THESIS 2 - Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners
by Yanping Jin
A thesis submitted to the English Department, Faculty of Humanities in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Supervisors: Dick Smakman & Robert Lankamp
Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands August 2010
Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Theoretical background .................................................................................... 1 1.3 Research questions ........................................................................................... 2 1.4 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Thesis overview................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 Literature ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Brown and Levinsons politeness model.......................................................... 4 2.3 Scollon and Scollons face systems .................................................................. 5 2.4 Pragmatic refusal strategies .............................................................................. 6 2.5 Flix-Brasdefers illustration on speech act of refusals ................................. 10 2.6 Face and refusal strategies of Chinese ........................................................... 10 2.7 Conclusion & hypotheses ................................................................................ 11 Chapter 3 Methodology............................................................................................... 12 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Research tools ................................................................................................ 12 3.2.1 Role-play test........................................................................................ 12 3.2.2 Perception questionnaire ...................................................................... 13 3.3 Participants ..................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Data collection procedure............................................................................... 13 3.4.1 Role-play used in the present study...................................................... 13 3.4.2 Perception questionnaire in this study.................................................. 14 3.5 Data analysis .................................................................................................. 15 Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Refusal strategy distributions ......................................................................... 16 4.3 Individual variability among the Chinese ...................................................... 19 4.4 Face systems and situational variation ........................................................... 20 4.4.1 Hierarchical face system: Advisor, Bookstore, Farewell (+P, +D) ...... 21 4.4.1.1 Refusing a suggestion from an advisor: Advisor ....................... 21 4.4.1.2 Refusing a request and an invitation from a boss: Bookstore and Farewell .................................................................................................. 25 4.4.2 Deference face system Notes (-P, +D) .............................................. 28 4.4.3 Solidarity face system: Bar and Birthday (-P, -D)................................ 31 4.4.3.1 Refusing a suggestion from a friend: Bar................................... 32 4.4.3.2 Refusing an invitation from a friend: Birthday .......................... 34 4.5 Refusal strategy use frequencies in perception .............................................. 38 4.6 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 5 Conclusions and discussions ...................................................................... 42 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 42 5.2 Linguistic behavior and perceptions on strategies of refusals........................ 42
5.3 Perceptions on strategies of refusals .............................................................. 43 5.4 Uniqueness of Chinese English learners dealing with refusal issues ............. 43 5.5 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix 3 .................................................................................................................. 49 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 50
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview The issue of politeness strategy has been studied by linguists, and there have been fruitful research findings on it. We know how native speakers of English handle politeness when they speak English and how native speakers of Chinese deal with politeness when they speak Chinese. This study is placed in a fresh perspective. It tries to answer the question of how Chinese English learners with Chinese cultural background and experience of living abroad accommodate their ways of politeness. By means of open role-play tests on six refusal situations, this study analyzes similarities and differences in the realization patterns of refusals among Chinese English learners and English native speaker. It examines perceptions on politeness through questionnaires on refusal strategies usage frequency as well. Contrastive studies are done in the first place between Chinese English learners and English native speaker, and in the second place, between results of employed strategies in role plays and data of perception on strategy use frequencies. The research findings may shed light on how intercultural values are perceived by Chinese international students, their adaptations into western styles of living. 1.2 Theoretical background This study gets inspirations from Flix-Brasdefer (2008)s Politeness in Mexico and the United States, which examines similarities and differences in the realization patterns and the perceptions of refusals by educated, male native speakers of Mexican Spanish and U.S. English in formal and informal situations. The author argues that as a reactive speech act, refusals must be negotiated in social interaction, and the framework of his analysis is embedded in the notion of relational work and linguistic politeness during human social interaction (Watts, 2003). In light of Flix-Brasdefers proposition on doing research of refusals by utilizing interactional data, this study concentrates on negotiations of speakers who try to arrive at a mutual agreement with the interlocutors. Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that during social interaction a speaker must rationally assess the nature of a face threatening act (FTA). They propose a theory in which the use of politeness is culture-sensitive, and seriousness of an act is predicted by the sociological variables of the social distance (D), social power (P) between a speaker and a hearer, and the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in a particular culture. Scollon and Scollons (2001) have developed systems through the variation of social P and social distance D. This model of interpersonal communication include deference (-P, +D), solidarity (-P, -D), and hierarchical (+P, +/-D), as well as aspects of face (involvement and independence). Since this study primarily concerns with social interaction in different situations, Scollon and Scollons politeness systems is
1
adopted. To examine the negotiation of face, Flix-Bradsdefer(2008) classifies pragmatic refusal strategies into three categories: direct refusal, indirect refusals (alternative; mitigated refusal; reason/explanation; apology; indefinite reply; apology/ regret; set condition for future/ past acceptance; promise to comply; preparator; postponement; wish) and adjuncts to refusals (positive opinion; willingness; gratitude/ appreciation; agreement; empathy). The present study uses these classifications in coding refusal expressions, not only for his categories overlap to a great extent with the ones developed by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990) which are most frequently cited, but also for these categories are based on data which are closer to real refusals than Beebe and her colleagues. 1.3 Research questions It is generally believed that the ways in which we talk about topics are culturally determined. Chambers (2009: 9) mentioned, The rules governing speech acts, though not encoded anywhere, are understood thoroughly by natives and often misunderstood by outsiders. Zhan (1992) has pointed out the great influence of Chinese culture on politeness strategies of Chinese. However, the past decades have witnessed the enthusiasm of the increasing number of international students from China adapting themselves to western cultures (Maslen, 2007). The socio-cultural effect on the differences and similarities in utilizing refusal strategies among Chinese English learners and English native speaker, therefore, are interesting to be investigated. This study tries to answer three questions: 1. What are the refusal patterns of Chinese international students speaking English? 2. What are the disparities between speakers utterance in refusal situations and speakers perception on their regularly used refusal responses? 3. What are the differences and similarities in face negotiation during a refusal interaction and in perceptions on refusal strategy use between Chinese English speakers and native speaker of English? 1.4 Purpose As what briefly mentioned above (1.2), interactional data rather than non-contextual or written data should be preferred in doing studies on the issue of refusal. In view of this, by means of open role-play tests, the present study primarily focuses on the politeness in refusals by Chinese English learners living abroad and native of English in formal and informal situations. In addition, though there have been a few research on negotiation of refusals among native and non-native speakers of English, little attention has been paid on refusals in English by Chinese international students who speak English as a second language doing refusals. The present study does contrastive
2
studies on refusals by natives and Chinese speakers of English, thus adding reference in this field. Furthermore, from a practical perspective, considering the fact that Chinese has been the largest foreign study students group in the world (Maslen, 2007), the cross-cultural experiences of Chinese international students in Western countries have been subject to intensive research, but only a very small number of studies have considered how these students adapt to the western environment. This study reports on the Chinese English speakers perceptions and ways of being polite, so that gap can be addressed, and the adaptation process can be better understood. 1.5 Thesis overview The study is organized as follows: Chapter1 as being discussed above explains the research in general. Chapter 2 examines the literature on face systems, refusal strategy classifications and features of Chinese culture which influence politeness of Chinese people. Chapter 3 provides a description of the methodology used in the present study, including the information of participants, the procedure to collect and examine the data. Chapter 4 provides the data obtained from the analysis of role-play tests and questionnaire regarding perception of strategy use frequencies. Finally, Chapter 5 formulates the main conclusions of this study and identifies implications for future study.
Chapter 2 Literature 2.1 Introduction The framework employed here to study the realization patterns of refusals by Chinese international students and native speakers used the notion of relational work by Brown & Levinson (1987) and Scollon & Scollon (2001) for reference. In addition, symmetric and asymmetric face systems (Scollon & Scollon 2001) are adopted to analyze data in equal and unequal situations. This chapter also describes certain features of Chinese doing refusals in their native language. Furthermore, Flix-Brasdefers (2008) classification and ways interpreting refusal interactions are discussed. It begins by an analysis of politeness model (2.2), followed by an analysis of face systems (2.3). Next, the classifications of refusal strategies (2.4) and the approach interpreting interactional refusal speeches (2.5) are briefly discussed, followed by a short description of features of face and politeness in Chinese (2.6). The section ends with hypotheses on the research results (2.7). 2.2 Brown and Levinsons politeness model The notion of face derived from Goffman (1967) has already generated a large amount of literature. Brown and Levinson (1987) relate the face needs to language users. They distinguish different politeness strategies which are directed towards two types of face. These two types of face basically correspond with the need to be respected, in the sense of represents the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction (=negative face) and the hearers need to be appreciated or approved of (=positive face) (Brown & Levinson 1987: 61). Further, they argue that during social interaction a speaker must rationally assess the nature of a face threatening act (FTA). They propose a theory in which the use of politeness is culture-sensitive, and seriousness of an act is predicted by the sociological variables of the social distance (D), social power (P) between a speaker and a hearer, and the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in a particular culture: 1. Social Distance (D) between the speaker and the hearer; in effect, the degree of familiarity of solidarity they share (a symmetric relation); 2. Relative Power (P) of the speaker with respect to the hearer; in effect, the degree to which the speaker can impose his/her will on the hearer (an asymmetric relation); and 3. Absolute Ranking (R) of impositions in the culture in terms of the expenditure of goods and/or services by the hearer, the right of the speaker to perform the act, and the degree to which the hearer welcomes the imposition. (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 74-77) A crucial part of their FTA theory is that the values of the three variables (D, P, and R) constitute the weight of FTA: the greater the D between speaker and hearer, the higher
4
the weight of FTA; the greater the P of the hearer and the more imposing the object, the higher the weight. Brown and Levinsons model has aroused disputes. It is pointed out in other researches (Van der Wijst 1996, Wolfson 1989) that the straightforward linear relation between the use of politeness and D fails to account for the politeness patterns between intimates. The second disagreement is in that the variables of P and D cannot be understood as individual attached rather than role attached (Fraser 1990). In other words, the three social variables should be interpreted as relative notions with specific situational context. In studies of politeness in Chinese, Gu (1990) and Zhan (1992) note that individual component is less important than collective orientation in Chinese culture, thus the Brown and Levinsons positive and negative politeness are interpreted differently by Chinese . Positive and negative politeness of Chinese will be briefly discussed in 2.6. 2.3 Scollon and Scollons face systems Instead of positive politeness and negative politeness, Scollon and Scollon (2001: 46) use the term involvement and independence to produce an inherently paradoxical situation in all communications. Involvement of face is shown by discourse strategies as paying attention to others, showing a strong interest in their affairs, pointing out common in-group membership or points of view with them, or using first names. It is also called solidarity politeness (Scollon and Scollon 2001: 47). Independence of face emphasizes individuals right not to be completely dominated by group or social values, and to be free from the imposition of others. Scollon and Scollon (2001: 54-57) have also described face in accordance with social factors of P, D, and W (weight of imposition): 1. Deference politeness system (-P, +D). Symmetrical (-P), that is, the participants see themselves as being at the same social level; Distant (+D), that is, each uses independence strategies speaking to the other. 2. Solidarity politeness system (-P, -D) Symmetrical (-P), that is, the participants see themselves as being in equal social position; Close (-D), that is, the participants both use politeness strategies of involvement. 3. Hierarchical politeness system (+P, +/- D) Asymmetrical (+P), that is, the participants see themselves as being in unequal social position Asymmetrical in face strategies, that is, the higher uses involvement face strategies and the lower uses independence face strategies. Since this study analyzes social interactions in different situations, Scollon and
