Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id

|    2339-1162 (Print) |    2550-1011 (Online) |

JURNAL ARBITRER

SubmiSSion Track A B S  T R A C T
Recieved: January 25, 2020
Final Revision: April 07, 2020
Available Online: April 26, 2020

This study aims to fill the gap of the comparison study between Japanese 
learners and native Japanese speakers, focused on the semantic formula of 
refusal act. Sixteen Japanese native speakers and twenty-two Indonesian 
learners are the subjects of this study. We use a questionnaire or Discourse 
Completion Test (DCT) to collect the data, and we use the semantic 
formula by Ito and Ikeda to analyze the refusal utterances. This paper 
reveals that Indonesian Japanese learners tended to not aware of different 
social status levels and use different semantic formulas in Japanese. The 
lack of knowledge of the pragmatic competence within the use of speech 
act is the main problem in Japanese education.

keyword

Politeness strategy, Japanese refusal expression, 
Indonesian Japanese learners, Pragmatic competence

correSpondence

Phone: 08979333781
E-mail: lisda_nurjaleka@mail.unnes.ac.id

Article

Refusal Expression in L2 and its Comparison with 
Native Speaker: A Study Case in the Japanese Language

Lisda Nurjaleka1

1Japanese Languae Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang, East Java, Indonesia

Under Liscense of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.7.1.34-44.2020 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Japanese is referred to as a contextual language. 
This means that communication is essential in the 
context of socio-cultural discourse relating to the 
use of the Japanese language. Studying Japanese, 
however, should not be separated from the culture 
of the society to which the language belongs. Many 
aspects of communication are closely related to 
their social, cultural, political, and various other 
contexts. These complex relations between the 
nature of Japanese discourse and its socio-cultural 
contexts are problematic for foreign learners. 
For example, many people say that the refusal 
expressions in Japanese are ambiguous, especially 
for foreigners who study Japanese. They often 
misunderstand and have difficulty understanding 
these expressions.

Refusals are categorized as face-threatening acts, 
and the possibility of offending someone is inherent 
in the act itself (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz,  
1990). For this reason, refusals are often regarded 
as strategies. More direct the refusal, the more the 
threat to the person’s face. Because of this risk, 
some degree of indirectness usually exists; the 

person who refuses may need to soften the force of 
the refusal. To this end, making reasons for refusal 
are also crucial for reducing face-threatening. 
(Taguchi 2008; Campillo, Jordà & Espurz 2009) 
However, the study of this aspect is limited.

Many studies have investigated refusal expressions 
from the function of the modality in refusal 
discourse until a contrastive study with their native 
language. For example, Grein (2007) compared 
the speech act of refusal within the languages of 
German and Japanese in the setting of a dialogic 
action game. Ito (2006) and Ikeda (2005) analyzed 
the semantic formula of refusal expression in 
Japanese.

Some studies have investigated the important 
speech act performed by language learners (e.g., 
Al-Kahtani, 2005; Gass & Houck, 2011; Ikeda, 
2009; Allami & Naeimi, 2011; Yamada, 2010, 
Kartika, 2019). 

These studies revealed that the generic structure 
of Japanese refusals to requests has two obligation 
stages: request/Invitation and refusal. Others, 
such as initiating, pre-sequence, excuse, apology, 36



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

empathy, and alternative, are optional stages. This 
pattern is relatively similar to the refusals in other 
languages. However, few studies have investigated 
the speech act performed by Indonesian Japanese 
learners and their comparison with Japanese 
speakers.

The aim of the present paper is twofold: 1) to 
compare refusal strategies by Indonesian Japanese 
learners and native Japanese speakers; and 2) 
to examine and compare the semantic formulas 
of both Indonesian Japanese learners and native 
Japanese speakers. The results can contribute to 
active Japanese language learning for Indonesian 
learners and smooth communication between 
Indonesian and Japanese people. 

