Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 94 Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id JURNAL ARBITRER Submission Track A B S T R A C T This study investigates the realisation of the refusal speech acts addressed by the native speakers of Tanjung Tanah (Tj. Tanah) dialect of Kerinci to the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. Twenty-five native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect; 10 males and 15 females whose ages between 19 to 26-year-old were selected to be research participants. Data were collected by means of an open role-play. Then, the role-play’s data were transcribed and were classified according to the taxonomy of the refusal strategies formulated by Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990). The results showed that the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect employed two direct strategies, fourteen indirect strategies, and four adjuncts to refusal. In addition to this, they made different frequency of the semantic formulas when declining the wish of the interlocutors of different social status. Mostly, they made higher frequency of ‘Reasons’, direct ‘No’, ‘Negative Willingness’ and ‘Elaborative Reasons’ to the interlocutors of high and low social status. In contrast, they made higher frequency of direct ‘No’, ‘Reasons’, ‘Negative Willingness’ and ‘Persuasion’ to the interlocutors of equal social status. Clearly, the social status of the interlocutors affects the participants’ choice of the refusal strategies. Keywords Kerinci Dialect, Refusal Strategies, Role-play, Speech Act, Sociopragmatics Correspondence E-mail: mar@siswa.ukm.edu.my Article The Realisation of the Refusal Speech Act in Tanjung Tanah Dialect of Kerinci Marniati1, Mohammad Fadzeli Jaafar2 1,2Linguistics Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi,Malaysia 1. INTRODUCTION Communicating with one another is a vital part of people’s lives. Most of people communicate to express their thoughts, give orders, share ideas and provide information (Mowlana, 2013). This activity takes place in different contexts, involves people from different social backgrounds, and happens among interactants of different social relations (Holmes, 2017). Nevertheless, this activity cannot simply be seen as how people utter a ‘true’ sentence to give apprehensible meanings rather than as how people reveal a meaningful action through their utterances. For this reason, this activity is argued as the way people express speech acts, e. g, thanking, inviting, apologising, giving a command, making a request, and stating a refusal (Austin, 1962; Nelson, 2002; Felix-Brasdefer, 2008). These speech acts are universal and are present in every language. However, the realisation of these speech acts are denoted as contextually distinctive because they are greatly influenced by social factors and socio-cultural norms such as speech contexts and situations, social status of interlocutors and the traditions of a society (Moaveni, 2014; Morkus, 2009). Furthermore, among the types of the speech acts, a refusal is presumed as one of the prevalent occurrences, which reveal the discrepant exchanges between two communicative interactants. Since the last three decades, much attention has been given to the production and to how this speech act has been expressed chiefly against a request, an invitation, a suggestion, and an offer (Al-Kayed, Al-Zubi, & Al-Kayid, 2020; Živković, 2020). Subsequently, the speech act of refusal is denoted as culturally distinctive because it is expressed differently in different language and culture (Felix-Brasdefer, 2003; Nassar, Saad, & Nordin, 2020). In addition to this, the speech act of refusal is assumed as a negative response (Abuarrah & Lochtman, 2019; Received: July 20, 2022 Final Revision: October 10, 2022 Available Online: October 28, 2022 | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | Under License of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.9.2.94-106.2022 Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 95 Sattar, Lah, & Suleiman, 2011; Siebold & Busch, 2015). Also, it is considered as a conflict trigger as some potential misunderstandings are often discernible throughout its offensive occurrences (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990). For this reason, the refusers might soften the force of their refusal illocutions. To this end, some degree of indirectness may occur (Houck & Gass, 1996). Remarkably, the use of particular modalities in the realisation of the refusal speech acts can be described as the realisation of the refusal strategies. To date, the realisation of the refusal strategies has been studied from different contexts, in different languages and cultures, and in different speech communities. Nonetheless, most of the previous studies tended to look at the realisation of the refusal strategies from the perspective of cross cultural pragmatics. For examples, Nassar et al. (2020), Al-Shboul & Maros (2020), Moafian, Yazdi, & Sarani (2019) and Wijayanto (2019). Meanwhile, other studies focused on how the language learners performed the refusal strategies in the target languages such as Hashemian (2021), Nurjaleka (2020) and Hariri & Moini (2020). These studies found that the cultural norms of speakers greatly governed their native, and simultaneously influenced their target language’s refusal. Driven from these findings, it is clear that every language has its own native refusal strategies. Therefore, investigating the realisation of the refusal strategies in one language can be deemed as a significant research aim. However, some of the monolingual studies on the refusal strategies have previously been conducted. Among them, Felix-Brasdefer (2006) examined the linguistic components of refusal and politeness strategies by male speakers of Mexican-Spanish both in formal and in informal situations. Sattar, Che Lah, & Suleiman (2010) investigated the orders, the frequencies and the contents of semantic formulas of refusal strategies expressed by native speakers of Iraqi Arabic. Triana & Aman (2011) investigated the realisation of refusal strategies made by the youngsters of Minangkabau in West Sumatera, Indonesia. Izadi & Zilaie (2014) investigated the refusal strategies expressed by Iranian speakers of Persian. However, these studies only investigated the refusal strategies in the standard languages such as Arabic, Japanese, English, Mexican-Spanish, Persian, and Minangkabau. Although Minangkabau is a regional dialect of Indonesia, it has officially been recognised as the standard language of Minang (Antoni, Irham, & Ronsi, 2019). This means that the refusal strategies in non-standard dialects have almost not been investigated. Driven from this fact, this current study investigates the refusal strategies in Tanjung Tanah dialect (henceforth Tj. Tanah Dialect) of Kerinci. The refusals are considered because of their defiant nature in which performing ‘appropriate’ refusals require ‘appropriate’ strategies. Likewise, the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci is chosen due to its non-standard regional dialect category. Specifically, it is a variant of the Kerinci dialect; the Kerinci dialect originates from a Malayo-Polynesian variety of Malayic, a branch of the Austronesian language family spoken in Kerinci regency. Thus, investigating the realisation of the refusal strategies in the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci enables this study to present more recognisable novelties in the studies of the refusal speech acts. Furthermore, as this study employs the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci, its main objectives are set to discover the type and the frequency of semantic formulas of the refusal strategies employed by the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect in the context of declining an offer, a request and an invitation from the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. The findings of this study are expected to be recognisable novelties of the pragmatics studies of speech acts in general and of the sociopragmatics studies of refusal speech acts in particular. In addition to this, the results of this study will make important contributions to the enrichment of linguistic inventories mainly on the types and patterns, and on the varieties of the refusal strategies in one of the non-standard dialect variants of Kerinci. 2. METHODS Research Design This study is typically a quantitative research. Specifically, this study implemented a survey design, which is also referred to as a descriptive design (Edmond & Kennedy, 2017). This design provides a quantitative description of trends, behaviours, attitudes, or opinions of a population Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 96 (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this procedure, researchers gather numerical or quantitative data and statistically analyse the data to generate the final outcomes (Creswell, 2011; Mills & Gay, 2019). In this present study, the descriptive design was implemented to analyse the refusal strategies employed by the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect when declining the wish of the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. Then, the refusal strategies produced by the participant were grouped and transformed into numerical data for further computation. Later, the amount the refusal strategies produced by the participant were analysed quantitatively using descriptive statistical analysis. Participants The participants of this study were purposively selected based on two main criteria. Firstly, they were the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect. Secondly, they were the undergraduate students of universities/colleges in Indonesia whose age between 19 – 26 years old by the time of data collection. Based on these two main criteria, 25 native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect who met the criteria were selected to be the participants. They were 10 males and 15 females who were born and grew up in Tj. Tanah, speak the Tj. Tanah dialect, and were the first up to the final year undergraduate students of public universities and colleges in Kerinci, Palembang, Jambi, Bengkulu and in West Sumatera. For the purpose of data collection, each participant was coded using an ‘R’ that stands for ‘respondent’ followed by his/her sequence role- play’s turn. For example, ‘R01’, which is read as ‘the respondent 01’. However, gender of each participant was excluded from the coding. Instruments The primary data collection instrument of this study was an open role-play adapted from the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) by Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990). However, some modifications were made to suit with the scope and the design of this study. Later, this role-play instrument was assessed by a linguistics expert from department of linguistics Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The assessment resulted that this role- play contained three initiating acts and three social variables within nine role-play situations. These nine role-play situations contained an act of refusing an offer, a request and an invitation from an interlocutor of high, low and equal social status. The contexts of the role-play were set up to be the interpersonal communication between the interactants of close social distance but they were different in term of social status. Based on this particular context, the refusal strategies intended for this study were expressed by a person of low to a person of high social status (low-to-high), by a person of high to a person of low social status (high-to-low) and by a person of equal social status (equal-to-equal). The brief scenarios of this role- play are disclosed in appendix. Procedures The role-play performances were held at a Multi-Purpose Hall in Tj. Tanah village of Kerinci. The participants were invited to perform the role-plays at different times. Each participant was required to fill a form prior to performing the role-plays. This form contained some demographic profiles such as