INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Since the implementation of its open-door policy, Doi Moi, in 1986, Vietnam has transformed into a dynamic market economy, establishing diplomatic relations with over 200 countries and regions globally The nation has also joined significant organizations, including ASEAN, AFTA, APEC, ASEM, and WTO, further enhancing its integration into international trade and investment.
In response to globalization, the Vietnamese government promotes English language learning among its citizens, leading to English becoming the most widely studied foreign language in schools and colleges Consequently, international certifications such as TOEIC, TOEFL, and IELTS have increasingly become essential for college graduates and employees aiming for academic success and effective communication.
Many English learners struggle with tests, particularly the listening section As noted by Brown (2006:1), "Listening in another language is a hard job." For instance, the TOEFL PBT Listening Part features dialogues, academic lectures, and lengthy conversations that demand test-takers to infer the speakers' implicit ideas, attitudes, or purposes Consequently, in addition to language skills, test-takers must possess pragmatic knowledge to succeed in these assessments.
Limited research has been conducted on the barriers faced by TOEFL PBT test-takers This study aims to explore a specific area of pragmatics and conversation analysis, focusing on the common patterns encountered by these individuals.
2 dispreferred second turns and linguistic units to signal them in Part A - Listening
Comprehension Section of TOEFL PBT tests in order to work out some tips that help test-takers to cope with these kinds of questions
The study examines the significant role of TOEFL tests and the challenges encountered by test-takers, highlighting the insufficient focus on previous research and the author's personal interest in Pragmatics This motivation drives the investigation into the use of dispreferred second turns in communication.
Part A – Listening Section of TOEFL PBT”.
Research Question
The research seeks the answer to the following question:
What are the general patterns of dispreferred structures and the common linguistic features indicating them in Part A - Listening Comprehension Section of TOEFL PBT?
More obviously, to solve the research question, the study is conducted to:
Provide readers with basic knowledge of speech acts, conversation analysis, adjacency pairs and preference structure
Find out the general patterns of dispreferred structures used in Part A - Listening Section of TOEFL PBT
Examine the linguistic features signaling dispreferred responses in Part A - Listening Comprehension of TOEFL PBT
Provide potential test-takers with practical knowledge to deal with TOEFL PBT questions containing dispreferred-second-turn questions
This paper serves as a valuable resource for both teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT, enhancing their understanding of conversation analysis, adjacency pairs, and preference structures By grasping these concepts, users can navigate listening questions in Part A of TOEFL PBT with greater ease Additionally, this knowledge equips them to communicate more naturally and effectively in English, especially when addressing indirect declines, refusals, or disagreements.
Teachers and TOEFL PBT learners can utilize this paper as a practical handbook, offering valuable tips for effectively handling questions that involve dispreferred-second-turn responses in the Listening Comprehension section.
Last but not least, researchers of related fields can also use the paper for reference and suggestions for deeper studies
This study, conducted as part of a minor thesis for a Master of Arts in English Linguistics, focuses on the limited aspects of preference structure, specifically examining common patterns of dispreferred-second acts and the linguistic features used to indicate them in the TOEFL PBT Listening Section.
The study analyzes 50 transcripts from 300 dialogues featuring dispreferred utterances in Part A of Listening Comprehension, sourced from 10 Complete Practice Tests across three books, including TOEFL Success 2000.
Bruce Rogers, The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening by Milada
Broukal and TOEFL Practice Tests Volume 3 by ETS
The study includes three parts:
Part I is the Introduction of the study which states the problem, the research question, objectives, scope, significance and design of the entire paper
Part II is the Development which consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background related to the topic Chapter 2 includes database of the study, methodology, data analysis procedure, and discussion of data analysis
Part III is the Conclusion which summarizes major findings of the investigation and provides implications for teaching and learning TOEFL PBT This part also points out some limitations of the research & makes suggestions for further studies.
Significance of the study
This article serves as a valuable resource for both teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT, enhancing their understanding of conversation analysis, adjacency pairs, preference structures, and dispreferred responses By gaining a deeper insight into these linguistic elements, users can tackle listening questions in Part A of the TOEFL PBT with greater ease Additionally, this knowledge equips them to communicate more naturally and effectively in English, especially when navigating indirect declines, refusals, or disagreements.
Teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT can utilize this paper as a valuable handbook, offering essential tips for effectively handling questions that feature dispreferred-second-turn responses in the Listening Comprehension Section.
Last but not least, researchers of related fields can also use the paper for reference and suggestions for deeper studies
This study, conducted as part of a minor thesis for a Master of Arts in English Linguistics, focuses on specific elements of preference structure, particularly the common patterns of dispreferred-second acts and the linguistic features used to indicate them in the TOEFL PBT Listening Section.
This research analyzes the transcripts of 50 out of 300 dialogues featuring dispreferred responses from Part A - Listening Comprehension, sourced from 10 Complete Practice Tests in three TOEFL preparation books, including "TOEFL Success 2000."
