So sánh cách thức từ chối lời mời của người việt nam học tiếng anh và người bản ngữ nói tiếng anh

Chapter 4 presents and discusses the results of the study with regard to thestrategies used by the two groups of subjects, native speakers of English NSEs andVietnamese learners of Engli

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Pragmatic competence

To become effective communicators in today’s connected world, it is necessary forlanguage learners to gain true communicative competence Communicative competence,according to Hymes (1967), includes not only knowledge of linguistic forms but alsoknowledge of when, how and for whom it is appropriate to use these forms Likewise, Ellis(1994:696) states that communicative competence “entails both linguistic competence andpragmatic competence”

Pragmatic competence is defined as ‘the ability to use language effectively in order

to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context’ (Thomas 1983:94).She also distinguishes between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence.Pragmalinguistic competence refers to the appropriate language to accomplish a speechact, whereas sociopragmatic competence refers to the appropriateness of a speech act in aparticular context

Increasing attention has been paid to pragmatic competence due to the fact thatmany learners may have good knowledge of grammar and a wide range of vocabulary butthey may still fail in real interaction with native speakers Moreover, in accordance withThomas (1983), native speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic and lexical errorsmade by L2 speakers but usually interpret pragmatic errors negatively as rudeness,impoliteness or unfriendliness

Over the past few decades, language teaching in the world and in Vietnam haswitnessed a shift from the focus on the development of learners’ linguistic competence tothe development of learners’ communicative competence To facilitate this change, there is

a need for more studies on learners’ pragmatic competence, including studies oninterlanguage pragmatics This study is carried out in an attempt to understand more aboutthe interlanguage pragmatics of Vietnamese learners of English

1.2 The speech act of refusal to invitation: a face - threatening act

Refusals are considered to be a ‘sticking point’ for many non-native speakers(Beebe et al 1987) Refusals to invitations occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says

‘No’ to an invitation It is, in fact, a face – threatening act Face, in Brown and Levinson’s(1987:61) definition, is ‘the public self image that every member wants to claim forhimself’, that is the emotional and social sense that everyone has and expects everyone else

to recognize Therefore, in interaction, people often cooperate to maintain each other’sface However, some acts, by their nature, make it difficult to maintain the face of theparticipants in an interaction These acts are referred to as face-threatening Some actsthreaten the hearer’s face, others threaten the speaker’s face, still others threaten the face ofboth the hearer and the speaker To reduce the risk of possible communication breakdowndue to these face-threatening acts, the participants can say something to lessen the threat tothe face of the others This is referred to as a face-saving act

Refusing an invitation contradicts the inviter’s expectation; thus, it is a face threatening act It tends to risk the interpersonal relationship of the speakers To maintainthe face of the inviter, the person who refuses the invitation is expected to use many face-saving acts or strategies Or in other words, it is important for that person to give theimpression that he/she still cares about the inviter’s wants, needs or feelings It requires ahigh level of pragmatic competence However, the way people refuse, or the manipulation

-of the face-saving strategies, varies across languages and cultures Language learners, due

to the limitation in language proficiency and the high requirement of pragmaticcompetence for this speech act, are at a great risk of offending their interlocutor whencarrying out a refusal to an invitation Beebe et al (1987:133) claim that ‘the inability tosay ‘No’ clearly and politely, though not directly has led many non-native speakers tooffend their interlocutors.’ The present study is an attempt to understand more aboutVietnamese EFL learners’ refusal strategies in the hope to raise their pragmatic awarenessand partly improve their pragmatic competence

1.3 Structure of the thesis

The thesis consists of five chapters Chapter 1 discusses pragmatic competence, thespeech act of refusal to invitation and the rationale of the study The chapter ends withinformation on the structure of the thesis

Chapter 2 reviews previous studies on the speech act of refusal, especially thoseexamining the factors under investigation of the study, i.e the strategy use in relation to theinterlocutor’s social status The review helps form the theoretical background for the study

Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in the study, including the aims, theresearch question of the study, the data collection method, the data collection instrument,data collecting procedures and the subjects of the study The coding framework and dataanalysis are also presented in this chapter

Chapter 4 presents and discusses the results of the study with regard to thestrategies used by the two groups of subjects, native speakers of English (NSEs) andVietnamese learners of English (VLEs) in relation to the interlocutor’s social status for thespeech act of refusal to invitation

Chapter 5 summarizes the major findings of the study, gives implications forlanguage teaching, points out the limitations of the study and suggests areas for furtherresearch

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Research on the speech act of refusal

Although the speech act of refusal is a face-threatening act which causes problemsfor not only non-native speakers but also native speakers, fewer studies have investigatedthe act than other acts such as request, apology or greeting However, the studies on thespeech act of refusal vary across the areas of study around the act Some of them aim toreveal the speech act in one language or culture, for instance, Chinese (Chen, Ye & Zhang,1995; Bresnahan, Ohashi, Liu, Nebashi & Liao, 1999), English (Kitao, 1996), Japanese(Moriyama, 1990; Laohaburakit, 1995), Peruvian Spanish (Garcia, 1992, 1996) Somehave been interested in the cross-cultural perspective of the speech act They compare therefusal patterns or strategies used by speakers of a language other than English with thoseused by native speakers of English (Shigeta, 1974; Liao & Bresnahan, 1996; Phan, 2001;Nelson, Carson, Batal & Bakary, 2002; Kwon, 2004; Hsieh, Chia-Ling & Chen, 2005;Dang, 2006) Others study the refusal strategy use of non-native speakers of English andnative speakers of English or focus on pragmatic transfer (Beebe & Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Beebe & Cumming, 1996; Lauper, 1997; Al-Issa, 2003; Al-Eryani, 2007).This chapter will review previous studies investigating the speech act of refusal.Specifically, the studies on cross-cultural refusals will be reviewed in section 2.2 and those

on interlanguage refusals will be reviewed in section 2.3

Kwon (2004) examines the refusal expressions in Korean and American English.She used the DCT taken from Beebe et al (1990) to collect refusals from 40 Koreanspeakers in Korea and 37 American English speakers in the United States of America TheDCT included 12 situations designed to elicit refusals to requests, invitations, offers, andsuggestions in lower, equal or higher status situations The data were analyzed in terms ofsemantic formulas and categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al.(1990) They compared the frequency and content of semantic formulas of the two groupsand found out that although the range of refusal strategies are similar between the twogroups, the frequency and content of semantic formulas are different For instance, Koreanspeakers hesitated more frequently and used direct refusal formulas much less frequentlythan English speakers Thus, Korean speakers’ refusals at times sounded less transparentand more tentative than those of English speakers In addition, Korean speakers frequentlypaused and apologized before refusing while English speakers often stated positive opinionand expressed gratitude for a proposed action With regard to content of semanticformulas, the two language groups differed in terms of the types of reasons used in theirrefusals Korean speakers typically used reasons, for example, referring to a father’s 60th

birthday when refusing a boss invitation which was not included in the English data

Nelson et al (2002) investigate similarities and differences between EgyptianArabic and American English refusals They used a modified version of the DCTdeveloped by Beebe et al (1990) as their data collection instrument for 30 Americaninterviews and 25 Egyptian interviews They gained 289 American English refusals and

250 Egyptian refusals Each refusal was divided into its component strategies and the datawere analysed to compare the average frequencies of direct and indirect strategies, theaverage frequencies of specific indirect strategies Results indicate that both groups usesimilar strategies with similar frequency in making refusals This finding is contrary toKwon’s (2004)

Research investigating the refusal strategies in Vietnamese and English includesPhan (2001) which was restricted to refusals to requests between Vietnamese speakers andEnglish speakers and Dang (2006) which focused on hedging in invitation declining in

American English and Vietnamese Both of the studies used DCT questionnaires to collectdata.

