed
Inability tentatively by which they might intend to wrap direct refusals so as to sound
polite, see (1)-(4)”. This is ethok-ethok or dissimulation which is commonly conducted
to conceal the true feelings that may stir up undesired emotional reactions in others
(Geertz 1969), and it is a common strategy to avoid interpersonal awkwardness (Suseno
1997).
Al-Issa (2003) reported that English learners in his research often elaborated
pragmalinguistic forms in order not to be misunderstood. Meanwhile Blum-Kulka and
Olshtain (1986) reported that verbose pragmalinguistic forms were employed by
foreign language learners who lacked confidence to get their messages across. More
words were used by the learners to provide more information so as to ensure their
communicative intention was understandable or “the less confident you are that you
can get the meaning across, the more words and contextual information you use”
(Blum-Kulka 1986: 176). JLE in this study also used verbose forms, e.g. Future
acceptance, see (26)-(28) above which also commonly occurred in the Javanese
normative data to express politeness. This suggests that JLE used L1 pragmalinguistic

12
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
forms to express L2 functions (maybe to sound more polite) rather than they lacked
confidence to express their communicative intentions.
An acceptance or agreement is a preferred response to an invitation in Javanese
context. In the case people will decline an invitation they will commonly disguise their
refusal. As refusal in Javanese context places a low value on addressees‟ feelings, to
refuse politely speakers have to maintain addressees‟ feelings and show consideration
to others. For example through the employment of polite yes. As reported by Suseno
(1997) that Javanese polite yes often expresses a polite acknowledgement of showing
outward conduct namely respect as recognition of seniority or a superior rank by the
subordinates. Suseno further asserted that showing respect does not equate to obeying
any commands by the authority figure as it is only an expression of civility and is not
an indicator of an intention to obey. Accordingly it is not always easy for non-Javanese
speakers to interpret the meaning of yes when they respond to an invitation and other
directives such as an order, command, request, and demand since the word can express
different facets of meaning depending on the speakers‟ communicative intention. JLE
in this study involved the Javanese polite yes in their refusal strategies suggesting that
there was some tension between the desire to be polite on one hand and to make the
refusals clear on the other hand. JLE used polite yes to achieve this purpose. As such
use occurred very commonly in the data of NJ; its application by JLE suggested that
they were informed by L1 strategies.
In line with Leech‟s (1983) politeness, NSE‟s agreements maximized
disagreement between self and other in order to sound polite i.e. it attended negative
face which was a transactional strategy to achieve a communication concord.
Regarding JLE‟s indefinite acceptance, see (38) and (39), they reflected general
strategies to maintain other interlocutors‟ good feelings and to please others. In English
however it is taken on face value. In addition forms like I‟ll do my best are used in the
contexts for a sort of conditional acceptance („I‟ll do my best, but I can‟t promise …‟),
so the JLE use may not be interpreted as untrustworthy—at least not as much as the
positive acceptance examples (Javanese polite yes).
The use of future acceptance strategy Insya'allah or God willing by JLE (and NJ)
reflects the fact that language use and religion are interrelated and fundamental aspects
of an ethnic and religious identity. Although God willing is not entirely unknown in
English, it is very rare and probably limited to use among some devout Christians. By
contrast its use by Muslims (either Insya'allah or God willing) when speaking English
seems nowadays to be sufficiently common for it to be recognized and even
occasionally used by non-Muslim native speakers of English. It is possible that
Insya'allah may therefore sound more acceptable than its translation God willing.
Lacking real models of English use in particular pragmalinguistic input could
induce the divergent use by JLE of pragmalinguistic strategies. This factor has been
claimed by some studies as disadvantageous for developing pragmatic competence.
Nevertheless it should not discourage learning L2 pragmatics since pragmatic
competence can be developed through interventions of teaching. A number of studies
revealed that either explicit or implicit instruction has been beneficial for developing
various aspects of L2 pragmatics, e.g. House (1996), Liddicoat and Crozet (2001),
Tateyama (2001), Takahashi (2001), Rose and Kwai-Fun (2001), and Takimoto (2008).
It should be taken into account that every pragmatic difference does not mean
requiring intervention of pragmatic instruction as some of the findings show that
differences will only emphasize foreignness rather than result in misunderstanding.

13
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
What is more different pragmatic strategies should not be practically equated with
pragmatic failures as suggested by Thomas (1983) since there were a number of
intertwining factors which might affect JLE pragmalinguistic strategies, for example
the learners‟ subjectivity assessments on the ways refusals strategies were carried out in
the target language, the complexity of the speech act of refusals as claimed by Gass and
Houck (1999), and their intention to uphold religious teaching, i.e. the application of
Insya'allah by JLE and NJ.