Bruce Rogers, The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening by Milada
Broukal and TOEFL Practice Tests Volume 3 by ETS
The study includes three parts:
Part I is the Introduction of the study which states the problem, the research question, objectives, scope, significance and design of the entire paper
Part II is the Development which consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background related to the topic Chapter 2 includes database of the study, methodology, data analysis procedure, and discussion of data analysis
Part III is the Conclusion which summarizes major findings of the investigation and provides implications for teaching and learning TOEFL PBT This part also points out some limitations of the research & makes suggestions for further studies.
Design of the study
The study includes three parts:
Part I is the Introduction of the study which states the problem, the research question, objectives, scope, significance and design of the entire paper
Part II is the Development which consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background related to the topic Chapter 2 includes database of the study, methodology, data analysis procedure, and discussion of data analysis
Part III is the Conclusion which summarizes major findings of the investigation and provides implications for teaching and learning TOEFL PBT This part also points out some limitations of the research & makes suggestions for further studies
DEVELOPMENT
The speech act (SA) theory has garnered significant interest in the field of language usage, following Austin's pioneering research on the topic This concept has emerged as one of the most intriguing areas for exploration in linguistics.
In the field of linguistic pragmatics, Speech Acts (SAs) are a fundamental concept that all pragmatic theorists must consider This importance has led to extensive research on SAs by prominent philosophers and linguists, including Grice, Searle, Levinson, Thomas, and Yule A shared perspective among these scholars is that when individuals make utterances, they are also performing actions; in other words, the speaker is doing something by saying something, as noted by Austin.
Briefly speaking, ―actions performed via utterances‖ are called speech acts (Yule,
1996: 47) According to Searle (1969: 16), these SAs, considered ‗the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in authentic situations of language use
In English, speech acts (SAs) are categorized into distinct labels, including greeting, assessment, offer, agreement, disagreement, compliment, apology, complaint, invitation, request, refusal, blame, acceptance, denial, admission, question, answer, proposal, and promise.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Speech Acts
The speech act (SA) theory has garnered significant interest in the field of language usage, emerging as a key concept since Austin's initial exploration of it decades ago This theory continues to captivate scholars and researchers, making it a compelling area of study within linguistics.
In the field of linguistic pragmatics, speech acts (SAs) are a fundamental concept that every pragmatic theorist must consider This importance has led to extensive research on SAs by notable philosophers and linguists, including Grice, Searle, Levinson, Thomas, and Yule A shared perspective among these scholars is that utterances are not merely statements; rather, speakers perform actions through their words, encapsulated in Austin's assertion that "in saying something, the speaker (S) does something."
Briefly speaking, ―actions performed via utterances‖ are called speech acts (Yule,
1996: 47) According to Searle (1969: 16), these SAs, considered ‗the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in authentic situations of language use
In English, speech acts (SAs) are categorized into distinct labels, including greeting, assessment, offer, agreement, disagreement, compliment, apology, complaint, invitation, request, refusal, blame, acceptance, denial, admission, question, answer, proposal, and promise.
These terms for SAs are used to name the S's communicative intentions and the hearer (H) is expected to correctly interpret the S's intentions via the process of inferences
“Hi, Mary How are things going?" greeting
"Could you lend me your pen, please?" request
Conversation Analysis
Conversation is defined as a common form of communication where two or more participants freely exchange dialogue, typically occurring in informal settings outside of structured environments like classrooms or courts (Levinson, 1983) It represents the natural interactions between individuals, rather than a rigidly structured form like a sentence Levinson emphasizes that conversation results from the dynamic interplay of independent individuals, each with their own goals and often differing interests.
Conversation analysis (CA) is a method for examining audio and video recordings of speech and social interactions According to Sidnell (2010), CA serves as a social science approach aimed at describing, analyzing, and understanding conversation as a fundamental aspect of human social life.
Conversation Analysis (CA) is defined by Hutchby & Wooffitt (2008) as the examination of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction, focusing on how speakers comprehend and react to each other during their conversational turns The primary objective of CA is to reveal the implicit reasoning processes and sociolinguistic skills that inform the production and interpretation of dialogue within structured sequences of interaction.
Conversation Analysis (CA) aims to uncover the systematic properties of how talk is organized sequentially and how utterances are crafted to navigate these sequences (Levinson, 1983) To achieve this, CA must fulfill two key criteria: it should employ inductive methods to identify recurring patterns in naturally occurring conversations, and it must focus on the interactional and inferential outcomes that arise from the selection of different utterances.
When it comes to the analytic studies on English data, local management organizations in conversation, namely turn-taking and adjacency pairs, cannot be omitted
Conversation is fundamentally marked by turn-taking, where one participant speaks and then pauses, allowing the other to respond, resulting in an alternating pattern of dialogue between participants.
Yule (1996: 71) compares the structure of conversation to a market economy, highlighting that the right to speak is a scarce commodity In this dynamic, the speaker who holds this right gains the opportunity to take a turn When control over speaking rights is not predetermined, anyone can strive to assert their turn, leading to a process of turn-taking in conversations.
Let us now turn to another local management organization in conversation - adjacency pairs - that is one of the most significant contributions of CA
Adjacency pairs are defined by Levinson (1983: 303) as the kind of paired utterances of which question-answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance, apology- minimization, etc., are prototypical
Yule (1996: 77) calls adjacency pairs ―automatic patterns/sequences in the structure of conversations‖ that always ―consist of a first part and a second part produced by
8 different speakers‖ Adjacency pairs, according to Yule, can be greeting-greeting, question-answer, thank-response, request-acceptance, etc For example,
Anna: How are you? Bill : Fine!