Several studies on cross-cultural conducted 
throughout the year and one of the primary 
research in refusal is by Beebe et al. (1990). Beebe 
et al. conducted survey research to see and clarify 
pragmatic transfer from its mother tongue Japanese 
to English of English learners whose mother tongue 
is Japanese. On that process of investigation, this 
study uses a semantic formula for refusal in English 
American whose mother tongue is American, and a 
refusal of Japanese language whose mother tongue 
is Japanese. Therefore, the difference between 
American English and Japanese becomes clear. 
According to Beebe et al., in Japanese refusal 
expression, we can either choose to be part of it or 
not.

Ito Emiko (2006) stated that “Longer expressions 
are politer than shorter expressions with regards to 
refusals under the condition that the expression is 
appropriate.” The results of the present study show 
a necessary implication for learners of the Japanese 
language. The Japanese language is considered 
HC communication (High Context). This means 
that the context of communication is essential 
for socio-cultural discourses regarding Japanese 
language use. If these socio-cultural expressions of 
communication are not followed, communication 
is considered incomplete (Hall 1976). This suggests 
that learners also need to be able to estimate the 
appropriate level of politeness in a close relationship 
and to use acceptable expressions when speaking 
with native Japanese speakers.

Gass and Houck (2011) studied interlanguage 
refusal by non-native speakers. The results reveal 

that learners negotiated their way by using various 
means to establish solidarity. Their findings 
suggest that refusal by non-native speakers should 
be analyzed in a broader range of communicative 
resources, such as discourse tactics and turn takings.

A study by Okto Primasakti (2006) investigated 
refusals by native Indonesian speakers. The result 
is that native Indonesian speakers use different 
semantic formulas and adjuncts of refusals 
following the status levels. For example, they use 
apologies to speakers of low status less frequently 
than those of equal status and use more often to 
those of high rank. 

Wijayanto (2019) compared refusals in Javanese 
and English. The findings showed that Javanese 
and British native speakers used similarly indirect 
refusal strategies. Furthermore, they found minor 
differences in the way they chose semantic formulas 
to mitigate the refusals.

In recent years, some studies such as Gustini 
(2018) examined refusal in the Indonesian 
language and compared it to the Japanese language, 
focusing only on working situations. This study 
investigates the differences and similarities in the 
politeness strategies of refusal. The results are 
that Indonesians use reason to state the refusal 
act clearly. Meanwhile, the Japanese considerably 
use aimai reason. However, few of the studies 
have compared the use of refusal between native 
Japanese speakers and Indonesian learners of 
Japanese. Therefore, the present study is an attempt 
to analyze refusal strategies by Japanese learners 
of Indonesia with native Japanese speakers. The 
findings might reveal the knowledge of refusal 
strategies by Japanese learners and their various 
means to negotiate the strategy.

  

II. METHODS

Participants

This study compared refusal strategies and their 
semantic formulas employed by two groups of 
participants: (1) Indonesian Japanese learners as 
Group 1 (G1), and (2) native Japanese speakers as 
Group 2 (G2). Group 1 consisted of 22 participants 
from S University, and group 2 consisted of 16 
participants living in Osaka city, Japan, selected 
through a random sampling technique.37



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

Instrument

In providing data, researchers use a questionnaire 
called discourse completion test (DCT) to collect 
data from both sides, Japanese and Indonesian. 
DCT is usually used as a test of intercultural 
communicative competence and pragmatic 
competence. A DCT consists of a one-sided 
roleplay containing a situational prompt that a 
participant will read to elicit the responses of 
another participant. Two initiating acts of refusal 
(invitation and request) were used as the setting 
situation of the refusals act. The DCT questionnaire 
was designed to be as realistic as possible in both 
Japanese and Indonesian contexts. For this purpose, 
the situation was developed by consulting with 
native speakers of Japanese and Indonesia, who 
were all lecturers of language studies.