5
Scollons face systems and two aspects of face (involvement and independence) are adopted to check the realization patterns of doing refusals by Chinese English learners and English native speaker. 2.4 Pragmatic refusal strategies Gass and Houck (1999) have discussed some of the systems proposed by different researchers for categorizing refusal strategies. They noted the best-known and most frequently cited system for analyzing refusal is developed by Beebe and her colleagues. Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss- Weltz (1990) break down refusal responses into three categories: 1) direct (performative and nonperformative statement); 2) indirect refusals (statement of regret, wish, excuse/ reason/ explanation, statement of alternative, set condition for future or past acceptance, promise of future acceptance, statement of principle, statement of philosophy, attempt to dissuade interlocutor, acceptance that functions as a refusal, avoidance); 3) adjuncts (statement of positive opinion/ feeling of agreement, statement of empathy, pause fillers, gratitude/ appreciation). Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss- Weltzs categories overlap to a great extent with other researchers. However, these categories were established using data, primarily written responses to a discourse completion test, collected from native speakers of English, native speakers of Japanese, and native speakers of Japanese responding in English, supplemented by observations. Another well-defined classification is categorized by Flix-Brasdefer (2008). In general, Felix-Brasdefers refusal strategy categories take Beebe and her colleagues work as a reference, for the refusal responses are also classified into direct, indirect and adjuncts to refusal strategies, and some specific strategies closely resemble Beebe and her colleagues forms. Despite the resemblance between two systems, this classification system differs as to Beebe and her colleagues in that his categories were based on verbal responses in role play tests and retrospective verbal reports, which hold clear advantage in data collection process over discourse completion test, for the responses are closer to real refusals. Considering the nature of data collection methodology in the current study, Felix-Brasdefers categories of refusal strategies are employed in this study for coding. Definitions quoted from Felix-Brasdefers (2008:73-81) description on pragmatic strategies as manifestations of relational work and examples taken from role play results of the present study are shown below: 1) Direct refusals Strategies that convey an explicit message of the refusal response E.g. a. I really, really cannot today. b. - That day is really impossible for me. c. I dont want to take the course.
The negations above are expressed by adopting words or morphemes (underlined) with negative meanings. Indirect refusals include 12 strategies 2) Alternative Alternatives or possibilities suggested to negotiate face with the interlocutor and to arrive at a mutual agreement E.g. a. Would you like to come to my party? But if you have time on Saturday afternoon, perhaps we can have a cup of coffee, or if you like, we can have dinner together. b. Can you stay late and get this work done? But I think I can try to contact the other colleague in our store, and ask him to come, to help us to solve this problem. 3) Reason/ Explanation Providing excuses, accounts, or explanations E.g. a. So you will be there (my party) right? Ive had my own plans. b. Is it okay that you stay for extra two hours to help me display all the books? but its my friends birthday party, and weve already reserved a nice restaurant. She has had this plan with me two weeks ago. Shes like family friend. Both specific reasons (like example b) and general reasons (like example a) were coded under the reason/ explanation category. 4) Mitigate refusal Expressions which are internally modified by hedges that reduce the negative effects that a direct refusal might have had on the interlocutor E.g. a. I dont think its a good idea to be late. b. I will probably just go. c. Im afraid I cant. d. Unfortunately, I couldnt attend your party. e. Im kind of not that interested in Dutch. There are means of mental state predicates (I dont think; Im afraid), adverbs (unfortunately, probably), or degree modifiers (kind of) adopted by the participants conveying politeness. Internal modifications which are expressions weakening or mitigating the negative effects of refusals, were noted by Flix-Brasdefer as an independent means of a refusal sequence. These expressions and mitigate refusal expressions to a great extent overlap. Therefore, internal modification is consolidated into mitigated refusal in the
7
present study. 5) Indefinite reply Intentional message which remains vague, uncertain, or undecided E.g. a. so Ill see if I can. b. maybe I can consider about it, and Ill decide on it later. c. Im not sure. I will just starting working on the notes, and Ill see, Ill see then. 6) Apology/ Regret Expressions of regret, or asking for forgiveness E.g. a. Im sorry to say that b. Im really sorry. c. I feel very bad 7) Postponement Putting off an invitation, a request, or a suggestion E.g. a. Would you like to go to the bar with me? so can we do it later? b. Lets go to the bar and have a drink. we could go there after class. 8) Repetition The speaker repeats a portion of the previous discourse mentioned in the interlocutors invitation, request, or suggestion E.g. a. Could you work for extra two hours to get it done? Oh, extra two hours b. Maybe we should skip the next class, and check it out at the bar. Skip the class? 9) Request for additional information The speaker asks for information not previously mentioned in the addressees invitation, request, or suggestion and shows interest in both the interlocutor and his/her proposition. E.g. a. Im going to throw a party. Would you like to join in us? by the way, whom have you invited? b. I really want to invite you to my farewell party this Saturday evening. may I just ask the time? 10) Set condition for future or past acceptance Creating a hypothetical condition under which acceptance would occur or would have occurred E.g. a. I will lend you my notes if asked me probably one month earlier. b. If I can finish it before Friday, I will probably come.
8
11) Wish Expressing speakers desire or wish to accept an invitation, a request, or a suggestion E.g. a. I wish I could be there, but b. I really wish I would be able to help you 12) Promise to comply The speaker does not want to make any commitment to accept an invitation, a request, or a suggestion, although she/ he may try to do so at some point in the future E.g. a. Ill try, but I cant promise anything now. 13) Pre-sequence (preparator in F lix-Brasdefers version) Announcement in some way that the speaker will refuse an invitation, a request, or a suggestion E.g. a. The thing is Im not about to stay in Holland in the future. b. Frankly speaking, to learn Dutch, its really not fun for me. c. I have to tell you the truth that my handwriting is a disaster. Adjuncts to refusals 14) Positive opinion Providing positive expressions before or after a refusal head act E.g. a. Oh, congratulations b. Thats interesting, but 15) Willingness Indication of the speakers willingness to comply with an invitation, request, or suggestion E.g. a. I really want to go to your party and meet other friends, but b. I would love to, but 16) Gratitude/ Appreciation Expressions of gratitude or appreciation E.g. a. I really appreciate your suggestion, professor. b. I know what you think is all from my point of standing. I really, really feel, how to say, honorable. 17) Agreement Expressions which indicate a partial or weak agreement in relation the opinion expressed when refusing an invitation, a request, or a suggestion. E.g. a. Yeah, but b. Yes, fine, but
9
18) Empathy The speaker may empathize with the interlocutor and may show involvement with and understanding or anothers situation. E.g. a. I can understand your meaning, but b. I know, I know its quite urgent, but 2.5 Flix-Brasdefers illustration on speech act of refusals In the book Politeness in Mexico and the Untied States, Flix-Brasdefer (2008: 32) concerns with two aspects of politeness: expressive politeness (negotiation of face relationships) and metapragmatic politeness (perception of politeness) in order to illustrate the interactive nature of refusals. Brown and Levinsons universal of model linguistic politeness is perceived by him as metapragmatic politeness, and Wattss (2003) orientation in obtaining empirical conversational data as expressive politeness. He presents interactions which are realized by means of suggestion/ request/ invitation- refusal sequence. Results are analyzed by strategy coding and speech act feature interpretation. Since the current study takes references from Flix-Brasdefers six role-play situations (they would be explained in detail in Chpater3), his way in illustrating the data are employed in this study. 2.6 Face and refusal strategies of Chinese According to Mao (1994), Chinese face wants are oriented toward a persons public image, realized through reciprocal avoidance of face to face confrontation. Therefore, in refusing situations, Chinese perceive it as imperative to preserve face for the refusee. As Kasper (1995) describes, a fundamental principle for social interaction, is based on reciprocity, a speakers own face cannot be maintained unless the other persons face is preserved as well. Because of this concern, the Chinese refuser would be reluctant to refuse directly or immediately because she does not want to hurt the refusees face. Zhan (1992:7) has analyzed Chinese cultural and psychological influences on politeness strategies. She noted the uniqueness of Chinese cultural background which is the combination of several aspects, i.e. being modest and prudent; sense of hierarchical social strata; traditional ideas of Confucian ethics (zhongyongzhidao: one should take a middle course in dealing with work and other people); the code of conduct (wenroudunhou: one should hold a moderate attitude in handling work and other people); strong sense of family. Zhan (1992:9-11) also pointed out the great influence of these factors on politeness strategies of Chinese. Among the core and emphasis of politeness strategies being described, three phenomena can support this analysis: first, give deference strategy is used frequently, in which a speaker humbles and abases himself/herself and raises an addressee; second, Chinese people like to think the shorter the distance between speaker and the addressee, the warmer
10
the mutual feelings; third, on some occasions people often like to speak in an obscure way and in a mild tone in order to maintain the face of other people. It is predicted in the current study that even when Chinese people speak English abroad, their choices on politeness strategies still contain these features. 2.7 Conclusion & hypotheses In view of features of Chinese people doing refusals (see above in 2.6), certain predictions on refusal strategy choices by Chinese English learners can be made. First of all, according to the Chinese notion on face, direct refusal might be the last waned by Chinese participants. Secondly, pragmatic strategies of apology/regret and gratitude are favored in doing refusals. By means of putting the blame on the speaker himself/herself, as well as expressing how the speaker feel honored or glad because of the hearers request, invitation or suggestion, the speaker can achieve give deference effect. Furthermore, since the belief on the shorter the distance, the warmer the mutual feeling, Chinese English learners would consider much about seriousness of FTA in the social distance (D) aspect. Therefore for instance, the speaker might employ more indirect strategies to refusal an unfamiliar classmates request of borrowing notes than to decline a friends advice of going to a bar instead of attending a class. In addition, Chinese English learners may show favorability on strategies of indefinite reply, positive opinion and willingness, so that they can avoid absolute refusals and save face for the hearer. On the contrary, it is also predicted that the participants performance on doing refusals do not perfectly resemble what has been assumed above, for they have been transformed to some extent by effect of western cultures.
11
Chapter 3 Methodology 3.1 Introduction Considering the aim of this study, which is to investigate Chinese English learners doing refusals and their perceptions on their use of refusal strategies, approaches to examine refusals should be at discourse level. The data collection methods described in this chapter are therefore about to examine speakers speeches in social interaction. This chapter begins with discussions on the validity and reliability of data collection methods in this study, role-play test and questionnaire (3.2). Then, after describing the participants group (3.3) and data collection procedure (3.4), examples of refusal strategies used for coding role-play data and perception questionnaire data, as well as examples of internal modifications are presented (3.5) The final part of this study is on data analysis procedure (3.6). 3.2 Research tools 3.2.1 Role-play test Kasper and Dahl (1991) have described two major data elicitation measures focusing on production data: discourse completion data tests and role plays. Discourse completion tests are written questionnaires which comprise description of a situation followed by lines for subjects to fill in what he or she believes to be appropriate responses. Role-play test is another method to elicit production data. It can be in open or closed type. Closed role-play tests are one turn response and are like oral versions of discourse completion tests. In open role-play tests, the dialogue is observed and recorded. There have been a few studies centered on the negotiation of refusals among native and non-native speakers of English (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 1991; Gass & Houck 1999; Labov & Fanshel 1977), and some other studies concentrated on realization pattern of English and other languages. However, majority of these studies analyze refusal strategies by means of examining written or non-interactional data rather than utilizing interactional data. Rintell and Mitcell (1989) used written and oral versions of a discourse completion test, which were given to advanced learners of English and native English speakers. The authors argued that the discourse completion test is in actuality a role play, for they found language elicited is very similar in written or oral form. However, for the second language speakers, oral data were longer than the written data, although this feature is not apparent in native speakers of English. Since this study is an intercultural study between Chinese English learners and native English speaker, oral form data are preferred to written versions. In addition, Kasper and Dahl (1991) noted that speeches in open role plays are similar in many respects to the ones in natural occurrence, and role plays have the advantage ensuring the act is in certain contexts, as well as in the presence of a recorder. Although performance in role plays does not
12
