2014- GJFLT- Refusal to Invitation

Global Journal of Foreign

Language Teaching

Volume 04, Issue 1, (2014) 01-19 www.awer-center.org/gjflt/

Iraqis’ and Malays’ refusal to invitations

Hiba Qusay Abdul Sattar*, Australian Technical Management College, Australia. Maryam Farnia, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Iran.

Suggested Citation: Sattar, H., O, A., & Farnia, M. (2014). Iraqis’ and Malays’ refusal to invitations. Global Journal of Foreign

Language Teaching, 4(1), 01-19. Retrived on 3 May 2014 from http://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/GJFLT/article/view/3188

Received 16 December, 2013; revised 13 April, 2014; accepted 28 April, 2014. Selection and peer review under responsibility of Assist Prof Dr. Ali Rahimi, Bangkok University. ©2014 SPROC LTD. Academic World Education & Research Center. All rights reserved.

Abstract A speech act is an action performed by means of language. Speech acts are performed when we express an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation, compliment, or refusal. Empirical studies on speech acts show that the same speech act is very likely to be realized quite differently across different cultures. The purpose of this paper is to examine speech act of refusal to an invitation in English between university students in Malaysia. To this end, sixty Iraqi and Malay postgraduate students at Universiti Sains Malaysia were selected to participate for this study. The data were collected through an open ended questionnaire in the form of discourse completion task consists of situations with variations in contextual variables (i.e. social power and social distance). The data were then analysed based on Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz’s taxonomy of refusal to investigate the preferred semantic formulas or the strategies used in refusal to an invitation in terms of frequency, sequence and content. The findings indicate that the respondents prefer to use more indirect strategies (e.g. excuse and regret) than the direct ones (e.g. No and negative ability) in expressing refusal to an invitation. It is hoped that the findings have implications for comparative cross-cultural and intercultural communication studies. Keywords: Invitation, Iraq, Malaysia, Semantic

*ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Hiba Qusay Abdul Sattar, Australian Technical Management College, Australia,

E-mail address: [email protected]

http://www.awer-center.org/gjflt/

http://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/GJFLT/article/view/3188

http://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/GJFLT/article/view/3188

mailto:[email protected]

Sattar, H., O, A., & Farnia, M. (2014). Iraqis’ and Malays’ refusal to invitations. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching . 4(1), 01-

19.

2

1. Introduction

Cross-cultural and intercultural communication skills are needed whenever people from different languages and cultures come into contact. Nowadays, the number of people who are travelling for international business, tourism, or study abroad is increasing. Therefore, there is a concern for better communication among different cultural groups.

Getting invited is a common act in people’s everyday life, but people do not often accept all invitation they receive. However, refusing an invitation should also be expressed in a way not to offend the inviter and it is practiced differently in different countries. For example, when an Iraqi invites a person, he or she wishes that his or her invitation is accepted and appreciated. It should be noted that the inviter as human being has the want and expectations to be respected accepted and appreciated by others. Therefore, the invitee has to know what to say and has to consider the inviter’s sincerity and good intention to invite him before refusing the invitation. If the invitees refuse, they may threaten the inviter’s face, that is, his or her public self -image to maintain approval from others. Therefore in order to refuse the risk of losing face in the part of inviter, the invitees have to know the strategies to refuse the inviter. For instance, A invites B to join him or her spend the weekends together, and simply B says, ‘I can’t’ without any further explanations. How would A feel? He may be disappointed, shocked or even seri ously insulted by B for he or she as human being has the want and expectations to be respected accepted and appreciated by others.

Therefore, refusal is a language behaviour that can case misunderstanding. Beside, in many cultures, how one says "no" is probably more important than the answer itself. Therefore, sending and receiving a message of "no" is a task that needs special skill. The interlocutor must know when to use the appropriate form and its function depending on the community and its cultural- linguistic values (Al-Kahtani, 2005).

There are many Middle Eastern students including Iraqis studying in different majors at colleges and universities in Malaysia. As English practiced as a foreign language in Iraq, when Iraqis come to study at a university to obtain a degree in a specific field, it is very likely that they do not focus on the pragmatic function of the English language, but on the use of that language to access knowledge in their respective academic fields. However, these students might encounter situations in which pragmatic competence comes into play where there is a great chance of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and mismanagement due to some reasons such as insufficient language competency and their different cultural background. The refore, more research is needed to study the cultural differences in the production of people from diverse cultural background. This study is an attempt to explore the cultural differences or similarities in refusal to an invitation among Iraqi students studying in Malaysia and Malay university students for whom English is used mostly as a lingua franca in their daily interaction.