Phan (2001) found out that both Vietnamese and native informants tended to usemore indirect refusals than direct ones In both Anglophone and Vietnamese cultures, citydwellers were more direct than rural people and the informants who did not know anyforeign languages are more indirect than those with knowledge of some foreign languages.However, she also pointed out some difference between the two groups of informants Allthe Anglophone informants were more direct than the Vietnamese

Dang (2006) found seven main hedging strategies utilized by the two groups ofinformants, Vietnamese and NSs of English, including delaying, showing regret, givingexcuses, showing appreciation, blaming the partner, giving an alternative and mixingdifferent ways Among these, mixing different ways was the favourite strategy of bothgroups, whereas blaming the partner is the least favoured tactic The frequency of eachstrategy used by both parties varies according to age, gender, power, distance of thespeakers and the hearers and to the formality of the invitations

Some important factors which emerge from the above reviewed studies inform thepresent study Firstly, speakers of other languages (Korean & Egyptian Arabic) and NSEsemploy similar range of refusal strategies (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002) Secondly, thefrequencies of use of refusal strategies vary according to languages In Nelson et al.(2002), the frequency of use of refusal strategies are similar between speakers of EgyptianArabic and NSEs, whereas Kwon (2004)) found that the frequency of use of this speech act

is different between speakers of Korean and NSEs Thirdly, the contents of the semanticformulas of the refusals by Korean speakers and NSEs are different (Kwon, 2004) Withregard to the data collection instrument, both studies (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al 2002)utilized the DCT constructed by Beebe et al (1990) and their data were analyzed according

to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al (1990) As for the research on the speech act ofrefusal in Vietnamese, it was found that Vietnamese people were substantially moreindirect than NSEs (Phan, 2001) The frequency of each strategy among seven strategieslisted by Dang (2006) varies according to age, gender, power, distance of the speakers andthe hearers and to the formality of the invitation

Interested in finding the similarities and differences in the strategy use, Chen(1996) examined the speech act of refusal by American NSs and Chinese advanced EFLlearners Her data collection instrument was DCT questionnaires modified from those ofBeebe et al (1990) The collected data were analyzed and categorized according to therefusal taxonomy developed by Beebe et al (1990) She found out that direct refusal (i.e.,

‘No’) was not a common strategy for any of the subjects, regardless of their languagebackground Moreover, she found that an expression of regret, common in Americanspeakers’ refusals was not generally produced by the Chinese learners, which could lead tounpleasant feelings between speakers in an American context

Widjaja (1997) investigated date refusals between Taiwanese females versusAmerican females In the study, 10 Taiwanese and 10 American female college studentsperformed three different dating role plays (classmate, stranger and boyfriend contexts) inEnglish as a second language versus native language with retrospective interviews to get atthought processes and negative and positive politeness strategy formulation Negativepoliteness strategies included a direct refusal, a refusal, an indirect refusal, an expression ofregret, an excuse, an objection, and a hedge Positive politeness strategies included offering

an alternative, a vague future acceptance, a future acceptance, a postponement, solidarity, apositive remark, a positive opinion and thanking Results showed that both groupspreferred negative politeness strategies but the Taiwanese preferred higher directness inrefusing dates

Sadler and Eroz (2001) used the written refusal DCT developed by Beebe et al.(1990) as the data collection instrument in an examination of English refusals by NSEs,Laotian and Turkish Thirty participants filled in their refusal DCT in English – 10

Americans, 10 Laotians, and 10 Turkish The data were also analysed in terms of semanticformulas and categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al (1990) It wasfound that the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic formulas utilized in therefusals of all the three groups were different Although all the respondents tended to useexcuses, explanations or reasons with a statement of regret preceding or following thereasons or excuses, the Turkish subjects refused a bit less than the others The Turkish andAmerican subjects used pause fillers and then statements of gratitude and appreciation,while the Laotian respondents used more statements of regret followed by adjuncts

Tanck (2002) compared refusals by NNSs of English speaking different L1(Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai) and those

by NSEs She found that NSEs and NNSs used the components of a refusal (expression ofregret, excuse, offering alternative) with similar frequency However, the result of herstudy also indicated that the quality of the components of the speech act of refusalproduced by NNSs was different from those produced by NSEs NNSs’ responses wereless appropriate in the situations under study They were linguistically correct, but oftenlacked the pragmatic elements that allow this face-threatening act to be received by theinterlocutor