fully resemble naturally occurring data, and compared with discourse completion tests, they are quite time-consuming in the data collection procedure, considering the aims of this study is on interactional behavior of refusal in various fixed contexts, open role-play test is employed. 3.2.2 Perception questionnaire In addition to role plays which comprise the main corpus in this study, perception questionnaire is analyzed as complementary data in order to corroborate the findings of the production data. Questionnaire in this study is to reveal perceptions of the speakers on how their linguistic refusal behavior in real life should be like. Collecting data with this technique allows us have insights into perception of refusal speech acts. Before the data collection procedure by means of role-plays tests and questionnaires are presented, information about participants is briefly described. 3.3 Participants Thirty-one subjects participated in this study: 30 Chinese learners of English and one native speaker of English. All were studying or working at Leiden University at the time of data collection (see Appendix 3). The Chinese participants aged from 21 to 31, with an average age of 23.9. They were taking PhD (five participants) and Master (25 participants) programs in various fields. The time they had been in the Netherlands ranges from one to six years. Among the Chinese native speakers, English is the second language to 29 of them, and the second foreign language to one of them whose second language is Dutch. All the Chinese participants can be considered as advanced English learners because they had passed the IELTS1 tests to be qualified starting their study programs in Leiden University, and their courses were in English except the one whose major is Dutch Study. Thanks to the international environment in Leiden, the Chinese participants have got high exposure to western culture and English language. The only one native speaker of English comes from Australia, and he works at English Department of Leiden University. The native speaker participant was invited to participate in this study not only because of his mother tongue is English, but also because of his occupation, a linguist and an authority in the field of legal translation. It is believed that his speech act is representative of standard English of native speakers. 3.4 Data collection procedure 3.4.1 Role-play used in the present study
1
International English language testing system: IELTS is the worlds proven English test. From http://www.ielts.org/default.aspx 13
Role-play test in this study take references from Flix-Brasdefers (2008) role plays testing politeness in Mexico and America. There are two language versions of his role-plays tests: one in English and anther in Spanish. In his design, six experimental refusal prompts and four distracting items (two apologies, one compliment, and one complaint) comprise the role-play test. Description of each refusal situation was based on two variables: social power (+P or -P) and social distance (+D or -D), which are based on Scollon and Scollons (2001) three face systems (discussed in 2.3). Of the six refusal prompts, three represented formal situations and three informal situations, namely, two refusals to an invitation (friends [-D, -P]; employee-boss [+D, +P]), two refusals to a request (classmates [+D, -P]; employee-boss [+D, +P]), and two refusals to a suggestion (student-advisor [+D, +P], friends [-D, -P]). The present study adjusts Flix-Brasdefers English version of role-play tests accordingly (see Appendix 1). Instead of using ten situations, only the six core items are employed in this study. Besides, descriptions of each situation are modified based on the need that the role plays are conducted in Leiden and description should be in accordance with realities in the Netherlands. From the description, participants can get detailed information concerning context of the interaction, such as P, D, and other relevant issues like social settings, length of acquaintances. For the recording process, role-play interviews done with the Chinese participants were conducted at student cafs of various faculties of Leiden University, and the role plays done with the native speaker of English was in his office. All the participants were required to imagine they were in real occurrences. Each participant was given a card with descriptions of a situation in English. They were told beforehand that the conversations they engaged in would be recorded, and they were encouraged to feel free about it . It is believed that speeches would be closer to natural if participants did not know the existence of the recorder nearby. However, it is almost impossible to do the recording with a covered recorder in a busy caf. In addition, for the interlocutor part, the researcher, a non-natives speaker of English played all the roles of advisor, employer, classmate, and friend. Since this study focuses on linguistic behavior of doing refusals, the interlocutor role is comparatively unimportant. However, it would be ideal if interlocutors are native speakers of English even though the interlocutor role is not to be analyzed, for in that case, the non-native speakers can feel more at ease as if they were in a real occurrence. The role plays were later transcribed for analysis. 3.4.2 Perception questionnaire in this study Immediately after the role-play tests, participants were given a two-page questionnaire. The questionnaire include 34 one-turn response dialogues between a Speaker A and a Speaker B. Each response by Speaker B is actually an example of one pragmatic refusal strategy. Following each dialogue, there is a multiple choice
14
question, which asks about how often the participant would do refusals like Speaker B in the given item. Answers are in four scales: A. No, never; B. Seldom; C. Sometimes; and D. Yes, often. For the full version of the questionnaire, see Appendix 2. The reason for putting the questionnaire process after the role-play test is to avoid participants borrowing specific expressions from the questionnaire and using them in the role plays. The whole procedure of role-play test and questionnaire takes each participant about 30 minutes. 3.5 Data analysis The 186 refusal interactions from both Chinese English learners and the native speaker were analyzed according to the classification system of refusal strategies (see 2.4) that the 31 participants employed to negotiate a refusal. The role plays were recorded and transcribed. Examination of refusal interaction included an analysis on the speakers preference for pragmatic strategies and internal modifications as well as the length of their refusal utterances. A contrastive analysis of the strategies utilized by both Chinese learners and native speaker was conducted with respect to frequencies, contents, and distributions of strategies in their interactions with the interlocutor. To ensure the reliability of the coding of strategies, the coding process was done by the researcher and then verified by other three coders who did not participate in the data collection procedure (role plays and questionnaire). All of the three coders are Chinese learners of English whose major course in college was English. Each coder independently verified the researchers coding. Discrepancies between researchers coding and the verified coding were discussed until agreement was reached. The data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed in two aspects. First and foremost, the perceptions of participants on preferred refusal strategies. Secondly, the questionnaire data were compared with data getting from the role plays in order to find out discrepancies of preferred strategies between participants perceptions and their speech acts.
15
Chapter 4: Results 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, negotiation patterns of refusals in English by Chinese students and the native speaker of English in response to invitations, requests, and suggestions are examined through role-plays tests. It also takes a look at participants perceptions of refusals by means of refusal strategy usage questionnaire. Results of role play data are presented with respect to overall distributions (4.2) and individual variability (4.3). In addition, to examine the negotiation of face and realization patterns in refusal interactions, role play data are shown according to three face systems (hierarchical, deference, and solidarity systems) and for each situation (4.4). Further, to analyze the similarities and differences between perception and actual behavior, data obtained from strategy usage perception questionnaire are compared with results in role plays (4.5). The last part of this chapter is a brief conclusion with respect to the findings under study. 4.2 Refusal strategy distributions Table 1 presents the distribution of 18 refusal strategies that were coded in the role-play data among 31 participants (30 Chinese English learners and one native speaker of English). The table consists of direct, indirect (12 strategies), and adjuncts to (five strategies) refusals (see examples of each strategy in 3.5.1). Data of strategy distribution among Chinese English learners are shown in Mean, standard deviation (SD), frequency (f) and percentage (%). Strategies employed by the native speaker include frequency (f) and percentage (%).
Table 1 Refusal strategies employed by Chinese and the native English speaker
Strategy Direct refusal Indirect refusal Alternative Reason/explanation Mitigated refusal Indefinite reply Apology/regret Postponement Repetition of previous utterance Request for additional information Set condition for future/past accept ance Pre-sequence Promise to comply
Chinese English learners Mean 2.87 2.27 11.23 2.33 0.70 5.43 1.30 2.00 1.77 1.1 1.3 0.07
16
Native speaker % 6.8 ( f) 4 3 15 4 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 0 % 7.4 5.6 27.8 7.4 3.7 11.1 1.9 5.6 1.9 5.6 3.7 0.0
SD 2.569 1.202 2.979 2.368 0.837 2.825 1.179 2.051 1.716 1.029 1.393 0.254
( f) 86 68 337 70 21 163 39 60 53 33 39 2
5.3 26.5 5.5 1.6 12.8 3.1 4.7 4.2 2.6 3.1 0.2
Wish Adjuncts to refusals Positive opinion Willingness Gratitude Agreement Empathy Total
0.17 3.17 2.40 0.97 3.03 0.33 42.43
0.379 1.577 1.567 1.273 2.141 0.547
5 95 72 29 91 10 1273
0.4 7.5 5.7 2.3 7.1 0.8
0 1 5 1 3 0 54
0.0 1.9 9.3 1.9 5.6 0.0
The analysis of the role-plays interactions among participants yielded 1327 strategies, with an average of 42.8 strategies for each participant. On the whole, the Chinese participants (an average of 42.4 strategies) used much fewer strategies than the native speaker of English (54 strategies). As can be seen in Table 1, the 18 strategies were employed with different degrees of preference within the Chinese group and between Chinese and the native speaker. The two groups had the most striking differences in usage frequency in three strategies: request of additional information (Chinese [%]: 4.2; native speaker [%]: 1.9) which is used to indicate interests in the topic and to delay negative reply; expressions of positive opinion (Chinese [%]:7.5; native speaker [%]: 1.9) which resembles the Chinese give deference way in dealing with refusals; and willingness (Chinese [%]: 5.7; native speaker [%]: 9.3) which shows involvement with the interlocutor. Table 2 shows the most frequently used strategies by both groups in a descending order of preference (f= frequency of strategy use; %=percentage).
Table 2 Most frequently used strategies by Chinese English learners and the native speaker
Chinese English learners Strategy Reason/explanation Apology/regret Positive opinion Agreement (f) 337 163 95 91 % 26.5 12.8 7.5 7.1 Strategy
Native speaker Reason/explanation Apology/regret Agreement Willingness (f) 15 6 5 5 % 27.8 11.1 9.3 9.3
As Table 2 indicates, the strategy of reason/explanation which indicates involvement (Scollon & Scollon 2001: 46) and positive face (Brown &Levinson, 1987: 61) was most frequently employed by each group. In addition, a refusal response was also often expressed by means of apologies/regrets (Chinese: 12.8%; native speaker: 11.1%), expressions of showing agreement (Chinese: 7.1%; native speaker: 9.3%) and willingness (Chinese: 5.7%; native speaker: 9.3%). Further, expressions of positive opinion were found more frequently used among participants from China (7.5%) than by the native speaker (1.9%, shown in Table 1) in the role plays. In contrast, the native speaker of English often provided expressions of willingness (9.3%) in refusal responses, whereas among Chinese participants, this strategy was used moderately (5.7%, shown in Table 1). Examples of the most frequently used strategies are
17
provided below for each group in comparable situations. 1) Reason/explanation (Bookstore: part-time job employee refuses his/her boss request to work for extra two hours, +P, +D) a) but its my friends birthday party, and weve already reserved a nice restaurant. Late for two hours, that would be finished. Thats not really the good thing to do, especially she has had the plan with me. She asked me to go two weeks ago. Shes like family friend. ( Chinese #1) b) but Im afraid Ive got plans for this evening. (native speaker) From example one, we can see that although both Chinese and native participants made excuses for not being able to accept the request, Chinese participants tended to make specific excuses of which the importance are higher than accepting the request. The detailed information in the reason may send the interlocutor a signal that I really have got another very important task, the level of its importance is beyond the one of your suggestion/ request/ invitation, whereas reasons/explanations adopted in native speakers refusal responses paid less attention on the importance of his other task. 2) Apology/regret (Farewell: employee refuses his/her boss invitation to attend his farewell party, +P, +D) a) but Im really sorry I really have a lot of plans (Chinese #2) b) Oh, Im sorry I cant make it. (native speaker) When apologies were expressed, the only key word employed by both groups of participants was sorry. The apology was sometimes stressed by utilizing words really, awfully, extremely. However, these stressing words appeared in different situations between two groups. As the example shown above, the Chinese participant adopted really to emphasize on the degree of apology, whereas the sorry was not modified in the native speakers utterance. 3) Positive opinion (Birthday: friend declines a birthday invitation from his/her friend, -P, -D) a) Oh, its a good idea. Oh, that sounds very interesting. (Chinese #6) b) Ooh, I love party. (native speaker) 4) Agreement (Bar: a student refuses a friends suggestion to go to a bar, -P, -D) a) Yeah, I know, but I didnt do well on the previous homework, and the professor told me that if I cant attend the class, I might fail the exam. (Chinese #14) b) I know, but if I skip one more tutorial, I would really be in trouble with you know, with Smakman (native speaker). 5) Willingness (Birthday: friend declines a birthday invitation from his/her friend, -P, -D) a) Yeah, I really want to join in you, you know. (Chinese 27#)
18
b) Oh, I really love to see them again, but (native speaker) Numeric data in Table 2 has revealed that only Chinese group opted for expressing positive opinion in refusal interactions whereas only the native speaker has shown preference on expressing willingness. However, example (3), (4), and (5) have manifested that when these strategies were utilized, both groups employed similar expressions. 4.3 Individual variability among the Chinese Figure 1 shows individual variability among the 30 Chinese participants on refusal strategies used during role-play tests. Strategies are sorted in three types: direct refusal, indirect refusals (12 strategies), and adjuncts to refusals (5 strategies). Data are presented in frequency (f). Overall, direct refusal was used by individuals 2.87 times on average. Indirect refusals and adjuncts to refusals have Means of 29.67 and 9.9 respectively.
Figure 1 Refusal strategies employed by individuals of Chinese English learners in role plays
" !

