English refusals with reference to the vietnamese equivalents based on the bilingual novel “gone with the wind’’

Means of conventional indirect refusal acts CIRA in English compared with Vietnamese ..... Means of unconventional indirect refusal acts UIRA in English compared with Vietnamese .... Ob

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

ENGLISH REFUSALS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS BASED ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL “GONE WITH THE WIND’’

(HÀNH VI TỪ CHỐI TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ NHỮNG TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TIẾNG VIỆT TRONG TÁC PHẨM SONG

NGỮ “CUỐN THEO CHIỀU GIÓ”)

THAI VAN ANH

Field: English Language Code: 8.22.02.01

Hanoi, 2020

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

ENGLISH REFUSALS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS BASED ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL “GONE WITH THE WIND’’

(HÀNH VI TỪ CHỐI TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ NHỮNG TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TIẾNG VIỆT TRONG TÁC PHẨM

SONG NGỮ “CUỐN THEO CHIỀU GIÓ”)

THAI VAN ANH

Field: English Language Code: 8.22.02.01 Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Dang Suu

Hanoi, 2020

i

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, as a result of this certify my authority of the study project

report entitled ENGLISH REFUSALS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS BASED ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL

“GONE WITH THE WIND’’ submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master in English Linguistics Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Dang Suu

(Signature and full name)

Date: / / 2020

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from several people

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assoc Prof

Dr Nguyen Dang Suu, my supervisor, who has patiently and continuously

supported me through the stages of the study, and whose inspiring ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me much through my growth as an academic researcher

A particular word of thanks goes to all the lecturers at Faculty of Post-graduate Studies under Hanoi Open University and many others, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my husband and my daughters, for the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfilment of this academic

work

iii

ABSTRACT

In the age of integration and cooperation, the need for communication among people from different countries dramatically increases In Vietnam, due to the development of the market mechanism, the demand for learning English is also increasing to satisfy the communicating requirement of work In the process of learning English, the learners need to study English deeply, particularly in speech acts in order to understand and use English proficiently

Like thinking, apologizing, disagreeing … refusing is regarded as one of the problematic communicative activities in which people either extend or respond every day There are a lot of similarities and differences of refusals between English and Vietnamese The contrastive study of English and Vietnamese refusals with help the learners of English have a wide range of comprehension of using and practicing English Numerous examples have been analyzed cautiously by applying qualitative, quantitative, descriptive, and comparative approaches in combination with others to achieve the set objectives

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DRA Direct refusal acts

CIRA Conventional indirect refusal acts UIRA Unconventional indirect refusal acts

F Frequency

P Percent

E English

V Vietnamese

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.3: Levinson’s General Pattern of Preferred and Dispreferred Structure 11 Table 4.1: Finding of DRA in English compared with Vietnamese 42 Table 4.2: Finding of CIRA in English compared with Vietnamese 51 Table 4.3: Finding of UIRA in English compared with Vietnamese 57

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv

LIST OF TABLES v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 1

1.2.1 The aims of the study 1

1.2.2 Objectives of the study 2

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Methods of the study 2

1.5 Scope of the study 2

1.6 Significances of the study 3

1.7 Structure of the thesis 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Previous studies 5

2.1.1 Previous studies on refusals overseas 5

2.1.2 Previous studies on refusals in Viet Nam 5

2.2 Theories of speech acts 6

2.2.1 Definition of speech acts 6

2.2.2 Levels of speech acts 6

2.2.3 Classification of speech acts 7

2.2.3.1 Austin 7

2.2.3.2 Searle 7

2.2.4 Direct and Indirect speech acts 7

2.3 Theories of conversation 8

2.3.1 General view of conversation 8

2.3.2 Basic structures of conversation 9

vii

2.3.2.1 Turn Taking 9

2.3.2.2 Adjacency Pairs 10

2.3.2.3 Preference Organization 10

2.3.2.4 Sequence Organization 11

2.4 Theories of refusals 14

2.4.1 Definition of refusals 14

2.4.2.1 The characteristics of the means expressing direct refusal acts 16

2.4.2.2 Types of direct refusal acts 17

2.4.2.3 Means of direct refusal acts 17

2.4.3 Indirect refusal acts in English and Vietnamese 24

2.4.3.1 Indirect speech act 24

2.4.3.2 Conventional indirect refusal act 24

2.4.3.3 Unconventional indirect refusal act 31

2.5 Summary 37

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 38

3.1 The setting of the study 38

3.2 Methods of the study 39

3.2.1 Major methods and supporting methods 39

3.2.1.1 Major methods 39

3.2.1.2 Supporting methods 39

3.3 Data collection and data analysis 39

3.4 Summary 40

CHAPTER 4: MEANS OF REFUSAL ACTS IN THE BILINGUAL STORY “GONE WITH THE WIND” 41

4.1 Means of direct refusal acts (DRA) in English compared with Vietnamese41 4.1.1 The Direct refusal act with the nuclear 43

4.1.2 The direct refusal act with the nuclear and development 44

4.2 The Indirect Refusal Acts 49

4.2.1 Means of conventional indirect refusal acts (CIRA) in English compared with Vietnamese 50

viii

4.2.2 Means of unconventional indirect refusal acts (UIRA) in English

compared with Vietnamese 56

4.3 Suggested implications for teaching and learning English refusals to Vietnamese learners of English effectively 65

4.4 Summary 66

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 67

5.1 Recapitulation 67

5.2 Concluding remarks 68

5.3 Limitation of the research 68

5.4 Recommendations/ Suggestions for further research 69

REFERENCES 70 APPENDIX

in English Every day, as human beings, we communicate with each other to convey information, share our thoughts and feelings, and maintain relationships Depending

on the nature of a situation, we may use linguistic or non-linguistic (e.g., facial expression, body language) modes of communication Excellent communication requires not only linguistic knowledge but also an understanding of social and cultural factors in a situation The evolution of human communication has taken throughout thousands of years, and both men and women worldwide have contributed to the way we communicate today Therefore, it is natural to expect that our cultural norms and gender differences influence how we communicate

