THE REALIZATION OF REFUSAL STRATEGIES BY PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY DOMAIN.

(1)

Anisah Septiany, 2013

The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and Children in the Family Domain Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and

Children in the Family Domain

A Research Paper

Submitted to English Education Department as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Sastra Degree

By: Anisah Septiany

0807528

English Education Department

(2)

2013

The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and

Children in the Family Domain

Oleh Anisah Septiany

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Maret 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

(4)

ABSTRAK

Penelitian yang berjudul “The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and Children in the Family Domain” ditujukan untuk mnegungkapkan relaisasi strategy penolakan yang digunakan oleh orang tua dan anak ketika mereka menolak permohonan di lingkup keluarga. Dalam penelitian ini, suatu keluarga yang berisikan seorang ayah, ibid an dua anak dipilih sebagai subjek penelitian. Teknik observasi dilakukan dengan aktivitas perekaman, dan penulisan percakapan dengan tujuan untuk mengumpulkan data. Data yang telah dikumpulkan kemudian dianalisis dan diidentifikasidengan mengaplikasikan teory dari Aziz (2000). Dalam penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa terdapat sepuluh dari sebelas strategi penolakan dalam suatu ruang lingkup keluarga. Dalam melakukan penolakan, orang tua cenderung untuk memberikan alasan atau penjelasan, menunjukan ketidakantusiasan dan menawarkan alternatif, sedangkan anak menggunakan strategi berupa memberikan alasan atau penjelasan, menunjukan ketida antusiasan, dan menundaan untuk pelaksanaan permohonan. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa ketidakseimbangan kekuatan yang dimiliki partisipan dalam hubungan pemohon-penolak mempengaruhi penggunaan strategi penolakan. Memberikan alasan dan penjelasan dilakukan orang tua dan anak ketika menolak permohonan dari seseorang yang lebih berkuasa. Menunjukan keragu-raguan ditunjukan dilakukan kedua pihak ketika menolak permohonan dari seseorang yang sederajat dengan mereka. Dalam penelitian ini pula ditemukan bahwa dengan memperhatikan nilai suati permohonan, orang tua dan anak memiliki kecenderungan yang sama untuk memberikan alasan ketika menolak suatu permohonan yang cukup riskan.

(5)

ABSTRACT

This study entitled “The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and Children in the Family Domain” is aimed to discover the realization of refusal strategies by parents and children when refusing requests in a family domain. In this study, a family including a father, a mother, and 2 children was chosen as the subject of study. Observation technique was conducted by recording and noting some conversations in order to collect the data. The collected data were analyzed and identified by applying a theory proposed by Aziz (2000). The findings reveal that there are ten out of eleven strategies proposed by Aziz found in the family domain. Parents tend to use giving reason or explanation, showing hesitation and offering alternative strategy in their refusal statements whereas children mostly apply showing hesitation, giving reason or explanation, and postponements strategy. The result shows that power asymmetry in speaker-hearer relationship between the parents-children and the hearers influence their refusal strategies. The strategy of giving an explanation and reason is used by both parents and children frequently when refusing powerful hearers’ requests while hesitation strategy is applied when refusing the requests from equal power hearers. It is discovered that in term of nature of request, both parents and children have similar tendency to use giving reason and explanation strategy when refusing high imposition of request.

(6)

The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and Children in the Family Domain

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the points of the research. It contains background of the study, research questions, and aims of the study. It also discusses scope of the study, research methodology, and clarification of terms. Furthermore, this chapter is ended by the organization of the paper which describes how the paper is organized.

1.1 Background

Speech acts refer to actions conveyed through utterances and take forms as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, request, disagreement, and refusal (Yule, 1996: 47). According to Searle (1975), speech acts can be classified into 5 types namely declarative, representatives, expressive, directives, and commissives. Searle (1975) further states that refusal belongs to commissive category of speech acts since it shows commitment of the speakers not to perform an action. Refusal requires the speakers to deliver their rejection toward requesive statement through words as well as to be cooperative in maintaining face of the participants. According to Aziz (2000), refusal is a negative response towards directive speech acts including suggestion, request, offer, command, invitation, and argument.

(10)

in Muarip, 2010). This means that refusal actions relate to the culture of the participants and the context in which the refusals take place. Campillo, Safont-Jorda & Codina-Espurs (2009) find out that in face-to-face conversation, speakers may end up accepting if the petitioner is constantly repeated their request.