# $% # $% #& '$%
As can be noted in the graph, although indirect refusals were uniformly used most frequently by each participant, Figure 1 manifests individual variation in the degrees of indirectness. For example, the frequency of participant #1 (f [indirect refusal] =44) employing indirect refusals is more than twice than that of participant #19 (f [indirect refusal] =17). Further, generally, participants resorted to more adjuncts to refusals than direct refusal, with two exemptions of participant #4 (f [adjuncts to refusal] =10; f [direct refusal] =11) and participant #22 (f [adjuncts to refusal] =6; f [direct refusal] =8) who employed slightly more direct strategies than adjuncts to refusals. In addition, although it is as previously noted in Table 1 that direct refusal was adopted with an moderate frequency, there were 9 Chinese participants used this strategy only once (participants #1, #2, #10, #11, #19, #21, #23, #24, and #25) and two participants did
19
not employ it at all (participants #6 and#14) across six situations. In contrast, participant #4 produced the highest number of direct refusals (f [direct refusal] =11), which is nearly four times the Mean (2.87) of direct refusals employed by the Chinese group. The data in Figure 5 also reveals variability of adjuncts to refusal expressions among participants, with the highest frequency of 22 (participant #15) and the lowest of 3 (participant #16). Although these results reveal speech act production among Chinese English learners is not uniform, two patterns can be summarized. First, among participants #2, #5, #12, #13, #23, #25, and #26, direct refusal was used with a frequency which is close to the average of the whole group, indirect and adjuncts to refusals were employed slightly less frequently the Mean of the whole group. Second, among participants #3, #8, #20, and #27, direct and indirect strategies were utilized slightly more frequently than the Means of the whole group, and adjuncts refusals were used close to the average of the whole group. In general, the data in Figure 1 demonstrates various degrees of directness and indirectness in Chinese English learners linguistic behavior in the role-play tests. There might be factors like individual characters, social communication skills, and individual perceptions affecting participants performance. This study focuses only on Chinese participants perception in general and the realization patterns of refusals among them. 4.4 Face systems and situational variation Table 3 presents the distribution of pragmatic strategies (in three categories: direct refusal; indirect refusal; adjuncts to refusal) employed to carry out relational work by both groups in refusing suggestions, invitations and requests from a person of equal or higher status across six situation and in three face systems (Scollon & Scollon, 2001): Hierarchical (+P, +D, Advisor, Farewell, Bookstore), Deference (-P, +D, Notes), and Solidarity (-P, -D, Bar, Birthday). The table includes frequency (f) and means (M) of direct, indirect, and adjunct refusals.
Table 3 Distribution of refusal strategies according to face system and by situation among Chinese English learners and the native speaker
Chinese English learners Situation type Direct refusal Indirect refusal f 128 147 155 M 4.3 4.9 5.2 Adjuncts to refusal f 59 29 76 M 2.0 1.0 2.5 f 200 194 243 Total M 6.7 6.7 8.1 Direct refusal f 0 0 1
Native speaker of English Indirect refusal f 6 10 5 Adjuncts to refusal f 2 1 2 Total f 8 11 8
f M Hierarchical (+P, +D) Advisor 13 0.4 Bookstore 18 0.6 Farewell 12 0.4 Deference (-P,+D)
20
Notes 13 0.4 Solidarity (-P,-D) Bar 18 0.6 Birthday 12 0.4
143 143 174
4.8 4.8 5.9
24 39 70
0.8 1.3 2.3
180 200 256
6.0 6.7 8.5
1 1 1
4 7 8
1 1 3
6 9 12
According to the data in Table 3, both groups of participants used highest numbers of strategies in the Birthday situation (Chinese: f= 256, M= 8.53; native: f=12) under Solidarity system (-P, -D). However, in the Bar situation (Chinese: f= 200, M=6.67; native: f= 9) under the same system, less amount of strategies were employed. Both groups of participants uniformly did the least efforts in the Notes situation under Deference system (-P, +D) (Chinese: M=6; native: f= 6). In hierarchical system (+P, +D), refusal strategies were most frequently utilized in Farewell situation by Chinese group (f=243, M=8.10), whereas by the native speaker, a high number of strategies were used in the Bookstore situation (f=11). As can be noted in Table 3, negotiation of face varied for each situation and for each face system. The next sections would focus on analyzing each situation for each group. In addition, head act (e.g. I would love to, but I cant, Im so sorry) and supportive moves (strategies that prefaced or followed a refusal head act) would be discussed, followed by an analysis on the sequential of the refusal interaction. 4.4.1 Hierarchical face system: Advisor, Bookstore, Farewell (+P, +D) The Hierarchical system (+P, +D) includes three situations: Advisor, Bookstore, and Farewell. Interlocutors in the three situations are in unequal social status (+P), and social distance between them are not close (+D). Each participant was required to recline a suggestion from his/her professor (Advisor), a request and an invitation from his/her boss (Bookstore and Farewell). Although power difference and social distance among the three situations are similar, participants performances varied across the situations in and between groups. As can be noted in Table 3, Chinese English learners used more strategies in refusing an employers invitation (Farewell [M] = 8.10) than in declining a professors suggestion (Advisor [M] = 6.67) and a boss request (Bookstore [M] =6.65). On the contrary, more strategies were employed by the native speaker in the refusal interaction with a promoted boss (Farewell [f] =11) than in the interactions with a professor (Advisor [f] =8) and an employer (Bookstore [f] =8). 4.4.1.1 Refusing a suggestion from an advisor: Advisor Although both groups employed close number of strategies in the Advisor situation, the native speaker employed slightly more indirect strategies than the average of Chinese participants (Chinese: M=4.27; native: f= 6) (see Table 3). Table 4 displays the most frequently used strategies for Chinese English learners as well as the strategies employed by the native speaker when declining a suggestion from an
21
advisor.
Table 4 Most frequently used strategies by Chinese English learners (N=30) and strategies utilized by the native speaker of English when refusing a professors suggestion to take an extra course
Strategy Reason/Explanation Agreement Mitigated refusal Direct refusal Indefinite reply Willingness Apology/Regret Pre-sequence f 63 25 16 13 13 13 12 -
Chinese English learners No. of Informants 30 19 14 10 10 12 8 -
Native speaker of English f 3 2 2 1
As noted in Table4, reasons/explanations were used most frequently (f= 63) and most popularly (100% of Chinese participants) when refusing an advisors suggestion, followed by agreements, mitigated refusals, direct refusals, indefinite replies, expressions of willingness, and apologies/regrets. Agreements were expressed by 19 participants to reach a consensus with the professor. In addition, mitigated refusals were used frequently as well to modify refusals internally and express politeness (i.e. I think [#15]; I dont really think [#10]). Further, indefinite replies were utilized to express uncertainly on the part of the speakers and to avoid direct refusals (i.e. Ill, Ill definitely think about it [#22]; maybe, Im not sure actually [#17]). In contrast, direct refusals were used as frequently as the strategy of indefinite reply. There were 10 participants stated refusals clearly (I cannot make it [#27]; I dont wanna make it [#17]) though all the directed refusals were prefaced or followed by indirect or adjuncts to refusals to reduce negative effects. Similarly, strategies of reason/explanation, indefinite reply, and expressions of agreement were employed by the native speaker as well. The contents of the reasons/ explanations, however, varied between native speaker and Chinese participants: while the native speaker held the reason that the Dutch language course might not be helpful in improving his language proficiency, the Chinese group dared not to doubt on the helpfulness of the language course. Instead, they employed different reasons (i.e. because I want to work in an international company, I only need to speak English [#1]; Im really busy on my master courses, I dont think I have enough time to attend the Dutch language course [#4]). These expressions reflect a preference of Chinese cultural convention as Chen et al. (1995: 122) described Chinese refusal is rooted in maintaining mi nzi and lin (face), which are oriented toward a persons public image and preserve face for the refusee.
22
To illustrate the negotiation of face when refusing a professors advice to take an extra course, an example of the refusal interaction is shown below. Refusal head act is marked as HA, and it is preceded or followed by supportive moves. (6) Advisor: Professor gives advice Student refuses the advice (Chinese #30) Advisor: John, Ive looked at your transcript for your past academic years, and 2 3 Student: 4 Advisor: 5 Student: 6 7 8 Advisor: 9 Student: 10 11 12 13 you have very good scores. Thank you. For the next semester, I suggest that you take a Dutch language course. Yeah, um, that sounds good. I, uh, I like this idea. I really want to take this Dutch course. Great. But for me the next semester, I will be very busy at my Master degree, which is Digital Media Studies. So I dont think I would have time to study Dutch anymore. Probably I wont take it, N[HA] sorry.
14 Advisor: Well, in that case, I only suggest you to consider about it. If you have 15 time, I mean, the language is quite useful here. 16 Student: Sure, I think so. 17 I will consider about it, 18 19 and if I have the time to take it, Ill let you know. N[HA] Thank you. I appreciate it.
The interaction (example 6) consists of two sequences: a suggestion-refusal sequence (1-13) and an insistence- refusal sequences (lines14-19). After the advisor suggesting that the student should take an extra Dutch language course (line4), the initial refusal sequence is comprised of expressions of partial agreement, positive willingness, and willingness (lines 5-7) followed by means of reasons (line10-11), mitigated refusal (line11) and direct refusal (line12) (head act) which was prefaced by internal modification probably (line12) and followed by apology (line13). Upon advisors insistence that the student consider taking the course (lines 14-15), the student closed the interaction with prefacing of agreement (line16), indefinite reply (line17), and an head act of setting condition for future acceptance (line18). The final response ends with expressions of gratitude (line19) that emphasizes the speakers respect to the advisor. Example 7 shows an interaction between the native speaker as a student with the
23
interlocutor. (7) Advisor: professor gives advice Student refuses the suggestion (native speaker) 1 Advisor: Ive looked at your transcript. You have a good score. For the next semester, I suggest you to take a Dutch language course. Uh, well, uh, uh, I should let you know I have already taken Dutch language courses in the past. Oh, really, how was that? Eh, I took courses at elementary and intermediate level. Im, Im not sure that I would really learn a lot if I took another Dutch course. N[HA] Advisor: Okay, you know, after you graduate, the language might help you a lot to look for a job, so I really suggest you take a Dutch language course which might help you. Oh, I see, yes. Because in the Netherlands the Dutch language might be quite useful, you know. Yes, I understand. But you see, I dont really have a lot of time to take another Dutch course. Ive been taking extra courses this semester. I read about the next Dutch course, there is rather a lot of emphasis on grammar and that sort of things. Im not sure the course would be very useful for me. N[HA] Well, its just a suggestion, and you still have time to think about it.
2 3 Student: 4 5 Advisor: 6 Student: 7 8 9
10 11 12 Student: 13 Advisor: 14 15 Student: 16 17 18 19 20 21 Advisor:
The interaction (example 7) is realized by means of two sequences: a suggestion-refusal sequence (lines 1-8) and an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 9-20), followed by the closing uptake (line 21). Head acts in both sequences feature indefinite replies (lines 7-8, 20), which ambiguously expressed refusals. The first head act is prefaced by pre-sequence (line3) and reasons (lines 3-4, 6). Unlike the first sequence, head act in the second sequence is prefaced by means of partial agreements (lines12, 15) and restatement of reason in detail (lines 16-19). In general, when refusing to take an advisors suggestion in a hierarchical face system, providing various turns of reasons, frequent use of indefinite replies, mitigated refusals as well as expressions of agreements were the preferred strategies of the individuals in the Chinese group so as to avoid offence of the advisors face. The native participant also made use of the indirect refusals (reason/explanation, indefinite reply, and pre-sequence) and signals of partial agreements to accomplish the refusal
24
interaction. In contrast, direct refusal was employed by the Chinese participants though both groups refusal responses were open to polite interpretations. This disparity between Chinese participants and the native speaker might be related to the language proficiencies of the non-native speakers. The first communication, bluntness, as Kasper (1997) noted, is related to non-native speaker speech acts. The Chinese participants might make use of direct refusal when they felt that their English language proficiency is not enough to clearly express their intention of declining the suggestion/request/invitation, and they might utilize this strategy to avoid misunderstanding of the interlocutor. 4.4.1.2 Refusing a request and an invitation from a boss: Bookstore and Farewell Since the boss-employee social relations (+P) and social distances (+D) between interlocutors are similar in the Bookstore and Farewell situations, results obtaining from role plays in these situations are analyzed together. Table 6 presents the most frequently used strategies by Chinese participants in the two situations. The presented strategies were used not less than 40% or no less than one third of the participants. As can be noted above in Table 3, Chinese participants employed larger numbers of strategies in the Farewell (f= 194) interaction than in the Bookstore (f= 243) situation. Information in Table 5 further manifests that strategies produced in the Farewell refusal situation were more diversified than in declining a boss request to work late: positive opinions were expressed by majority of the participants to indicates supportive face work; alternatives were offered frequently to give options to the boss; repetitions of previous utterance were adopted to delay refusals; gratitude was expressed to show respects. In addition, comparing data in the two refusal situations, it is found that direct refusal was utilized by more informants in declining the bookstore employer (Bookstore [No. of informants] = 16; Farewell [No. of informants] =9). Further, although expressions of apology/ regret were utilized frequently in both situations, Chinese participants resorted to more various elements to intensify the unmarked sorry (e.g. so sorry, really sorry terribly sorry) in the Farewell situation.
Table 5 Most frequently used strategies by Chinese English learners when refusing a boss request (Bookstore) and invitation (Farewell)
Chinese English learners Bookstore (+P, +D) Strategy Reason/Explanation Apology/regret Direct refusal Mitigated refusal Willingness Alternative f 59 36 18 12 12 No. of Informants 30 22 16 8 12 f 41 39 12 12 17