Refusal is a speech act that is essential for communication in life There are many similarities and differences in refusals speech act in English and Vietnamese Translating refusal speech act from one language into another language effectively

is a big challenge It is always a challenging job because translators will face linguistic, literacy, and aesthetic and socio-cultural problems

Moreover, some researches have been conducted about analyzing literature, but the research of refusal act has not yet been done For these reasons, we would like

to choose the study of English refusals with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents based on the bilingual "Gone with the wind" by Margaret Mitchell for my thesis topic in the hope of helping Vietnamese gain an accurate insight into speech act in general and refusal act in particular On that basis, it helps us have a thorough understanding of English refusals with reference to Vietnamese equivalents

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

1.2.1 The aims of the study

As clearly stated in the title of this graduation thesis, the study contributes to the field of linguistics, especially in the field of pragmatics, which aims at helping Vietnamese learners of English better understand and effectively use refusals in communication

2

1.2.2 Objectives of the study

To achieve the above aim, the following objectives must be realized:

- Finding out means of refusal acts in English used in the bilingual novel “Gone with the Wind” by Margaret Mitchell;

- Investigating means of refusal acts in Vietnamese used in the bilingual novel

“Gone with the Wind” by Margaret Mitchell;

- Suggesting some implications for teaching and learning English refusals to Vietnamese learners of English effectively

1.4 Methods of the study

The main methods of this study are the descriptive and comparative methods supported by qualitative and quantitative methods combined with data collection and data analysis techniques Descriptive method is used to describe the means of refusal acts in English and Vietnamese based on all the data collected, comparative method is used to carry out the comparison of all the data so as to find out the differences in usage of direct and indirect refusal acts between English and

Vietnamese Qualitative and quantitative are employed as supporting methods

1.5 Scope of the study

As the given time of the study is limited, the thesis is confined to the study of English refusals with reference to Vietnamese equivalents as speech acts in general and based on the bilingual novel "Gone with the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell and its Vietnamese- translated version "Cuốn Theo Chiều Gió" by Vũ Kim Thư?

3

1.6 Significances of the study

The need for the scientific research of cross-cultural communication has been regarded as the central issue in the field of applied linguistics not only for the purposes of language learning and teaching but also for enhancing intercultural understanding It is most expected that the findings of this study will contribute to the field of pragmatics study, especially studies concerning the speech act of refusals and also in the development of communicative competence Refusals are essential because of their communicatively central place in everyday communication It is often challenging to reject requests It is even harder to reject them in a foreign language without the risk of offending the interlocutor This involves not only linguistic but also pragmatic knowledge One can have a wide range of vocabulary and a good understanding of grammar, but misunderstandings can still arise if they cannot appropriately apply their pragmatic competence We begin working based on the literature of conversation and speech acts that play central roles in the choice of strategies used in the bilingual "Gone with the wind"

1.7 Structure of the thesis

This graduation thesis contains five chapters, as follows:

Chapter 1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the rationale of the study, the aims and objectives, the research questions, and the scope of the study The methods and the design of the study are also included in this chapter

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This chapter reviews the previous domestic and foreign studies relating to the research matter In this chapter, the writer presents the theories of speech acts, conversation, and refusals

Chapter 3 Methodology

This chapter presents research settings, instruments of the research, research questions, and how to conduct data collection, data comparison, and data analysis techniques

Chapter 4 Means of refusal acts in the bilingual story "Gone with the wind"

In this chapter, the writer conducts data description, data comparison and analysis to point out means of direct refusal acts (DRA) in English compared with Vietnamese; means of conventional indirect refusal acts (CIRA) in English compared with

4

Vietnamese; means of unconventional indirect refusal acts (UIRA) in English compared with Vietnamese based on the bilingual novel "Gone with the wind" and implications for learning and teaching refusals to Vietnamese learners of English effectively

Chapter 5 Conclusion

This chapter makes a brief summary of the whole thesis, points out some limitations, and gives recommendations as well as suggestions for further study References and appendix come at the end of the study

5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to establish the theoretical research basis of the thesis, in this chapter, I recapitulate the significant theoretical issues relating to the research matter of the thesis The content presented and discussed in this chapter has an important significance as a basis for conducting research on the contents in the next chapters

of the thesis

2.1 Previous studies

2.1.1 Previous studies on refusals overseas

A great deal of research has been done on the speech acts of refusing in comparison to the mother tongue and the second Austin divided speech acts into five types, and he explained that the exercitives are the exercising of powers, rights,

or influence Searl made an effort to divide illocutionary actions into six types and gave the precise definition of directives Other vital contributions are Takahashi and Beebe (1987); Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990); other refusal studies as a recent study by Al-Eryani (2007) on refusal strategies of Yemeni EFL learners; a study by Hiroko Tsuiki Moaveni (2014) of Refusal Strategies by American and International Students at an American University; a study by Cut Yara Andama (2016) of refusal strategy in English by the students of the department of English language education

2.1.2 Previous studies on refusals in Viet Nam

Luu Quy Khuong and Tran Thi Phuong Thao researched the ways of refusing a request for help in English and Vietnamese Mainly, Luu Quy Khuong investigated the similarities and differences of responses to invitations in English Diep Quang Ban explored the means of showing directives' propositions as specialized words (chớ, hãy, đừng), modal verbs (cần, nên, phải), adverb (cứ), and performative verbs (xin, mong, đề nghị, yêu cầu, ra lệnh, cấm, mời, khuyên ) He also concerned with directives' intonation Ton Nu My Nhat showed cultural features of English and Vietnamese directive conversations Nguyen Thi To Nga investigated syntactic and pragmatic features of directives in English and Vietnamese The research showed that there is still a gap in the field for this study "A study on English politeness strategies for refusals with reference to Vietnamese equivalents" to be conducted