Procedure

Data collection was administered in Semarang 
Indonesia for Indonesian Japanese learners. For 
the native Japanese speaker’s participants, data 
collection was conducted in Osaka, Japan. Before 
answering the DCTs, the participants received 
some explanation about their roles in the scenarios.  
The refusal strategies were analyzed by the semantic 
formulas that were classified by Ito (2005) and 
modified by Ikeda (2008).

Semantic formula classified by the meaning 
content of an expression that use by people to 
refuse something. The content of the expression 
commonly used “apology,” “excuse,” “alternative,” 
and so on. (Ikoma and Shimura, 1993).

Data Coding  

The first is the refusal of an invitation to a welcome 
party; the Second situation is the refusal of a request 
to substitute him/her for a part-time job. The last 
setting is the situation of refusal to request to be an 
interpreter.

Moreover, the degree of intimacy is set and 
classified as follows:

1. A close senior(older)
2. Not very close senior(older)
3. Close friend(same age)
4. Not very close friend(same age)
5. A close junior(younger)
6. Not very close junior(younger)

III. RESULT 

The usage of direct and indirect strategies

In the early the 1990’s, Beebe et al. classified 
semantic formulas into three main categories 
which are: 1) direct refusals such as execution and 
improper; 2) indirect refusals such as apologies, 
excuses, and alternatives; and 3) adjunct to refusals 
such as: Gratitude and filler. 

In the first setting of the refusal of an invitation, 
Indonesian Japanese learners use more “indirect 
refusal” than native Japanese speakers for “not so 
close senior,” and “not so close friend.”

In Japanese classes, they learned about the 
Japanese uchi-soto concept. The uchi-soto concept 
is a human relation concept in Japanese that 
divides between person close to the speakers 
as an uchi group. Such as family, the person who 
the same office with him/her. The person outside 
the inner circle of his/her as a soto group. In the 
questionnaire, Indonesian Japanese learners know 
the concept and use it in the situation of these 
refusal acts. Below is an example of indirect refusal 
by Indonesian Japanese learners. 

(1) ”aa sou desuka, demo pa-ti ni iku no wa Amari 
suki jyanai node, sumimasen. Chotto…”

(Oo..really, I don’t like going to a party. I am 
sorry. I don’t think….)

Table 1 Semantic formulas and examples

Semantic formula example
Apology Gomen, sumimasen, moushiwake 

arimasen
Implicit refusal (Xwa)chotto…sekkaku desuga,
reason Tsukarete iru node,

Yakusoku/youji/yoteo ga aru node,
Conclusion Direct : ikemasen/ ikimasen/ dame 

desu.
Indirect : ie ni kaeritai desu. Jikan ga 
nai desu.

Empathy Zannen desuga, benkyou shitai no 
desuga, 

Gratitude Arigatou gozaimasu. 
second apology Hontou ni sumimasen.
expectation for 
next time

Mata kondo onegai shimasu.
Ashita (hoka no hi ni) ukagatte mo ii 
deshouka.

alternative (youji ga) hayaku owattara, renraku 
shimasu. 
Jibun de benkyou shimasu.

38



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

Meanwhile, native Japanese speakers equally use 
direct refusal and indirect refusal. These results 
show that in Japanese daily life, the more intimate 
the opponent, the speaker could easily and directly 
refuse the invitation.

In the use of “direct refusal” for the invitation 
situation, Indonesian Japanese leaners use to “a 
close senior” and “close friend.” On the other 
hand, native Japanese speakers mostly use “close 
friends” and “close Junior.” Below is an example 
of direct refusal by native Japanese speakers. 

(2) "pa-ti wa sukijyanai node ikanaide okou to 
omou"

(I think I can’t come to the party because I do 
not like a party.)