Farewell (+P, +D) No. of Informants 28 22 9 12 15
25
Repetition of previous utterance Gratitude Positive opinion
16 13 37
12 10 26
According to data in Table 5, utterance by Chinese English learners in the Farewell situation sound more polite than in the Bookstore situation. It might be explained by the Chinese participants perceptions that the employees relations to the bookstore boss and to the farewell boss are slightly different. Since the farewell boss supported the employees work a lot (see description in Appendix 1), the Chinese participants would feel they own the boss a favor. Therefore, refusals turned out to be more indirect and polite in the Farewell situation. Table 7 demonstrates pragmatic strategies used by the native participant when refusing a boss request and invitation. Similarly, strategies employed in the Farewell interaction were more varied than in the Bookstore situation though number of strategies used in declining the bookstore employer was slightly higher than in refusing the promoted employer.
Table7 Pragmatic strategies used by the native speaker when refusing a boss request and invitation (Bookstore and Farewell)
Strategy Reason/Explanation Apology Set condition for future/past acceptance Mitigated refusal Willingness Alternative Repetition of previous utterance Gratitude Willingness Direct refusal
Bookstore (+P, +D) (f) 3 3 2 1 1 -
Farewell (+P, +D) (f) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Comparing results shown in Table 6 and Table 7, differences of strategy use between Chinese participants and the native speaker were mainly in two aspects. Firstly, means of direct refusal was not used by the native participant in the Bookstore interaction, whereas it was employed by half of the Chinese English learners. Secondly, there were 26 Chinese participants expressed positive opinion in the Farewell refusal interaction to modify refusals, whereas this strategy did not appear in the native speakers response in the same situation. Apparently, the native speaker did not hold different attitudes towards the two bosses, therefore no obvious difference was found in the interactions between the native speaker and the two bosses. Examples 8 and Example 9 shown below are transcription of refusal interactions
26
between a company employee and a recently promoted employer. (8) Farewell: 1 Boss Boss offers invitation Employee declines invitation (Chinese #4) Alex, you know Ive got promoted, and youre invited to my farewell party on Saturday night. Yeah, congratulations. Oh, Saturday evening? Yes. Okay, yeah. Its an honor for me to be invited to your farewell party, but on Friday night, Im planning to go to another country for my weekend vacation, so I dont think I will stay in the city on Saturday. Im really sorry. I cannot attend your promotion party. N[HA] But anyway, congratulations for you and I hope you will have a nice job and a nice time in Cape Town. Boss: Well, thank you. Um, okay.
2 3 Employee: 4 5 Boss: 6 Employee: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 Employee:
The interaction in example 8 consists of only one invitation-refusal sequence (lines1-13) and a closing sequence (lines14-15). After the boss invitation that the employee join in his farewell party, the initial response is comprised of positive opinion (line 3) and repetition of the boss utterance (line4). The head act was prefaced by various ways of indirect refusals and adjuncts to refusals. Initial responses were expressions of agreement (line 6) and gratitude (line 7) which manifested asymmetric face relationships between the interlocutors as well as the employee respect paid for the boss. Followed the two adjuncts were employees specific reason for being absent on the party day (line8-9) and his apology for the absence (line 10). The head act was delayed and realized by means of direct refusal which expressed the employee was unavailable to attend the party (line 11). It was modified by expression of positive remarks on the boss promotion (lines 12-13). Example 9 shows a comparable interaction between the native speaker and the same interlocutor. (9) Farewell: Boss offers invitation Employee declines invitation (native speaker)
1 Boss: Hi, I got promoted. 2 Employee: Oh, congratulations, thats very good.
27
3 Boss: Yeah, you know Ill soon move to Cape Town, and (got interrupted) 4 Employee: Oh, so I wont be seeing you anymore? 5 Boss: NO, Im afraid not. 6 Employee: Oh, thats too bad. 7 Boss: Its next month, but this weekend, on Saturday night, Im going to
8 through a party, a farewell party, and youre officially invited. 9 Employee: Oh, wow, Im honored. 10 Um, gosh, this Saturday, 11 0h, Im sorry I cant make it. N[HA]
12 I already have plans. 13 Boss: Oh, really? 14 Employee: Yeah, Id love to be there, 15 but you know Im meeting someone who I havent seen for a long time, 16 and it will be really difficult to change my plans. 17 Im wondering if we can have a drink, a goodbye drink at some other 18 time. 19 Boss: Yeah, thats a good idea.
20 Employee: Yeah, okay, enjoy your party then. The interaction in example 9 is realized in three sequences: an opening sequence (lines 1-6), an invitation-refusal sequence (lines 7-18), and a closing turn (lines 19-20). Supportive moves before the head act were expressed by means of showing gratitude (line 9), repetition of interlocutors utterance (line 10), and apology. All of these utterances were preceded by vocalizations (Oh, wow; Um, gosh, Oh in lines 9, 10, 11respectively) which intensified employees respects to the boss and regret for not being able to go to the party. With the prefacing strategies, negative effect caused by the head act (direct refusal) was reduced. After the employees confirmation request, the second turn of refusal response was comprised of willingness expression, explanation in detail, and an offering of alternative to make compensation for the employees absence at the party. The interaction ended with mutual agreement between employee and the boss. Generally speaking, negotiation patterns shown in the above two examples are quite similar. Employees tones in the two conversations were both respectful and tentative. Though a straightforward response was used as head act in both interactions, frequent use of indirect means of refusals and adjuncts were both employed to preface or modify negative effects. 4.4.2 Deference face system Notes (-P, +D) In deference face system, the interlocutors are in equal social status (-P), but social
28
distance between them are not close (+D). According to the situation description (in Appendix 1), although classmate A and classmate B were on the same course, they barely knew each other. As can be revealed above in Table 3, both groups of informants used the least numbers of strategies (Chinese English learners [M]: 6; native speaker [f]: 6) in refusing classmate As request of borrowing notes.
Table 6 Most frequently used strategies by Chinese English learners (N= 30) and strategies employed by the native speaker when refusing a classmates request of borrowing notes
Strategy Reason/Explanation Apology/regret Alternative Direct refusal Pre-sequence Mitigated refusal Willingness f 58 23 21 13 12 11 -
Chinese English learners No. of Informants 27 16 18 12 9 10 -
Native speaker of English f 2 1 1 1 1
With regard to the data in Table 6, both groups of informants feature four strategies: an explanation of the speakers opinion on borrowing notes, explicit statements of refusal, mitigation, and providing an alternative. Comparatively, one of the most apparent differences of strategy choices between two groups lies in that apology/ regret was employed by half of the Chinese participants, whereas the native speaker did not use this strategy in the refusal interaction with classmate A. Secondly, willingness was utilized by the native speaker to express positive face work, whereas it was used by only six Chinese English learners under study. Example 10 shows an interaction in which Classmate B refused Classmate As request of borrowing notes. (10) Notes: Classmate A asks for notes Classmate B refuses to lend notes to the classmate (Chinese #30)) 1 Classmate A: 2 Classmate B: 3 Classmate A: 4 5 6 Classmate B: 7 8 9 Hi, would you lend your notes to me? Why? You know I missed some of the classes. I dont have enough notes to prepare for the exam, and the exam is coming. Would you do me a favor? Well, you see, I usually would lend my notes, but since the exam is tomorrow. I need my notes to review all the work Ive done, N[HA] so probably you can go somebody else.
29
10 Classmate A: 11Classmate B: 12 13 14 15 16 Classmate A:
Well, can I just copy them? Well, um, um, the thing is that I never see you at class, I think for you own interest you should attend the class instead of borrowing notes every time one or two days before the examination. So, sorry, I dont wanna lend you my notes. N[HA] Okay, thank you all the same.
The interaction in example 10 is realized by three sequences: a request- refusal sequence with two turns (lines 1- 9), an insistence- refusal sequence (lines10- 15), and a closing uptake (line 16). The first response by Classmate B was a one-word question which asked about reasons for Classmates request of borrowing notes from Classmate B (line 2). This response manifested the distant relationship between the two interlocutors, as well as their equal social position. After Classmate A explained she needed the notes to get prepared for the coming exam, Classmate B made an excuse (reason) that he also needed the notes to review the course (line 7-8), preface d by means of pre-sequence and expressing his willingness to help (line 6), and modified by offering an alternative (line 9). Unlike the reason used in the first sequence (lines 7-8), Classmate B expressed his true feelings in the second sequence that he barely knew Classmate A and he thought borrowing notes would do no help for Classmate As study (lines 11-14). With discourse markers well, um, um, an indication that Classmate B was about to refuse the request (pre-sequence) (line 11), and an expressions of apology (line 15), the two reasons prefaced the final refusal response which emphasized on Classmate Bs intention of unwillingness to lend the notes (line 15). Example 11 shows interaction between the native speaker and the interlocutor who wanted to borrow notes. (11) Notes: A classmate asks for notes Student refuses to lend notes to the classmate (native speaker) Classmate A: Would you lend your notes to me? 2 Classmate B: 3 Classmate A: 4 5 Classmate B: 6 7 Oh, Id rather not if you dont mind. N[HA] Why? Youre very good at taking notes. We all know that, would you give me hand? Well, Id like to help you, but it is always best to use your own notes. I dont think youll make, make much sense of my notes.
30
8 10
But if you like, I suppose you can photocopy them. You know, Ill 9 come along then, cuz I really want to hang on with my notes. So I cant just give you my notes. N[HA]
11 Classmate A: Okay, then good luck with your exam. The interaction in example 11 consists of three sequences: a request-refusal sequence (lines 1-2), an insistence-refusal (lines 3-10), and a close uptake (line 11). The first sequence is completed by Classmate Bs internally modified but short refusal response (line 2). After Classmate As compliment on Classmate Bs skills at taking notes, various strategies were used before the final refusal (head act) was accomplished. Willingness was expressed (line 5), followed by reason that Classmate A might not be able to make sense of the notes (lines 6-7), an alternative as a compensation for Classmate Bs refusal (lines 8-9), and an explanation that Classmate B wanted to have his notes in his hand (line 9). Since the native speaker initiatively offered to let Classmate A copy his notes, this refusal interaction can be considered very polite. Overall, although the two groups employed several common strategies in this refusal interaction, implications under the used strategies were not alike. For instance, alternative was utilized by both groups, Chinese English learners shifted the lending notes responsibility to a third party (i.e. probably you can go someone else by Chinese #30, you should contact our tutor, I think he can help you with that by Chinese# 17), whereas the native speaker took another way to help (as mentioned above in example 11). Another difference lies in the usage of reasons, for example, the native speaker put blames on himself by stating that his notes were kind of hard to read and he needed his notes to be with him (as mentioned above in example 11), whereas only 12 of the 27 Chinese participants who used reasons in the Notes situation held the same reason as the native speaker, and there were 10 participants reason for not lending the notes were suggesting Classmate A study harder and make her own notes. To some extent, these suggestions offered by Chinese participants sounded impolite. The native speaker offered alternative to help, whereas the Chinese English learners did not want involvement with Classmate A. In the Notes (-P, +D) situation, performances of Chinese English learners in general appeared not as tentative as their interactions in the hierarchical face system (+P, +D). 4.4.3 Solidarity face system: Bar and Birthday (-P, -D) In the solidarity face system (mentioned in 2.3), relationship between two interlocutors with equal social status (-P) is close (-D). Descriptions on the Bar and the Birthday situations (see Appendix 1) suggest that both situations represent solidarity face and informality. However, as can be noted above in Table3, both groups of participants used significantly higher numbers of strategies in Birthday
31
situation rather than in the Bar situation. Further, among Chinese English learners, preference for directness in refusal interaction was comparatively high in the Bar situation. 4.4.3.1 Refusing a suggestion from a friend: Bar In the Bar situation, Friend A suggests Friend B go to a bar instead of attending a class. Unlike in other situations, a reason for refusals was given in the description of this situation: the two friends had a class to go, and they should not skip the class. This reason was related to the right of the speaker to perform the act in Brown and Levinsons absolute ranking (R) (in 2.2), and it might effect participants degree of directness in refusals. Table 7 reveals the most frequently employed strategies among Chinese English learners as well as the strategies utilized by the native speaker when declining a friends request to skip a class and go to a bar.
Table 7 Most frequently used strategies by Chinese English learners (N= 30) and strategies employed by the native speaker when refusing a friends suggestion of going to a bar
Chinese English learners Strategy Reason/Explanation Direct refusal Postponement Agreement Apology/Regret Repetition of previous utterance Positive opinion Mitigated refusal Set condition for past/future acceptance f 64 18 17 15 14 13 12 No. of Informants 30 14 16 13 11 12 11 -
Native speaker of English f 2 1 1 1 2 1
As can be seen in Table 7, strategies of reason/explanation, direct refusal, and postponement were utilized most frequently. Each Chinese informant used reasons/explanations twice on average. The reasons were usually in an order that a concise reason followed by a specific restatement which emphasized on the importance of the class. Direct refusal and postponement were used by nearly half of Chinese under study. It often came right before or after the first reason was given. Postponement always appeared as a supportive move which was close to the end of the refusal interaction. Like Chinese English learners, the native participant resorted to strategies of reason (f=2), direct refusal, partial agreement, and apology in the refusal interaction. Strategy of setting condition for future acceptance served as the same function as postponement here which indicates Lets go there later.
To examine participants negotiations of face work in the Bar situation, example 12

