Comparing oral refusals of requests in english and vietnamese

ABSTRACT This thesis aims at: 1 investigating the similarities and differences in the use of refusal strategies of requests by native American English speakers AESs and native Vietnamese

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

# "

TRỊNH BỘI NGỌC

COMPARING ORAL REFUSALS OF REQUESTS

IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS (TESOL)

Supervisor: LÊ THỊ THANH, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2008

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

“COMPARING ORAL REFUSALS OF REQUESTS

IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE”

in terms of the statement of Requirements for Theses

in Master’s Programmes issued by the Higher Degree Committee

Ho Chi Minh City, 2008

TRỊNH BỘI NGỌC

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, TRỊNH BỘI NGỌC, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating

to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research,

in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of theses

Ho Chi Minh City, 2008

TRỊNH BỘI NGỌC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Leâ Thò Thanh, for her guidance, suggestions, comments and support in the preparation and completion of this thesis

I’m also grateful to all my teachers for their dedication and useful instruction during the course

To my family, I offer sincere thanks for their great support, encouragement and assistance, especially to my younger sister living in the U.S.A for her collecting the data from her friends

Last, but not least, I would like to send my thanks to all the participating subjects for completing the questionnaires which play an important part for this study

ABSTRACT

This thesis aims at: (1) investigating the similarities and differences in the use of refusal strategies of requests by native American English speakers (AESs) and native Vietnamese speakers (VSs), (2) finding the Vietnamese language transfers in using the oral refusal strategies of requests by Vietnamese learners

of English (VLs) and (3) examining the influence of social status and age on the choice of refusal strategies of requests employed by AESs and VSs

The results of this study are:

(1) There were more differences than similarities in the frequency distribution of refusal strategies employed by AESs and VSs when they made refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request

(2) In examining the refusal strategies occurring in sequences, it was found that AESs and VSs also indicated different sequences in different situations, especially VSs tended to employ sequences of more refusal strategies than AESs when making refusals to a manager’s request and a friend’s request

(3) VLs usually employed the communicatve strategies in their mother tongue to transfer them into English when making refusals of requests Besides, they refused more in their mother tongue, so they had the tendency to refuse more in the target language than the native speakers of English

(4) Social status and age didn’t have much effect on the choice of refusal strategies employed by AESs By contrast, these 2 factors had a strong effect on the choice of refusal strategies used by VSs

From the findings of this study, the thesis recommends that the teachers should provide the learners with the knowledge of speech act, give them useful model dialogues and suitable role-play activites to practise In addition, the

teachers should encourage the learners to use the appropriate refusal strategies when they communicate with the native speakers of English and Vietnamese Besides, the learners should be well-equipped with enough facilities and various, authentic curricula

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Certificate of originality ……….i

Retention and use of the thesis ………ii

Acknowledgements ……iii

Abstracts ……iv

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION………1

1.1 The rationale of the study 1

1.2 Aim of the study 3

1.3 The scope of the study 3

1.4 An overview of the thesis 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ………5

2.1 Speech act theory 5

2.1.1 Definitions of speech acts 6

2.1.2 Classifications of speech acts 8

2.2 The speech acts of request 11

2.3 Possible responses to a request 14

2.4 The speech act of refusal………15

2.4.1 Possible refusal trajectories………16

2.4.2 Classifications of refusal strategies………18

2.5 Politeness theory 20

2.5.1 Face wants 21

2.5.2 Essential factors affecting the choice of politeness strategies………22

2.6 Language transfer………24

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE………26

3.1 Research questions 26

3.2 Research design 26

3.2.1 Subjects ………27

3.2.2 Instruments 28

3.3 Data collection procedure 30

Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ………31

4.1 Similarities and differences between native American English speakers (AESs) and native Vietnamese speakers (VSs) in making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………31

4.1.1 AESs making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………31

4.1.2 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by AESs when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request ………34

4.1.3 VSs making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………40

4.1.4 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VSs when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………44

4.1.5 The two groups’ data in comparison ………46

4.1.5.1 The frequency distribution of refusal strategies employed by AESs and VSs when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………47

4.1.5.2 Refusal sequences employed by AESs and VSs when

making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request

and a friend’s request ……….50

4.2 Transfers in using oral refusal strategies of requests by Vietnamese learners of English (VLs) ……… 53

4.2.1 The frequency distribution of refusal strategies employed by the three subject groups when they made refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………54

4.2.2 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VLs when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request ………61