Anna: See ya! Bill: Bye!
According to Thornbury & Slade (2006), an adjacency pair is defined as two adjacent turns taken by different speakers, where the second utterance is directly related to the first Examples of adjacency pairs include question-answer, complaint-denial, offer-accept, request-grant, compliment-rejection, challenge-rejection, and instruct-receipt These pairs typically exhibit three key characteristics: they consist of two utterances, the utterances are adjacent, and they involve different speakers for each utterance.
According to Yule, adjacency pairs are not mere meaningless sounds; they embody social actions Furthermore, the significance of these actions varies, particularly when they serve as the second turns in these pairs.
Levinson (1983) highlights a significant issue with adjacency pairs, specifically regarding the variety of acceptable responses to a first part Instead of a single fixed response, a first part may elicit multiple appropriate replies For example, a question can receive various responses beyond a straightforward answer, including expressions of ignorance, redirections, refusals to answer, or challenges to the question's underlying assumptions or sincerity.
A : What does John do for a living?
B : a Oh that and this b He doesn‟t
9 c I have no idea d What‟s that got to do with it?
In this instance, the reply to a query does not offer an immediate answer but instead includes a commitment to deliver a response at a later time, accompanied by an explanation for the delay.
A: Yes // how many tubes would you like sir? ((Q1)) B: Er, hh I‟ll tell you what I‟ll just eh eh ring you back I have to work out how many I‟ll need Sorry I did- wasn‟t sure of the price you see
While the response to the first part of an interaction may be limited, it does not constitute a small set This observation challenges the structural importance of adjacency pairs, particularly as it relates to the concept of preference organization and structure.
Preference structure
Yule (1996) explains that communication often begins with a request or offer, which is generally expected to be accepted rather than refused, a concept known as preference This preference reflects a socially determined structural pattern rather than individual desires Similarly, Levinson (1983) emphasizes that preference should not be viewed as a psychological insight into the desires of speakers or listeners, but rather as a structural phenomenon akin to the linguistic idea of "markedness." In essence, preference represents an observed pattern in conversation rather than personal wishes.
The preference structure categorizes second turns in conversation into two types: preferred and dispreferred social acts Preferred acts are those that align with the expected response, while dispreferred acts are responses that deviate from these structural expectations.
According to Comrie (1976a), unmarked categories typically contain less morphological material and exhibit a higher likelihood of irregularity compared to marked categories This principle applies to conversation dynamics, where preferred second turns in adjacency pairs tend to be structurally simpler and less material-heavy than dispreferred ones Consequently, preferred second acts are considered unmarked, while dispreferred responses are marked due to their structural complexity.
1.3.2 General patterns of preference structure
Levinson (1983) highlights the correlation between the structural characteristics of preferred and dispreferred conversational turns and their content and sequential position He notes that disagreements, such as those concerning assessments or proposals, typically manifest in a dispreferred format, whereas agreements are consistently expressed in a preferred format This relationship underscores the reliable patterns observed in adjacency pairs, as demonstrated in the accompanying table.
Table 1 - Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair seconds
Request Offer/ Invite Assessment Question Blame
Preferred Acceptance Acceptance Agreement Expected answer Denial
Dispreferred Refusal Refusal Disagreement Unexpected answer/ non-answer
Yule (1996: 79) discusses the relationship between content and format in adjacency pair second responses, identifying them as general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures He presents these patterns in a table format for clarity.
Preferred Dispreferred agree accept accept agree accept disagree refuse decline disagree refuse
Table 2 - The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures
The analysis of the table indicates that when evaluating requests or offers, acceptance emerges as the favored response, while refusal is deemed less desirable Below are some illustrative examples.
Yule (1996) states that silence in the second part is always a dispreferred response, often leading the first speaker to a revision of the first part in order to get a second part
12 that is not silence from the other speaker Non-response communicates that the speaker is not in a position to provide the preferred response, for example:
Sandy: But I'm sure they'll have good food there
Sandy: Hmm - I guess the food isn't great Jack: Nah - people mostly go for the music
Silence in conversations can be perceived as a lack of engagement, posing a risk to effective communication When participants are required to deliver a dispreferred second turn, they often signal this deviation through noticeable markers such as hesitation, delays, prefaces, appeals to others' opinions, or repetitive stumbling These indicators highlight the complexity of navigating conversational dynamics.
The patterns related to a dispreferred second turns in English are presented as a series of optional elements by (Yule, 1996: 81) as follows:
To effectively convey dispreferred responses, one can utilize various strategies such as delaying or hesitating before delivering the message, prefacing the statement to soften its impact, and expressing doubt to indicate uncertainty Additionally, incorporating a token "yes" can acknowledge the other person's perspective, while an apology can help mitigate any potential offense Mentioning obligations can provide context, and appealing for understanding fosters empathy It's also beneficial to keep the response non-personal to avoid direct confrontation Providing an account of the situation can clarify the reasoning behind the response, and using mitigators can lessen the intensity of the negative message Finally, employing hedges and pauses, such as "er," "ah," or "well," can create space for reflection and soften the delivery of the dispreferred response.