In exploring similarities and differences in the strategy use of Vietnamese learners

of English (VLEs) and the NSEs, Nguyen (2006) investigated the strategy use in thespeech act of refusal, but restricted to refusals of request She used a questionnaire in theform of DCT based on the Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP)(Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984) for data collection 40 NSEs and 40 VLEs participated inthe study resulted in 1440 speech acts of refusal The data were categorized according tothe refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al (1990) and analyzed to compare the frequency of thespeech act of refusal to request in selected situations It was found that the frequency of theuse of the speech act of refusal by the Australian NSs of English was different from that bythe VLEs Although the VLEs and the Australian NSs of English employed the samenumber of speech acts of refusal, the VLEs used more statements of regret, more statement

of empathy and more reason/ excuse/ explanation than Australian NSs of English.Moreover, Australian NSs of English tended to be more direct in their refusals

The studies investigating the refusal strategies of learners of English and focusing

on pragmatic transfer include Beebe et al (1987, 1990), Lauper (1997), Yamagashira(2001), Al-Issa (2003) and Al-Eryani (2007),

In both of their studies (1987, 1990), Beebe and her colleagues investigated thespeech act of refusal produced by Japanese learners of English Their data collectioninstrument was DCT questionnaire consisting of 12 situations eliciting refusals to requests,invitations, offers and suggestions These situations vary according to the hearer’s status,i.e higher, equal and lower The findings generally suggested that the Japanese learnerstransferred their native refusal patterns into the target language, and the transfer wasevidenced in the frequency, order and content of the semantic formulas they used Beebe et

al (1987) also found that pragmatic transfer was pervasive, not limited to any specificlevel of foreign or second language learning However, more advanced learners tended tomake more transfer because their high level of proficiency helped them express themselvesmore easily in their native ways while speaking English

Also being interested in Japanese ESL learners’ refusals, Yamagashira (2001)compared the language patterns used to make refusals by both Japanese learners of Englishand American English NSs in different situations Additionally, pragmatic transfer wasconsidered Such factors as learners’ English proficiency, the time spent in the States, andexplicit instructions on pragmatic knowledge were also examined The DCT questionnairedeveloped by Beebe et al (1990) was used to collect data The data were also analysedand categorised according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al (1990) The resultsshowed that pragmatic transfer did occur in the learners’ refusals The time spent in theStates, the L2 proficiency of the Japanese speakers, and explicit instructions on pragmaticknowledge were shown to affect pragmatic transfer If a subject was immersed in English,his/ her response was more similar to that of NSs Moreover, the lower L2 proficiencysubjects used their L1 refusal style, whereas the highest L2 proficiency subjects used onlyAmerican English refusal strategies The subject who had received explicit instructions onpragmatics responded to the refusal situations appropriately in English

Lauper (1997) investigated whether or not the learners’ native language and theirreason for refusing would have an effect on their refusal strategies The subjects were 60

NSs of English, 60 NSs of Spanish and 60 Spanish learners of English A DCTquestionnaire was used to elicit refusals for 20 situations The data also concerned thesubjects’ age, gender, level of education Analysis of the responses resulted in a taxonomy

of 43 refusal strategies Results indicated that the three groups had different refusalpatterns In some cases, the Spanish learners of English refused similarly to NSs of Spanishand differently from NSs of English, suggesting pragmatic transfer in this group However,

in some cases, refusal strategies of the learners approximated those of NSs of English, and

in other cases, their refusal strategies were different from those of both groups of NS.Moreover, it was found that the three groups varied their refusal strategies according to thereason for refusing