Refusal is conditional due to its sensitivity and dependency to social variables including gender, age, level of education, power, and social distance and also to contextual variables such as setting in which the conversation takes place (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1990; Smith, 1985 cited in Hassani et. al., 2011). Thus, social variables of the speakers and the hearers take control in influencing the realization of speech acts.

Many studies have covered the speech acts of refusals’ realization. The

studies can be classified by its focus such as interlanguage refusals (Hiba et al.,

2011; Sarfo, 2011), gender refusals (Yuniarti, 2010; Winda, 2012), cultural background refusal strategies (Beebe et al., 1990; Oktoprimasakti, 2006; Yang, 2008; Sadeghi1 et al., 2011) and social status refusals (Hassani et al., 2011).

Moreover, there are some studies of refusal’s realization that observed the

refusal strategies applied in parent-children relationship. O’Dougherty et. al. (2006) conducted an observation of Parent-Child Co-Shoppers in Supermarkets.

This observation concerned with the children’s choice of food, parental yield and

refusal strategies used by parents. In term of refusal strategies used by parents in

rejecting children’s choice of food, the observation showed that parents tend to

say no directly, give explanation, avoidance and ignore the children’s request.

(11)

middle-class Israeli, American and American immigrant families during family talk. In general, he mentioned 3 keys that take part in setting voice of politeness in family. Those are power, informality and affect. He also stated that power relations between parents and children show the level of indirectness and directness among them, while informality relates to the offensiveness. The quality of linguistic features in causing the positive affect indicates how important the effect of politeness is.

This study discussed refusal strategies used by parents and children in family domain. The study concerned with specific variable of speaker-hearer relationship which is relied on the power possession possessed by participants and the variable of the nature of the request which is influenced by the imposition of the request. The family was chosen as the domain of the study since it can be classified as a core of community which contains of members with different relationship and power possession.

This study developed and supported Blum-Kulka (1990; 1997)’s and

O’Dougherty (2006)’s theories of refusal strategies and politeness among family

members. Different from O’Dougherty that had observed family relationship in

(12)

The study is expected to be useful for English Department since it contained information related to linguistics study, especially pragmatics. It is useful for the students of English Department in improving their understanding on the pragmatics subject especially about the theory related to this study. It is also believed that learning strategies in refusing request takes part in improving human manner when communicating with others.

1.2 Research Questions

The questions of the study were formulated as follows:

1) What kinds of strategies are commonly used by parents in refusing requests?

2) What kinds of strategies are commonly used by children in refusing requests?

3) In what ways do refusal strategies of parents’ differ from those of children’s with reference to social variables such as speaker-hearer relationship and the nature of request?

1.3 Aims of the Study

(13)

speaker-Anisah Septiany, 2013

hearers relationship which is based on different power possession and the nature of request.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study investigated the response of respondents in refusing request. The data were gained from the conversation existed in family gathering involving a mother, a father, their children and other extended family members. The respondents were monitored during the gathering in every various situations or setting, when they were home, visiting other family member’s house, and in special events.

1.5 Research Methodology

1.5.1 Research design

The study used qualitative approach since the study were concern to analyzing the data in the form of words or text. The data were analyzed and interpreted in order to answer the research questions of the study.

1.5.2 Site and subjects of the study

(14)

1.5.3 Data collection and instruments

The data were collected through observations. The data were gained from the conversation between family members. The respondents were monitored during the gatherings in various situations such as family visit, family talk and wedding.

1.5.4 Data analysis

The data gathered from the observation were processed by some steps as follows:

1) Classifying the data has been collected based on categories; 2) Analyzing the data collected by using appropriate theory; 3) Interpreting the data collected;

4) Performing the result of the realization of refusal strategies used by parents and children descriptively.

1.6 Clarification of the terms

There were some particular terms that are mostly used in this study. The terms were clarified due to the possibility in creating misunderstanding in examining the study.

1) Request is an act that the addresser requires the addressee to complete certain action (Yang, 2008).

(15)

including suggestion, request, offer, command, invitation, and argument and so on (Aziz, 2000).

3) Refusal strategy is semantic formulas that speakers use to perform refusal speech act (Morkus, 2009).

1.7 Organization of Paper

(16)

(17)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter elaborates the research method of the study. This chapter describes the formulation of the problem, the method of the study, the respondents of the study, the data collection procedures of the study and the data analysis.