2. Literature Review

In this section, an introduction to invitation in Iraqi and Malaysian community, a theoretical background to the study and selected studies on refusal to invitations are discussed.

2.1. Aspects of invitations in Iraqi and Malay societies

Relatedness and group consciousness are central aspects of Iraqi culture. Socially, the conventional expectations of Iraqi society are that brothers, sisters, relatives, friends and even neighbors will remain in contact with each other, and be mutually loyal and helpful. One way through which Iraqis tend to express their feelings toward each other is by inviting one anothe r. Arabs are renowned of their hospitality. Hospitality is a cherished Islamic tradition, and anyone who has lived in an Islamic country for any length of time has a store of personal experiences of hospitality extended freely and lovingly, without any expectation of return. It has been indicated that the importance of hospitality in the Arab World is proverbial and commemorated in Arabian history in the deeds of those such as Haatim al -Taa’i, whose name became a byword for


19.

3

generosity when he gave away the camels that he was herding for his father to a passing caravan. Arabs are generous and value generosity in others. Hospitality toward guests is essential for a good reputation. Iraqi Arabs assume the role of host readily, regardless of the setting. Therefore the act of inviting is a very common social activity in an Iraqi society. Iraqi society has a special pattern of inviting. For an Iraqi family everyone is welcomed at any time and thus the issue of general invitation is common by the people. However, fo r some other cultures this might not be the case. A typical example is that an Iraqi family living in the US might issue a general invitation, not realizing that they must pin down a specific time and place, then sit at home socially isolated and lonely (Ghareeb, Ranard & Tutunji, 2008).

Another mark of Iraqi culture is that they expect to be received with hospitality when they are guests. The use of expressions complimenting and thanking the inviter is a typical Arab tradition. Moreover, Iraqi Arabs judge others on how well they host their guests. In other words, how well one treats his guest, what type of food and how much he offers to his guests is a typical Arab tradition, and seen as a direct measurement of what kind of a person he is (Hasan, 1999). However, hospitality is not confined only to the home. So, when two friends or acquaintances, for example, go to a coffee-shop, as a matter of courtesy, each one of them feels obliged to compete for paying for the drink. A typical example is evident in the behavior of some Iraqi refugees in US as it has been reported that Iraqis might insist on paying in restaurants and on other occasions, to the point of spending more than they can afford (Ghareeb, Ranard & Tutunji, 2008). According to Al-Khatib (2006), when two people engage in an encounter in a Jordanian society, the one who offers should insist on offering and the one who is being invited should bashfully reject the offer- but in reality intends to accept it later.

In Malaysia and among the Malay ethnicity, the act of inviting is also a common social activity. Society interactions at informal gathering such as dinners are common to occur. Malay behavior and action is very much dominated by Islamic culture, which is mainly dominated by the Holy Qur'an and the traditions of Mohammad, which calls for accepting an invitation or a gift. In a Malay home, the role of the host appeared to be persuasive (Gaudart, 2008). The host prompted, cajoled and even insisted that the guest had more food than he or she could manage. A refusal by the guest was interpreted as ‘shyness’ on the part of the guest, and the host sought to overcome that shyness and make the guest feel welcome by insisting that the guest eats more. Gaudart (2008, p.49) provided an example where participants A and B are the hosts, and C is the guest:

A: Come. Please come. Come to the table.

C: I mustn’t be the first.

A & B: Come on.

C: You, B?

B: Yeah.

B: Come, C. Just take a plate and help yourself.

C: I know. I feel so bad. I’m the first one to … eh…carry on.

B: If nobody begins then they’ll all stand on ceremony.

Malays are expected to communicate good manners, breeding and sensitivity to those with whom they interact on a more formal basis. Those who do not conform to these cultural rules are usually looked down on as unrefined or, in the Malay term, “tak tahu bahasa” (Teo, 1996, cited in Maros, 2006). Therefore, when refusing an invitation, it is expected to be done indirectly. Malays value indirectness in speaking in order to save the face of others and maintain good relationships between interlocutors and within society as whole (Maros, 2006). In other words, being cultured and refined is part of the Malays’ effort to preserve “face”, which is important in establishing good relationships and maintaining social harmony. In the Malay context, “face” means maintaining a person’s dignity by not embarrassing him or her as an individual (Abdullah, 1996; cited in Moras, 2006). Maros (2006) reported that they are very


19.