6

Besides, there are many studies of refusals in Vietnam, such as a study of comparing oral refusals of requests in English and Vietnamese by Trinh Boi Ngoc (2008); A study by Pham Thu Trang (2016) on English politeness strategies for refusals with reference to Vietnamese equivalents

2.2 Theories of speech acts

2.2.1 Definition of speech acts

Speech act refers to an action that is performed when making an utterance, for example, giving orders and making promises (Austin, 1962) Searle (1969) shares,

"Speech acts are the basic unit of linguistic communication." The minimal unit of linguistic communication is not linguistic expression but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts When people utter a sentence, it is not just to say things but rather actively to do things There are sorts of things that can be done with words, such as making requests, asking questions, giving orders, and making promises According to Félix-Brasdefer (2008), languages have different linguistic resources for communicating speech acts Speech acts can be realized explicitly using performative verbs or speech act verbs (e.g., I apologize, I refuse, I promise, etc.) However, it should be noted that not all speech acts may be realized using speech act verbs, as one cannot use the verb 'to insult' to explicitly insult someone (e.g., 'I insult you!'); but rather, speakers may employ other linguistic resources to express the illocutionary force of a speech act Hence, speech acts can be performed through either utterances or other linguistic instruments

2.2.2 Levels of speech acts

Austin (1962) identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of utterance itself:

1 Locutionary act, it has to do with the utterance that is presented by a sentence

with a grammatical structure and meaning

2 Illocutionary act, it has to do with the intention of the utterance, such as stating,

questioning, commanding, or promising

3 Perlocutionary act, the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of

uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of utterance

Of these three levels, based on Yule (1996: 49), the most discussed is illocutionary force Indeed, the term 'speech act is generally interpreted quite

Austin (1962 in Wardhaugh, 1992) lists five categories of speech acts

Verdictives typified by presenting evidence, reasons, or evaluations of truth, like

calculating, acquitting, and describing Exercitives, having to do with deciding or

advocating particular actions, such as ordering, directing, nominating, and

appointing Commisives, typified by committing to a future act like a promise, pledge, vow, and swear Expositives, a term refers to how one makes an utterance fit

into an argument or exposition, such as affirming, denying, emphasizing, and

illustrating Behavities, having to do with such matter like applaud, deplore,

felicitate, and congratulate which provide reactions to the behavior of others

2.2.3.2 Searle

Searle (1969) proposes taxonomy that there are just five basic kinds of action that one can perform in speaking:

1 Representatives are to commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed

proposition, such as asserting, concluding, and suggesting

2 Directives are speech acts that attempt the addressee to carry out an action, for

example; requesting, questioning, and commanding

3 Commisives is a speech act which commit the speaker to some future action like

the promising, threatening, offering, and pledging

4 Expressives are to express a psychological state or attitude like thanking,

welcoming, and congratulating

5 Declarations that bring about the state of affairs they name, such as marrying,

blessing, and firing

2.2.4 Direct and Indirect speech acts

In terms of indirectness, there are two types of speech acts; direct and indirect speech acts Yule (1996) states that a direct speech act is an utterance that is performed by the speaker's means exactly and literally It means that in uttering something, the speaker says what he or she means and means what he or she says Thus, both the speaker and the hearer can understand what the utterance implies

2.3 Theories of conversation

In communication, the refusal act always happens in the second turn, which is one of the important parts in the structure of the conversation Thus, before studying the refusal act, we must study the theory of conversation

2.3.1 General view of conversation

Conversation is one of the most principal uses of language in human life

There are various definitions regarding the notion of conversation composed by linguists Levinson (1983: 284) states that conversation is a familiar predominant talk in which all participants freely alternate in speaking Yule (1996: 71), in addition, creates an analogy for conversation He says that conversation is like a dance with the conversational partners synchronizing their movements smoothly Mey (1994: 214), in his book Pragmatics: An Introduction, writes that conversation is employing language as a social purpose He depicts conversation as

‘doing things’ with other people through words On the other hand, Liddicoat (2007: 1) believes that there is much more going on in a conversation than just the use of a linguistic code Therefore, he notes that conversation is considered assets of practices that speakers can organize in order to commence a suitable action in a certain context

Conversation analysis (CA) research is assumed to be included in typically linguistic disciplines such as pragmatics, discourse analysis, or sociolinguistics In fact, it started in American sociology by the lectures of Harvey Sacks and his coworkers – Gail Jefferson and Emanuel Schegloff in the 1960s (Liddicoat, 2007: 4)

9

Mazeland (2006: 153) states that the framework of CA that used to focus on talk

in conversations has gradually been extended to the research of other types of talk such as medical and clinical interaction, lessons, or news interviews For such reason, he concludes why the more general characterization talk in interaction nowadays is often preferred over the conversation

Sacks, Jefferson, and Schegloff, worked for the development of an approach to the study of social action which investigates social matters, emerging through the practices of everyday talk Liddicoat (2007: 6) defines conversation analysis as a study of talk in interaction He adds that the scope under conversation analysis study includes organization and orderliness of social interaction In line with that, as quoted from Maynard in Sidnell and Stivers (2013: 11), conversation analysis is a universal attempt focusing on the analysis of interaction and social scientific understanding It is proven by countless research holding onto its umbrella

2.3.2 Basic structures of conversation

2.3.2.1 Turn Taking

Sacks via Mey (1994: 216) says that in normal conversation, there are always

‘turns’ Turn is a characteristic of conversation which refers toa shift in the direction

of the speaking flow Cutting (2002: 29) explains that cooperation in conversation is managed by all participants through turn-taking Furthermore, he adds that in a normal and civilized conversation, only a participant speaks at a time The rests are waiting for their ‘turns’

The scheme of turn-taking, as depicted by Levinson (1983: 296) is: one participant (x) talks and then stops; another participant (y) talks and then stops; return to x and so on Therefore, a pattern of talk between two participants is obtained: X-Y-X-Y-X-Y

Yule (1996: 72) in Pragmatics writes that there is an element in the organization

of turn-taking called the floor He explains that the floor can be defined as the right

to speak Cutting (2002: 27) argues that there is a preference for how long one speaker of a conversation should hold a floor Every culture, however, has its own preference

Commonly in a conversation, there are natural breaks According to Mey (1994: 217), it is a moment when a current speaker of a conversation takes a breath, has nothing else to say, or declares that his or her contribution has all done These

10

moments are called transition relevance places (TRP) Cutting (2002: 28) states that TRP is a point in the conversation where a change or turn is possible Normally, the other participants of the conversation will consider the end of the current speaker sentence as the end of his or her turn

John: What time is it?