4.2.3 Sequences of refusal strategies employed by the three subject groups when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………66

4.2.4 The total number of tokens employed by the 3 subject groups when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request……….67

4.3 The effect of social status and age on the choice of refusal strategies of

requests employed by AESs and VSs……….68

4.3.1 Social status……… 69

4.3.2 Age………72

4.4 Findings………77

4.4.1 The similarities and differences of oral refusal strategies of requests employed by AESs and VSs when they made refusals to a

manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request………… 77

4.4.2 The Vietnamese language transfers in using oral refusal strategies

of requests by Vietnamese learners of English (VLs)……….79

4.4.3 The effect of social status and age on the choice of refusal strategies employed by AESs and VSs………80

4.5 Summary……….82

Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84

5.1 Conclusions ………84

5.2 Recommendations ………85

5.3 Limitations of the study and recommendations for further research…………88

Bibliography 90

Appendix A (Questionnaire for AESs and VLs – in English version) ……….95

Appendix B (Questionnaire for VSs – in Vietnamese version) ……….97

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure: Possible negotiation outcomes ………18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The relation between “words” and “the world” ………9

Table 2.2 The four felicity conditions on request 13

Table 2.3 Possible responses and outcomes to request, invitation, offer and suggestion 17

Chapter 3 Table 3 The background information of the four subject groups ………28

Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs

when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request……….32

Table 4.2 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by AESs when making refusals to a manager’s request……….34

Table 4.3 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by AESs when

making refusals to a sister’s request………36

Table 4.4 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by AESs when making refusals to a friend’s request………38

Table 4.5 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by VSs

when making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request

and a friend’s request……….40

Table 4.6 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VSs when

making refusals to a manager’s request………42

Table 4.7 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VSs when

making refusals to a sister’s request………44

Table 4.8 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VSs when making refusals to a friend’s request………45

Table 4.9 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs and VSs when making refusals to a manager’s request………47

Table 4.10 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs and VSs when making refusals to a sister’s request………48

Table 4.11 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs and VSs when making refusals to a friend’s request……….49

Table 4.12 Sequences of refusal strategies employed by AESs and VSs when

making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request ………51

Table 4.13 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs,

VSs and VLs when making refusals to a manager’s request………….54

Table 4.14 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs,

VSs and VLs when making refusals to a sister’s request ………56

Table 4.15 Frequency distribution of refusal categories employed by AESs,

VSs and VLs when making refusals to a friend’s request……… 57

Table 4.16 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VLs when

making refusals to manager’s request………61

Table 4.17 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VLs when

making refusals to a sister’s request………63

Table 4.18 The priority order of refusal strategies employed by VLs when making refusals to a friend’s request………65

Table 4.19 Sequences of refusal strategies employed by AESs and VSs when

making refusals to a manager’s request, a sister’s request and a friend’s request……….66 Table 4.20 Frequency distribution of refusal strategies of requests employed

by AESs and VSs in the three social status levels……….69 Table 4.21 Frequency distribution of refusal strategies of requests employed

by AESs and VSs in the three age levels………73

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AESs: Native American English speakers

VSs: Naitve Vietnamese speakers

VLs: Vietnamese learners of English

TTTC: Travinh Teacher Training College

NCCC: Northwestern Connecticut Community College

2

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The rationale of the study

Nowadays, more Vietnamese people learn English to meet the need

of work and communication Besides, English is considered a compulsory subject at school However, most of the English syllabuses focus on training the learners to master four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing rather than on other aspects such as semantics, pragmatics and cultures

As a result, many Vietnamese learners master vocabulary, grammatical structures and pronunciation but can’t communicate with the foreigners successfully and effectively because they can’t use the language appropriately in different situations They sometimes feel confused when communicating with foreigners This proves that the learners lack the communicative competence The notion of communicative competence, introduced by Hymes (1966; quoted in Saville Troike, 1997: 277), which may

be broadly defined as “what a speaker needs to know to communicate appropriately within a particular speech community”

An important aspect of communicative competence is described by Searle (1969), who suggests that speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so on

According to Cohen (1996: 384-388), the term speech act can be understood as “a functional unit in communication” He also emphasizes that successful planning and production of speech act utterances depend on certain socio-cultural and socio-linguistic abilities:

“Socio-cultural ability refers to the respondents’ skill at

selecting speech act strategies which are appropriate given:

(1) the culture involved, (2) the age and sex of the speakers,

(3) their social class and occupations, and (4) their roles and

status in the interaction Socio-linguistic ability refers to the

respondents’ skill at selecting appropriate linguistic forms in

Cohen (1996: 383) also states that the teaching of second language words and phrases isolated from their socio-cultural and socio-linguistic factors may lead to the production of linguistic curiosities which do not achieve their communicative purposes

According to Gass and Houck (1999: 2), refusals may reveal greater complexity than many other speech acts We know that refusal is one of the main language functions frequently used in our everyday life but making an appropriate refusal in English is still a problem to Vietnamese learners Vietnamese people have the tendency not to refuse directly what the interlocutors suggest, offer, invite or request, especially to the old age or higher status interlocutors to avoid hurting their feelings Therefore, when making refusals in English, the Vietnamese people usually unconsciously employ the communicative strategies in their native language to transfer them into English It can be said that the interference of the first language is also an obstacle to the Vietnamese learners of English To perform a refusal, especially a refusal of request in English, the Vietnamese learners have to use appropriate refusal strategies in appropriate situations In addition, they are aware of the socio-linguistic and socio-cultural abilities which cause the differences in the choice of refusal strategies between the native language and the target one Also, they try to avoid using negative transfers from their mother tongue when making refusals in English In this case, they are able to communicate with the native speakers more successfully and effectively and avoid misunderstanding as well as cultural

shocks in communication

1.2 Aim of the study

This study aims to compare the oral refusal strategies of requests in English and Vietnamese The objectives of the study are:

(1) to determine what oral refusal strategies of requests used by native American English speakers (AESs) and native Vietnamese speakers (VSs) in order to identify the similarities and differences of refusal strategies used by the subjects of these 2 groups;

(2) to find out if there are any Vietnamese language transfers in using the oral refusal strategies of requests by Vietnamese learners of English (VLs);

and (3) to investigate how the social status and age influence the choice of refusal strategies used by native American English speakers (AESs) and native Vietnamese speakers (VSs)

From the results found in the study, we would like to encourage Vietnamese learners to eliminate negative transfers from the mother tongue

in using English and consolidate positive transfers (similar refusal strategies

of requests) employed by native American English speakers (AESs) and native Vietnamese speakers (VSs)

1.3 The scope of the study

In this study, the oral refusal strategies of requests in English and Vietnamese are mentioned These refusal strategies are done by 90 subjects participating in the study They are 60 students at Travinh Teacher Training College (TTTC) and 30 students at Northwestern Connecticut Community College (NCCC) in the U.S.A

In the attempt to find out the Vietnamese language transfers in using the refusal strategies of requests by Vietnamese learners of English (VLs), apart from the native American English speakers (AESs), the English version of the questionnaire was distributed to 30 English majored students (the juniors) at Travinh Teacher Training College

This study just examines the verbal strategies used by the subjects of the three groups They give the verbal strategies by writing what they really response the situations presented in the questionnaire The other forms such as audio-video-recordings, role-play, face-to-face interviews are not mentioned

1.4 An overview of the thesis

This study consists of five chapters Chapter one provides the introduction Chapter two presents a review of the literature Chapter three describes the methodology and procedures including the research questions, the research subjects, the instruments for collecting the data and data collection procedures Chapter four indicates the results of data analysis and the findings Chapter five deals with the conclusions, recommendations for teaching and learning the speech act of making refusals of requests, the limitations of the study and some suggestions for further research concerning this field

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a theoretical framework for the study including speech act theory, the speech acts of request, possible responses to a request, the speech acts of refusal, politeness theory and language transfer

2.1 Speech act theory

Speech act theory was first founded by Austin (1962) in “How to Do Things with Words”, and then developed by Searle (1969, 1975, 1976)

When dealing with the function of language, Austin (1962: 63) observes that in saying something that has a certain sense and reference, one is normally also doing something other than just saying something – making a request, an offer, an apology

Sharing this point, Searle (1969: 24) states: “Language is part of a theory of action, and speech acts are those verbal acts such as promising, threatening, and requesting that one performs in speaking”

While examining how people use language in real communication, Finegan (1994: 333) says that through language, people actually do things: propose marriage, declare a mistrial, swear to tell the truth, fire an employee, insult a relative, invite friends to dinner and so on

Similarly, Yule (1996: 47) claims: “in attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances”