Al-Issa (2003) investigated the patterns of the speech act of refusal by Jordanianlearners Her data collection instrument was a DCT questionnaire which had beendeveloped based on observational notebook data The data were collected from 150subjects who were divided into three groups: Jordanian learners of English, NSs of Arabicand NSs of English Each group consists of 50 participants, 25 males and 25 females TheDCT was then followed by semi-structured interviews Using semantic data as units ofanalysis, the learners’ refusal responses were compared with that of NSs of English andNSs of Arabic responding in Arabic The results showed three areas in which the nativelanguage of the learners affected their refusal speech: the choice of semantic formulas, thelength of responses and the content of semantic formulas

Al-Eryani (2007) carried out a pragmalinguistic investigation into the speech act ofrefusal made by Yemeni EFL learners The subjects of the study were 20 Yemeni learners

of English, 20 Yemeni Arabic NSs and 20 American English NSs The data collectioninstrument was a written DCT questionnaire modified from that of Beebe et al (1990) Thedata were analysed in terms of semantic formula and were categorized according to therefusal taxonomy developed by Beebe et al (1990) The data collected from the learnerswere compared with those collected from NSs of their first language, Yemeni Arabic andwith those collected from NSs of English Results showed that there were differences inthe strategies used by the Yemeni learners of English and NSs of English Specifically, thefrequency, the order and the content of the semantic formulas used by the two groups were

different Due to their high proficiency, the Yemeni learners showed pragmaticcompetence in the target language in all three areas: order, frequency and content of thesemantic formulas However, they at times displayed some of their native speechcommunity norms, falling back on their cultural background when formulating refusals.

The review of this section also provides several important points for the presentstudy First of all, the direct refusal ‘No’ is not a common strategy for any of the languagegroups (Chen, 1996) Moreover, although they use similar range of refusal strategies, thefrequency, order and content of the semantic formulas utilized by learners of English andNSEs are different (Chen, 1996; Beebe et al., 1987, 1990; Yamagashira, 2001; Nguyen;2006; Al-Eryani, 2007) Additionally, the learners’ refusal strategies in English areaffected by their native language (Beebe et al 1987, 1990; Yagamashira, 2001; Al-Issa,2003) However, Beebe et al (1987, 1990) and Yagamashira (2001) had contrary results

In Beebe et al (1987), more advanced learners are more affected by the refusal strategies

of their native language, whereas the native language of the learners in Yagamashira’sstudy had more influence on the lower proficiency learners In terms of data collection andanalysis, the DCT questionnaire developed by Beebe et al (1987) and the refusaltaxonomy constructed by Beebe et al (1990) were widely used in research on the speechact of refusal (Beebe et al., 1990; Yamagashira, 2001, Nguyen, 2006) Finally, in Lauper(1997), the native language of the learners sometimes affects their refusal strategies inEnglish, sometimes their strategies are similar to the NSs of English and sometimes theirstrategies are different from both groups of NSs

2.4 Interlocutor’s status and the choice of refusal strategy

One of the contextual variables which many of the studies considered whenexamining the use of refusal strategies employed by NNSs or learners of English and NSs

of English is the interlocutor’s status The reason is that this factor is closely related to thechoice of refusal strategy

Findings from previous studies show that people from different cultures do notperceive the status of the interlocutor in the same way and therefore they do not alwayschoose the same strategies for the same speech act in general and the speech act of refusal

in particular (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002; Beebe et al., 1990; Phuong, 2006) Forexample, Nguyen (2006) found out that Australian NSEs did not care much of the socialstatus of the interlocutor when they said ‘No’, whereas VLEs experienced differenceswhen they refused people of different status The VLEs were more sensitive to the socialstatus of the interlocutor Similarly, Beebe et al (1990) found that Japanese learners ofEnglish tended to respond differently to higher versus lower status interlocutors, whileNSEs were sensitive to status equals versus status unequals Kwon (2004) showed thatKorean speakers were more sensitive to higher status people than to people of equal orlower status They tended to take a more mitigating approach in dealing with a higherstatus person than with other status types However, American English speakers did notshift their refusal strategies noticeably according to the status of the interlocutors.

