Interlanguage pragmatics of refusal strategies by Javanese EFL learners

• Main Author: Wijayanto, Agus
• Published: University of Aberdeen 2011
• Subjects: 428.2499222; English language : Second language acquisition : Intercultural communication : Language transfer (Language learning) : Communication
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.553852

The study investigated similarities and differences between refusal strategies conducted by British native speakers of English (NSE) and Javanese learners of English (JLE). The data were elicited, using discourse completion tasks (DCT), from 20 NSE and 50 JLE. Comparative data concerning refusal strategies in Javanese were elicited from 35 native speakers of Javanese (NJ) to provide a baseline for investigating the extent to which differences between JLE and NSE could be explained by the influence of L1 pragmatics. The refusal strategies were classified based on modified refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990) and were analysed into sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic strategies. Z test and Chi Square (χ2) were applied to test the statistical significance of differences between JLE and NSE usage. The study found that all three groups employed broadly similar sequential orders, frequencies of occurrences, and contents of both semantic formulae and adjuncts. Some differences were found, however, in which the strategies of the two Javanese groups (JLE and NJ) were more alike than either was to NSE. These findings suggest that distinctive JLE usages (i.e. different from NSE) are either due to the influence of L1 (negative pragmatic transfer) or simply deviation (idiosyncratic usage). The former occurred mainly in the utilization of politeness strategies by the Javanese groups. The salient elements of Javanese cultural values and their relation to the expression of politeness are discussed in some detail, and are shown to be reflected in the English of Javanese learners. The latter (deviations) appeared to arise from a conflict between JLE speakers’ notions of “correct” grammar and word meanings, on the one hand, and the pragmalinguistic demands of the interaction, on the other hand.