I'm not sure; I don't know that's great; I'd love to I'm sorry; what a pity
I must do X; I'm expected in Y you see; you know everbody else; out there too much work; no time left really; mostly; sort of; kinda
Table 3 - Linguistic elements indicating dispreferred second turns
We can take one dialog to analyze:
Becky: Come over for some coffee later Wally: Oh - eh - I'd love to - but you see - I - I'm supposed to get this finished - you know
In this dialogue, various linguistic features such as hesitation markers like "oh" and "eh," prefatory phrases like "I'd love to," stumbling repetitions such as "I - I'm," accounts like "I'm supposed to get this finished," and expressions of understanding like "but you see, you know" are employed to construct dispreferred second turns.
Still discussing the linguistic features that signal dispreferred second responses, but Levinson (1983: 334) presents them in a different way as we can see below:
(a) delays: (i) by pause before delivery, (ii) by the use of a preface, (iii) by displacement over a number of turns via use of repair initiators or insertion sequences
(b) prefaces: (i) the use of markers or announcers of dispreferreds like
Effective communication involves several key elements: (i) using fillers like "uh" and "well" to manage conversation flow, (ii) establishing token agreements to prevent misunderstandings, (iii) incorporating expressions of appreciation when making offers or suggestions, (iv) issuing apologies when necessary, especially in requests or invitations, (v) employing qualifiers to express uncertainty, and (vi) demonstrating hesitation through self-editing These strategies contribute to clearer and more respectful interactions.
(dispreferred) act is being done (d) declination component: of a form suited to the nature of the first part of the pair, but characteristically indirect or mitigated
Looking at the linguistic elements that present dispreferreds, we can conclude that a dispreferred takes more time and more language than a preferred one
Dispreferreds in Part A - Listening Comprehension of TOEFL PBT
Listening Comprehension Section of TOEFL is divided into three parts, each with a different format and a different direction Since July 1995, its standard form has followed this format:
Table 4 - Listening Comprehension Format in Standard Form
The TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section begins with conversations between two speakers, followed by a question posed by a third speaker regarding the dialogue Test-takers must select the best answer from four options provided for each conversation and mark their choice on the answer sheet.
Part A of the TOEFL PBT features dialogues primarily between a man and a woman, with each typically contributing one or two sentences These conversations cover various aspects of life at American universities, such as taking tests, interacting with professors, writing research papers, and attending classes Additionally, the dialogues address more general topics, including shopping, house hunting, and vacation planning.
According to Rogers (2000), certain test items assess test-takers' ability to comprehend various language functions, such as identifying whether one speaker agrees or disagrees with another or accepts or rejects an offer This indicates that Part A of the TOEFL PBT Listening section includes questions related to dispreferred second acts Below are five types of questions that reflect the general patterns of dispreferred second turns in this section.
M1: We can still make it to the movie We‟d just miss the first ten minutes
F1: Over by the window, I‟d say There‟s not much point
M2: What does the woman imply?
(A) She does not mind if she misses ten minutes of the movie
(B) She thinks they can be there in no time
(C) She does not mind if they go or not
(D) She sees no reason to go if they miss the first ten minutes
The woman‘s reply indicates that there is no reason to go to the movie if they are going to miss the first ten minutes Therefore, the best choice is (D)
First, the questions belong to the pattern assessment-disagreement in which the first S gives an assessment of something and the second S disagrees with the idea
F1: I thought Cheryl‟s photographs were the best at the exhibit
M1: I didn‟t really see it that way
Invitation-refusal interactions occur when one individual invites another to participate in an activity or event, only for the second individual to decline the invitation.
M1: Would you like to join us on Sunday? We‟re going to go on a picnic at the lake
F1: I‟d love to, but I have a test Monday, and I have to get ready for it
(Rogers, 2000: 50) The third question type falls into offer-declination They are situations where the first
S proposes to help the second S or allows him/her to do something but the second one declines the offer For instance:
F1: Should I make reservations for dinner Friday night?
M1: Thanks anyway, but I‟ve already made them
(Rogers, 2000: 51) Fourth is the question of proposal-disagreement This is the kind of question in which the first S suggests a solution to something but the second S rejects it
F2: Maybe you could get a ride to campus with Peggy tomorrow
M1: Oh, Peggy no longer drives to class
Last comes request-refusal In this pattern, the first S asks the second S to do something; or asks him/her for help or information:
F1: Jim, can I have one of those bananas you bought?
M1: Sorry – they‟re still not ripe enough
To sum up, there are five patterns of dispreferreds that can appear in dialogs of Part A
The TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section includes various question types that assess understanding of dialogues These questions often focus on meaning, inference, opinions, and future actions, such as asking what a speaker means, implies, or feels Notably, most questions center around the second speaker's utterance, making it crucial for TOEFL test-takers to understand dispreferred second turns in Part A of the Listening Section.