3.1 Formulation of the Problem

This study was aimed to explore kinds of refusal strategies used in family domain. This study was also purposed to discover the differences of refusal strategies performed by parents and children. The problems of the present study were formulated in the following questions.

1) What kinds of strategies are commonly used by parents in expressing refusal?

2) What kinds of strategies are commonly used by children in expressing refusal?

(18)

3.2 Method of the Study

The study used qualitative methods since the data gathered in from of text were proceed by analyzing. Qualitative methods are intended to investigate life history of people, their daily live behavior (Silverman, 2006:34) or cultural information such as values, opinion, behavior and social context and to identify social factors including social norms, socioeconomic status, gender roles, ethnicity, and religion (Mack, Woodsong, Macqueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005). In the present study, qualitative method was used to reveal the daily behavior of the family member when expressing rejections. According to Frechtling and Westat (2010), case study examines descriptively of a small number of community where the investigator itself be part in community‟s life. Case study was used to describe the realization of refusal speech acts applied in family domain. Furthermore, in conducting case study, the investigator had full access to join the conversation with the participant, observe ongoing activities, and develop an analysis of individual. Case study is perfectly fit for answering “what” and “how” question of a case (Hancock, 1998:2). By using a case study, in-depth information of the data finally could be obtained.

3.3 Respondents of the Study

(19)

extended family members. The fact that participants of the study were born and lived in Sundanese culture in Indonesia led a condition in which most of the data gained were in Sundanese and Indonesian. Family is believed as a unity in which its members are intended to communicate and interact one with another in various kind of situations. Since the selected respondents were observer‟s family, the process in selecting sample was considered as convenience type of sample selection. Patton (1980 as cited in Alwasilah, 2011:31) defines that convenience type of sample selection is a selection of sample due to its compatibility to be accessed. Convenience type of sample selection is usually used with purpose to save money, time, place, and energy.

3.4 Data Collection

(20)

Smith, 1997). The observer may watch the participants or the situations that observed as well as participate in the observation as the participant (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 cited in Smith, 1997). According to Smith (1997), participant observation is useful to produce a 'thick description' of social interaction within natural settings.

Frechtling and Westat (2010) point out some advantages and disadvantages of observation. The first advantage is the honest blunt information about subject of observation. The information produced from observation is considered as honest data since the subject of the observation presents their nature honestly without intervention. The second advantage is the evaluator authorization to enter and understand the situation or the context of the observation. The observation gives the observer authorization to come into the area observed directly. The third advantage is good opportunities for identifying unpredicted outcomes. The last advantage is the natural, unstructured, and flexible setting.

(21)

observers without purposes put their personal opinion. The last problem is typical behaviors resulted in observation. There are possibilities to find unnatural behaviors of the subject of observation.

In this study, observing the observer‟s family was deliberately chosen in

order to prevent the disadvantages in conducting observation as mentioned. Conducting observation towards observer‟s family was essential in spending less

money and time. Furthermore, the fact that the observer was a part of the subject of the study helped the observer to adapt and attach to the subject of the study and its domain easily. In addition, observer‟s behavior in collecting the data was

unquestionable since the subject of the study has known and trusted the observer to be around them, then subjects of the study showed their natural behavior. In conducting the observation, the observer‟s knowledge in understanding subjects‟

behavior in daily life supported and helped the observer in looking and analyzing the data.

Furthermore, recorded observation, transcription, and field notes as the techniques of observation to collect the data were discussed in 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.

3.4.1 Recorded Observation

(22)

needed to be accessed if the observer lost track of the data. In short, recorded observation helped observer to re-track the data.

3.4.2 Transcription

After collecting the data through a recorded observation, the data were transcribed. Therefore, the results of the recorded data were in written form. The data gained basically were in Sundanese and Indonesian language, but in order to make the study easy to be understood universally and internationally, then the data were also translated in English. The process of transcribing was aimed to make the data easy to be analyzed.

3.4.3 Field notes

In collecting the data, the observer faced some difficulties in recording the situation. The difficulties were the observer‟s inability to record the situation and

unpreparedness of the recording tool. In order to maintain these problems, the observer did field notes. Field notes consists of the accurate, honestly, and factual observation data and its descriptions. Frechtling and Westat (2010) explained that field notes are useful to provide more in depth background or to help the observer remembers salient events.