The above review of the related literature of the speech act of refusal shows that theuse of refusal strategies by Vietnamese learners of English is still a gap in the literaturewhich needs to be filled to gain a better understanding of learners’ interlanguage ingeneral, and of Vietnamese learners of English in particular Moreover, the literaturereview also provided the background and theoretical framework for the present study Thespecific issues of the study, including the aims, the research questions of the study, the datacollection method, the data collection instrument, data collecting procedures and thesubjects, the coding framework and data analysis of the study will be presented in the nextchapter

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents and discusses the issues related to the method conducting thisstudy Section 3.1 outlines the aim of the study and the research question addressed toobtain the aim Section 3.2 discusses the issues in the data collection, including the datacollection method, data collection instrument, data collection procedures and thedescription of the subjects Section 3.3 presents the coding framework used in the study Inthe final section, section 3.4, the method of data analysis is described

3.1 Aims and research question

3.1.1 Aims of the study

As can be seen in chapter 2, there is a gap in our understanding of how theVietnamese learners use refusal strategies in English This study aims at investigating thestrategies of refusal to invitations which are employed by the VLEs and NSEs.Specifically, the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic formulas utilized torefuse by the VLEs are compared with those by NSEs as the base line in relation to theinterlocutor’s social status

3.1.2 Research question

The study aims to answer the following question:

How do Vietnamese learners of English (VLEs) differ from native speakers of English(NSEs) in their strategies of refusal to invitations in terms of frequency, order andcontent of semantic formulas in relation to the interlocutor’s status?

3.2 Data collection

In this part, the issues relating to the data collection will be discussed Section 3.2.1discusses the data collection method Section 3.2.2 gives details of the data collection

instrument Section 3.2.3 describes the data collection procedures and the subjects of thestudy.

3.2.1 Data collection method

As shown in section 3.1.1, the aim of this study is to investigate the refusal strategyused by VLEs and NSEs in relation to a contextual variable, the interlocutor’s social status.This aim is pursued by comparing the frequency, order and content of semantic formulasused by VLEs with those by NSEs The instrument to collect data for this comparison isthe DCT

DCTs are ‘written questionnaires including a number of brief situationaldescriptions, followed by a short dialogue with an empty slot for the speech act understudy’ (Kasper and Dahl, 1991: 221) The dialogue usually starts with an ‘opener’ followed

by a blank for the respondents to write their responses to complete the dialogue

A DCT is used to collect data in the present study for the following reasons Firstly,the DCT has been proved to be an effective means of gathering a large amount of data in arelatively short period of time (Wolfson, 1989; Beebe et al., 1990; Beebe and Cumming,1996) Due to the time constraint of the present study, the DCT is a proper solution.Moreover, it is a useful method to elicit data for cross-cultural comparability (Blum-Kulka,House, and Kasper, 1989) Additionally, it allows the researchers to control variables ofthe situations under study, for example, the interlocutor’s status Therefore, the datacollected will be consistent, making it easier to achieve the aims of the study

Apart from the recognized advantages of the DCT, there are arguments against thisdata collection method First, the DCT usually lacks contextual variation (Rose, 1994) Inaddition, the real complex interactions are not fully reflected in the DCT They aresimplified (Brown and Levinson, 1987) Another limitation of the DCT, in accordancewith Nelson et al (2002), is that the situations in the DCT are hypothetical in nature Many

of the DCTs are used to elicit spoken speech However, what people claim they would say

in a hypothetical situation is not necessarily what they would actually say in a realsituation Furthermore, as reviewed in chapter 2, the finding of the study by Beebe andCumming (1996) reveals that DCTs do not elicit natural speech with actual wording, range

of formulas and strategies, length of responses and number of turns They also do notadequately represent the depth of emotion and natural occurrence of the speech Sharingthis idea with Beebe and Cumming, Nelson et al., (2002) claim that DCTs fail to reveal thesocio-pragmatic complexities of face-threatening acts such as refusals

Recognizing both advantages and limitations of the DCT, the researcher of thestudy agrees with Rose and Ono (1995) that it should not be expected that a single datasource will provide all the necessary insights into speech act usage Each type of data willprovide different information