5. Conclusion
The present study compared the wording of semantic formulae and adjuncts of refusals
employed by native and non native speakers of English. The findings showed that
native and non native speakers of English used a similar range of semantic formulae
and adjuncts of refusal. Nevertheless in terms of their wording JLE shared similarities
to NJ rather than to NSE. The findings suggest that there is a gap between the idea of
correct grammatical forms and appropriate pragmalinguistic strategies. This supports
Kasper and Rose (2002) that high competence in grammar does not mean that language
learners produce more target-like pragmalinguistic strategies. In addition although the
learners have developed universal pragmatic knowledge to express refusal strategies in
English they were often constrained by limited pragmalinguistic resources.
A number of excerpts suggest that JLE transferred pragmalinguistic strategies of
Javanese (L1) to English (TL). For example they used tentative inability, verbose future
acceptance, and the Javanese polite yes. Such examples of pragmalinguistic transfer
showed that L1 linguistic forms which have similarities to TL pragmalinguistics have
informed the language learners to generate TL pragmalinguistic forms. In this case the
pragmalinguistic transfer resulted in TL unconventional pragmalinguistic forms but still
held their appropriate functions. Overall pragmalinguistic transfer of L1 involved
various mismatches of forms and functions between L1 and TL, where JLE used (1) L1
pragmalinguistic forms and functions to express TL functions; (2) L1 functions to
express TL functions; or (3) L1 pragmalinguistic forms to express TL functions. Such
discrepancies arise from the fact that similar pragmalinguistic forms may express
different functions in L1 and TL, and vice versa.
This study found that L1 pragmalinguistic means of expressing politeness strategies
tended to induce pragmalinguistic transfer in which the language learners might intend
to remain polite in TL. For example they applied tentative inability, verbose future
acceptance, and the Javanese polite yes etc.
The pedagogical implication drawn from this study is that in order to become
competence pragmatically, the learners need to develop not only L2 grammar but also
pragmalinguistic conventionality to assign illocutionary forces of refusals (and other
speech acts) as the findings show that grammar competence alone is not adequate to
approach the target language pragmalinguistics. This has been claimed by some
previous studies that high grammatical competence does not necessarily guarantee to
high level of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig 1999; Félix-Brasdefer 2003). In
addition despite their advanced grammatical ability L2 learners differed greatly from
native speakers in terms of their pragmatic competence and they also demonstrated
wide ranges of pragmatic performances (Bardovi-Harlig 2001). Conventionality of
pragmalinguistic forms should be acquired by the English learners since it acts as an
essential short circuiting device by which other interlocutors can process or interpret
illocution readily (Blum-Kulka 1987).

14
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
References
Al-Issa, Ahmad. 2003. Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and
motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27: 581-601.
Al-Kahtani, Saad Ali W. 2005. Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A
speech act theoretically-based cross-cultural study. Language and Translation 18:
35-57.
Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage
pragmatics: A research agenda for inquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49:
677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in
pragmatics. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching, 13-32. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2009. Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic
resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics.
Language Learning 59(4): 755-795.
Beebe, Leslie M., Takahashi, Tomoko & Uliss-Weltz, Robin. 1990. Pragmatic transfer
in ESL refusals. In Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine S. Anderson & Stephen D. Krashen
(Eds.), Developing Communication Competence in a Second Language, 55-73. New
York: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1982. Learning to say what you mean: A study of
speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied
Linguistics 3: 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or
different?. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Olshtain, Elite. 1986. Too many words: length of utterance
and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8: 165-180.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne., Dörnyei, Zoltán, & Thurrell, Sarah. 1995. Communicative
competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in
Applied Linguistics 6: 5-35.
Chang, Yuh-Fang. 2008. How to say no: an analysis of cross-cultural difference and
pragmatic transfer. Language Science 31(4): 477-493.
Félix-Brasdefer, Julio César. 2003. Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of
pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua
22: 225-255.
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In Kaltenböck
Gunther, Mihatsch Wiltrud, & Schneider Stefan (Eds.), New Approach to Hedging,
15-34. United Kingdom: Emerald.
Gass, Susan M. & Houck, Noel. 1999. Interlanguage Refusals. A cross cultural study of
Japanese-English. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