3.5 Data Analysis

(23)

analysis (manifest level of analysis) is descriptive which describes what is actually stated from the data without reading and assuming it (Hancock, 2002). The next level is interpretative (latent level of analysis); the data were interpreted in order to find the meaning that implied behind it (Hancock, 2002). However, in answering the research questions the data were processed through some steps.

3.5.1 Making List of Refusal Statements found in Conversation

(24)

3.5.2 Classifying the Refusal Strategies

The next step was classifying the types of refusal strategies applied in the refusal statements. The refusal statements from the respondents were classified into classification of refusal strategies proposed by Aziz (2000). The strategies were classified as follows.

1. Direct NO

The speakers directly show their unwillingness without giving any details and contain refusal words such as „no‟, „unable‟ or „not‟. For

example:

(A response from child #1 when asked to bring some food home) Ga mau ah. Lain kali aja kalo gitu.

Not want (Particle). Another time (Particle) if that.

„I don‟t want to do it. If that so, then do it next time.‟

2. Hesitation and lack of enthusiasm

This strategy conveys the speakers‟ unwillingness but their rejects to

refuse directly in order to save their face. The speakers show their unwillingness through the lack of enthusiasm expression. For example: (A response from child #1 when asked to get a permanent job by the grandmother)

Aduhh.. bukan minat nya kayak gitu. Hehehe

Ohmm not interest the like that. Hehehe

„Ohm… [working] like that is not my interest. Hehehe.‟

(25)

This strategy comes out when the speakers show willingness but they cannot do it since they already have another agenda, but they offer alternative in fulfilling the interlocutors‟ need. For example:

(A response from the child #1 when asked to buy some food if she goes overseas)

Kalau gitu, titip ke Evan aja ya?

If that, entrust to Evan (particle) okay?

„If that so, I entrust Evan to buy it, okay?‟

4. Postponement

The speakers do not refuse the interlocutors‟ request eventually, but they delay their answer. For example:

(A response from the father when asked to carry the observer out) Ngke we beurang. Tuh geus jam 8, janjian Later afternoon. Look done clock 8 appointment

jam 8 ka kantor.

hour 8 to office.

„Later on, this afternoon. It is already 8 am. I have an appointment at 8 am in the office.‟

5. General acceptance with excuse

At first the speakers seem to accept interlocutors‟ need, but they then perform their refusal by giving some reasons. For example:

(A response from the father asked to change the lamp by grandmother)

Muhun mak, Ida na ngadamel heula. Enggke

Yes Grandmother Ida the work before. Later

sore paling mun tos di rumah.

(26)

„Yes, grandmother, before that, I have to go work. I will do it later, on

evening when I am at home.‟

6. Giving reason and explanation

The speakers do not refuse interlocutors‟ need directly, but they utter reasons or explanations. The refusal actions are implicitly found in their utterances of reason and explanation. For example:

(A response from father when asked to go to another graveyard in

The speakers accept the interlocutors‟ requests if some conditions they

offer are fulfilled by the interlocutors. For example:

(A response given by the child #1 when she was asked to check the

„Firstly, you save it in the flash disk because I‟ll print it too.‟

(27)

Instead of refusing or accepting the interlocutors‟ request, speakers complain and criticize the interlocutors‟ request or action. This

strategy is seen as a rude refusal. For example:

(A response from the mother when asked to feed up the child)

Ai kamuuuu. Meni hese disuru makan.

(particle) Youuu . How difficult being asked eat.

Udah, makan aja.. Sini ibu ambilin.

Done, eat (particle). Here mother take.

„Hei you… It is difficult to ask you eat. Do eat. Here, I‟ll take it for you.‟

9. Put the blame on third party

The speakers save their face in front of interlocutors by blaming the third party for their inability in fulfilling the interlocutor‟s need. For

example:

(A response from the mother when asked to call the waitress in the father‟s meeting)

Bilang sama Bapak. Biar bapak yang manggil

Tell with father. So father that call

„Do tell daddy, so he call it for you.‟

10.Questioning and justification of a request

This strategy is used by speakers in refusing interlocutors‟ request as a

mean to ensure whether the speakers hear it correctly. Most of the time, the speakers save their face by pretending not to understand the interlocutors‟ utterances. For example:

(28)

Yakin? Serius bisa? Berat loh I ni interlocutor offensively for asking the request. For example (taken from Aziz, 2000):

(A response from a tour leader to a participant asking to separate

himself from the group)

Kalau kamu memang mau memisahkan diri, kita

If you indeed want separate self, we

akan tinggalin kamu sendirian!

wil1l leave you alone!