32
and example 13 are given below. (12) Bar: Friend A suggests going to a bar instead of attend a tutorial Friend B refuses the suggestion (Chinese #8) 1 Friend A: Its really nice to talk to you. You know what, maybe we should skip 2 the next class and go to listen to the band performance at Einstein. 3 Friend B: Oh, skip the class? 4 Friend A: Yeah. The performance starts in five minutes. 5 Friend B: 6 7 Oh, You know I cant skip the class. N[HA] Its important for me, I paid money for the course. I dont want to waste money.
8 Friend A: But you know the band is so awesome. 9 Friend B: 10 11 Friend A: Yes, I like it. But I think we can pick another day to listen to them. I dont want to skip the class. N[HA] Well, Ill just go by myself.
The interaction (example 12) is realized by three sequences: a suggestion- refusal sequence (lines1-7), an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 8-10), and a closing uptake. Initial response by Friend B was a repetition of Friend As suggestion (line3). It delayed the upcoming direct declination (HA) (line5), which was followed by a reason stressing importance of the course. In the second sequence, after Friend A insisting the attractiveness of the band, signals of partial agreement and postponement (line 9) by Friend B before he restated directly his unwillingness to skip the class (HA) (line 10). (13) Bar: Friend A suggests going to a bar instead of attend a tutorial Friend B refuses the suggestion (native speaker) 1 Friend A: 2 3 Friend B: 4 Friend A: 5 Friend B: 6 7 8 Friend A: I know there is a band playing at the bar near our school, would you like to go to the bar with me now? Ah, now? Yeah. Um, no, N[HA] I dont think so, Weve got a tutorial very soon. But you know the band is so awesome. I know, but if I skip one more tutorial, I would really be in trouble
33
9 Friend A:
10 11 12 13 14 15 Friend B: 16 Friend A: 17 Friend B:
with, you know, with Smakman. He wouldnt like me skipping another class. N[HA] So sorry, man, I dont think Id come along. If the band is still there after class, I would totally love to go. Oh. But you know, you go and have fun. Enjoy yourself. Okay.
The interaction (example 13) is comprised of three sequences: a suggestion-refusal sequence (lines 1-7), an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 8- 15), and a closing uptake (lines 16-17). The suggestion-refusal sequence in this interaction is significantly similar to the one in example 12. Initial response by Friend B was repetition of part of Friend As utterance (line 3). It was followed by direct means of refusal (HA) (line 5) which was supported by stating the refusal in a mitigated way (line 6) and a reason mentioning that they had a tutorial to attend (line 7). In the insistence- refusal sequence, Friend B specifically explained the necessity to go to the tutorial (HA) (lines 9- 11) although he agreed that the band was good (line 9). As supportive moves, expression of apology along with an in-group solidarity marker (man) (line 12), restatement of the mitigated refusal (line 13), and strategy of setting condition for future acceptance were utilized. Overall, as shown in the examples (12 and 13), both groups would like to express refusal through a combination of direct refusal and reason/explanation. Tones in the interactions were less formal, and refusals were expressed clearly without hesitation. Strategy choices by the two groups in this refusal interaction were quite close. One apparent difference between the two groups lies in that the native speaker preferred migrated statements of refusal to attenuate the negative effects, whereas the strategy of mitigated refusal was employed by only seven Chinese English learners. In short, patterns of refusal interaction in the Bar situation were similar between the Chinese English learners and the native speaker. 4.4.3.2 Refusing an invitation from a friend: Birthday It has been manifested above in Table 3 that both groups of participants used the highest number of strategies in the Birthday situation, and the degrees of strategy variation (11 strategies) was highest among all six situations. According to information in Table 3, directness of refusal in this situation as well as in the Farewell situation was the lowest. As can be noted in Table 8, most frequently used strategies by Chinese participants and strategies employed by the native speaker also varied.
Table 8 Most frequently used strategies by Chinese English learners (N= 30) and strategies
34
employed by the native speaker when refusing a friends birthday party invitation
Strategy Reason/Explanation Apology/regret Positive opinion Request for additional information Willingness Agreement Repetition of previous utterance Mitigated refusal Direct refusal Alternative Set condition for future acceptance Postponement
Chinese English learners f 52 39 32 19 18 18 17 13 12 12 11 No. of Informants 28 24 24 16 17 13 14 12 9 10 10 -
Native speaker of English f 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Among the Chinese participants, after reason/explanation, apology/ regret (f= 39) and positive opinion (f= 32) were utilized frequently. Other strategies that were employed by almost half of the Chinese participants to decline the birthday party invitation included: requests for additional information, expressions of willingness and partial agreement, and repetition of the interlocutors previous utterance. In addition, it should be noticed that although direct refusal was employed frequently (f=12), only 9 Chinese English learners resorted to this strategy. In addition, what is not shown in Table 12 is that in-group markers were used frequently by Chinese participants (e.g. buddy, sweetie, honey, dude) which revealed intimacy between interlocutors. However, in-group markers were used significantly less in the Bar situation though relationship between interlocutors was also close (-D). These choices on using intimate address forms reflect internal structure which is emphasized by Van Dijk (cited in Lee-Wong, 2000: 155). One of its components is attitudes, which enables the participants adopt appropriate address forms in certain situations. Participants may hold a negative attitude toward skipping a class, therefore less address form were employed. Comparatively, strategy usage by the native speaker superposed to a great extent with the most frequently employed strategies by Chinese participants, with exceptions in strategies of mitigated refusal, set condition for future/past acceptance, agreement by Chinese English learners and postponement by the native speaker. To examine participants negotiations of face work in the Birthday situation, example 14 and example 15 are given below. (14) Birthday: Friend A offers invitation Friend B refuses invitation (Chinese #10)
35
1 Friend A: Hi, long time no see. 2 Friend B: 3 Friend A: 4 Friend B: Hi, how are you doing? Good. You know my birthday is coming next week, and, Really, wow, congratulations, sweetie.
5 Friend A: Thank you, and Im going to throw a party, would you like to join in 6 us? 7 Friend B: 8 Friend A: 9 Friend B: 10 Friend A: 11 Friend B: 12 Friend A: 13 Friend B: Oh, thats great. Yes, sure, But what time, like which day? Um, its on Friday night. Friday night? Yeah. From what time? About seven or eight oclock. Oh, Im so sorry. I think I have an appointment at that time. N[HA] 14 Friend A: 15 Friend B: 16 17 18 Friend A: 19 Friend B: 20 21Friend A: 22 Friend B: Oh really? Its one of my professors. Were gonna discuss something about our project. Its a bit late, but because the deadline is the next Monday, and Ive begged my professor to give me some advice. But you know there will be a lot of our mutual friends there. Probably if I can finish it earlier, I would go, and I would give you a call. N[HA] Oh, that would be great then. Cuz Id like to be there, of course.
The interaction (example 14) was realized by three sequences: a greeting sequence (lines 1-4), an invitation- refusal sequence (lines 5-17) with various turns, and an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 18-22). Friend B expressed her positive opinion and agreement right after she received Friend As invitation and she requested for additional information immediately to show her interest in the party (line7). When it was told the party would be on Friday night, Friend B repeated the answer which delayed refusal (line9). To show more interest, she requested for information on the exact time of the party (line11). Being told the party time, Friend B declined the invitation with a reason which was modified by mental state predicates (I think) and was prefaced by apology (lines 13-14). To make sure the reason held enough importance for being absent from the party, Friend B further explained it in detail (lines 15-17). In the insistence-refusal sequence, Friend B set a condition for future acceptance as a temporary refusal (lines 19-20). The conversation was closed with her expression of willingness which indicated her sincerity to attend the party (line 22).
36
(15) Birthday: 1 Friend A: 2 Friend B: 3 Friend A: 4 Friend B: 5 Friend A: 6 7 Friend B:
Friend A offers invitation Friend B refuses invitation (native speaker) Hi Hi, good, how are you doing? Good, long time no see. Yeah. Um, I was just about to contact you, you know, my birthday is coming next week. Oh, great.
8 Friend A: Yeah, Im going throw a party, would you like to come? 9 Friend B: 10 Friend A: 11 Friend B: 12 Friend A: 13 Friend B: 14 Friend A: 15 Friend B: 16 17 18 19 20 21Friend A: 22 Friend B: 23 24 Friend A: 25 Friend B: 26 Friend A: 27 Friend B: Ooh, I love party. What is it? My birthday party. Its on next Friday night. Oh, gosh, Friday night. Yeah. Oh. You know there will be some of our mutual friends there. Oh, I really love to see them again, but gosh, I really cant be there. N[HA] My in-laws are celebrating their forty years anniversary, but its a bit boring. I very much prefer to come to your party. Its just the way it is. Oh, you know, maybe we could make it up sometime. Yeah. You should tell me what present you would like. Ill get you a present. Oh, really? That would be great. Yeah, but Im sorry that Friday night isnt good for me. Well, I can see the anniversary is very important. Yeah, but say hello to everyone, and enjoy the party.
The interaction in example 15 was realized by three sequences: a greeting sequence (lines 1-7), an invitation-refusal sequence (line 8-25), and a terminal exchange (lines 26-27). After Friend A offered invitation, Friend B showed his interest in attending the party by expression of positive opinion and requisition for more information about the party. When the date of the party was given, Friend B repeated the answer to delay refusal response (line 11), and expressed his willingness to attend the party to preface the refusal (lines 15-16). Each strategy used as head act and preface were modified by discourse markers (oh, oh gosh) which served as intensification of Friend Bs willingness to attend the party and his reluctance to be absent. As supportive moves after direct declination (head act), specific reason was given explaining there was a
37
forty-year anniversary celebration at the same time (lines 17-18), followed by expression of willingness which indicated that Friend B preferred the birthday party (line 19), an alternative as a compensation (line 22-23), and an apology for not being to come to the party (line 25). Overall, the results were contradictory to hypothesis (see Chapter 2) which predicted that speakers might employ more indirect strategies to refusal an unfamiliar classmates request of borrowing notes than to decline a friends advice of going to a bar instead of attending a class. In addition, examples in the Bar and Birthday situations manifested different interactional patterns of face negotiations and varied degrees of directness and indirectness. Both groups share some features: Firstly, refusal response to the Bar suggestion had high degree of directness, whereas responses in the Birthday situation to be highly indirect. Secondly, interactions in the Bar situation were short and the birthday party invitations were always declined through various turns of indirect refusal speech. This could be explained by absolute ranking (R) suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987) (mentioned in Chapter 2). Finally, in-group markers were employed by the Chinese group to show close relationship between interlocutors. 4.5 Refusal strategy use frequencies in perception The strategy use perception complemented finding obtained from role-play test data. Participants were asked how often they would give refusal response like Speaker B in the given 35 questions (see Appendix 2). Figure 2 presents the ratings by Chinese English learners on their refusal strategy use in a descending order as well as the ratings by the native speaker. The ratings stand for strategy use frequencies in perception (2 % never 3.5; 3.5 % seldom 5; 5 % sometimes 6.5; 6.5 % often %8).
38
Figure 2 Perceptions on strategy use frequency (strategies are presented in a descending order on means of ratings by the Chinese participants)
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
( /) + , + /) / + /) / (+ /) . / /) . / / , *) 0 / ( *) 0 ,( *) , / *) / , * *) . ( / *) . (* ( )( , )+ ( ( * )* * / @ 5 : > 8J + +
According to the data in Figure 2, Chinese participants considered nine strategies as sometimes used. Among them only strategies of reason/explanation, expression of willingness and positive opinion were used frequently in role plays, and only strategies of mitigated refusal and alternative were employed moderately in role-play tests (see Table 1). In addition, although participants thought they would use strategies of indefinite reply and expressions of wish and gratitude frequently, these three strategies in fact were employed with low frequencies in role plays (see Table 1). It was predicted in Chapter 2 that strategy of gratitude would be favored by Chinese participants, and it seems to be consistent with participants perception but not with their actual linguistic behavior. For other three strategies (positive opinion, indefinite reply, and willingness) which were predicted (in Chapter 2) being favored by Chinese participants, all of the three were rated high in the perception questionnaire. However, only expressions of positive opinion and willingness were used frequently in actual linguistic behavior. Furthermore, although direct refusal and expression of agreement was rated low, they were among the most frequently used strategies in role-play tests (see Table 1).
39
In Figure 2, perceptions on strategy use frequency were also compared between Chinese English learners and the native speaker of English. As can be seen in Figure 2, there are similarities and differences in the two groups of participants perceptions on refusal strategy use. Among the perceived sometimes used strategies by Chinese participants, only three strategies manifesting consistency on refusal strategy perception between two groups (difference of ratings less than 0.5): reason/explanation (Chinese [M]: 5.57; native speaker [r]: 6), wish (Chinese [M]: 5.5; native speaker [r]: 6), and mitigated refusal (Chinese [M]: 5.1; native speaker [r]: 5). For the perceived seldom used strategies by Chinese English learners, five strategies got similar ratings by the two groups: apology/regret (Chinese [M]: 4.97; native speaker [r]: 5), empathy (Chinese [M]: 4.93; native speaker [r]: 5), partial agreement (Chinese [M]: 4.57; native speaker [r]: 5), postponement (Chinese [M]: 4.17; native speaker [r]: 4), and direct refusal (Chinese [M]: 3.83; native speaker [r]: 4). Overall, Chinese participants perceptions on their refusal strategy use were inconsistent with their refusal responses in role plays in many aspects. In other words, what they thought their refusal behavior would be like was different from their performance in reality. In addition, the native speaker has a different perception on strategy use from Chinese English learners except on eight strategies. 4.6 Conclusion This chapter presents patterns and features of refusals by Chinese English learners who live abroad across in six refusal situations as well as their perceptions on refusal strategy choices. On the preference for the refusal strategies in role plays, results show variety between Chinese English learners and native speaker across situations, and for face systems. In general, both groups have shown favorability on strategies of reason/explanation (Chinese [M] = 11.2; Native [f] =15), apology/regret (Chinese [M] = 5.4; Native [f] = 6), and expressions of partial agreement (Chinese [M] = 3.0; Native [f] =3). In addition to these strategies, each group favored another adjunct to refusal strategy. Chinese participants frequently resorted to expression of positive opinion (Chinese [M] = 3.1; Native [f] =1), whereas the native speaker showed preference for expression of willingness (Chinese [M] = 2.4; Native [f] =5). With respect to linguistic behavior in three face systems and across six refusal situations, results reveal different degrees of directness and indirectness, as well as different realization patterns in each refusal situation. Under hierarchical system (+P, +D), refusal interactions in the all the three situations appeared polite. Refusal utterances by both groups in the Advisor situation were realized by turns of indirect refusals and adjuncts to refusal strategies. Comparatively, direct refusal strategy was
40