According to Kasper (2000), the DCT is an effective means of data collection if thegoal of the study is to ‘inform about speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge of thestrategies and linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented’.Congruent with Kasper (2000), Nelson et al., (2002) also argue that the DCT may beappropriate for collecting pragmalinguistic data Since this is a pragmalinguisticinvestigation into the speech act of refusal to invitations, the DCT is believed to beappropriate to collect data for the study

3.2.2 Data collection instrument

A modified version of the DCT constructed by Beebe et al (1990) is used for thepresent study because the DCT of Beebe et al (1990) had been developed and piloted withstatus embedded in the situations It is, therefore, convenient to collect data for theconsideration of the interlocutor’s status Moreover, it can be seen in Chapter 2 that many

of the studies on the speech act of refusal have utilized the DCT by Beebe et al (1990),which shows the high reliability of this DCT questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of two parts In the first part, the respondents are asked

to supply background information such as their nationality and their gender Part twocomprises three situations in which the respondents are required to refuse the invitations ofthree people These people are at different social status in comparison with therespondents One is a higher-status person (a professor who invites the respondent, astudent, to have dinner in the canteen while finishing the student’s project) One is ofequal-status with the respondent (a friend invites the respondent to dinner) In the last

situation, a lower-status person, a salesman invites the respondent who is the director of aprinting company to a luxurious restaurant to firm up a contract

For a full version of the DCT questionnaire, see the Appendix

3.2.3 Data collection procedures and subjects of the study

3.2.3.1 Data collection procedures

After the DCT questionnaires were produced, they were delivered to two groups ofparticipants: Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English For theVietnamese group, we contacted most of the Vietnamese participants in person and somevia e-mail to ask them to fill in the questionnaires The VLEs were asked to refuse theinvitations in English This was conducted in Hanoi For the NSEs, due to time and contactcondition constraints, I could meet only five of the subjects who were tourists in Vietnam.After they completed the questionnaires, I had small talks with them about their responses

to the situations in the questionnaire Some of the questionnaires for this group weredelivered to the NSEs by two of my friends who were in Australia Still others wereadministered through e-mail No time limits were imposed on completing the DCT

3.2.3.2 Subjects of the study

The two groups of subjects who provided the refusal data for the study wereVietnamese learners of English (VELs) and native speakers of English (NSEs) The firstgroup consists of 20 advanced Vietnamese learners of English (2 males, 18 females) Theyare all graduate students of Vietnam National University, College of Foreign Languages,Post Graduate Studies Department The second group comprises 20 native speakers ofEnglish (7 males and 13 females) These are subjects of convenience They come fromdifferent countries: Australia (9), England (3), the United States (3), Canada (2), NewZealand (2), and Ireland (1)

3.3 Coding framework

After the refusal data were collected, they were coded into semantic formulas Asemantic formula refers to ‘a word, phrase or sentence that meets a particular semantic

criterion or strategy; any one or more of these can be used to perform the act in question’(Cohen 1996: 265) In coding the refusal data in terms of semantic formulas, the refusaltaxonomy developed by Beebe et al (1990) was used For example, a respondent refused

an invitation to a friend’s house for dinner, saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m going to a concert on Sunday night Maybe next time.’ This was coded as [expression of regret] [reason] and

2 Why don’t you do X instead of Y

E Set condition for future or past acceptance

F Promise of future acceptance

G Statement of principle

H Statement of philosophy

I Attempt to dissuade the interlocutor

1 Threat/ statement of negative consequences to the requester

2 Guilt trip

3 Criticize the request/ requester, etc

4 Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding therequest

5 Let interlocutor off the hook

6 Self defence

J Acceptance that functions as a refusal

1 Unspecific or indefinite reply

1 Statement of positive opinion/ feeling or agreement

(the initial letter of the code is the category which a semantic formula belongs to) andexplanation for them:

I Direct

1 Performative (DP)

Leech (1983) defines performatives as ‘self-naming utterances, in which theperformative verb usually refers to the act in which the speaker is involved at the moment

of speech.’ (p 125) For example: NSE subject number 17 (NSE 17) responded:

I have to refuse your invitation.