4

cautious about the arrangement of words, as well as not to hurt their friend’s feeling or to make him/her sad. The friend’s responses and reactions were described as also being important to them.

With all the above description of both Iraqi and Malay behaviour within the context of invitations, it should be noted that both societies are dominated by Islamic culture. Therefore, the researchers assume that both cultures are expected to show hospitality and act good manners toward guests. One would wonder how refusing an invitation is then manifes ted by Iraqis and Malays.

2.2. Theoretical background

Invitations are a common occurrence in everyday life, particularly in the maintenance of good relationships. They usually aim to address the invitee's face. An invitation can be defined as the act of asking a person to come to a party or special event. According to Nelson, Al Batal and Bakary (2002), “Invitations are types of requests (e.g., asking someone to come to dinner); however, instead of asking a favor, the inviter is usually attempting to be thoughtful and kind.” (p.45)

As a polite and constructive type of behavior, an invitation can be seen as a social act. According to Searle (1969), speech act theory is developed based on the assumption that language is a form of behavior, and it is conditioned by a set of rules. The idea that language is behavior is the basic element that helps one to understand how language functions in a social context (Al Khatib, 2006). Previous research (e.g. Tanck, 2003; Brown & Levinson, 1987) on politeness formulas shows that social norms vary from culture to culture. Therefore, what can be seen as a polite behavior in one culture may not be seen so in another. However, in all speech communities, an invitation can be seen socially as an acceptable humanitarian polite behavior. Within the preset study, an attempt is made to investigate the speech act of declining an invitation. It is theoretically based on Beebe et al. (1990) model of refusal strategies used in refusal to offers, suggestions, invitations, and requests. In this model, Beebe divided refusal strategies into three main types: Direct refusals refer to the situations in which the speaker expresses his/her inability to conform using negative propositions (e.g. no, I can’t), indirect refusals (e.g. regret, wish, excuse/reason, statement of alternatives, etc.) and adjuncts to refusals which include four strategies: positive opinion/feeling or agreement, statement of empathy, gratitude/appreciation, and pause fillers.

The speech act of refusal takes place when a speaker reacts with displeasure or disapproval. Just as one can accept invitations, so they can refuse or reject one. Many people think that refusing an invitation is a normal language behaviour that they experience in their daily lives. People might think there is nothing wrong with uttering an explicit No. However, it is not as simple as it is thought to be. This is due to the fact that not all languages or cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable refusing the same invitation. Refusal s have been viewed as a face-threatening speech act (Brown & Levinson, 1987). As Spencer-Oatey (2008) puts it, “Every language provides a very wide range of linguistics options that can be used for managing face and sociality rights, and hence for managing rapport” (p. 21). One of these ways in terms of the illocutionary domain can be seen in the use of strategies or semantic formulas within the scope of speech act realization. For example, in refusing invitations, offers and suggestions, gratitude strategy was regularly expressed by American English speakers, but it was rarely by Egyptian Arabic speakers (Nelson, Al-batal & Echols, 1996). On the other hand, acceptance or agreement strategies tend to be used in direct language without much delay, mitigation, or explanation.


19.

5

2.3. Selected studies on refusal to an invitation

Many researchers looked at refusals across cultural groups and found that while the refusal strategies are universal, the frequency of the refusal strategies used and the content of th e strategies are culture specific or language such as most of them deal with either English or Japanese (e.g., Beebe et al. 1990; Morrow 1995; Gass & Houck, 1999). The speech act of refusal has been investigated in other languages such as Spanish (Félix -Brasdefer, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008), Persian and Kurdish (Aliakbari & Changizi, 2012), (Allami & Naeimi, 2011; Sadeghi & Savojbolaghchilar, 2011), Chinese (Chang, 2009; Chen, 1996, 2006), Korean (Kwon, 2004).