„If you insist on separating yourself [from the group], then we will leave you by yourself.‟

Then, the refusal statements found in the conversation were presented in a table in order to present the classification of the data in proper form.

Table 3.1 Table of the Classification of Refusal Strategies

No. Speaker Hearer Setting Locution Type of Strategy

1. Father Observer Home Ngke we beurang. Tuh geus jam 8, janjian jam 8 ka kantor.

(Later on, this afternoon. It is already 8 am. I have an appointment at 8am in the office.)

Indirect Speech.

(29)

In Table 3.1, locution ngke we beurang. Tuh geus jam 8, janjian jam 8 ka kantor ‘later on, in afternoon. It is already 8 am. I have an appointment at 8 am in the office‟ uttered by the father is categorized as indirect refusal statement since the father does not say “yes” or “no”. The father shows intention to postpone the observer‟s request by offering answer ngke „later on‟. It means that the father wants to fulfill the observer‟s request but not immediately now. The utterance beurang „in afternoon‟ indicates time proposed by the father in conducting request. He cannot drop the observer out since he has another appointment as seen in the utterances tuh geus jam 8’ It is already 8 am‟ and janjian jam 8 ka kantor „I have an agreement at 8 am in the office‟. These two utterances are seen as the explanation of the reason of his inability to drop the observer. In general, this refusal statement is classified as postponement.

3.5.3 Quantifying the Occurrence of Refusal Strategies

The next step was quantification which was intended to reveal the occurrences of refusal strategies. This process was conducted in order to find the most frequent refusal strategies. The strategies were calculated by using the following formula:

(30)

3.5.4 Discussion

(31)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter consists of two parts. The first part presents the conclusions of the present study regarding the research questions which are presented in the previous chapter. The second part discusses the suggestions for further studies which are related to the present study.

5.1 Conclusions

This study has elaborated the refusal strategies found in family domain and its relation toward power possession possessed by family members. Based on the data analysis, there are 10 out of 11 strategies proposed by Aziz (2000) applied in the family domain. The 10 strategies are direct NO strategies, hesitation and lack of enthusiasm, offering an alternative, postponement, general acceptance with excuse, giving reason and explanation, conditional YES, complaining and criticizing, put the blame on third party and questioning-justification of a request. The analysis results the absence of threatening strategies in a family domain.

(32)

mother’s choice to apply hesitation and lack of enthusiasm strategy implies her sensitive nature (Holmes, 2001) which is delivered through the utterances (Tannen, 2003)

The children tend to apply hesitation and lack of enthusiasm (25.0%), giving reason and explanation (18.7%), and postponement strategies (14.1%) in their refusal statements. The child #1 is likely to use giving reason and explanation strategy of refusal while the child #2 prefers applying postponement and hesitation or lack of enthusiasm strategies. This means that the child #1 is more clear, real and factual in refusing request since she gives elaboration or opinion on request that is asked to her. On the other hand, the child #2 is likely to show rejection ambiguously and unclear.

In term of speaker-hearer relation based on power possession, the relation between parents-children and the hearers do not influence the utilizing of the indirect refusal strategies as the common strategies used by both parties significantly. It is because both parents and children apply indirect refusal strategy when refusing request from powerful hearers, equal power hearers, and powerless hearers. Parents and children have similarity in refusing request from equal power hearers and more powerful hearers. They tend to use hesitation and lack of enthusiasm when refusing equal power hearer’s request, while apply giving reason and explanation strategy to refuse more powerful hearer,

(33)

strategy in refusing low ranking of request while the children apply hesitation and lack of enthusiasm strategy. When refusing requests with medium request, the parents tend to use offering an alternative strategy and the children prefer to use hesitation and lack of enthusiasm strategy. The same result is found in the implementation of categorical refusal strategy in refusing high ranking imposition of the nature of request. Both parents and children are likely to refuse by giving reason and explanations.

5.2 Suggestions

This present study has revealed the refusal speech acts in family domain and how it is related to the term of power possession. The followings are some suggestions given for further studies. The first suggestion relates to the object of the present study which focuses on the refusal speech acts. It is suggested that further study may focus on the other kind of speech acts such as giving suggestion, requesting and so on.

The second suggestion deals with the respondents of the present study which only focuses on the subject of the study. It is suggested that further study may investigate speech act that is used in more varied subject that can be categorized based on complex variables.