The second situation is the refusal expression 
used on a request to substitute him/her for a part-
time job. Indonesian Japanese learners mostly use 
“indirect refusal”, regardless of the interlocutors 
their facing. Meanwhile, native Japanese speakers 
mostly use “indirect refusal” to the “not so close 
friend” and “a close friend.” We conclude that 
Japanese Indonesian learners lack pragmatic 
competency because the “indirect refusal” usage is 
high for all the interlocutors without considering 
the degree of intimacy. These results may also show 
that they have a limited refusal expression variety.  

The third situation is the refusal of a request to be 
an interpreter. Indonesian Japanese learners have 
the same tendency as in the other situation, which 
is that they use more indirect refusal regardless of 
the interlocutors they are facing in conversation. 
Meanwhile, native Japanese speakers use less 

“indirect refusal” and give more to the “not so 
close senior” and “not so close friend.”

In the use of “indirect refusal” and “direct 
refusal”, between Indonesian Japanese learners 
and comparison with native Japanese speakers, we 
can see that Indonesian Japanese learners tend not 
to notice the degree of intimacy, and the refusal 
strategies usage differs from native Japanese 
speakers. 

The semantic formula of Refusal Expression by 
Indonesian Japanese learners and Native Japanese 
Speakers

In this section, we compare refusal expression 
with its semantic formula for Indonesian Japanese 
learners (G1) and native Japanese speakers (G2). The 
semantic formula was analyzed with classification 
as follows: (apologies), (reason), (refusal implicit), 
(empathy/gratitude), and (alternative).

Figures 1 shows that, in the apology semantic 
formula, Indonesian Japanese learners tend to use 
apology much more than native Japanese speakers, 
regardless of whom they are talking. The native 
Japanese speakers use apology only to “not so 
close senior,” “a close senior,” and “not so close 
friend.” In Japanese, being polite, such as using 
apology before making a refusal act use, not to all 
the interlocutors, but mainly to the person in the 
soto group or older than him/her. Therefore, a 
native Japanese speaker uses different strategies 
towards the speaker whom they are talking about. 

Meanwhile, in the semantic formula of reason, 
native Japanese speakers mostly add a reason in 
their refusal act. Similarities occurred in the answers 

Fig 1: Situation 1 ―Refusal on an invitation to a welcome party ―(G1:n=20, G2: n=16)39



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

from Indonesian Japanese learners. They also tend 
to add a reason for their refusal act. It is somehow 
stated that both use reason as an act of politeness to 
lower the FTA or Face Threatening Act. And giving 
a reason is maybe one of the politeness strategies in 
both Indonesian and Japanese. 

The third semantic formula of refusal expression 
is refusal implicit. Refusal implicit in Japanese 
generally uses an ellipsis sentence such as 
“chotto…” and so on. In figure 1, the usage of 
refusal implicitly by Indonesian Japanese learners 
is higher than native Japanese speakers. This kind 
of ellipsis sentence was taught in Japanese classes 
as one of the refusal expressions. Therefore, many 
learners thought that adding “chotto…” as an act of 
refusal in Japanese. 

In Japanese, refusal expression uses an ellipsis 
to give a polite refusal without providing any 
explanation adding. It is to show that they do not 
explicitly refuse the offer to make the speaker 
comfortable regarding who is the opponent of the 
conversation. They use a different strategy for 
refusal expression.

Below is an example of ellipsis expression in the 
refusal interaction.

1. Example of Indonesian Japanese learner (G1)
"Hontou ni sumimasen, pa-ti ni iku no wa 
Amari suki dewa nai node, chotto…"
(I am sorry, I don’t like going to a party, so 
its….)

2. Example of a Japanese native speaker (G2)
"Suimasen, sono hi wa chotto youji ga ate…
honto ni ikitain desukedo, sumimasen. Mata 

onegai shimasu!”
(I am sorry, on that day, I have something to 
do. I am like to come. I am sorry. Next time, 
please invite me again!)