Betty: Three o’clock

It is clearly seen in the example that John asks a question to Betty Then, Betty

on her turn responses John’s question right away Thus, an utterances pair is created On the other hand, Mey (1994: 243), Levinson (1983: 303), Cutting (2002: 28), Yule (1996: 76), and Liddicoat (2007: 106) have a different name for a term defined by Chaika They call it adjacency pairs

Mey (1994: 243) writes that adjacency pairs are two successive utterances that creating a conversational exchange In line with her, Cutting (2002: 28) briefly states that the utterance of one speaker makes a certain response of the next speaker very likely He adds that the acts are organized with a first part and a second part and categorized as question-answer, offer-accept, blame deny, etc

2.3.2.3 Preference Organization

In accordance with the discussion of adjacency pairs in which there are always first and second speaker involve in a specific purpose conversation, the term preference refers to a possible answer uttered by second speaker as a response of the first speaker’s utterance (Yule, 1996: 79) Levinson (1983: 333) writes in Pragmatics that preference divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred acts Furthermore, he explains, the preferred is expected next actions, while dispreferred

is unexpected next actions He proposes a general pattern of preferred and dispreferred structure as follow:

answer

Denial

Dispreferred: Refusal Refusal Disagreement Unexpected

answer or non-answer

Admission

As seen in the table, according to Levinson, there are two preferences a second part or speaker has to give a response to the first speaker namely preferred and dispreferred Both are contrary to each other For example, if the first part is requesting, the preferred second part tends to accept, while the dispreferred second part is on the other hand refuse

According to Cutting (2002: 29), dispreferred responses can be taken as meaningful or rude since the responses tend to be refusals and disagreements To avoid a rude impression towards the first speaker, a dispreferred structure often accomplished without the second speaker saying ‘no’ The following example, illustrates a dispreferred refusal response from the second part (adapted from Levinson, 1983: 335)

A: Um, I wondered if there’s any chance of seeing you tomorrow sometime morning or before the seminar

B: Uhum, I doubt it

In the above conversation, A, as the first speaker, invites the second speaker to meet the following morning This utterance, based on Levinson’s general pattern of preferred and dispreferred, is considered as an invitation from the first part Then, instead of saying ‘no’, the second speaker shows dispreferred act, i.e refusal, by saying ‘I doubt it’ to avoid rudeness

2.3.2.4 Sequence Organization

The notion of sequence organization, according to Liddicoat (2007: 105), originates from a consideration says that talk is a form of social action Turns in conversation are places for the participants to perform action through words The term sequence itself, as defined by Cutting (2002: 29), is a stretch of utterances or

12

turns The discussion regarding sequence organization will be divided into four subtypes namely pre-sequences, insertion sequences, opening, and closing sequences

1) Pre-sequences

Certain utterances are usually being precursors to another utterance (Mey, 1994: 221) These utterances which serve as precursors to the others are what the linguists called pre-sequence Moreover, Cutting (2002: 29) states that pre sequences are the ground of another sequence and signal of the type of utterance Yule (1996: 67-68) and Cutting (2002: 29) mention, there are three types of pre-sequences: pre-request, pre-invitation, and pre-announcement

A: What are you doing this Friday? (= pre-invitation)

B: Hmm, nothing so far (= go ahead)

A: Come over for dinner (= invitation)

B: Oh I’d like that (= accept)

(Yule, 1996: 67)

Levinson (1983: 347) in his book adds an additional item on pre-sequence list namely pre-arrangement Virtually similar to pre-invitation, the precursor is sometimes camouflage as asking the recipient’s schedule Meanwhile, Liddicoat (2007) adds another pre-sequence namely pre-offers It is, as explained by Liddicoat (2007: 135) frequently employed by the speaker as an assessment whether or not their offer will be accepted

2) Insertion Sequence

Typically, in the middle of conversation, a participant urges to greet, order, ask a question, request for information, which practically having anything to do with the topic of the exchange (Mey, 1994: 223-224) These urges, then, initiate the emergence of insertion sequence For instance (adapted from Cutting, 2002: 30), Man: You know the new film that’s on in the Odeon?

Woman: Yes?

Man: Do you want to go and see it tonight?

Woman: What time does it starts?

Man: Eighty thirty-five

Woman: Yeah, why not?

The example reflects an offer-acceptance or refusal pair However, as seen above, the second speaker does not response the offer right away Instead, she feels

13

the urge to ask for information and utters ‘What time does it starts?’ Mey (1994: 223) notes, after the obstacle has been removed, conversation continues as before; the turn-taking is not affected by the insertion sequence Likewise, the example above, the offer-acceptance or refusal pair continues after the first speaker provides the information that the second speaker needs

3) Opening and Closing Sequence

A conversation, according to Liddicoat (2007: 213), does not just happen and then stop As other things in conversation, the beginning and ending of a conversation have structures Cutting (2002: 30) writes that openings tend to contain a greeting, an enquiry after health, and a past reference The following conversation is an opening as a greeting and an enquiry after health as well (adapted from Cutting, 2002: 30)

Brenda: Hi, Lee

Lee: Hi Hi Jean

Jean: Hi Hi

Brenda: How are you?