age, gender and background of education. Later, he/she would sign a consent letter attached on the form. After that, a role-play scenario written in English was handed to the participant and he/she was required to comprehend the contents of the scenario such as the context of the interactions, the initiating acts, the social status he/she was going to ‘role-play’, and the social status of the interlocutor he/she was going to engage with. To help to the participant to comprehend the contents of the scenario, the researchers would verbally translate them into Bahasa Indonesia followed by a verbal translation into the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci. Then, the participant was informed that the role-plays would take several turns and would be audio recorded. Due to this matter, he/she was advised to perform the refusal strategies as he/she always does in his/her real life. Analysis The verbal data obtained from the role-plays were transcribed on the basis of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) following the work of Salmani-Nodoushan (2006). This work was selected because there were no standard orthographic transcription systems of the Tj. Tanah dialect, which could be a reference. Based on Salmani- Nodoushan (2006), the characters included into the transcriptions represented the sound produced by the participants. Likewise, the characters Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 97 included into the transcription of these role-plays represented the sound produced by the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect. Then, the corpus of data were sorted based on semantic formulas. This semantic formulas can be a form of words, phrases, or sentences, which meet a particular semantic criterion or strategy (Cohen, 1996). Later, each semantic formula was coded using the initial ‘H’ if it was addressed to the interlocutors of high, ‘L’ if it was addressed to the interlocutors of low and ‘E’ if it was addressed to the interlocutors of equal social status. After that, this code was placed next to the participant’s codes and his/her sequence numbers followed by a dash and the sequence numbers of the semantic formulas he/she had expressed. For example, ‘R07H-01 akau dəksəa dək’ (I can’t) is read as ‘the semantic formula 01 was expressed by participant 07 to an interlocutor of high social status’. Next, the categories of the semantic formulas were determined based on the taxonomy of the refusal strategies by Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990). Finally, the descriptive statistical analysis was performed to obtain the final outcomes. 3. RESULTS The native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect expressed the direct and the indirect refusal strategies, and the adjuncts when declining the wish of the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. These three refusal strategies yielded twenty semantic formulas, which were two direct strategies, fourteen indirect strategies, and four adjuncts to the refusals (the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies were written in square braket). The direct refusal strategies contained direct [No] as in ‘R16H-08 dæk- dæk’,‘R01H-16 Dendæk’, ‘R03H-22 Dəksəa dək’ (No) and [Negative Willingness] ‘R07H-01 akau dəksəa dək’ (I can’t). The indirect refusal strategies contained [Apology] ‘R12H-12 mintek maaf yea: lah’ (I’m so sorry), [Reasons] ‘R06H-18 akau sibuk nyan’ (I’m so busy), [Elaborative Reasons] ‘R10H-12 Akau pun (..) deksea knoh angai dek, bisea jadi:: penyakait’ (I can’t get through the wind, can be disease), [Conditional Acceptance] R06H-02 klok dkeat boleh lah (.) (If it is near, I can), [Future Acceptance] ‘R24H-03 slagin, mauh koh’ (next time, I want), [Principle]‘R19H-20 akau lah sudeah janjei duleu’ (I have promised), [Lack of empathy] R04H-14 Dək ikao adeo teah! (Are not you there!), and [Critic] ‘R05H-02 tmpek nih jeuh nian dək’ (This place is very far away). Other indirect refusal strategies were [Request for Understanding] ‘R01E-51 yeu dək usah lah dək’ (Please, don’t. I’m begging you), [Persuasion]‘R16E-67 Apao yaseo yea. Ikao yea lah’ (take it easy, do it yourself, [Alternative]‘R04E-54 Tau akau meli ngan baheu’ (let me buy a new one), [Indefinite Reply] ‘R11E-52.2 tao lah kau ngatao’ (I will tell you later), [Inquiring Further Information]‘R17L-40 minggu dateh?..’ (next week?), and [Lack of Enthusiasm] ‘R04E-67 akau maleah nyan akau tibeo’ (I’m so lazy to come). Meanwhile, adjunct to refusals appeared in form of [Positive Opinion] ‘R08H-35 akau sebenae nyan mbao::h, tapi’ (I wan’t, but…), [Empathy]‘R03E-53 Dək apao lah..’ (It’s okay), [Pause Fillers] ‘R08H- 31 we:h’, and [Solidarity Reference] ‘R02E-64 ilaok lah kawa’ (you are better). Table 1. The Frequency of the Semantic Formulas The Refusal Strategies H L E f f f No 58 53 55 Negative Willingness 44 38 41 Apology 25 37 17 Reasons 65 54 46 Elaborative Reasons 46 46 24 Conditional Acceptance 17 20 16 Future Acceptance 10 17 10 Principle 22 31 13 Lack of Empathy 28 24 31 Critic 31 24 12 Request for Understanding 13 28 27 Persuasion 26 24 39 Suggestion of Alternative 13 11 15 Indefinite Reply 23 15 20 Request for Further Information 15 20 28 Lack of Enthusiasm 44 17 23 Positive Opinion 23 26 14 Statement of Empathy 10 12 39 Pause Fillers 32 35 25 Solidarity Reference 37 13 22 Total 582 545 517 Furthermore, the results of descriptive statistical analysis showed that the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect made different frequency of the semantic formulas when addressing the refusal Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 98 strategies as presented in table 1. Specifically, an ‘H’, ‘L’ and ‘E’ placed on the first right colum of the table 1 stand for the social status of the interlucutors namely ‘high’, ‘low’ and ‘equal’. Meanwhile, an ‘f’ placed on the second right colum of the table 1 stands for ‘the frequency distribution’. Meanwhile, the percentages of each semantic formula of the refusal strategies were presented in the table 2. Table 2. The Percentage of Each Semantic Formula The Refusal Strategies H L E % % % No 10.0% 9.7% 10.6% Negative Willingness 7.6% 7.0% 7.9% Apology 4.3% 6.8% 3.3% Reasons 11.2% 9.9% 8.9% Elaborative Reasons 7.9% 8.4% 4.6% Conditional Acceptance 2.9% 3.7% 3.1% Future Acceptance 1.7% 3.1% 1.9% Principle 3.8% 5.7% 2.5% Lack of Empathy 4.8% 4.4% 6.0% Critic 5.3% 4.4% 2.3% Request for Understanding 2.2% 5.1% 5.2% Persuasion 4.5% 4.4% 7.5% Suggestion of Alternative 2.2% 2.0% 2.9% Indefinite Reply 4.0% 2.8% 3.9% Further Information 2.6% 3.7% 5.4% Lack of Enthusiasm 7.6% 3.1% 4.4% Positive Opinion 4.0% 4.8% 2.7% Statement of Empathy 1.7% 2.2% 7.5% Pause Fillers 5.5% 6.4% 4.8% Solidarity Reference 6.4% 2.4% 4.3% Total 100% 100% 100% Based on the table 1 and 2, the total semantic formulas revealed from this study were 1644. 