2.1.1 Definitions of speech acts

The term “speech act” has been defined as a minimal unit of discourse (Searle, 1969), a basic and functional unit of communication (Cohen, 1996) Nunan (1993: 65) defines speech acts as “simply things people do through language, for example, apologizing, complaining, instructing, agreeing and warning” Finegan (1994: 335) also gives a similar definition: “actions that are carried out through language are called speech acts”

Hinkel (1997; cited in Nelson, Albatal and Elbakary, 2002: 163) states that examples of speech acts include giving and responding to compliments, asking questions, apologizing, leave-taking, making introductions and giving refusals He also points out “One goal of speech act realization research is to identify pragmatic features that native speakers of

a language employ to achieve their communicative goal in speech events”

Austin (quoted in Peccei, 1999: 43-45) points out that in analyzing speech acts, we need to make a distinction between the locution and the

( The locution of “Give me some cash” can be semantically paraphrased as “hand some money over to me”, with “me” referring to Mike

( The illocution of “Give me some cash” is that “Mike performed the act of requesting Annie to give him some cash.”

According to Austin (cited in Peccei, 1999: 44), different locutions can have the same illocutionary force

Examples: (a) You can pass the milk

(b) Why don’t you pass the milk?

(c) Have you got the milk?

(d) I could use the milk

(e) Get me the milk

(f) Send the milk down here

The examples above are also taken in Peccei (1999:43-44)

Despite the fact that (e) and (f) are imperatives, (b) and (c) are interrogatives, and (a) and (d) are declaratives, all the six utterances can be acts of requesting (milk in this case)

Similarly, the same locution can have different illocutionary forces depending on the context

Example: “It’s cold in here” could either be a request to close the window or an offer to close the window

Austin also distinguishes a third part of a speech act, the perlocution This is the actual result of the locution It may or may not be what the speaker wants to happen but it is nevertheless caused by the locution

Example: Mike’s utterance to Annie “Give me some cash” (cited in Peccei, 1999: 44) could have any of the following perlocutions:

Mike persuaded Annie to give him the money

Annie refused to give him the money

Annie was offended to give him the money

2.1.2 Classifications of speech acts

Searle (cited in Peccei, 1999: 51-54) proposes five macro-classes of illocutionary act: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations He suggests that speech acts could be grouped into general categories based not on performative verbs but on the relationship between

“the words” and “the world” and on who is responsible for making that relationship work Within each category, there can be a variety of different illocutions, but the members of each group share a similar relationship of

“fit” between the words and the world

Representatives: The speakers represent external reality by making their words fit the world as they believe it to be (stating, describing, affirming) Example: “Bill was an accountant”

Commissives: The speakers commit themselves to a future act which will make the world fit their words (promising, vowing, threatening, offering) Example: “I’ll call you tonight”.

Expressives: The speakers express their feelings by making

their words fit their internal psychological world (thanking,

apologizing, congratulating) Example: “This beer is disgusting!”.

Directives: The speakers direct hearers to perform some future act which will make the world fit the speaker’s words (commanding, ordering, requesting, warning, suggesting) Example: “Fasten your seatbelts”.

Searle (quoted in Peccei, 1999: 52) had originally classed questions and as directives Apart from the idea that requesting information from the hearers is rather different from requesting that they perform an action, some questions are much more directive than others Therefore, Leech (1983; cited in Peccei, 1999: 52) proposes an extra category to deal with requests for information It was rogatives through which speakers ask for information

In rogatives, the hearers rather than the speaker will make the words fit the

world (asking, querying, questioning)

Examples: Have you appointed a new director? (a rogative)

Can you hand me the pen? (a directive)

Declarations: The speakers utter words that in themselves

change the world (naming ship, marriages, sentencing) Example: “We

find the defendant guilty”.

These examples are cited in Peccei (1999: 54)

Searle (quoted in Peccei, 1999: 53) shows similarities and differences

of the speech act categories presented in Table 2.1

Declaration the words change the world speaker

Representatives the words fit the world (“outside” world) speaker

Expressives the words fit the world (“psychological”

world)

speaker Directives the world will fit the words hearer

Rogatives the words fit the world hearer

Commissives the world will fit the words speaker

Table 2.1: The relation between “words” and “the world”

According to Searle (cited in Peccei, 1999: 55-56), an utterance is

usually used to perform a type of speech acts but in many cases, an

utterance can also “do the work” of another speech act

Examples: 1 (a) Go away

(b) My essay is due tomorrow morning

2 (a) Put your jacket on

(b) Did you put your jacket on?