Lee: Not bad I’ll be in, in a minute

Both Cutting (2002) and Liddicoat (2007) agree that in the structure of closing, the appearance of a pre-closing before a direct farewell is preferable Several options to fill pre-closing sequence are offered by Liddicoat (2007) such as announcing closure, making an arrangement, formulating summaries, and appreciating The example below shows an announcing closure pre-closing sequence:

Bee: Well honey I've gotta go and get to this meeting

Refusals, according to Searle (1977), belong to the category of commissives because they commit the refuser to perform an action (in Félix- Brasdefer, 2008: 42) Beebe et al (1990) add that refusals can be used in response to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions (in Scarcella, p 55-73)

In response to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions, acceptance or agreement are usually preferred, and refusing or rejecting is not Refusals or rejections can mean disapproval of the interlocutor's idea and therefore, a threat to the interlocutor's face, while acceptance or agreement tend to be used in the direct language without much delay, mitigation, or explanation, refusals tend to be indirect, include mitigation, and/or delay within the turn or across turns The delay probably shows that the refuser has a good reason for refusing and may imply that the refuser would accept or agree instead if it were possible or practical

It Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 7th edition (2005), refusal is defined

as “an act of saying or showing that you will not do, give or accept something”

In Longman Dictionary of The English language (1991), refusal is referred to as

“the act or an instance of refusing, denying or being suffused”

In the Vietnamese dictionary published in 1999 by Culture and communication published, refusal is defined as “an act of refusing or being refused”

In the book “English Speech Act Verbs” A Wierzbicka stated that refusal belongs to the FORBID group which consists of the following verbs

Forbid: to order somebody not to do something The person who forbids someone

to do something assumes that the addressee wants or may want to do it, and try to prevent him from doing it

Prohibit: to stop something from being done or used especially by law Prohibiting

is a public act The speaker who does it represent an institution, and in fact the only name of institution and other impersonal agents can occur as subjects of prohibit

Veto: to stop something from happening or being done by using your official

authority It really means that some people want to do something or to create certain

15

situations, but the sneaker makes it impossible for them to achieve their end by saying that he doesn’t want it to happen

Refuse: Refusing means, essentially, saying ‘no, I will not do it’ in response to

someone else’s utterance

Decline: Declining is some sort of polite refusal And Merriam Webster (19720 say:

“decline implies courteous refusal, especially of invitations and offers”

Reject: to refuse to accept or consider something

Rejecting means a negative response in the same situation in which accepting

would constitute a positive response

Rebuff: means an abrupt refusal of offered advice, help, etc…

Renounce: Renouncing involves giving up something that was important to us Cancel: to decide that something that has been arranged will not to take place

Canceling refers always to future events, and more specifically, to future actions of the speaker

Resign: to officially tell somebody that you are leaving your job, an organization,

etc…

Dismiss: to remove somebody from their jobs or to send somebody away or allow

them to leave

Deny: to say that something is not true

In the Vietnamese dictionary “Đại Từ Điển Tiếng Việt”, some verbs concerning refusal in Vietnamese are interpreted as follows:

Chối: to negate what has been done, received or what has taken place even if it’s

true [12;380]

Từ chối: not to take something that has been offered to you [12;1578]

Từ bỏ: to renounce, to give up something, to leave somebody, especially Somebody

you are responsible for with no intention of returning [12;1785]

Cự tuyệt: to refuse definitely or a decisive act so as not to accept action Or a thing

is given to you [12;491]

These above-mentioned Vietnamese and English verbs belong to the performative group, which expresses the meaning of refusal when the listener doesn’t accept what the speaker requires

Refusal is a speech act because the speaker (of refusal) realizes an act that is initiated by his or her interlocutor

16

2.4.2 Direct refusal act in English and Vietnamese

Direct refusal act is an act expressing clearly the intention of refusal, rejecting a

request or invitation by using the surface structures of language The listener directly receives the refusal intention without any difficulty or consideration

For example:

S: We will visit our parents, will you?

L: We can’t really I have to prepare for our trip abroad (Direct refusal)

2.4.2.1 The characteristics of the means expressing direct refusal acts

In English and Vietnamese, an utterance of direct refusal usually consists of a nuclear which expresses the refusal of intention, negative word and development

E: Negative word NO + Nuclear + Development

V: Từ phủ định KHÔNG + Thành phần cốt lõi + Thành phần mở rộng

For example:

S: Let’s go for a drink

Đi uống chút gì đi

L: No, I can’t I’m busy now

Không Mình không đi được Mình bận

I can’t = Mình không đi được is the nuclear which goes with No

I’m busy now is the development of the utterance

a The nuclear

The nuclear is the key part of the refusal utterance, which plays type role of the main speech act It can be a complete utterance or can be combined with NO and the development The nuclear can consists of performative verbs showing the meaning of refusal as refuse, deny, decline…; negative words as NO, NOT, NEVER or negative words with affixes as IM-; IN-; -LESS; etc…

For example:

1 - I can’t accept this offer I have made up my mind to decline it

- Tôi không đồng ý với lời mời này Tôi đã quyết định từ chối

2 - Let’s go for some beer

Đi uống bia đi

- No / Not now

Không / Bây giờ thì không được

3 - Can you finish these homeworks?

Cậu có thể làm xong những bài tập này không?

17

- No It’s impossible

Không Không thể được

- Let’s go for a drink

Đi uống chút gì đi

-Yes, but I can’t go now I’m busy

Ừ, nhưng bây giờ mình không đi được Mình bận rồi

‘Yes, but … I’m busy.’ is used to minimize the degree of face-threatening act when

the listener hears the refusal nuclear ‘I can’t go’ from the speaker

2.4.2.2 Types of direct refusal acts

Basing on the forms used to express the direct refusal acts, the refusal acts can

be divided into two types:

a The direct refusal acts with a nuclear

- The direct refusal acts include the nuclear (The nuclear consists of performative verbs; negative words no, not, never, and negative words with affixes

as impossible, etc…

- The direct refusal acts include negative words as the nuclear

- The refusal acts include negative words and the nuclear (No, I can’t)

b The direct refusal acts include the nuclear and the development

(I’m sorry, I can’t.)