Previous works
The issues of CA and Preference Structure have been concerned by many researchers
Since the 1970s, Pomerantz has focused on the nuances of second assessments, beginning with her 1975 Ph.D dissertation, which explores the key aspects of agreeing and disagreeing In her subsequent work, particularly in 1984, she delves into the characteristics of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes Her research meticulously analyzes how second speakers utilize these preference structures to navigate the dynamics of agreement and disagreement in conversation.
Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) analyze the expression of gratitude among Americans and English learners, utilizing data from natural conversations Their research highlights the ways in which both native and non-native speakers navigate social harmony and establish ongoing relationships through their communication.
18 friendly relationships in mundane everyday conversations Brown (2002) and Snow & Blum-Kulka (2002) succeed in implementing naturalistic corpora while examining the effect of context and culture on a child‘s pragmatic development
Research into conversational dynamics has been significantly informed by studies such as Schegloff et al.'s (1977) exploration of self-correction in repair organization, Firth's (1996) analysis of "lingua franca" English, and Seedhouse's (1999) examination of context in L2 classroom repairs Kieu T.T.H (2006) further contributes to this field by utilizing Pragmatics and Conversation Analysis to investigate how native speakers perceive and express disagreement in English and Vietnamese Her findings reveal distinct differences in politeness strategies employed by North American English speakers and Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi, highlighting the influence of socio-cultural factors and social contexts on communication.
In summary, numerous linguistic studies have utilized both Conversation Analysis (CA) and pragmatics methods This paper distinguishes itself from previous research by the extent and depth of each approach employed, ensuring a comprehensive response to the research question.
This chapter examines previous studies and theories pertinent to the research, emphasizing general patterns of dispreferred expressions and their linguistic features It incorporates the analytical frameworks of Levinson (1983) and Yule (1996), with a particular focus on Yule's theories to analyze dispreferred expressions in Part A - Listening Comprehension of TOEFL PBT, an area that has received limited attention in prior research.
THE STUDY
Database
The study's corpus includes 50 adjacency pairs featuring dispreferred responses, selected from a total of 300 dialogues found in three key resources: TOEFL Success 2000, The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening, and TOEFL Practice Tests Volume 3.
Methodology
The study employed a blend of analytic, descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative methods to analyze the frequency of general patterns of dispreferred responses and their linguistic features in Part A of the Listening Comprehension Section of the TOEFL PBT.
Among the above methods, quantitative one is given priority to because most of the conclusions and considerations are calculated and converted into charts and figures
Procedure
There are four stages in the data collection:
Stage 1: The author read the theories related to the topic to grasp essential knowledge of SAs, CA, adjacency pairs and preference structure
Stage 2: The author studied the transcripts of 10 complete practice tests in three aforementioned TOEFL PBT books to collect data in order to find out which utterances contain dispreferreds and how many dialogs in which interlocutors use dispreferred second acts
Stage 3: The author identified which general pattern of dispreferreds was used in each dialog and which the most common pattern was Simultaneously, the author investigated which linguistic features signaling these dispreferred second turns
Stage 4: The author converted the results into numbers The coded data were then presented in charts and graphs
Findings and discussion
The initial findings of the research question were derived from an analysis of 50 adjacency pairs within dialogues from the Listening Comprehension Section of three TOEFL PBT books, focusing on dispreferred responses To enhance clarity and facilitate interpretation of the results, the data related to Question 1 has been organized and presented in chart format.
Fre qu enc y of U se Assessment-Disagreement
Invitation-Refusal Offer-Decline Proposal-Disagreement Request-Refusal
Figure 1: Common patterns of dispreferred second turns
The chart displays five columns, each representing a different adjacency pair that includes dispreferred responses: assessment versus disagreement, invitation versus refusal, offer versus decline, proposal versus disagreement, and request versus refusal.
Looking at the statistics introduced in the graph, all the five observed patterns of dispreferred second responses appear in dialogs in Part A – Listening Comprehension Section of TOEFL PBT
Among the five identified patterns, the assessment-disagreement pattern is the most frequently utilized, appearing in 22 out of 50 dialogues This prevalence is attributed to its association with reference questions, which Rogers (2000: 23) identifies as the second most common type of part A question.
Following this is the paired utterance invitation - refusal and request - refusal These two kinds of adjacency pairs appear 8 and 9 times respectively in the dialogs
The least popular pattern used here falls into offer - decline It is only found in 5 out of
2.4.2 Common linguistic features of dispreferreds
To address the remaining half of the research question, the author systematically analyzed the dialogues, identifying the most frequently used linguistic units that demonstrate dispreferred second acts This analysis involved examining each pair of dispreferred responses, calculating the results, and presenting them in a pie chart for further evaluation.
The following chart presents the frequent use of linguistic elements that indicate dispreferred second responses in 50 adjacency pairs taken from 10 TOEFL PBT tests
Figure 2 - Linguistic features indicating dispreferreds
18% delay/hesitate preface express doubt token yes apology mention obligation appeal for understanding make it non-personal give an account use mitigators hedge the negative
The chart reveals that the linguistic feature "give an account" is the most frequently utilized, comprising 36% of the total This prevalence is understandable, as it highlights the importance of detailed explanations in communication.
When S disagrees or declines H's statement, it is essential for S to clarify the reasons behind their disagreement or refusal This explanation serves as a critical linguistic element, enabling S to effectively communicate their dispreferred response in the conversation.