15
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Geertz, Cliffort. 1969. The Religion of Java. New York: The Free Press Glancoe.
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. „Logic and conversation‟. In Peter Cole, & Jerry L.Morgan
(Eds.), Syntax and Semantics III – Speech Acts, 41-58 .New York: Academic Press.
House, Juliane. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language:
Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18:
225-252.
Kasper, Gabriele, 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3): 203-231.
Kasper, Gabriele & Rose, Kenneth R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second
Language. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Koike, Dale April. 1989. Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts
in interlanguage. Modem Language Journal 73(3): 279-289.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. & Crozet, Chantal. 2001. Acquiring French interactional norms
through instruction. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
Language Teaching, 125-144. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Usó-Juan, Esther. 2007. Pragmatic development in a second or
foreign language: some classroom techniques. GRETA 14 (1&2): 50-56.
Nelson, Gayle L., Carson, Joan., Al-Batal, Mahmoud & El Bakary, Waguida. 2002.
Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English
refusals. Applied Linguistics 23(2): 163-189.
Nugroho, Lisa, 2000. Refusal strategies in English used by American and Indonesian
university students based on age, sex, social status and social distance. Surabaya:
Universitas Kristen Petra BA thesis.
Oktoprimasakti, Fransiska. 2006. Direct and indirect strategies of refusing among
Indonesians. Department of English and Letter. Phenomena: Journal of language
and Literature 10 (2): 103-115.
Orta, Vázquez Ignacio & Hickey, Leo. 1994. Politeness as deference: A pragmatic view.
Pragmalingüística 2: 267-286.
Rose, Kenneth R. & Kwai-fun, Connie Ng. 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of
compliment. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
Language Teaching, 145-170. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saito, Hidetoshi & Beecken, Masako. 1997. An approach to instruction of pragmatic
aspects: Implications of pragmatic transfer by American learners of Japanese. The
Modern Language Journal 81(3): 363-377.
Seran, Dogancay-Aktuna & Sibel, Kamisli. 1997. Pragmatic transfer in interlanguage
development: A case study of advanced EFL learners. Paper presented at the
National Linguistics Conference, 11th Ankara, Turkey, May 1997.
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: Cross cultural
perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suseno, Franz-Magnis. 1997. Javanese Ethics and World View. The Javanese Idea of
Good Life. Jakarta: Gramedia.

16
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Takahashi, Satomi. 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic
competence. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching, 171-199. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, Tomoko & Beebe, Leslie M. 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech
act of correction. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (Eds.),
Interlanguage Pragmatics, 138-157. New York: Oxford University Press.
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2008. The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the
development of language learners‟ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language
Journal 92(3): 369-386.
Tateyama, Yumiko. 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routine: Japanese
sumimasen. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching, 200-222. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91-112.
Wannaruk, Anchalee. 2008. Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC Journal
39(3): 318-337.

17
This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Appendix:

DCT scenarios

1. You are about to leave your office. On the way to parking lot, your boss stops
you and invites you to go to his house warming party. As you cannot go, you
decline his invitation.
Your boss : “oh incidentally we are going to have a house warming party next
Saturday. My wife and I would be very pleased if you could come”
You say : ...

2. You have worked too hard at your study. Your close friend knows this and he
suggests you do something to make your mind relax a bit. However, you refuse
his suggestion.
Your friend : “hey why don‟t you at least do something else to make your mind
relax?”
You say : …

3. It is Friday afternoon; you are leaving your office. You are in the parking lot.
You are starting your motorbike many times, but it does not work. Your boss is
in the parking lot too. He suggests you to leave your motorbike in the parking
lot and take a taxi home. However, you decline his suggestion.
Your boss : “why don‟t you leave your motorbike here and take a taxi home?”
You say : …

4. You have a close friend. He is the most kind and generous person you have ever
known. One day he drops by your flat whilst you are doing your assignment.
He knows that you don‟t have a printer. Your friend offers you his printer to use.
However, you do not want to use his printer and you decline his offer.
Your friend : “if you need a printer for printing your assignment you can always
use mine”
You say : ...

5. It‟s Friday afternoon. You are leaving your office. You are in the parking lot.
You have tried to start your motorbike many times, but it does not work. Your
boss is in the parking lot too. He is parking his car opposite your motorbike.
He approaches you and offers to help. However you decline his help.
Your boss : “anything I can do to help?”
You say : ...

6. It is Friday afternoon. You meet your close friend in the front of the library. He
says that he is going to the beach next Sunday and invites to join, but you
cannot go.
Your friend : “hey I am going to the beach next Sunday, do you want to come
along?”
You say : ...

18
 This is the final draft of: Wijayanto, Agus (2016). Variability of Refusal in L2: Evidence of L1
Pragmalinguistic Transfer and Learner’s Idiosyncratic Usage. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol 26 (1): pp. 99-119. The draft still contains some infelicities or errors.
_______________________________________________________________________________
7. You are a senior lecturer at school of Arts and Literature. In your break time
you happen to have a small chat with a graduate student representative at a cafe
of the campus. He is organizing some programs for fresher week orientation.
He says that at the end of the fresher orientation days there will be a party. He
invites to go to the party, but you cannot go.
Student : “we are going to have a party next Saturday night. We would be
very pleased if you could come”
You say : ...

8. You are a lecturer in the School of Linguistics. You and an administrative staff
member are in the language centre office busy packing books and folders that
will be moved to your office. One of your students whom you know well shows
up to ask you about his assignment. Noticing that you still have a lot of books
to be removed from the shelves, he offers you help but you decline his offer.
Student : “is there anything I could do to help?”
You say : …

9. You are a manager of an online advertising business. Recently your laptop has
been infected by computer viruses. You have tried some new anti viruses, but
they are not quite effective. One of your staff suggests you apply a different
operating system to avoid the virus. However you decline his suggestion.
Staff : “I heard LINUX is the safest operating system. Perhaps you could
give it a try”.
You say : ...

19

View publication stats