2.4.2.3 Means of direct refusal acts

As I mention above, there are two main types of direct refusal acts In this section, I conduct my study the means expressing the direct refusal acts on the basis of these types

a The direct refusal act with the nuclear

1 The direct refusal acts with the nuclear as performative verbs

In her research, A.Wierzbicka classified performative verbs into 37 groups Many verbs in the FORBID group (group 5) concerning the refusal act are refuse, decline, deny, etc… These verbs can be used to realize the acts of refusal and rejection For example:

18

- I can’t accept this offer I have made up my mind to decline it

Tôi không đồng ý với lời mời này Tôi đã quyết định từ chối

- He is so conservative He refused my suggestion

Ông ta rất bảo thủ Ông ta đã từ chối lời đề nghị của tôi

- You all know me Where have I ever refuse an accommodation?

That’s simply not in my nature But I had to refuse this time

Các bạn biết tôi rồi đấy Đã bao giờ tôi từ chối một chỗ ngủ chưa? Đó không

phải là bản tính của tôi Nhưng lần này tôi phải nói lời từ chối thôi

The fact is that it is not common for English people to use performative verbs so as

to express their refusal It may be because this sort of refusal makes the listeners disappointed and the degree of face-threatening for the interlocutors is great

2 The direct refusal acts with nuclear as negative words

• The nuclear can be a single NO

It can be used in the contracted structure to form a complete refusal utterance The speaker seems to give a clear-cut refusal to the given offer, request or a thing For example:

- Let’s go for a drink

Đi uống chút gì đi

NO can be combined with a noun to form a negative phrase expressing refusal such

as no money, no interest, etc… For example:

- Let’s go for a drink

Đi uống chút gì đi

- I have no interest now

Bây giờ mình không thích

NO can be combined with THING, BODY… to form the words NOTHING, NOBODY expressing the meaning of refusal For example:

- I’ll do nothing for him He must save himself

Em sẽ không làm gì giúp nó đâu Nó phải tự làm lấy chứ

19

NO can be used after TO BE to form a predicate The speaker wants to lay stress on the intention of refusal For example:

- Do that for me, please

Giúp mình với nào

- The answer is still no

Câu trả lời vẫn là không

- “Now, Johny, say you get it or not?” “I’m sorry The answer is no.”

“Nào, Johny, hãy nói xem anh có nhận việc này không?” “Tôi xin lỗi Câu trả

lời là không.”

NO in English is equivalent to KHÔNG, THÔI, Ứ, KHỎI… in Vietnamese In Vietnamese, KHÔNG conveys absolute clear-cut refusal For example:

- Let’s have some beer

Đi uống bia đi

- No

Không

THÔI in Vietnamese has the tendency to reduce the degree of refusal so as to prevent the tense situation or negative reaction from the listeners For example:

- Let me help you clean the doors now

Bây giờ để chị giúp em lau cánh cửa nhé

- No…No I can do it tomorrow-Sunday

Thôi…Thôi Em có thể lau vào chủ nhật, ngày mai

Ứ is usually applied to friendly situation in which the two interlocutors have a close relation such as the relation between husband and wife, two lovers This is a type of mild refusal conveying the coquettish or wheedling shades For example:

He said to his lover in a soft voice, “Help yourself to another chocolate, please.”

Anh thỏ thẻ bảo người yêu: “Em ăn sôcôla nữa đi.”

“No.” She said in a wheedling way

“Ứ.” Nàng nũng nịu nói

• The nuclear can be the negative word NOT

NOT refers to the negative ability or negative willingness for work in the refusal utterance For example:

- I’d like to see Jack Wells in hospital

Tôi muốn vào thăm Jack Well ở bệnh viện

- Not necessary

20

Không cần đâu

NOT can be used after modal verbs or auxiliaries to refuse an action, a state of existence, a thing or time For example:

- Let’s go for a drink

Đi uống chút gì đi

- I cannot go now

Mình không thể đi bây giờ được

In many situations, NOT can be used in the contracted structure as a completed utterance For example:

- Let’s go to the cinema

Mình đi xem phim đi

- Not now

Bây giờ thì không được

• The nuclear also includes a single negative word NEVER

The word can stay independently to constitute a complete utterance that displays the absolute meaning of refusal For example:

- I’d like you to speak to him again

Tôi muốn Anh nói chuyện với nó một lần nữa

- Never

Không bao giờ

- The Don hit the desk with the flat of his hand “Never Give him something to

earn his living.”

Ông trùm đập bàn: “Không bao giờ Cho nó việc gì kiếm sống thôi.”

NEVER can be combined with verbs expressing the functions and meanings as

mentioned above For example:

- I’d like you to see him again

Tôi muốn anh thăm nó một lần nữa

- I’ll never do it

Tôi sẽ không bao giờ làm điều đó

In the negative utterance, NEVER can be inverted It can be put in the initial position of the negative utterance so as to emphasize the meaning of refusal For example:

- “Never in my life will I be yours.”

“Không bao giờ em là của anh cả.”

21

In the example, never is inverted and in the first position, the order of the rest will take a change

• The nuclear consists of negative words with negative prefixes as DIS-; UN-;

IM- and suffixes as -LESS; - NESS etc … For example:

- … That’s the first thing I asked Impossible He’s in very bad shape [G,394]

… Đó là điều đầu tiên tôi hỏi Chưa thể được Cụ còn đang ở tình trạng nguy kịch

These words can be in different positions in the utterance They are more commonly used in English In Vietnamese, there is not any prefix or suffix to form the words

as mentioned above

3 The direct refusal acts with negative word and the nuclear

NO + NUCLEAR

In both English and Vietnamese, the direct refusal acts can include negative word

NO and the nuclear to express the speaker’s clear-cut refusal For example:

- Can you swim, Ann?

Bạn có bơi được không, Ann?