The use of "hedge the negative" and "token yes" constitutes 18% and 16% of the discourse, respectively In contrast, features such as "mention obligation," "appeal for understanding," and "make it personal" are used less frequently and often serve as supplementary tools for the second speaker to soften their disagreement before explaining their differing viewpoint.
In summary, eight key linguistic features that indicate dispreferred responses have been identified in Part A of the TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section Each pattern of adjacency pairs is represented by various linguistic elements, demonstrating the diverse ways these features can manifest The following section will elaborate on the usage of these eight common linguistic elements.
2.4.2.2 The ways eight common linguistic features are used
In this part, the ways that eight common elements indicating dispreferred second turns in TOEFL PBT Listening (according to figure 2 above), namely „give an account‟,
„hedge the negative‟, „token yes‟, „use mitigators‟, „preface‟, „delay/hesitate‟,
„apology‟ and „express doubt‟ are used will be discussed in meticulous detail a ‘Give an account’
The linguistic feature "give an account" is utilized across all five patterns related to dispreferred responses in the TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section, as evidenced by its occurrence in 15 out of 22 pairs.
24 assessment - disagreement, 6 out of 8 pairs of invitation - refusal & request - refusal, and in all the pairs of offer - decline & proposal - disagreement
In the context of assessment and disagreement, the second speaker frequently employs linguistic strategies to clarify and repair the first speaker's assessment while asserting their opposing viewpoint This may involve providing examples and evidence to substantiate their disagreement with the initial statement.
[1] F: Nancy didn't try out for the play, and now they've given the lead role to someone else
M1: Actually, she did try out but didn't make the cut
[2] M1: That was the most boring presentation I've ever heard in my life
F: I wouldn't go that far There were several interesting issues discussed
[3] F: You're so excited about moving into the dorm, aren't you?
M1: Not really I like living at home with my family
[4] F1: Uh, oh Your roommate's making dinner again Your kitchen is going to look like a tornado hit it
M1: Maybe not Last night he cooked dinner and left the kitchen spick-and- span
[5] F2: Have you seen Shelly recently? The last time I spoke to her she said she hadn't been feeling too well
M1: Well, when I saw her this morning, she was a picture of health
[6] F: Your football team didn't play very well
M: That's true, but at least we won the game
When declining an invitation, the second person often provides a rationale, citing their busy schedule filled with meetings, appointments, and personal commitments as reasons for their unavailability They may also mention unforeseen circumstances that prevent them from accepting the invitation.
[7] M: We plan to go to the beach after class Want to come?
F: I'd love to, but Professor Jones wants to speak with me
[8] F: Would you like to join us on a charity run on Saturday?
M1: I would if I hadn't had an accident during the football game yesterday
[9] F: Look, they're advertising the Sports Show at the Convention Center Would you care to go?
M1: I'd love to, but I'm working overtime this week
[10] F: Jonathan, wouldn't you like to come to the cafe with us?
M1: Are you kidding? I'm swamped with homework
When crafting a refusal to a request, the responder typically offers a reason for their inability to comply This rationale often highlights the responder's limitations or external constraints that prevent acceptance of the initial request.
[11] M: I need to get a copy of my birth certificate
F: Sorry, but we can only accept requests by mail now
[12] F: I want you to try that scene again, but this time do it with less anger and more concern
M1: But I don't understand why this character is reacting this way at all
[13] M1: My zoom lens isn't working properly Can you repair it?
F: I'm sorry We only sell photography equipment However, there's a repair shop just down the street
[14] M1: Would you mind giving these books to Professor Hata for me? He loaned them to me
F: I'm afraid I won't be seeing him today, since classes have been cancelled due to the snow storm
In the pattern of offer and declination, it is common for the second speaker to provide reasons that contradict the initial offer made by the first speaker This response emphasizes that the second speaker does not require assistance from the first.
[15] F: I've got a recipe for a garlic and hot pepper chicken dish Want to try it tonight with green salad?
M: You know, my stomach's a little on edge; I'd prefer something bland
[16] M1: Would you like me to put the name of each flower on a stick where we planted the seeds?
F: That won't be necessary I can remember what we planted
[17] M1: Would you like a piece of cake? I baked it for you
F: Why did you do that? You know I'm trying to lose weight
[18] F: Should I make plans for us to go river rafting in the Grand Canyon over the holiday?
M1: That won't be necessary I've already arranged it
Take the pattern proposal - disagreement into consideration, it can be seen that the second S normally provides a reason why it is unreasonable to follow the first S‘s suggestion
[19] M1: Do you want to make a pizza for dinner tonight?
F: That's too much work Let's order one
[20] F: It's chilly outside Why don't you wear the plaid jacket your aunt gave you for your birthday?
M1: Are you kidding? I wouldn't be caught dead in that jacket
In all patterns of dispreferred second turns, the second speaker utilizes the phrase "give an account" to articulate the reasons for their disagreement or refusal of the first speaker's statement The explanations provided vary significantly, reflecting the unique contexts of the interactions between the interlocutors.
In many instances of providing an account, the conjunction "but" often precedes the reason or explanation This highlights the importance of hedging negative statements to soften the impact of the message.