582 of them were addressed to the interlocutors of high social status, 545 others were addressed to the interlocutors of low social status, and 517 of the semantic formulas were addressed to the interlocutors of equal social status. Evidently, the highest numbers of the semantic formulas were addressed to the interlocutors of high, followed by the interlocutors of low and finally the interlocutors of equal social status. Specifically, the highest frequency of the semantic formulas addressed to the interlocutors of high social status were the [Reasons] 11.2%, followed by the flat [No] 10%, [Elaborative Reasons] 7.9%, [Negative Willingness] 7.6%, [Lack of Enthusiasm] 7.6%, [Solidarity Reference] 6.4%, [Pause Filler] 5.5%, [Critic] 5.3, [Lack of Empathy] 4.8%, [Persuasion] 4.5, [Apology] 4.3%, [Indefinite Reply] 4.0%, [Positive Opinion] 4.0%, [Statement of Principle] 3.8%, [Conditional Acceptance] 2.9%, [Inquire Further Information] 2.6, [Statement of Alternative] 2.2%, [Request for Understanding] 2.2%, [Future Acceptance] 1.7% and the least refusal strategies was [Statement of Empathy] 1.7%. Likewise, the highest frequency of the semantic formulas addressed to the interlocutors of low social was also the [Reasons] 9.9%, followed by the flat [No] 9.7%, [Elaborative Reasons] 8.4%, [Negative Willingness] 7.0%. Nevertheless, the next semantic formulas fell to the statement of [Apology] 6.8%, [Pause Fillers] 6.4, [Principle] 5.7%, [Request for Understanding] 5.1%, [Positive Opinion] 4.8%, [Persuasion] 4.4%, [Lack of Empathy] 4.4%, [Critic] 4.4%, [Conditional Acceptance] 3.7%, [Request Further Information] 3.7%, [Future Acceptance] 3.1%, [Lack of Enthusiasm] 3.1%, [Indefinite Reply] 2.8%, [Solidarity Reference] 2.4%, [Statement of Empathy] 2.2% and the lowest one was [Alternative] 2.0%. In contrast, the highest frequency of the semantic formulas addressed the interlocutors of equal social status was direct [No] 10.6% followed by [Reasons] 8.9%, [Negative Willingness] 7.9%, [Persuasion] 7.5%, [Statement of Empathy] 7.5%, [Lack of Empathy] 6.0%, [Require for Further Information] 5.4%, [Request for Understanding] 5.2%, [Pause Fillers] 4.8%, [Elaborative Reasons] 4.6%, [Lack of Enthusiasm] 4.4%, [Solidarity References] 4.3%, [Indefinite Reply] 3.9%, [Apology] 3.3%, [Conditional Acceptance] 3.1%, [Suggestion of Alternative] 2.9%, [Positive Opinion] 2.7%, [Statement of Principle] 2.5%, [Critic] 2.3% and the least semantic formulas fell to the [Future Acceptance] 1.9%. Based on these descriptive statistical results, the frequency of the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies made by the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect were dissimilar. In addition to this, the frequency of similar semantic formulas expressed by the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect to the interlocutor of different social status were also different. Nonetheless, these Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 99 differences were obtained on the basis a comparison made among the percentages of similar semantic formulas addressed by the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect to the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status as showed in figure 1. The figure 1 showed that the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect expressed the highest frequency of the direct [No] to the interlocutors of equal followed by the interlocutors of high and the interlocutors of low social status. A similar situation occurred when they addressed the [Negative Willingness]. These similarities showed that the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect tended to be more direct to the interlocutors whom they shared similar rather than to the interlocutors of the opposite social status. Concerning to the indirect refusal strategies, the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect made the highest frequency of [Apology] to the interlocutors of low rather than to the interlocutors of high and equal social status. In the similar contexts, they made the highest frequency of [Reasons] to the interlocutors of high followed by the interlocutors of low and equal social status. Interestingly, they also opted for the [Elaborative Reasons]. Precisely, the highest frequency of these extended reasons were addressed to the interlocutors of low and high rather than to interlocutors of equal social status. This can be assumed that the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect frequently lengthened their reasons to the interlocutors of low and high rather than to the interlocutors whom they share similar social status. Furthermore, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect addressed the highest numbers of the [Conditional Acceptance] to the interlocutors of low followed by the interlocutors of equal and high social status. A similar situation happened when they made the [Future Acceptance]. In contrary, they addressed the highest numbers of [Principle] to the interlocutors of low compared to the interlocutors of high and equal social status, and comfortably made the highest numbers of [Lack of Empathy] to the interlocutors of equal followed by the interlocutors of high and low social status. Furthermore, the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect addressed the highest frequency of [Critic] to the interlocutors of high, and low rather than to the interlocutors of equal social status. In contrary, they made the highest frequency of the [Request for Understanding] to the interlocutors of equal and low rather than to the interlocutors of high social status. They also persuaded the interlocutors. Yet, the highest frequency of [Persuasion] was addressed to the interlocutors of equal rather than to the interlocutors of high and low social status. Furthermore, the [Alternative] was another strategy employed by the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect to justify their refusals. Based on the figure 1, they addressed the highest numbers of the [Alternative] to the interlocutors of equal rather than to the interlocutors of high and low social status. Whereas, they made the highest numbers of the [Indefinite Reply] to the interlocutors of Fig. 1. The Percentage of Each Semantic Formula Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 100 high and equal, followed by the interlocutors of low social status. Moreover, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect made the [Request for information]. Specifically, the highest frequency of this strategy was addressed to the interlocutors of equal followed by the interlocutors of low and high social status. Meanwhile, they addressed the highest frequency of [Lack of Enthusiasm] strategies to the interlocutors of high rather than to the interlocutors of equal and low social status throughout their refusal exchanges. In the light of adjuncts, they native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect mostly addressed the highest frequency of the [Positive Opinion] to the interlocutors of low, followed by the interlocutor of high and the interlocutors of equal social status. Beside this, they also expressed the statement of [Empathy]. Predominantly, the [Empathy] was address to the interlocutors of equal rather than to the interlocutors of low and high social status. Furthermore, they also postponed their refusal exchanges through some [Pause Fillers]. Obviously, these [Pause Fillers] occurred when the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect declined the wish of the interlocutors of low, followed by the interlocutors of high and equal social status. As well, they also made the [Solidarity References] alongside the refusal strategies. As showed on the figure 1, this last adjunct was mostly addressed to the interlocutors of high, followed by the interlocutors of low and equal social status. To sum up, the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect expressed similar types but diverse frequency of the semantic formula of the refusal strategies to the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. 4. DISCUSSION Previously, the single language studies of the refusal speech act tended to investigate the realisation of the refusal strategies in the standard languages such as Arabic, Japanese, American- English, British-English, Mexican-Spanish, Persian and Minangkabau Language. As the results, the diversity of the refusal strategies of the standard languages have frequently been the predominant novelties of the refusal speech act studies meanwhile the variation of those strategies in the non-standard dialects are left unobserved. To fill this gap, this study investigates the refusal speech act in the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci and reveals that the realisations of the refusal strategies in this non-standard dialect are more varying. The remarkable varieties take place on the types and on the frequency of the semantic formulas employed by the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect when declining the wish of the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. Specifically, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect addressed the highest numbers of the semantic formulas to the interlocutors of high followed by the interlocutors of low social status. Meanwhile, the least numbers the semantic formulas were addressed to the interlocutors of equal social status. The different in the amount of the semantic formulas prove that the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect frequently negotiated or perhaps mitigated and lengthened their refusals when declining the wish of the interlocutors of high and low rather than the wish of the interlocutors of equal social status. Driven from these facts, the researchers claim that the social of the interlocutors affected the participants’ choice of the refusal strategies. This claim is in line with Chen (2019) who said that the variety of the refusal strategies occurred because of the social factors and the contextual influences in which the interactants would employ various strategies to suit the situation. Furthermore, other observable varieties take place on the types and the categories of the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies. In the light of the direct refusals, there are five direct [No] appeared across the role-plays. These [No] are ‘R06L-03 dæk ‘R16H-08 dæk- dæk’, ‘R01H- 16 Dendæk’, ‘R03H-22 Dəksəa dək’, ‘R14E-37 Mekgeh’ and they are always expressed in different situations. Specifically, ‘dæk’ was frequently expressed at the beginning or after the participants received the interlocutors’ messages meanwhile ‘dæk- dæk’ frequently occurred at the intense level of refusal negotiations. Based on these situations, the researchers assume that the single ‘dæk’ is a spontaneous or, perhaps, a negotiable [No] meanwhile ‘dæk- dæk’ appear to be an unnegotiable one. This means that, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect employed ‘dæk- dæk’ to genuinely decline the wish of the interlocutors. Beside this, ‘Dendæk’, ‘Dəksəa dək’ and ‘mekgeh’ are the other types of the direct [No]. Specifically, Dendæk’ and ‘Dəksəa’ were expressed alone or followed by ‘dək’ Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 101 while ‘mekgeh’ was frequently expressed as ‘mek’. Remarkably, the particular use of these [No] proves