- No I can’t

Không Mình không bơi được

b The direct refusal acts include the nuclear and development

1 The direct refusal acts with the development as reason or explanation

This is the most common The speaker usually gives some sort of reason for his/ her refusal The listeners may possibly show their sympathy and accept the speaker’s explanation or reason For example:

- If she frightens you, just call and I’ll come in

No, I’m not in the least afraid

In the example, NO is the direct refusal and I’m not in the least afraid is the

development which makes the listeners believe and get all the worry away from the listeners

2 The direct refusal acts with the development showing regret

When saying no to an action or a certain state, the speakers always show their regret for their refusals This also deals with the goodwill of the speakers For example:

- May I come in, please?

Thưa cô cho em vào lớp ạ

- I’m sorry that you cannot You are so late

Đáng tiếc là cô không thể Em đi học quá muộn

22

The development can include performative verbs as regret, apologize… The

speakers find their responsibility for their refusals For example:

- Do you think you could possibly help me, Ann?

Ann, Cậu có thể làm ơn giúp mình được không?

- I regret to say, Jack, I cannot, I’ve got no idea about it

Jack, mình lấy làm tiếc mà nói rằng mình không thể Mình có biết gì về việc đó

degrees of regret as I am so / very sorry, but… I am ever so sorry, but… I am

terribly/ awfully/ dreadfully sorry, but… For example:

- Could you give me a lift, please?

Cậu làm ơn cho mình đi nhờ xe nhé

- I am ever so sorry, but I cannot help you You know I have a problem

Thực sự xin lỗi cậu, mình không thể giúp cậu được Cậu biết không mình đang

có chuyện mà

3 The direct refusal acts with the development showing agreement

The development expresses agreement, goodwill or intention of the speakers to implement what the listener want, but for one reason or another, the former has to refuse For example:

- Let’s go for some beer

Đi uống bia đi

- Yes, but not now

Ừ, nhưng bây giờ chưa đi được

Some other expressions are equivalent to Yes, but… as I’d love to, but… That may

be true, but… can be used to express agreement I’d love to, but can be used to

focus on the speaker’s interest For example:

- Could you, please, go to the cinema with me today?

Hôm nay cậu đi xem phim với mình nhé

- I’d love to, but I haven’t finished my homework yet

23

Mình rất thích, nhưng mình chưa làm xong bài tập

4 The direct refusal acts with the development expressing good will in the form of giving thanks

Giving thanks means showing politeness when using language to communicate in our daily life For example:

- Cigarette, please?

Mời anh hút thuốc

- No, thanks

Cám ơn, tôi không hút

In Vietnamese, giving thanks and the nuclear is also used in direct refusal act as a means of communication having a high degree of politeness But it is not as common as in English For example:

- Thank you I can’t have coffee because I’ve got a headache

Xin cám ơn chị Em bị đau đầu nên không uống cà phê

In my study, I have found out that the way of giving thanks in the response in English is somewhat different from that in Vietnamese Let’s see the following examples:

In English:

Offer: Would you like some more tea, please?

Response 1: No, thanks (refusal act with thank + nuclear)

Response 2: Thanks (agree and accept the offer then give thanks)

In Vietnamese:

Offer: Anh dùng thêm chút trà nữa nhé

Resp 1 Cảm ơn, thôi ạ (refusal act with thanks + nuclear)

Resp 2 Vâng, cảm ơn (agree and accept the offer then give thank)

Resp 3 Cảm ơn (with a mild refusal gesture of the hand - indirect refusal

2 in Vietnamese can be realized in two different situations In the first situation, if

24

there isn’t any bodylanguage/any gestures, the response expresses the acceptance of the offer In the second one, if the response goes with some sort of negative gesture (shaking head, or a mild negative wave of hand), it will show the indirect refusal act Response 3 is widely used in daily communication of Vietnamese people

2.4.3 Indirect refusal acts in English and Vietnamese

2.4.3.1 Indirect speech act

Indirect speech act is the act whose form structure has indirect relationship with its communicative function When giving an interrogative sentence, for example:

“Do you have to wait for him” the intention of the speaker is to request the listeners

to go away, rather than to wait for him until he comes

Indirect speech acts seem to be more preferable both in English and Vietnamese, because it is considered to be more polite to perform some sort of the face-threatening act as giving bad news, refusing ect…

In language, every sort of meaning is expressed in certain language structures that mark the conventions of each language That’s why it is very necessary to study the means of showing meaning in certain contexts In this part, we have to consider two

kinds of indirect refusal acts, they are conventional and unconventional indirect

refusal acts

2.4.3.2 Conventional indirect refusal act

Refusal act is not expected by the speaker giving offers, request or invitations Refusal acts have high degree of face-threatening act, the speakers, therefore, must select the proper forms of expressing so that it can’t affect badly the relation between the two interlocutors It is obviously seen that all the structures of request, statements, questions can be used to display the implicit meaning of the indirect refusal acts

On the basis of syntactic structures, the conventional indirect refusal acts can

be divided into three types:

- Indirect refusal acts expressed by the structures of requests

- Indirect refusal acts expressed by the structures of questions

- Indirect refusal acts expressed by the structures of statements

a Indirect refusal acts expressed by the structures of requests

These are the requesting structures conveying the information from the speaker

to the hearer with a view to refusing the offers, invitations, ect…

1 Indirect refusal acts can be conducted in the form of order

25

Order is used to ask someone to do something for the speaker In such a way, it can convey the meaning of request, advice, invitation, ect… For example:

- Oh, my brother, help me with this car

Anh ơi, giúp em sửa cái xe ô tô với

- Don’t tell me that you have a problem with it

The brother refused to repair his brother’s toy car in the form of an order The speaker shows his power and a higher position than the hearer

For one request, the speaker of the refusal can use different forms of refusal For example:

- Oh, my brother, help me with this car

Ordering refusal 1: Go away

Cút ngay

Ordering refusal 2: Don’t tell me that you have a problem

Đừng nói là mày gặp khó khan đấy

Ordering refusal 3: Try to do it again

Cố gắng mà làm lấy chứ

Persuading and pleading so as refuse the request, invitation, ect… in an attempt to make the hearer realize that request, invitation, ect… in an attempt to make the hearer realize that the request is not proper or not suitable in the present situation Pleading to refuse is, in fact, to give the request back to the speaker who gave the request some minutes ago For example:

- Let me speak to him on the phone

Để bác gọi điện thoại nói chuyện với ông nhà

- He pleaded, “Please, Phil, It’s a big waste of time.”