employed more frequent by Chinese participants in this situation (Chinese [f] = 13; the native speaker did not employ it in the Advisor situation), which could be associated with their English language proficiency. On the contrary, contents of reasons/explanations provided by Chinese English learners put more emphasis on maintaining the interlocutors face. Negotiating face in the Bookstore and the Farewell situation were analyzed together. It was found that Chinese participants refusal responses in the Farewell situation (7 types of indirect and adjuncts to refusals were resorted to as the most frequently used strategies) were more tentative and indirect than in the Bookstore situation (4 types of indirect and adjuncts to refusals as the most frequently used strategies), whereas no obvious difference was discovered in the native speakers refusal in the two situations. In the Notes situation under deference face system (-P, +D), both groups employed the least number of strategies (Chinese [M] = 6; native [f] =6). Directness (Chinese [f] = 13; native [f] =1) was the highest among six situations although apology/regret was frequently utilized by Chinese participants (f = 16). The native speaker offered alternative as help, whereas Chinese participants did not want involvement with the refuse but shifted the lending notes responsibility to a third party. Under solidarity system (-P, -D), both groups employed more indirect strategies in the Birthday situation (Chinese [f] = 174; native [f] =8) than in the Bar situation (Chinese [f] = 143; native [f] =7). In addition to the lowest directness, address forms which indicated intimacy between interlocutors were utilized in the Birthday situation by Chinese English learners. In the Bar situation, however, directness utilized by the Chinese participants was not low as in the Birthday situation (Bar [f] = 18; Birthday [f] = 12), which could be explained by participants attitudes toward the contents of the suggestion (in the Bar situation). Further, this chapter examines perceptions of Chinese English learners on refusal strategies. Strategies of gratitude (r =6.07), willingness (r = 6.03), indefinite reply (r =5.7), and positive opinion (r = 5.63) were perceived as the most frequently used strategies by Chinese participants. Comparing results obtaining from role plays and perception questionnaires, great disparities are found between participants perception on their own refusal speech and their actual utterance in refusal situations. Among the perceived most frequently used strategies, only strategies of reason/explanation, expression of willingness and positive opinion were used frequently in role plays, and only strategies of mitigated refusal and alternative were employed moderately in role-play tests. It is manifested that although performance by the Chinese English learners in the role plays share many similarities with the native speaker, perceptions of the Chinese participants on refusals bear a resemblance with typical Chinese values (as predicted in Chapter 2). Of the three strategies (positive opinion, indefinite reply, and willingness) which were predicted (in Chapter 2) being favored by Chinese participants, all of them were rated high in the perception questionnaire In the next chapter, discussions and conclusions of the results in this study will be presented.
41
Chapter 5 Conclusions and discussions 5.1 Introduction The current study takes a look on negotiating patterns and perceptions of refusals between Chinese English learners studying abroad and a native speaker of English. Refusal strategies based on Felix-Brasdfers (2008) classification on pragmatic refusal strategies were analyzed as direct, indirect, and adjuncts to refusals. Six role play refusal situations (formal and informal) were designed under three face systems classified by Scollon and Scollon (2001): Advisor, Bookstore and Farewell situations in hierarchical system (+P, +D); Note situation in deference system (-P, +D); Bar and Birthday situations in solidarity system (-P, -D). A questionnaire investigating perceptions on refusal strategies was employed as a complementary to results in role plays. This chapter takes a look at main features of the Chinese English learners refusal behavior (5.2) and their perceptions on refusals (5.3), followed by a brief discussion on the uniqueness of these international students expressing refusals in English (5.4). Finally, this paper is completed with proposals for further researches (5.5) 5.2 Linguistic behavior and perceptions on strategies of refusals Role plays tests utilized in this study replicated F lix-Brasdefers (2008) tests on politeness in Mexico and the United States. In the hierarchical system (+P, +D), both groups showed high levels of indirectness and tentativeness during refusal interactions. However, each group had its own feature when refusing a person with higher social status (+P). Firstly, Chinese English learners refusals were slightly blunter than the native speakers which was related to language proficiency of non-native speakers. Secondly, the content of reasons differed for each group, reflecting different culture values. Further, in situations of Bookstore and Farewell, Chinese participants recognized relationship (+D) difference described in the two situations. Thus, their refusals in the Farewell situation reflected more respects and indirectness than in the Bookstore situation. In general, frequent use of indirect strategies and adjuncts reflect Chinese English learners carefulness on power difference (+P) and social distance (D), which was more obviously manifested than in the native speakers responses. In a deference system, both groups refusals were characterized by straightforward refusal responses when declining a person of equal status (-P) but distant relationship (+D). Although several strategies were commonly utilized by two groups, content of reasons and alternatives differed. Reasons produced by Chinese participants expressed principles and true feelings whereas the native speaker just told a white lie as an excuse. Alternative was offered by Chinese English learners referring to a third party for help, which manifests Chinese participants unwillingness to have involvement. On the contrary, the native speaker provided another way to help which showed
42
concern for the other. Therefore, Chinese groups values of fairness and independence were revealed. In a solidarity system (-P, -D), refusal responses by the two groups were similar to a great extent when refusing a person of equal status (-P) and close social distance (-D). Difference existed in performances between two situations: Bar and Birthday. Refusals in the Birthday situation were always accomplished by various turns, and head acts were modified by multiple indirect refusals and adjuncts, whereas refusal interactions in the Bar situation were much shorter and more direct. These features reflect participants values on absolute ranking (R) (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In addition, in-group markers were employed by Chinese English learners, which was in line with Chinese culture on using address forms to express intimacy with interlocutors. The overall refusal patterns of Chinese English learners manifested in role plays can be summarized as follows: First, Chinese English learners paid closer attention to social status (P) of the interlocutor and social distance (D) then the native speaker did. Respects and indirectness were manifested in refusal interactions with interlocutors of higher social positions. Straightforwardness was revealed when refusing a person of equal status but distant relationship. Secondly, refusal patterns and refusal strategy choices of Chinese participants share many features with the native speaker of English, but were not in line with hypotheses of the current study (see Chapter 2). In other words, the Chinese English learners ways dealing with refusals have been influenced by western values. Last but not the least, utilization of address forms which express intimate relationships, careful employment of reason content, and frequent apologies reflect features of Chinese values. 5.3 Perceptions on strategies of refusals Data obtained from the questionnaire add to our understanding on participants perceptions on linguistic behaviors of refusals. In the first place, perceptions of both Chinese English learners did not conform to their performance in role plays, but were in line with hypotheses which were based on typical Chinese values on politeness. In addition, Chinese participants and the native speakers perceptions on doing refusal differed. In general, the Chinese English learners perceived their refusal behaviors unchanged, but they had not realized the influence of western culture on their actual linguistic behavior of refusals during experiences of living abroad. 5.4 Uniqueness of Chinese English learners dealing with refusal issues The results obtained from this study provide us with information on the uniqueness of the Chinese international students refusals. It is found that while they believe their refusals are alike Chinese type, their actual refusal behavior has been gradually westernizing. Chinese values are combined with western cultures by these studying abroad Chinese students. It is interesting that these Chinese English learners have
43
unconsciously grasped western ways of refusals and put them into use. Before refusal response to an invitation, a suggestion or a request, they would assess the situation, the face system very carefully as what Chinese people do. During refusal interactions, pragmatic strategies and expressions being employed always presents western style. However, when we take a closer look, content of the utilized strategies remains features of Chinese values. 5.5 Conclusion The current paper focuses on a group of which the members are increasing rapidly, Chinese students studying abroad. Research findings manifest their unique ways copying with refusals. In short, they stay Chinese mentally and become international practically. For further research, since this study examines refusal strategies of Chinese international students in English language, Chinese English learners refusals in Chinese can be investigated and refusals in the two languages can be compared. Finally, if there is enough number of participants, a variation of years living abroad can be used, thus finding out relationship between length of time and degrees of the Chinese English learners combining two cultures.
44
Appendix 1 Instructions: Try to respond as you were in a real situation. These situations are taking place in Leiden 1. Suggestion -- Adviser You are a second semester Master student at Leiden University. Since pre-registration is next week, you are planning your schedule for your final semester. You have already put together a tentative schedule, but you need to get your advisors approval. Although you took one course with this professor, you havent had any contact with him other than in advising sessions. You made an appointment with him to review your schedule and you go to his office for the meeting. During the conversation, he suggests that you take an additional Dutch Language course, but you dont want to take the course. 2. Request --Bookstore You work at a part-time job after school at the University bookstore. The bookstore is open Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. You work in the afternoon until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You get along well with your boss, but you are not friends and you do not socialize together outside work. It is Friday evening at 5:45 p.m. and your supervisor has just received a delivery of books which need to be on display by Monday morning. Your boss approaches you and asks you to work extra hours (until 8:00 p.m.) to get the display ready, but you cant stay. 3. Invitation -- Farewell You have been working at Philips as a sales representative for the last five years. You have a good working relationship with your boss although you do not socialize together outside the office. Your boss has always been supportive of your ideas. After working for him for three years, he has recently been promoted and will become the Manager of the South African Division, which will require his relocation to Cape Town next month. He is having a party next Saturday evening at a restaurant and is inviting you and other members of his sales group to celebrate his promotion and as a farewell, but you are unable to attend. 4. Suggestion --Bar You are having dinner at the student canteen before class. While eating, another student from this class comes to join your at your table. You have worked on projects in class and have gone out together occasionally, but are not close friends since you have only known each other for a short period of time. Over lunch you begin to discuss different types of music and you realize that you have similar taste. After you finish eating and are both getting to walk over to the class, he suggests skipping class and going to a bar down the street to hear a new band, but you dont want to go. 5. Request -- Notes
45
You are taking a course in European Law this semester. So far you have a good average in the class, because you have worked very hard. Among your classmates, you have a reputation for taking very good notes. The professor has just announced that the midterm exam is next week. One of your classmates, who is taking the class with you for the first time this semester and who has frequently missed the class, asks you for your notes. You havent interacted with him outside the class. When the class ends, he approaches you for your notes, but you dont want to lend them to him. 6. Invitation -- Birthday You are walking across campus when you run into a good friend of you whom you havent seen for about a month. You and she have been studying in the same program at the university, but you dont have any class together this semester. She invites you to her birthday party at her house next Friday night at 8:00p.m. She tells you that a group of mutual friends that you both used to hang out with would also be there. You know that this would be a good opportunity to see everyone again and to celebrate this special occasion with her. Unfortunately, you cannot make it.
46
Appendix 2
47
48
Appendix 3 General information on participants (Date: 06/ 2010) Participant Second language number Age Nationality 1 23 Chinese English 2 22 Chinese English 3 25 Chinese English 4 25 Chinese English 5 26 Chinese English 6 23 Chinese English 7 21 Chinese English 8 27 Chinese English 9 22 Chinese English 10 21 Chinese English 11 25 Chinese English 12 25 Chinese English 13 23 Chinese English 14 23 Chinese English 15 23 Chinese English 16 20 Chinese English 17 23 Chinese English 18 23 Chinese English 19 22 Chinese English 20 23 Chinese English 21 23 Chinese English 22 31 Chinese English 23 21 Chinese English 24 25 Chinese English 25 24 Chinese English 26 24 Chinese English 27 27 Chinese English 28 26 Chinese English 29 27 Chinese English 30 23 Chinese Dutch 31 44 English Dutch
Length of living abroad 3 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 5 2
49
Bibliography Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. (2005) Intercultural pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990) Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In: Gass & Houck, Interlanguage refusals: a cross-cultural study of JapaneseEnglish, 11-12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chambers, J. K. (2009) Sociolinguistic theory (revised edition). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. (1995) Refusing in Chinese. In: G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language, 122. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawa i. Gass, S. M. & Houck, N. (1999) Interlanguage refusals: a cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Gu, Y. (1990) Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 237- 257. Flix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008) Politeness in Mexico and the United States: a contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fraser, B. (1990) Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of pragmatics 14, 219-236. Kasper, G & Kellerman, E (1997) Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman. Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991) Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second language acquisition 13: 215-247. Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000) Politeness and face in Chinese culture. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotheraphy as conversation. In: Flix-Brasdefer, J. C. Politeness in Mexico and the United States. Amsterdam/ Philadelhia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mao, L. (1994) Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, (5). Maslen, G. (2007) China: Chinese students to dominate world market. University Global news, issue 0004, retrieved on November 04, 2007 fromhttp://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20071101150549773. Rintell, E. & Mitchell, C. (1989) Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into methods. In: Gass, S. M. & Houck, N. Interlanguage refusals: a cross-cultural study of Japanese-English, 27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (2001) Intercultural Communication (2nd edition). Malden: Blackwell.
50
Van de Wst, P. (1996) Politeness in requests and negotiations. Dordrecht: ICG Printing Van Dijk, T. A. (1977) Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act comprehension. In: Lee-Wong, S. Politeness and face in Chinese Culture. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Watts, R. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, R., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (Eds.). (2005) Politeness in language: studies in its history, theory and practice (2nd edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfson, N. (1989) Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. In: Van de Wijst, P., Politeness in requests and negotiations, 85. Dordrecht: ICG Printing Zhan, K. (1992) The strategies of politeness in the Chinese language. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
51