that the Tj. Tanah dialect has its own diverse direct refusal strategies. Unfortunately, the equivalent variation of these [No] have never been revealed in the previous studies of the refusal speech acts including in the works of Felix-Brasdefer (2006), Satter, Che lah, & Suleiman (2010), Izadi & Zilaie (2014). Another type of the direct refusal strategy in the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci is the statement of the [Negative Willingness]. For example, ‘R02H-29 akau deak’ (I will not). Nonetheless, the performative pattern ‘I refuse’ as suggested by Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990), Moafian et al., (2009) and Bella (2014) do not appear in the role-plays. The absent of this ‘performative’ leads to the conclusion that the native speakers of the Tj, Tanah dialect do not say ‘Akau nulak’ (I refuse) when performing the direct refusal. Equally, the predominant occurrences of the non-performative [No] and the [Negative Willingness] justify that these two semantic formulas are the only direct refusal strategies in the Tj. Tanah dialect. In the light of the indirect refusal strategies, there are three different categories of [Apology] revealed in the role-plays, which are all marked by ‘maaf’ (sorry). The first ‘maaf’ followed by ‘yealah’ as found in ‘R06H-20 maaf yea lah’ (sorry). The second one is preceded by ‘ntək’ as found in ‘R14L-29 ntək maaf (want/intendedly sorry)’. Whilst, the third one is followed by a long and deep expression of ‘nia:n/nyan’ as in ‘R14E-50 maaf nia::n/nya::n’ (wholeheartedly apologise). Specifically, ‘maaf yea lah’ was expressed after the participants received the interlocutors’ message. Thus, it can be assumed as a common apology. Likewise, ‘ntək maaf’ was also expressed the way of ‘maaf yea lah’. However, it belongs to the category of the intended apology as ‘ntək’ means ‘want’. ‘Maaf nia::n/nya::n’ (wholeheartedly apologise), on the other hand, occurred after the constant realisation of ‘maaf yea lah’ and ‘ntək maaf’. Evidently, this third ‘maaf’ is a regretful apology as the word ‘nia:n/nyan’ following ‘maaf’ implies the participants’ repentance as well as their attempt to seek a forgiveness for declining the wish of the interlocutors. Driven from these facts, it is clear that there are three categories of [Apology] in the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci that represent the indirect refusals. The first one is the common apology, the second one is the intended apology and the third one is the regretful apology. Nonetheless, regardless of its categories, expressing an apology is an appropriate way to mitigate the refusal exchanges (Al Kayed et al., 2020) Beside this, there are two different categories of the reasons occurred in the role-plays. The first [Reasons] are shorter and more general as in ‘R02H-04 akau (.) banyeak lao ngan ndək akau weat siko neh’ (I have a lot of things to do here). Often, the native speakers of the Tj.Tanah dialect employed these [Reasons] to provide general excuses. Another one is the [Elaborative Reasons] as in ‘R07L-45 akau pun adeo jadwal lain, diubeah lao nanti jadwal lain pun kelam kabeut jadi den’ (I have another schedule, changing this one will ruin up another one). In comparison with the [Reasons], the [Elaborative Reasons] are longer and more complex, contain complete information including the statements of cause and effect. Interestingly, the [Elaborative Reasons] resemble ‘Elaboration on the Reasons’ revealed by (Kwon, 2004). Frequently, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect employed the [Elaborative Reasons] to validate their [Reasons]. Furthermore, the use of the [Reasons] and the [Elaborative Reasons] throughout the role- plays prove that native speakers of the Tj. Tanah attempted to emphasise appropriate strategies throughout their refusal exchanges. The possible reason is that, the appropriate refusal strategies can stand as the conflict avoidance (Wang, 2019). Due to this matter, the native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect obviously emphasise appropriate refusal strategies to avoid dissension and conflict. Furthermore, the [Conditional Acceptance] is another indirect refusal strategy revealed in the role-plays. Particularly, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect employed this strategy to convince the interlocutors about their ability to fulfil the wish of the interlocutors if the wish fits certain condition. For examples ‘R08E-91 kalok dæk banyak gawe mbaoh akau pgin’ (If I don’t have lots of job, I will go) and ‘R06L-49 dæk sibuk mbaoh koh gin’ (not busy, I will go). Similarly, the [Future Acceptance] also occurs in the role-plays multiple of times. In contrary, the native speakers of the Tj.Tanah dialect employed this strategy to Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 102 show their inclination in fulfilling the wish of the interlocutors at certain course of time in the future. For examples, ‘R07H-28 slagin yealah’(next time) and ‘R12E-70 tauh rateh pulao gin (Next year, I will go). Interestingly, the [Future Acceptance] resembles the Future Possibility in the work of Moaveni (2014). This similarity is an observable evidence, which shows that some of the refusal strategies in the Tj. Tanah dialect resemble those in the standard languages. Moreover, the [Principle] as in ‘R03L-32 akau jenh akau lah’ (I just want my schedule, the statement of [Lack of Empathy] as in ‘R04E- 69 maleah akoh’ (I’m not impressed) and the statement of [Critic] as in ‘R02L-54 ikao neh lah salah jadwal’ (you offered the wrong schedule) also were also revealed in the role-plays. Remarkably, these three indirect refusal strategies look more oppressive and can be assumed as ‘the offensive formulas’ although the defiant nature of these strategies are more endurable than the direct [No] and the statement of the [Negative Willingness. Mostly, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect employed the [Principle], [Lack of Empathy] and [Critic] to show their ‘self-rule’ of standard conduct, detachment and resistant. Through