Some investigations have been conducted on native speakers of Arabic such as Saudi Arabs (Al-Kahtani, 2005) and Yemenis (Al-Eryani, 2007). Al-Kahtani (2005) for example, in his study on refusal speech acts, assumed differences in the ways people from different cultural backgrounds perform refusals even when they use the same linguistic code (i.e. English). Three groups of subjects, Americans, Arabs and Japanese were compared in the ways they performed refusals. The aim of studying three groups of participants who differ in terms of ethnicity and culture was to point out the differences in realizing speech acts of refusals in different cultures and problems posed to L2 learners when producing speech acts in the target language. Results indicated that the respondents from the three cultures similarly used excuse and regret strategies when refusing an invitation made by a boss. However, Arabic speakers used excuse strategy most frequently and the regret as the second most frequently used strategy. Arabic speakers made use of other semantic formulas including gratitude, positive opinion and negative ability. They also exploited agreement and wish. When refusing an equal status person, the three groups similarly used excuse the most often in combination with a set of other semantic formulas. It is found that only non- native speakers of English used gratitude in when refusing equals. When refusing the invitation of a person in a lower status, all the three groups were found to be similar in that they made excuse the most often and used postponement the second often. The use of gratitude is also evident by Arabs in this situation.

Within the Malays context, a few studies, such as Marzuki, Damio & Hie (2009), and Maros (2006) have been conducted on the speech acts of apologies, complaints, and request. These studies concentrated on Malay speakers by looking at the speech act manifestation in both speakers’ mother tongue and English. However, there have been some attempts to investigate the realisation of different speech acts by Malays with other non- native speakers of English like Iraqis (e.g. Abdul Sattar & Lah, 2010), Iranians (e.g. Farnia & Abdul Sattar, 2009) and Thai (e.g. Farnia & Abdul Sattar, 2010) following an intercultural approach.

It also investigated refusals to invitations between familiar interlocutors. Results indicated that explanation was the second most frequently used strategy by Malay subjects when they refuse an invitation to both higher and equal status persons (a friend or a supervisor) after expressing regret. The findings also indicated that expressing negative ability or willingness received the third place of frequency of use for both Chinese and Malay students. Statistical data indicated that Malay respondents used significantly more statement of regret in their responses than Chinese respondents. In addition, Malays used significantly more negative ability, greetings and repayment strategies in their responses than their Chinese counterparts.

It is to conclude that more research is needed on speech community such as Iraqis and Malays as it can be extensively beneficial to the understanding of the culture of its speech community. The lack of knowledge of speech act realization patterns and strategies across cultures can lead to breakdowns in cross-cultural and inter-ethnic communication.

2.4. The study

The present study investigates the speech act of refusal to invitations in English among Iraqi and Malay students at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia. It also aimed to find out the preferred semantic formulas or the appropriate strategies used in refusal to invitations and whether there are any similarities or differences in speech act realization between Iraqis and Malays.


19.

6

2.5. Subjects

Thirty Iraqi and thirty Malay university students participated in this study. The choice of Malays is due to the fact that they are the largest ethnic group in Malaysia. The Malay group consists of 4 males and 26 females, between the ages of 20 to 23. The Iraqi group consists of 12 males and 18 females, between the ages of 21 to 37. It should be noted that both age and gender effects were not considered in this study.

As it was intended to have comparability between the subjects in Iraqis and Malays behaviour within the context of invitations (refusals), the subjects were chosen from the undergraduates and postgraduate population at Universiti Sains Malaysia, for the year 2010 to 2011.

All Iraqi subjects had studied English for 12 years in government schools in Iraq before joining the university. None of the group had ever travelled to any English-speaking country other than Malaysia. As for Malay subjects, they have been formally exposed to English language since the age of 7, the year they entered primary schools. The formal exposure continued in the adult years through work related needs. In Malaysia, English is regarded as an important second language for instrumental purposes, a neutral language for social integration and a pragmatic one for professional growth and career advancement. Informally, at all levels of development, subjects have access to the language through various communication channels, such as the television, radios, and written advertisements.

In spite of the common belief that language proficiency enhances pragmatic knowledge, studies are not yet reached an agreement, showing contradictory results with respect to the extent to which proficiency relates to pragmatic competence (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Barron, 2003; Felix- Brasdefer, 2007; Dalmau & Gotor, 2007) cited in Linde (2009). Therefore, proficiency effects were not considered in this study.