THESIS 2 - Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THESIS 2 - Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Supervisors: Dick Smakman & Robert Lankamp

Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands August 2010

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

0.17 3.17 2.40 0.97 3.03 0.33 42.43

0.379 1.577 1.567 1.273 2.141 0.547

0.4 7.5 5.7 2.3 7.1 0.8

0.0 1.9 9.3 1.9 5.6 0.0

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Native speaker of English Indirect refusal f 6 10 5 Adjuncts to refusal f 2 1 2 Total f 8 11 8

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Notes 13 0.4 Solidarity (-P,-D) Bar 18 0.6 Birthday 12 0.4

143 143 174

4.8 4.8 5.9

0.8 1.3 2.3

180 200 256

6.0 6.7 8.5

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Chinese English learners No. of Informants 30 19 14 10 10 12 8 -

Native speaker of English f 3 2 2 1

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

2 3 Student: 4 5 Advisor: 6 Student: 7 8 9

10 11 12 Student: 13 Advisor: 14 15 Student: 16 17 18 19 20 21 Advisor:

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Farewell (+P, +D) No. of Informants 28 22 9 12 15

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Repetition of previous utterance Gratitude Positive opinion

Bookstore (+P, +D) (f) 3 3 2 1 1 -

Farewell (+P, +D) (f) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

2 3 Employee: 4 5 Boss: 6 Employee: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Chinese English learners No. of Informants 27 16 18 12 9 10 -

Native speaker of English f 2 1 1 1 1

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

10 Classmate A: 11Classmate B: 12 13 14 15 16 Classmate A:

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Native speaker of English f 2 1 1 1 2 1

To examine participants negotiations of face work in the Bar situation, example 12

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners

Refusal Strategies of Chinese English Learners