Another strategy in the refusal semantic formula 
in figure 1 is adding a feeling of gratitude or 
expressing empathy. Japanese speakers use more 
empathy and gratitude strategies to their refusal 
expression rather than Indonesian Japanese 
learners. Figures 1 shows that Indonesian Japanese 
learners give feeling regret by showing and 
expressing an apology. However, Japanese native 
speakers tend to use another strategy different from 
the opponent’s talking.

Figures 2 shows the result in the second situation 
for refusal of a request to substitute in the part-
time job. Japanese native speakers use the strategy 
of an apology based on the degree of intimacy; 
they use the politer expression of apology if the 
opponent is a senior or the person is older. In 
both situations of refusal expression, Indonesian 
Japanese learners mostly use a semantic formula of 
apologies, regardless of whom they are talking. In 
a situation of refusal to request, both learners and 
native Japanese speakers use apologies as one of 
the refusal strategies.

Meanwhile, the same tendency also occurred in 
the semantic formula of an excuse or reason. High 
usage of the reason was seen in both Japanese 
learners and native speakers’ refusal strategies. 

However, refusal implicit such as ellipsis expression 
use less by native Japanese speakers, and not by 
the learners. This has the same results as the first 

Fig 2: Situation 2― Refusal on a request to substitute him/her for a part-time job ―(G1:n=20, G2: n=16)40



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

situation on the refusal of an invitation. 

Meanwhile, native Japanese speakers have seen 
that they used more empathy or gratitude than 
Japanese learners. They also give an alternative 
plan as refusal strategies to give more polite acts to 
their interlocutor. Below is an example of the use 
of alternative plan semantic formulas.

1. Alternative plan on refusal expression by 
Japanese learners

"Raishuu no kinyoubi wa youji ga arimasu 
kara, hoka no hito wa dou deshouka." 
(I have something to do in next Friday, how 
about I ask other people?)

2. Alternative plan on refusal expression 
by native Japanese speakers  
"Yaa, youji aru… Gomen ne. Dareka hoka no 
hito ni kite mite ageyokka?"

(No, I have some errand. Sorry. I will ask 
someday how about it?)

Figures 3 shows the semantic formula of the third 
situation of refusal on request to be an interpreter. 
As in the previous situation on refusal to request, 
here, Indonesian Japanese learners also mainly 
added apologies to the semantic formula of 
refusal strategies regardless of the interlocuters 
their facing. Both learners and native Japanese 
speakers much less use the semantic formula of 
an alternative plan, as this result may relate to the 
topic of the speech act they’re giving to which is 
a request to be an interpreter. An alternative plan 
may also suggest a solution giving by the speaker 
to the interlocutors. This shows that they feel regret 

Fig 3: Situation 3―Refusal on request to be an interpreter ―(G1:n=20, G2: n=16)

and confirm if they use another alternative to help.

In this request situation, we can see that the 
empathy strategy is less used. There is an entirely 
different tendency of the use of ellipsis expression 
for an invitation situation and a request situation. 
Japanese learners tend to use a much more elliptical 
expression in an invitation situation instead of in a 
request situation.

IV. DISCUSSION

In Japanese refusal interaction, a Japanese 
native speaker uses a different expression to the 
interlocutors in regards to showing politeness. 
They use direct refusal and sometimes provide 
no apology if the opponent intimate and close. In 
contrast, Indonesian Japanese learners use refusal 
strategies regardless of whom they are talking. 
Moreover, they also tend to make an indirect refusal 
and express a feeling of sorry by showing apology 
regardless of the opponent’s facing. 

In this study, the DCT scenarios were made with 
the social status and social distance between the 
speakers and the interlocutors. 

Japanese native speakers varied the refusal 
strategy to with whom they were talking. However, 
Indonesian Japanese learners differ. In the Japanese 
language, the refusal strategy is complicated; they 
use a variety of different kinds of apology or giving 
refusal implicit, and so on.  