This feature of dispreferred second response is mostly used in the two patterns offer - decline and assessment - disagreement To make a declination to an offer, the second
S presents objection to the first S‘s help; then to create a disagreement to an assessment, he/she mentions contradiction
[21] F: Should I make plans for us to go river rafting in the Grand Canyon over the holiday?
M1: That won't be necessary I've already arranged it
[22] M1: I understand you're flying back to Boston tomorrow Do you want me to take you to the airport?
F: Thanks, but that won't be necessary The hotel has a shuttle bus
[23] F: You're so excited about moving into the dorm, aren't you?
M1: Not really I like living at home with my family
[24] F: You hate this cold, snowy weather, don't you?
M1: Not at all It just means better conditions on the ski slopes
[25] F1: Hotel rooms along the beach must be very expensive
M2: Not now During the off-season, they're dirty cheap
CONCLUSION
Recapitulation
This research aims to identify common patterns of dispreferred second acts in the Listening Section of the TOEFL PBT and to analyze the linguistic features used to express these dispreferred responses The findings of the study reveal significant insights into these linguistic characteristics.
1.1 The common patterns of dispreferreds
The data analysis reveals that all five identified patterns of dispreferred second responses—assessment-disagreement, invitation-refusal, offer-decline, proposal-disagreement, and request-refusal—are present in Part A of the TOEFL exam.
The PBT Listening Comprehension Section primarily features the assessment-disagreement pattern, which is the most frequently encountered Following this are the adjacency pairs of invitation-refusal and request-refusal, which also appear regularly In contrast, the offer-declination pattern is the least utilized in this section.
1.2 The linguistic features signaling dispreferreds
The study highlights key linguistic features that signal dispreferred second turns in Part A of the TOEFL Listening section Eight common linguistic elements indicative of dispreferred responses are identified, including phrases such as "give an account," "hedge the negative," and "token yes."
In communication, the use of mitigators, prefaces, delays, apologies, and expressions of doubt plays a significant role Among these elements, "giving an account" stands out as the most frequently utilized Conversely, the elements of "appealing for understanding," "mentioning obligation," and "making it non-personal" are observed with much lower frequency.
Several significant findings about how the eight common features work in the five patterns to create dispreferreds are also revealed:
The feature "give an account" is present in various types of paired utterances, particularly in dispreferred second turns This element serves to explain why the second speaker does not agree with or accept the first speaker's statement It frequently starts with the conjunction "but," highlighting the contrast in responses.
The phrase 'hedge the negative,' exemplified by expressions like 'not at all,' 'not really,' and 'not necessary,' is specifically found in the patterns of offer-decline and assessment-disagreement This hedging typically precedes the second statement, which provides the rationale for the disagreement.
Third, as regards ‘ token yes’ such as ‗that‘s true, it may look like that, yeah, yes it is,
The feature of token appreciation or token agreement is utilized before a subject declines an invitation or disagrees with an assessment.
Fourth, the feature ‘ preface ’ like ‗actually, well‘ is often employed by the second S to give an account for disagreeing with an assessment
Delays or hesitations in interrogative phrases, such as "Are you kidding?" or "Why did you do that?", are often utilized by the second speaker in paired utterances like invitation-refusal and proposal-disagreement.
A formal apology is typically offered by the second speaker before providing reasons for their refusal, aiming to mitigate negative feelings and garner sympathy from the first speaker who has made a request.
Seventh, the feature ‘ express doubt’ is often found in the two patterns of dispreferreds ‗request - refusal‟ and ‗invitation - refusal‟
The element of "use mitigators" appears in all types of dispreferred second turns in Part A of the Listening Comprehension Section of the TOEFL PBT, although it is utilized less frequently compared to the other seven features.
Suggested tips for TOEFL PBT learners or potential test-takers
Based on the results, some tips for learners and test-takers are recommended below:
Begin by reviewing the four answer options to identify the types of questions being asked, such as meaning questions, inference questions, opinion questions, or questions regarding future actions.
Carefully listen to the tape to identify the main ideas in the dialogues, focusing particularly on the second speaker's remarks, as they frequently provide answers to the questions posed in the conversations.
When addressing speech acts (SAs) like invitations, offers, requests, proposals, and assessments, it's essential to recognize the linguistic features that categorize them as preferred or dispreferred responses Dispreferred responses are typically marked by specific linguistic indicators and frequently occur alongside the conjunction "but." Understanding these features can enhance communication effectiveness.
After that, infer the second S‘s utterances in order to work out their implied purposes, attitudes and intentions to opt for the correct answer
Implications for English language learning and test taking
In order to achieve effectiveness in taking Part A - TOEFL PBT Listening tests, the following points should be paid due attention to:
Learners and potential test-takers should have insights into the general patterns of dispreferreds and the common linguistic features in dispreferred expressions
In dialogues featuring dispreferred expressions, the second speaker's disagreement or refusal is often implied rather than explicitly stated This is typically conveyed through implicature, reasoning, or questions that soften the negative response Consequently, potential test-takers and learners must pay close attention to discern the speaker's implicit intentions, purposes, and attitudes in order to select the correct answer choice.