3 (a) Be quiet

(b) I’m very upset that so many of you are talking

4 (a) Have you been fired?

(b) Someone said you got fired

The examples above are taken in Peccei (1999: 53-54)

1(b) looks likes a representative In fact, Searle would say that it is a

representative, but in this context it can also “do the work” of a directive In 2

(b), we have a rogative functioning as a directive; in 3(b), an expressive

functioning as a directive; in 4(b), a representative functioning as a rogative

This led Searle (quoted in Pecccei, 1999: 55-56) to a further distinction

between the speech acts According to him, speech acts can also be

classified as direct and indirect:

In direct speech acts, there is a direct relationship between their

linguistic structure and the work they are doing

In indirect speech acts, the speech act is performed indirectly through

the performance of another speech act

As Searle points out, the hearers can recognize the “real” illocutionary

force when presented with an indirect speech act by basing on the useful

felicity conditions Felicity conditions are sets of necessary conditions for an

illocution to “count” The true illocutionary force of an indirect speech act can

be inferred from the fact that one or more of the felicity conditions of the

“surface” speech act have been obviously violated, while at the same time

one or more of the felicity conditions for the indirect speech act have been

mentioned or questioned by the locution, giving a hint as to the true

illocutionary force If the remaining felicity conditions for the “real” speech

act are fulfilled, the speaker will interpret the locution

Example: A mother is standing by the door as her child starts to go

out without his jacket and says: “Did you put your jacket on? Superficially,

the utterance looks like a rogative given in its interrogative form, but it could

be taken as a hint for her son to put on his jacket, making an indirect directive (cited in Peccei, 1999: 56)

Yule (1996: 55) indicates that the difference between direct and indirect speech acts: “Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act” Indirect speech acts are often felt to be more polite ways of performing certain kind, such as requests and refusals

Examples: a It is cold outside

b I hereby tell you about the weather

c I hereby request of you that you close the door.These examples are taken in Yule (1996: 55)

The utterance (a) is a declarative When it is used to make a statement, as paraphrased in (b), it is functioning as a direct speech act When it is used to make a command or a request, as paraphrased in (c), it

is functioning as an indirect speech act

2.2 The speech acts of request

Searle (1979: 13; quoted in Sifianou, 1999: 98) defines directives

are attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do

something They may be very modest “attempts” as when I

invite you to do it or suggest that you do it, or they may be

very fierce attempts as when I insist that you do it

Bach and Harnish (1982: 47; cited in Sifianou, 1999: 98), who have borrowed the term “directive” from Searle state “directives express the speaker’s attitude toward some prospective action by the hearer but they also express the speaker’s intention (desire, wish) that his utterance or the attitude it expresses be taken as reasons for the hearer to act”

Requests fall into this group of directives Although a number of subcategories of requests can be distinguished, such as requests for action, requests for information (Bach and Harnish, 1982: 47; quoted in

Sifianou,1999: 98), requests for attention, and requests for sympathy, “all requests are basically requests for an action of some kind from the other person” (Labov and Franshel, 1997: 63; cited in Sifianou,1999: 98)

Requests are usually considered to be a very good example of speech acts which implies intrusion on the address’s territory and limit freedom of action In other words, they are intrinsically face-threatening activities, threatening the addressee’s negative face (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 70; cited in Sifianou, 1999:99 ), and therefore comprise a category of inherently impolite acts in which negative politeness is essential (Leech, 1983: 106; quoted in Sifianou,1999: 99)

According to Sifianou (1999: 99), requests can also imply closeness and intimacy, in the sense that one must feel close enough to ask somebody else to do something, and consequently positive politeness is important, too

For both Austin and Searle, the success of a performative act depends on certain precondition – “felicity conditions”

Searle (1979: 44; cited in Sifianou, 1999: 99) says “Each type of illocutionary act has a set of conditions that are necessary for the successful and felicitous performance of the act”

According to Richards, J., Platt, J., and Platt, H (1992: 137) “Felicity condition is the condition which must be fulfilled for a speech act to be satisfactorily performed or realized.”