Cháu xin bác, chỉ mất thời gian thôi

His pleading will give more effective in communication In English, please is usually placed at the end of the sentence When please is in the initial position of the utterance, the meaning of pleading is stressed

In English, sometimes, let can be used to emphasize the meaning of asking for permission with politeness For example:

- I can give you a piece of bread

Tôi sẽ cho cô một miếng bánh mỳ

- Do let me speak to your mistresses

Xin bà cho tôi nói chuyện với cô chủ

26

2 Indirect refusal acts can be conducted in the form of advice

Advice is the form of giving the information on the good or the bad to the hearers,

or on what the hearers should do or shouldn’t do

- A cigarette, please!

Mời anh hút điếu thuốc

- I advise you to give up smoking It’s harmful for your health

Mình khuyên cậu nên cai thuốc đi Hút thuốc có hại cho sức khỏe đấy

The speaker refused the offer of smoking by advising the hearer to give up smoking Because it is not good for the health The implicit meaning of the speaker here

implies that I don’t smoke and you should give up smoking also Should / shouldn’t

do, ought to/ ought not to can be used in English to express advice

In order to reduce the degree of face-threatening act, English people use some expressions to increase the effect of the advice and create persuading power, such as:

I think / I don’t think/ I suppose / I don’t suppose/ I’m sure/ I’m not sure/ I believe/ I don’t believe + you should…

For example:

- Do you want me to tell what you’ve told me?

Anh có muốn em kể lại những gì anh vừa nói với em không?

- I don’t think you should I don’t think it will do any good

Theo anh không nên Anh cho rằng nó chẳng mang lại điều gì tốt đẹp cả

b Indirect refusal acts expressed by interrogative structures

1 Indirect refusal act is expressed in the form of interrogative structures to deny or reject offers or requests

The interrogative structures with who, what, where, why, how are used to question

in an attempt to deny the existence of an action, a phenomenon, or a certain state, etc… For example:

- … We’ll have to pay him

Mình phải chi cho nó thôi

- Why do we have to pay for him? What can he do to us? We are stronger than him

Tại sao mình phải chi cho nó? Mình nó thì làm được gì chúng ta nào? Chúng ta mạnh hơn nó

27

What for or For what can be used to express negation or rejection of an action, a

state, or a thing It shows the unnecessity including the doubtful colour in the utterance

For example:

- “Do you want me to call Freddie home for a few days?”

Bác có muốn cháu gọi Freddie về chơi mấy hôm không?

- The Don shook his head He said cruelly, “What for? My wife can cook our

meals Let him stay out there.”

Ông Trùm lắc đầu và gắt lên Để làm gì? Bà nhà tao vẫn có thể nấu ăn cho mọi người Kệ nó ở đấy

2 Indirect refusal act is expressed by interrogative structures having requesting feature of meaning

Request in the refusal response (in the second turn) gets high degree of the threatening act Refusal act itself already includes the characteristic of face-threatening and giving refusal in the form of requests even increases ever-higher degree of the fact

face-The form of request can be expressed by imperative or interrogative structures It is clear that English people have tendency to use interrogative structures to show their requesting intention to the hearer, which also creates influence on the refusal expressed in the form of interrogative-requesting structures

All the four types of interrogative sentences (Wh-questions, Yes /No question, Tag-

Question and Alternative Question) can be used to express interrogative-requesting

refusal act Refusal act expressed by interrogative - requesting structures often have the following type:

1 – Can/ Could I/ we do X (instead of Y)?

2 – Can/ Could you do X (instead of Y)?

The first type often implies the shade of meaning of asking permission or proposing It has the implicit meaning of soundings rather than imposing because English people appreciate others’ privacy and self-selection For example:

S: - I have an appointment with Dr Smith for 10.000 tomorrow I’m afraid I can’t make it Could he see me some other time?

Tôi có hẹn với bác sĩ Smith vào 10 giờ sáng mai Nhưng tôi e là không đến được Liệu ông ấy có thể khám cho tôi vào ngày khác được không?

- Sorry, could we make it next week instead?

28

Xin lỗi, chúng ta có thể xếp lịch sang tuần sau được không ạ?

In the second turn, the secretary (the hearer) of the doctor gives the request in response to the speaker (the patient) The secretary proposed the patient to make another appointment next week in the form of an interrogative structure “Could we

make it next week instead?” The secretary sounded the patient out She couldn’t

impose appointment on the patient

The mildness of the request-based refusal depends greatly on the modal verbs as

can, could, may, might, will, would, etc…These modal verbs can give a lot of such

structures as:

- Can I / Could I do X (instead of Y)?

- Can’t I / Couldn’t I do X (Instead of Y)?

- Could I impose on you to do X?

- Could I trouble/bother you to do X?

- Would you mind if I do X?

The soundings can be expressed flexibly in different forms of interrogative

structures as Do you think I can / could / may / might… do X (Instead of Y)? For

example:

- Clean up your room, will you?

Con dọn phòng đi chứ?

- Do you think I can do it at the weekend?

Có thể để cuối tuần được không mẹ?

In daily life, requesting is equivalent to giving trouble to hearers in spite of different degrees of politeness with different human interrelations The speakers, therefore, should understand the social conventions of communication to select the proper type of request with a view to reducing the pressure of the imperative and receiving active response from hearers For example:

Will you do X? Anh có thể / sẽ làm X chứ?

Can you do X? Anh có thể làm X được không?

Could you do X? Anh có thể làm X được không? (could is used in more polite way

than can)

Would you mind doing it? Anh vui lòng làm X được không?

Would you be so kind as to do X? Anh làm ơn giúp tôi việc X được không?