these strategies, they did not state but inexpressively required the interlocutors’ understanding of their declination. Besides that, the [Request for Understanding] as in ‘R05H-16 gayeu lah wo’ (Please understand me), [Persuasion] as in ‘R02H-19 kalok prato ilaok lah kayao lah prato’ (if delivering a speech, you are better), and [Alternative] as in ‘R01H-12 Ilaok lah nalek ha lai’ (Better you find another one) also appear in the role-plays. Unlike the previous ones, these indirect refusal strategies can be assumed as more ‘delicate rather than offensive’. They were employed by the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect to convince and perhaps compel the interlocutors to reconsider their wish, encourage the interlocutors to frame the possible solution and offer the interlocutors the possible way out by means of refusals. In addition to this, the [Indefinite Reply] as in ‘R11H-20 manan ji yeah?’ (What could I do?), [Request for Further Information] as in ‘R02L-46 Minggu rateh neh?’, and [Lack of Enthusiasm] as in ‘R01H-20 Akau dæk ugeo tenga dæk’ (I’m not dare) also appear in the role- plays. The native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect employed these strategies to provide obscure, bewilder, and despondent returns. These three last indirect refusal strategies can be assumed as ‘the counterfeiting responses’ because participants pretended to be dispirited to avoid fulfilling the wish of the interlocutors. In the respect of the adjuncts, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect of Kerinci address the [Positive Opinion] as in ‘R17L-30.2 ilaok lao tapi’ (It’s good, but…), the statement of [Empathy] as in ‘R03E-53 Dək apao lah...’ (It’s okay), [Pause Fillers] as in ‘R01E-61 Eh:’. These three adjuncts are similar with the original and the modified version of the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies in the works of Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990), Kwon (2004), and Moafian et al., (2019). Beside this, [Solidarity References] is the last adjunct revealed in the role-plays. This adjunct is the realisation of personal pronoun of the Tj. Tanah dialect alongside with the refusal strategies such as ‘kayao’, ‘kawa’ (you) and ‘kantai’ (I). On the basis of the role-plays data, ‘kayao’ was frequently addressed to the interlocutors of high social status [L to H] by means of showing a respect or a recognition of the interlocutors’ higher social position. ‘kawa’ was frequently employed by the interactants of close social distance by means of showing a recognition of equal social position between them. Whereas, ‘kantai’ was employed the interactants regardless the social status of the interlocutors. In brief, the native speakers of the Tj. Tanah dialect used these adjuncts to show respect and to recognition particular social status and distance with the interlocutors throughout the refusal exchanges. 5. CONCLUSION The native speakers of Tj. Tanah dialect addressed similar types but different frequency of the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies when declining the wish of the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status. Specifically, they addressed the highest percentages of the indirect refusal strategies to the interlocutors of high followed by the interlocutors of low social status. In contrary, they addressed highest frequency of the direct refusal strategies to the interlocutors of equal social status. Adjuncts to the refusal, on the other hands, were equally addressed to the interlocutors of all social status. Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 103 Furthermore, some of the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies revealed in this study are the new findings. Meanwhile, some others are similar with the original theory and the resemble the findings of the previous works. This can be concluded that some of the semantic formulas of the refusal strategies in the Tj. Tanah dialect are distinctive and have its own forms and patterns. Whilst, some others are similar with those of the other languages. However, this study only investigates the type and the frequency of semantic formulas of the refusal strategies in the Tj. Tanah dialect addressed to the interlocutors of high, low and equal social status using the role-plays data. For this reason, further studies should be performed to generate more extended outcomes. Thus, the next researchers are highly recommanded to investigate the realisation of the refusal strategies in two or more dialects using natural occuring data from perspsective of universal or discursive politeness theory. Therefore, the novelties of the studies of the refusal speech act will be more expandable. REFERENCES Abuarrah, S., & Lochtman, K. (2019). Gendered refusals in the Palestinian Arabic culture: implications for multicultural diverse educational contexts. Multicultural Education Review, 11(4), 314-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2019.1686566 Al-Kayed, M., Al-Zubi, M. A., & Al-Kayid, M. (2020). The study of refusals and pragmatic modifiers in Jordanian Arabic. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, 42(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4025/ actascilangcult.v42i2.52543 Al-Shboul, Y., & Maros, M. (2020). The high and low-context communication styles in refusal strategies by Jordanian Arabic and American English speakers. Pertanika: Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(28), 2063 - 2080. Antoni, C., Irham, I., & Ronsi, G. (2019). Language variation in Minang colloquial language spoken in Kabun Region: Sociolinguistic study on millennial citizens. Jurnal Arbitrer, 6(2), 92-98. https://doi. org/10.25077/ar.6.2.92-98.2019 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen & S. D. Kreshen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (Vol. 5573). New York: Newbury House Publishers. Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek fl refusals. Journal of pragmatics, 61, 35-62. Cohen, A. (1996). Developing ability to perform speech act. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(2), 253-267. Chen, Yupin. (2019). Saying ‘no’ in a foreign language: Efl learners’ elicited refusals. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 18 (1), 31-67. https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.202001_18(1).0002 Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 4th Ed. New York: Pearson. Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3Ed. California: Sage Publications. Edmond, W. Alex. (2017). An Applied Guide to Research Design. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Felix-Brasdefer, C. J. (2003). Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua, 22(3), 225-256. Felix-Brasdefer, C. J. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and in the United State. United State of America: John Benjamin. Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 104 Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(0), 2158–2187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2006.05.004 Mills, Geoffrey E. & Guy, L. R. (2019). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. 12th ed. New York: Pearson. Hariri, E., & Moini, M. R. (2020). Refusal speech act in efl context: The relation between social status, distance, and strategies used. International Multilingual Journal of Science and Technology, 5(7), 1301-1313. Hashemian, M. (2021). A cross-cultural study of refusal speech act by Persian l2 learners and American native speakers. Research in Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.22055/ RALS.2021.16726 Holmes, J. & Wilson, N. 2017. An introduction to sociolinguistics. 5th ed. New York: Routledge. Houck, N., & Gass, S. M. (1996). Non-native refusals: A methodological Perspective. In S. M. N. Gass, Joyce (Ed.), Speech Act Across Culture. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Izadi, A., & Zilaie, F. (2014). Refusal strategies in Persian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 246-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12065 Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, (23), 339-364. Moafian, F., Yazdi, N., & Sarani, A. (2019). The refusal of request speech act in Persian, English, and Balochi languages: A cross-cultural and cross-linguistic study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0357 Moaveni, H. T. (2014). A Study of Refusal Strategies by American and International Students at an American University. Master Thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato, United State of America. Morkus, N. 2009. The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a foreign language. PhD. Thesis, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida, USA. Mowlana, H. 2013. Communication and cultural settings: an Islamic perspective. In. Asante, M. K., Miike, Y. & Yin, Y. (ed.). 2nd ed . The Global Intercultural Communication Reader, pp. 11 – 22. New York: Taylor & Francis. Nassar, A. A., Saad, N., & Nordin, N. R. M. (2020). “Wallah, I’d love to attend but I swear I cannot”: The case of invitation refusal in Iraqi Arabic Dialect. 12(12), 532-550. Nelson, G. L., Al Batal, M. & El-Bakary, W. 2002. Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (1): 39-57. Nurjaleka, L. (2020). Refusal Expression in L2 and its comparison with native speaker: A study case in the Japanese Language. Jurnal Arbitrer, 7(1), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.7.1.34-44.2020 Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). The socio-pragmatics of greeting forms in English and Persia. The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 17, 17-13. Sattar, H. Q. A., Che Lah, S., & Suleiman, R. R. R. (2010). A study on strategies used in Iraqi Arabic to refuse suggestions. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30, 81-95. Sattar, H. Q. A., Lah, S. C., & Suleiman, R. R. R. (2011). Refusal strategies in English by Malay university students. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 69-81. Siebold, K., & Busch, H. (2015). (No) need for clarity -- facework in Spanish and German refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 53-68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.006 Triana, H. W., & Aman, I. (2011). Lakuan tutur menolak generasi muda Minangkabau: Cermin budaya Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 105 popular dalam interaksi sosial. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 17-34. Wang, Q. (2019). A comparative study of gender differences in refusal strategies from English majors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(8), 1040-1048. Wijayanto, A. (2019). Refusals in Javanese and English: a comparative study of saying ‘no’ in two different cultures. Online Submission (50), 1-23. Živković, E. (2020). Variation in refusal strategies produced by English and Serbian speakers. Studia Neophilologica, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2020.1780939 Marniati / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 106 APPENDIX Appendix 1. Brief scenario of the Role-Play Initiating Acts No. Scenario Social Status of Refusee Offer 1 Declining a job promotion offer from a manager. high 2 Declining a perfume discount from a staff Low 3 Declining a new book offer from classmate Equal Request 4 Declining a speech delivery request from a leader of an organisation. high 5 Declining a student’s request to change the teaching hour Low 6 Declining a request of becoming a master of ceremony from a colleague. Equal Invitation 7 Declining a seminar invitation from a professor High 8 Declining a wedding invitation from a staff. Low 9 Declining a birthday invitation from a close friend. Equal Appendix 2. The Modified Version of the Refusal framework by Beebe at al. (1990) Direct Refusal Indirect Refusal Adjunct to Refusal No Apology Positive Opinion Negative Willingness Reason Statement of Empathy Elaborative Reason Pause Fillers Conditional Acceptance Solidarity Reference Future Acceptance Principle Lack of Empathy Critic Request for Understanding Persuasion Suggestion of Alternative Indefinite Reply Request for further Information Lack of Enthusiasm