2 Non-performative (DN)

Negative willingness/ ability

Negative willingness ability includes the expressions which contain negations.Negation can be expressed by ‘not’ or by any other words which negate a proposition

For example: (NSE 17) I can’t stay.

II Indirect

1 Statement of regret (IR)

The statements that contain the words ‘sorry’, ‘regret’

For example: (NSE 16) I’m terribly sorry but I have to pick up a friend at the airport.

2 Statement of wish (IW)

Sometimes to refuse an invitation indirectly, the respondents indicate his/ her wish

For example: (VLE 18) I wish I could join with you.

3 Excuse/ reason/ explanation (IERE)

The respondents sometimes refuse an invitation by giving an excuse, anexplanation or a reason The explanations and reasons may be general

For example: (VLE 14) I’m not free tonight

They can also be specific

For example: (VLE 20) We have had a plan to take our children out.

4 Statement of alternative (IA)

Although the respondents cannot satisfy the inviter’s want, they suggestalternatives in the hope to reduce the negative impact of their refusal.

For example: (VLE 3) Can we leave it till the beginning of next week?

5 Statement of principle (IPR)

The statements which show that the respondents would violate the principles whichthey have followed for a long time if they accept the invitation are categorized as thestatements of principle

For example: (VLE 5) I’m not used to firming up contracts in restaurants.

6 Statement of philosophy (IPH)

The respondents also at times refuse an invitation by indicating an obvioussequence of activities in our life

For example: (NSE 16) We can always have dinner after everything is settled.

7 Let the interlocutor off the hook (IOH)

With this formula, the refusers show that they sympathize with the inviter and it isnot necessary for that person to invite

For example: (VLE 3) There is no need to do this.

8 Repetition of part of the invitation (IRI)

While the respondents cannot accept the invitation for some reason, they still showtheir interest or surprise by repeating part of the invitation

For example: (NSE 12) Lettuce! (The name of a luxurious restaurant in New York)

9 Postponement (IP)

The respondents sometimes soften their refusals by postponing the invitationwithout suggesting a specific time

For example: (VLE 8) I’ll call you when we are in need.

10 Elaboration of the reason * (IER)

After giving a reason, some of the refusers still give more details about theirreasons Statements of this kind are categorized as ‘Elaboration of the reason’

For example: (NSE 18) I’m busy I have to pick up my friend at the airport.

11 Rhetorical question * (IRQ)

Some people want to express what they think about an invitation by asking a

rhetorical question

For example: (NSE 19) It would not look too good now, would it?

III Adjuncts to refusals

Preliminary remarks which could not appear alone and function as extra

modification to protect the inviter’s face are the adjuncts to refusals This category includesthe following formulas:

1 Statement of positive opinion/ feeling or agreement (APO)

For example: I’d love to come.

2 Pause filler (APF)

For example: Oh/ Well/ Ahh

3 Gratitude/ Appreciation (AGA)

For example: Thank you very much for your invitation

4 Addressing term (AAT)

For example: Professor

3.4 Data analysis

As noted in section 3.1.1, the strategies of refusals to invitation of the VLEs areinvestigated by comparing the frequency, the order and the content of the semanticformulas of this language group with those of the NSEs in relation to the interlocutor’sstatus

First, to compare the frequency in the use of the semantic formulas of the twolanguage groups, the total number of each semantic formula used by each group in thethree situations was calculated Then they were shown a chart The chart would helpcompare the overall frequencies in the use of each of the semantic formulas The number

of each semantic formula in each situation is also presented in a table to compare thefrequency of the semantic formula while considering the interlocutor’s status.

Second, to compare the order of the semantic formulas of the two language groups,the total number of each semantic formula in each situation was counted for each of thelanguage group and listed in order in a table Then, the similarities and differences of theorder of semantic formulas used by the VLEs and the NSEs were analysed For example,E.g Refuser status: Higher

Chapter 4