(34)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, C. (2011). Pokoknya Kulaitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Amarien, N. (2012). Interlanguage Pragmatics:A Study of the Refusal Strategies of Indonesian Speakers Speaking English. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from http:www.journal.teflin.org/index_php/teflin/article/viewFilE/17/66

Austin, J. L. (1963). How To Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.

Aziz, E. A. (2000). Refusing in Indonesian: Strategies and Implication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Departement of Linguistics Monash University Australia.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Politeness in Family Discourse: the Traffic of Parental Social Control Acts. In S. Blum-Kulka, Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse (pp. 141-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brody, J. (2002). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patern of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse (review). Language Vol. 78 No. 3 .

Brumark, A. (2003). Regulatory Talk and Politeness at the Family Dinner Table. International Pragmatics Association No. 16:2/3 , 171-211.

Campillo, P. S., Safont-Jorda, M. P., & Codina-Espurz, V. (2009). Refusal Strategies: A Proposal Form A Sociopragmatics Approach. Revista Electronica de Linguistica Alicada (ISSN 1885-9089) No. 8 , 139-150. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data Collections Methods in Speech Acts

Performance. In A. M. Flor, & E. U. Juan, Speech Acts Performance Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues (pp. 42-56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States. Philadelphia: Jhon Benjamins Publishing Company.

(35)

Frechtling, J., & Westat. (2010). The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook. The National Science Foundation Directorate for Education & Human Resources Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication.

Hancock, B. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Trent Focus Group. Hassani, R., Mardani, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2011). A Comparative Study of

Refusals: Gender Distinction and Social Status in Focus. Language Society and Culture ISSN 1327-774X , 37-46.

Hiba Q. A., Lah, S. C., Suleiman, R. R. R. (2011). Refusal Strategies In English By Malay University Students. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies 69 Volume 11(3) 69-81.

Honglin, L. (2007). A Comparative Study of Refusal Speech Acts in Chinese and American English. Canadian Social Science Vol.3 No.4 August 2007 , 64-67.

Justová, V. (2006). Direct and Indirect Speech Acts in English. Masaryk University.

Kalekin-Fishman, & Deborah. (2001). Review: David Silverman (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publication.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., Macqueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide. North Carolina: Family Health International.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication.

Masaki, Y. (2004). Critique of J. L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory:Decentralization of the Speaker-Centered Meaning in Communication. Kyushu Communication Studies , 27-43.

Morkus, Nader. (2009). "The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a foreign language". Theses and Dissertations. University of South Florida. Paper 2114.

Muarip, Medarka. (2010). The Speech Act of Refusal. Retrieved February 1, 2012. Paper. University of Newcastle. Current as of May 30, 2012. Available online:

(36)

O’Dougherty, M. S. (2006). Observations of Parent-Child Co-Shoppers in Supermarkets: Children’s Involvement in Food Selections, Parental Yielding, and Refusal Strategiess. J Nutr Educ Behav No. 38 , 183-188. Sarfo, E. (2011). Variations in Ways of Refusing Requests in English among

Members of a College Community in Ghana. African Nebula Issue 3 , 1-15.

Sattar, H. Q., Che Lah, S., & Suleiman, R. R. (2011). Refusal Strategies In English By Malay University Students. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies 69 Volume 11(3) , 69-81.

Searle, J. R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, Vol. 5, No. 1 , 1-23.

Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitataive Data 3rd Edition. London: Sage Publication.

Simth, M. K. (1997). Participant Observation and Informal Education. Retrieved

June 20, 2012 Available online:

http://www.infed.org/research/participant_observation.htm

Tannen, D. (2003). Gender and Family Interaction. In J. Holmes, & M. Meyerhoff, The Handbook of Language and Gender (pp. 179-201). London: Blackwell.

THE REALIZATION OF REFUSAL STRATEGIES BY PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY DOMAIN.

The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and

Children in the Family Domain

English Education Department

2013

The Realization of Refusal Strategies by Parents and

Children in the Family Domain

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

1.2

Research Questions

1.3

Aims of the Study

1.4

Scope of the Study

1.5

Research Methodology

1.6

Clarification of the terms

1.7

Organization of Paper

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1

Formulation of the Problem

3.2

Method of the Study

3.3

Respondents of the Study

3.4

Data Collection

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1

Conclusions

5.2

Suggestions

BIBLIOGRAPHY