Related to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness 
theory, strategies for negative politeness preferred 
in Japanese. On the contrary, Indonesian expression 

41



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

tends to express positive politeness because it uses 
an indirect form. Japanese learners give a formal 
expression somewhat different from Japanese. 
Indonesian learners use apology form when they 
represent refusal regardless of the interlocutor’s 
social status. However, the Japanese show 
politeness by giving a feeling expression of regret 
or gratitude and sometimes adding an alternate 
plan to its refusal utterance.

 According to Aziz (2000), an Indonesian native 
speaker commonly gives a direct refusal expression 
(strategy #1), although a variety of ways smoothens 
directness. Indonesian speakers often do not reveal 
the refusal and make indirect refusal by making 
words around in circles and inconsistent. This 
strengthens the claim that Indonesian learners tend 
to use indirect refusal, as explained above. 

The degree of intimacy that was chosen above has 
a close-range relationship, senior student, friends, 
and junior. In Japanese, as explained above, we can 
see that Japanese native speakers use a different 
kind of strategy in refusal interaction. 

Moreover, Indonesian Japanese learners tend to use 
ellipsis much more than Japanese native speakers. 
In the Indonesian language, there is no called and 
ellipsis expression such as “chotto…”, “~node…”. 
However, in Indonesian, according to Aziz (2000), 
there is some strategy to refuse by making vague 
words. It is also assumed that strategy is the 
influence of the mother tongue.                                                                                                        

The use of reason as a strategy in the refusal 
semantic formula for both Japanese learners and 
Japanese native speakers is high. We conclude that 
to give politeness feeling on its refusal utterance, 

both speakers are somewhat the same. By using 
an explanation adding to a refusal expression 
could provide a more formal expression so that the 
opponent would not hurt their feelings.

This result is a preliminary investigation; the 
percentage shows above might differ if the object 
was more in number. However, we can head up 
the situational and linguistic expressions that 
differ both by Japanese learners and Japanese 
native speakers. This study implies that Indonesian 
Japanese learners still influence their first language 
when using refusal expressions. Because of their 
lack of pragmatic competency in Japanese, they 
tend not to use a variety of refusal expressions 
based on the interlocutor’s social distance and 
social status. 

V. CONCLUSION

This study shows different usage of refusal 
expressions between Indonesian Japanese learners 
and native speakers. Indonesian Japanese learners 
mostly use apologies in their indirect refusal, 
regardless of whom they are talking. Meanwhile, 
native Japanese speakers use negative politeness 
and use different refusal strategies and consider 
their degree of intimacy with the interlocutors. 

The data employed in this study are limited; the 
results should be examined using more data. 
However, the results of the current study are to 
contribute to intercultural communication studies 
and the need for the introduction to pragmatic 
competency in Japanese learning.

REFERENCES

Al-Kahtani, S. A. W. (2005). Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A speech act theoretically-
based cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University, 18, 35-57.

Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence 
development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of pragmatics, 43(1), 385-406.

Aziz, Aminudin E. (2000). Aspek-aspek Budaya yang Terlupakan dalam Praktek Pengajaran Bahasa 
Asing. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, 
E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language, 
55-73. New York, USA: Newbury House. 

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Campillo, P. S., Jordà, M. P. S., & Espurz, V. C. (2009). Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic 42



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

approach. RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada, (8), 139-150.
Gass, S. & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-cultural Study of Japanese-English 

(Studies on Language Acquisition [Sola]) . Mouton de Gruyter Publishers
Gustini, M. (2018) Constrastive Analysis of Refusal Expressions in Japanese and Bahasa at 

Workplace. JAPANEDU: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran Bahasa Jepang, 3(2), 132-139.
Grein, M. (2007). The Speech Act of Refusal within the Minimal Action Game. A comparative study of 

German and Japanese. Dialogue and Culture, 1, 95-115.
Houck, N., & Gass, S. M. (2011). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English (Vol. 