Searle (1969: 66; quoted in Levinson, 1983: 239-240) suggests that there are four felicity conditions on request: propositional content, preparatory condition, sincerity and essential condition The four felicity conditions on request are shown in Table 2.2 (cited in Levinson, 1983: 240)

Sincerity

Essential

S wants H to do A Counts as an attempt to get H to do A

Table 2.2: The four felicity conditions on request

Searle (1975; cited in Coulthard, 1985: 27-28) shows the four felicity conditions on requests:

2.3 Possible responses to a request

Focusing on responses to requests, Labov and Franshel (1997; cited

in Gass and Houck, 1999: 5-7) note that there are three modes of response First, one can comply either by providing (or agreeing to provide) the requested information or by performing (or agreeing to perform) the requested action, as the following invented examples:

(1) Compliance with a request:

a Performance of an action:

John: Would you be able to help me with my homework this evening?

Mary: Sure Let’s take a look at where you’re having problems

b Agreement to perform an action:

John: Would you be able to help me with my homework this evening?

Mary: Sure, I’d be glad to What time would you like to get

together?

Another possible response is to put off the request as in (2)

(2) Putting off a request

John: Would you be able to help me with my homework this evening?

Mary: Didn’t you tell me you’d already done your homework?

In such instances, the request can be reinstated after the put-off has been dealt with, or can be withdrawn The third possible response is to refuse the request with or without an accounting, as examples in (3)

Mary: Sorry, I can’t I have to work late

Labov and Franshel also note that there is considerable overlap between their put-offs, which are frequently intended as refusals, and refusals with accountings, both of which may be treated as refusals by the requester In fact, we will be treating put-offs as one type of refusal

2.4 The speech acts of refusal

Refusal means “say or show that one is unwilling to give, accept, grant or do something” and an act of refusing is a refusal (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1989: 758-9)

A refusal is generally considered a speech act by which a speaker

“denies to engage in action proposed by the interlocutor” (Chen, Ye and Zhang, 1995: 121)

Gass and Houck (1999: 2-3) claim:

“Refusals are one of a relatively small number of speech acts

which can be characterized as a response to another’s act

(e.g., to a request, invitation, offer, suggestion), rather than an

act initiated by the speaker Because refusals normally

function as second pair parts, they preclude extensive

planning on the part of the refuser And because extensive

planning is limited, and because the possibilities for a

response are broader than for an initiating act, refusal may

reveal greater complexity than many other speech acts In

addition, refusals are often played out in lengthy sequences

involving not only negotiation of a satisfactory outcome, but

face-saving maneuvers (movements performed with care and

skill) to accommodate the noncompliant nature of the act

Because of the face-threatening nature of refusals, they are

often regulated by different cross-cultural face concerns”

Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1985; quoted in Scarcella, Andersen and Krashen, 1990: 56) state:

2.4.1 Possible refusal trajectories

As Gass and Houck (1999: 3-4) point out, refusals are acts that function as a response to an Initiating Act There are a number of possible Initial Reponses after an Initiating Act such as a request Similarly, there are

a number of possible Final Outcomes The Initial Act sets the process in motion Two general types of Initial Response by a Respondent are possible The Respondent can either accept or not accept:

An Accept in this case refers to sincere acceptance That is an acceptance that is intended as agreement and as perceived as such

A Non-accept can be expressed as a refusal, a postponement, or the proposal of an alternative With Non-accepts, the situation becomes more complex, particularly because numerous options confront a refuser

If the response is a Non-accept, the Initiator can agree or go along with the respondent’s Non-accept and the Initial Response serves as the

“Refusals are a major cross-cultural ‘sticking point’ for many

nonnative speakers, and for that reason they are important

for second language educators and others involved in

cross-cultural communication According to these authors, refusals

are also interesting from a socio-linguistic point of view

First, they are complex In natural conversations, they often

involve a long negotiated sequence, and the risk of offending

one’s interlocutor is so much a part of the speech act that

some degree of indirectness usually exists Second, refusals

are interesting in that their form and content vary according

to the eliciting speech act (e.g., invitation, request, offer, or

suggestion) They are also sensitive to other socio-linguistic

variables, such as status of the interlocutor”

Final Outcome Possible responses and outcomes to request, invitation, offer and suggestion are presented in Table 2.3 (Gass and Houck, 1999: 4)

Table 2.3: Possible responses and outcome to request,

invitation, offer and suggestion

On the other hand, if the Initiator does not accede to the Respondent’s Non-accept, the Initiator can attempt to work out a more acceptable resolution This circumstance leads to negotiation Negotiation is explained by Gass and Houck as:

part of an interaction in which the interactants perform a

series of linguistic acts with the goal of producing a

satisfactory Final Outcome Negotiation can involve

Initiator recyclings of the Initiating Act, reasons for

acceptance, proposals of alternatives or even

suggestions of postponement

(Gass and Houck, 1999: 4) The possible negotiation outcomes suggested by Gass and Houck (1999: 4) are shown in the Figure below