To address challenges related to dispreferred second acts, educators should facilitate better opportunities for students to explore and apply their understanding of preference structures, including the patterns and linguistic features that indicate them Additionally, providing a range of engaging speaking topics will enable learners to practice and reinforce the knowledge they have acquired.
Teachers play a crucial role in enhancing students' listening skills by encouraging them to expand their vocabulary This can be achieved through a focused study of idioms and implicature, particularly those commonly found in spoken language.
Learners must take full ownership of their educational journey by recognizing and employing their own learning strategies By utilizing metacognition, they can enhance their learning experiences and outcomes effectively.
In conclusion, understanding pragmatics and conversation analysis (CA) is essential for enhancing language performance Teaching learners how to navigate preference organization and other aspects of pragmatics and CA can significantly improve their listening communication skills.
The study emphasizes the significance of preference structure for both teachers and learners of English, highlighting the need for textbook writers to create effective listening syllabi and materials Additionally, it advocates for the integration of listening skills with speaking practice, suggesting that engaging in natural English communication and exposure to authentic resources are essential for learners aiming to excel in the TOEFL PBT.
Limitations of the research
Due to the limitation of length and time constraints, this work still has some certain restrictions
The primary limitation of this research is the small sample size, consisting of only 50 dialogues featuring dispreferred responses, drawn from 10 comprehensive tests in three selected TOEFL PBT books Consequently, the findings regarding dispreferred second-turn expressions are limited in scope.
The study focused on dispreferred-second-response patterns and their associated linguistic features, following Yule's (1996) theoretical framework However, the limited data size may prevent reaching a conclusive outcome.
In real-life interactions, non-verbal elements such as facial expressions, gestures, postures, laughter, and eye contact play a vital role in communication Additionally, prosodic features like intonation, pitch, and pauses are essential for conveying meaning However, this research relies solely on transcripts from the TOEFL PBT, neglecting these important non-verbal and prosodic aspects.
Suggestions for further research…….…………………………………………40 REFERENCES
The study of preference structures, pragmatics, and conversation analysis (C.A.) is a vast field that plays a crucial role in understanding language functions in both TOEFL PBT and everyday communication To better prepare potential test-takers and English learners, it is essential to explore related aspects such as implicature, implication, reference, pauses, silence, and turn-taking This in-depth examination will enhance their awareness of these critical elements in effective communication.
In the realm of social interactions, preferred and dispreferred acts, akin to agreement and disagreement, are intricately linked, as noted by Kieu (2006) The concept of "opinion-negotiation" highlights that agreeing and disagreeing are two sides of the same coin, with each relying on the existence of the other Often, the distinction between agreement and disagreement in face-to-face communication can be subtle, where a "yes" may imply a "no," and vice versa, illustrating the complexity of human interactions.
Thus, it is more interesting for the present researcher (and other researchers) to study these two acts in parallel
Third, studies on preference structure, particularly dispreferreds in other authentic materials will be also encouraged
Hopefully, a research work in the future will be carried out with much more useful & creative data and longer time to increase the validity and reliability of the research
1 Austin, J L (1962) How to do things with words New York: Oxford University Press, Oxford
2 Broukal, M (1994) The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening,
3 Brown, P (2002) ―Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal In S Blum-Kulka & C E Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults – The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to
4 Brown, S (2006) Teaching Listening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
5 Comrie, B (1976a) Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and
6 Eisenstein M & Bodman J (1993) ―Expressing Gratitude in American English‖
In G Kasper & S Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp 64-81) Oxford: Oxford University Press
7 Firth, A (1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: On "lingua franca"
English and conversation analysis Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259
8 Gilbert, J (1984) Clear Speech Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in
American English Student‟s Book, Cambridge: CUP
9 Goodwin, C (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between and hearers New York: Academic Press
10 Hutchby, I and Wooffitt, R (2008) Conversation Analysis Polity
11 Jacobs, S (1987) Commentary on Zimmerman: Evidence and inference in conversation analysis Communication Yearbook, 11, 433-443
12 Kieu, Thi Thu Huong (2001) Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese
Unpublished M A Thesis C F L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
13 Kieu, Thi Thu Huong (2006) Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis C F L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
14 Le, Ngoc Phuong Anh (2006) TOEFL Practice Tests Volume 3, Nxb Trẻ, Hồ Chí Minh
15 Levinson, Stephen C 1983.Pragmatics Cambridge, England: Cambridge
16 Peccei, J (1999) Pragmatics, London and New York: Routledge
17 Pomerantz, A (1975) Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of
18 Pomerantz, A (1978) ―Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints‖ In J Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction Academic Press pp 79-112
19 Pomerantz, A (1984a) ―Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes‖ In J Heritage & J M Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge:
20 Pomerantz, A (1984b) ―Pursuing a Response‖ In J Heritage & J M Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge:
21 Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B J (1997) ―Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices‖ In van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Vol 2 pp 64-91 Sage Publications
22 Rogers, B (2000) TOEFL Success 2000, Peterson‘s Education Center: Heinle & Heinle/ITP
23 Rogers, R (1997) Peterson‟s TOEFL Practice Tests, Peterson‘s Education
24 Schegloff, E A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H (1977) The preference for self- correction in the organization of repair in conversation Language, 53, 361-382.