15). Walter de Gruyter.
Ikeda, Yuuko. (2009). Chuukyuu No. koutou happyou nouryoku o nobasu shidou o kangaeru --- 

gakushuusha No. kotowari hyougen ini okeru riyuu o megutte--- Keio University, Nihon bunka 
kyouiku senta-. In Nihongo to nihongo kyouiku. (37), 166-175.

Ikoma, Tomoko, & Shimura, Akihiko. (1993). Eigo kara nihongo e No. puragumatikku toransufa- 
kotowari to iu hatsuwa koui ni tsuite. Nihongo kyouiku gakkai. In Nihongo kyouiku. (79), 41-52.

Ito, Emiko. (2006). Nihonjin wa kotowari hyougen ni oite teineisa wo dou handan shiteiruka: nagasa to 
tekisetsusei kara no bunseki. Ibunka Communication Kenkyu, 18, 145-160. 

Kartika, D., & Aditiawarman, M. (2019). Analysis of Appologies Speech Act in Japanese and English: 
Contrastive Pragmatics. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(5), 245-255.

Taguchi, N. (2008). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. The Modern Language 
Journal, 92(4), 558-576.

Okto primasakti, F. (2006). Direct and indirect strategies of refusing among Indonesians. Phenomena: 
Journal of language and Literature, 10(2), 103-115.

Wijayanto, A. (2019). Refusals in Javanese and English A Comparative study of saying ‘no’ in two 
different cultures. Journal of Intercultural Communication 50, 1-23

Yamada, Emiko. 2010. Daini gengo ga bogo ini ataeru eikyou: kotowari hatsuwa no bunseki kara. In 
NEAR conference proceedings working papers NEAR. (11), 1-15.

43



Lisda Nurjaleka/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 7 No. 1  (2020)

Appendix

(Questionnaire 1. Refusal on an invitation to a welcome party situation)

Shinkan Kompa : [Welcome Party]

Bamen: Anata wa shitashikunai sempai ni shinkan kompa ni sanka suru youni sasowaremasu. Shikashi, anatawa 
pa-ti ni iku no wa Amari suki dewa nai node, sono shinkan kompa ni sanka dekinai to kotowaritai desu.

[Situation: You are encouraged to join the welcome party by seniors who are not so close to you. But, you do not 
like going to parties so much, so you would like to refuse to participate in the party.]

Sempai: Asatte no shinkan kompa, ikanai?

[Senior]: Will you go to the welcome party the day after tomorrow?

Watashi:

Me:

(Questionnaire 2 Refusal on a request to substitute him/her in a part-time job situation)

Arubaito [Part-time]

Bamen: Anata wa yuujin ni hoka no hito no kawari ni baito o shite hoshii to tanomaremasu. Shikashi, sono hi 
anata wa youji ga arimasu node, kotowaritai desu.

[Situation: You are asked by a close friend to replace another person for a baito. But, that day, you have some 
errands and wants to refuse.]

Sempai: B san, raishuu no kinyoubi, kitemoraenai? Jitsu wa kinoshita san ga yasumu mon dakara, kawari o 
sagashite irun dakedo…

[Senior] B san, can you please come next Friday? Sakashita san will be absent, so I am looking for a substitute…

Watashi:

Me:

(Questionnaire 3: Refusal on request to be an interpreter situation)

Tsuuyaku [Interpreter]

Bamen: Anata wa shitashii kohai ni Ahmad sensei no kyouju no kouenkai de tsuuyaku suru you tanomaremashita. 
Shikashi, ichido mo tsuuyaku o shita koto ga arimasen shi, senmon yougo mo shirimasen. Kotowaritai desu.

Situation: You were asked to help as an interpreter at Prof. Ahmad lecture by your close junior. But, you never 
did it. So, you want to refuse the offer. 

Kohai: B san, Kyouju no kouenkai de tsuuyaku wo shitekureru hito wo sagashite irun dakedo, onegai dekinai?

Junior: B san, I`m looking for a person who can help with interpreting Professor lecture, could you help?

Watashi:

Me: 44