Response to R’s Non-accept (I)

Non-accept Acceptance of R’s Non-accept

Non-acceptance of R’s Non-accept (Negotiation (Abandon Process)

Acceptance Refusal Postponement Compromise (on an Alternative Action/ Non-action)

Figure: Possible negotiation outcomes

2.4.2 Classifications of refusal strategies

Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1985; cited in Scarcella, Andersen, and Krashen,1990: 72-73) suggest the classifications of refusal strsategies According to these authors, refusals can be classified into the following categories:

2.4.2.1 Direct refusal strategies:

a.Using performative verbs (I refuse)

b Non performative statement:

- “No”

- Negative willingness/ ability (I can’t/ I won’t/ I don’t think so)

2.4.2.2 Indirect refusal strategies:

a Statement of regret (I’m sorry / I feel terrible )

b Wish (I wish/ I could help you )

c Excuse, reason, explanation (My children will be home that night./ I have a headache)

d Statement of alternative:

- I can do it instead of Y (I’d rather / I’d prefer )

- Why don’t you do X instead of Y ?

e Set condition for future or past acceptance (If you had asked me earlier, I would have )

f Promise of future acceptance (I’ll do it next time./ I promise I’ll / Next time I’ll )

g Statement of principle (I never do business with friends.)

h Statement of philosophy (One can’t be too careful.)

i Attempt to dissuade interlocutor:

- Threat or statement of negative consequences to the requester - Guilt trip

- Criticize the request/requester

- Request for help, empathy, and assistance

- Let the interlocutor off the hook

- Self-defense (I’m trying my best./ I’m doing all i can do.)

J Acceptance that functions as a refusal:

- Unspecific or indefinite reply

- Lack of enthusiasm

k Avoidance: Non verbal and Verbal

- Non verbal: Silence

Hesitation

Doing nothing Physical departure

- Verbal: Topic switch

Joke Repetition of part of request (Monday?) Postponement (I’ll think about it.)

Hedge (I don’t know./ I’m not sure.)

2.4.2.3 Adjuncts to Refusals:

a Statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement (That’s a good idea /I’d love to )

b Statement of empathy (I realize you are in a difficult situation)

c Pause fillers (uh! well! oh! uh!)

d Gratitude/ appreciation

2.5 Politeness theory

According to Thomas (1996:149-159), there has been a great deal of interest in “politeness” in the past twenty-five years within pragmatics and politeness theory could be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics More recent work in politeness theory, notably that of Leech (1980 [1977] and 1983a) and Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]) has focused on politeness

as a pragmatic phenomenon In these writings, politeness is interpreted as a

strategy (or series of strategies employed by a speaker to achieve a variety

of goals, such as promoting or maintaining harmonious relations)

The most influential theory of politeness was put forward by Brown and Levinson (1978 and revised in 1987) Central to Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness is the concept of “face” as proposed by Goffman (1967)

Verschueren (1999: 45) shares the same idea when defining politeness as “a cover term in pragmatics for whatever choices are made in language use in relation to the need to preserve people’s face in general”

According to Richards (1985: 208), the relationship between politeness and face was pointed out as:

appropriate styles of speaking according to the power

paradigm of the interaction indicate the degree of perceived

affiliation or distance between speaker and hearer

Successful use of these strategies creates an atmosphere of

politeness that enables social transactions to proceed

without threat to the face of speaker or hearer

Finegan (1994: 352) asserts that indirect utterances can convey the message of politeness Indirect speech acts are thus an efficient tool of communication because they can carry more than one message at the same time

Leech (1983; cited in Peccei, 1999: 64) observes that the relationship between indirectness and politeness could be quite complicated The social distance between the speaker and the hearer, and the need to feel accepted by other people, can also have a significant effect on how we interpret the politeness of an utterance For example, when we talk between friends, an indirect and more formal directive like “Would you mind passing

me the salt?” or “Could you please pass me the salt?” can sound rather unfriendly However, with someone you don’t know very well, this seems more appropriate

2.5.1 Face wants

According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 61; cited in Peccei, 1999: 64), politeness involves us showing an awareness of other people’s FACE WANTS

“Face” is considered as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” They claimed that, in general, the people involved in an interaction cooperate to maintain each participant’s face There are two aspects of face:

( POSITIVE FACE refers to our need to be accepted and liked by others and our need to feel that our social group shares common goals POSITIVE POLITENESS orients to preserving the positive face of other people When we use positive politeness, we use speech strategies that emphasize our solidarity with the hearer, such as informal pronunciation, shared dialect or slang expressions, nicknames more frequently reference

to speaker and hearer as we, and requests which are less indirect

( NEGATIVE FACE refers to our right to independence of action and our need not to be imposed by others (Negative face here does not mean bad, simply an opposite term to a positive one) NEGATIVE POLITENESS orients to preserving the negative face of other people There is much more likely if there is a social distance between the speaker and hearer When we use negative politeness, we use speech strategies that emphasize our deference for the hearer Nicknames, slang and informal pronunciation tend

to be avoided and requests tend to be more indirect and impersonal

2.5.2 Essential factors affecting the choice of politeness strategies

According to Ellis (1994: 197), “social factors such as status, age, and gender have a major impact on language use but probably do not influence

it directly Rather, their effect is mediated by a number of variables and is likely to differ according to social context.”

Cohen (1996: 389) argues that status, age and gender are “part of the social set of factors that might play a significant role in strategy selection”

In this research, only the factors age and status are mentioned

2.5.2.1 Social status

According to Richards, J., Platt, J and Platt, H (1992: 353), status refers to higher, lower or equal position, particularly in regard to prestige, power and social class The status of people, when they are communicating

in speech or writing, may affect the speech style they use to each other

When doing the research about the effect of social status on the way people communicate, Gamble, T and Gamble, M (1999: 113) state that the language people use reflects their having power or lacking power Powerful people make definite statements, direct the action, and assume control, whereas powerless people speak indirectly and hesitate because they lack self-confidence Besides, Bonvillain (1993: 369) argues that differences in status are not only expressed in words and speech patterns but also are demonstrated in assignment of rights to speak and determine topics of talk Rights or constraints are displayed in interpersonal encounters on a daily basis where high-status people can exert their influence For example, in male/female, adult/ children interactions, high-status individuals often interrupt or disregard contributions of lower status interlocutors

Bonvillain (ibid: 389) concludes that status and authority are not impersonal forces of nature They are created and valued by people To be valuable, they must be exercised, and to be exercised they must be expressed Talking and writing are major means of communicating status and influencing ideas and systems of belief

2.5.2.2 Age

Peccei (1997: 114) refers to age as “an important cultural category,

an identity marker, and a factor in producing language variation within a speech community.” He also points out that “the way we talk about young children and the elderly reflects their special status in our society, a status which is partly determined by the amount of social and economic power which these groups possess.”

Haslett (1986; cited in Dang, 1992: 24) indicates three different ways

in which age may affect communication First, age is a maturational constraint, which constitutes the difference between the speech of the older generation and that of the younger generation in some ways Second, age

is an interactional constraint, which affects the interlocutor’s conversational

skills in the following aspects: speaking rights and obligations, topicalization, coherence and communicative functions Finally, age is a cultural constraint, which creates the difference in language use and communication behavior between people of different cultures

2.6 Language transfer

According to Ellis (1994: 28), transfer is defined as “the incorporation

of features of the first language into the knowledge systems of the second language which the learners are trying to build” In other words, transfers occur when first language speakers use their own language habits to communicate in the second language He also distinguishes two types of language transfer In cases where the target language differed from their first language, this would result in negative transfer In cases where the patterns of the first language and the target language were similar, positive transfer would occur Therefore, the first language could both impede and facilitate the acquisition of the second language

Beebe (1985; cited in Scarcella, Andersen and Krashen, 1990: 55-56) argues that language transfer is not a psychological process but often a socio-linguistic process, frequently of cultural identity assertion Socio-linguistic transfer is classified into three types: (1) transfer of a native language socio-linguistic variable rule; (2) transfer of native, discourse level, socio-cultural competence; and (3) socially motivated transfer where the transferred pattern may not be socio-linguistic in itself, but is transferred in order to fulfill a social psychological function Beebe views pragmatic transfer primarily as the second of these three types of socio-linguistic transfer, i.e., as transfer of L1 socio-cultural communicative competence in performing L2 speech act or any aspects of L2 conversation, where the speaker is trying to achieve a particular function of language

This chapter has revised the relevant literature as a theoretical framework for the study The methodology used for the research will be presented in the next chapter