2.6. Instrument and procedure

Data is based on the results of a Discourse Completion Test (henceforth DCT), which was based on a study by Wannaruk (2008). It consists of three situations. The use of DCT is suitable for this study due to the fact that,“DCTs can provide a sound template of stereotypically perceived requirements for socially appropriate responses in the group studied. It also enables the researchers to obtain sufficient data in a relatively short period of time” (Lorenzo-Dus, 2001). Kasper (2000) also confirms the fact that a DCT is an effective means of data collection when the purpose of the study is to ‘‘inform about speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge of the strategies and linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented, and about their sociopragmatic knowledge of the context factors under which particular strategic and linguistic choices are appropriate’’ (p.329).

As for the argument that DCTs are not a typical tool for collecting natural and authentic data it should be noted that ‘‘the virtue of authenticity in naturally occurring speech must be weighed against its reflection of speakers’ sociolinguistic adaptation to very specific situations.’’(Kwon, 2004). Since the aim of the present study is to scrutinize the participants’ use of refusal strategies under some given situations, a DCT is believed to be an adequate instrument to choose.

Subjects were arranged randomly. Sixty Iraqi and Malay university students participated in this study. Each group was met individually by the researchers at USM, Penang, Malaysia. Researchers provided the subjects with detailed instructions about the tasks. Each subject was given 30 minutes to complete the provided task. Subjects were presented with the written situations and were asked to read each situation, and write down what they would say under each situation.

Each situation was based on two social variables: “relative power” and “social distance” between the interlocutors. This study investigated refusals and acceptance to invitations to


19.

7

higher (+P), equal (=P) and lower (-P). This study investigated refusals and acceptance to invitations between familiar interlocutors (+D).

Table 1. Description of the three situations

Situations Description

Situation 1: Lecture [+P, -D]

Professor - student, A professor invites his student to attend a guest speaker’s

lecture Situation 2:

Dinner [=P, -D] Student - student,

A friend invites a student to dinner.

Situation 3: Lunch [-P, -D]

A freshman- A senior student, A freshman invites a senior student to lunch in the

university cafeteria

3. Data analysis

The present study follows a similar approach of data analysis adopted by earlier researchers on different speech act realizations, e.g. apology (Holmes 1990; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984), requests (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989), invitations (Al-Khatib, 2006), refusals (Beebe et al., 1990). The responses were coded using a modified classification of refusal strategies proposed by Beebe et al. (1990).This classification system has been widely used and adapted to examine refusals among native and non-native speakers in different languages (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartfort, 1991; Gass & Houck, 1999; Nelson et al., 2002; Ramos, 1991). Data collected from the subjects were analyzed by using semantic formulas as units of analysis (frequency, sequences and content) and were categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al (1990). Semantic formulas represent the means by which a particular speech act is accompl ished, such as a reason, an explanation, or an alternative (Fraser, 1981; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Beebe et al., 1990). According to Fraser (1981), a semantic formula may consist of a word, a phrase, or a sentence that meets a given semantic criterion or st rategy. The terms “semantic formula” and “strategy” have been used interchangeably in the literature of cross-cultural pragmatics to refer to the same concept.

4. Results

In this section, an analysis of the data is presented as follows:

A. Semantic formulas used for refusal to invitations In Situation One (S1), a professor invites his student to attend a guest speaker’s lecture . The

social relationship between the participants is that of high power and familiarity . It was

found that both groups Iraqis and Malay employed indirect strategies when refusing invitations (see table 2 ). It was found that few respondents from both groups (3 Iraqis and 2

Malays) used direct strategies like no because saying “no” to someone’s face might be

interpreted as an insult to the other person. Instead, they used negative ability. The findings show that 11 Iraqi subjects used negative ability to express their refusals while this strategy

was used by 17 Malay subjects.


19.

8

Table 2. Frequency of semantic formulas used for refusal to invitations in S1, S2 and S3

Semantic

Formula S1 Lecture [+P, -D] S2 Dinner [=P, -D] S3 Lunch [-P, -D]

Iraqis Malaysian

s Iraqis Malaysian

s Iraqis Malaysian

s

No 3 (5%) 2 (3.3%) 10 (16.7%)

7 (11.7%) 9 (15%) 6 (10%)

Negative ability 11 (18.3%)

17 (28.3) 11 (18.2%)

17 (28.3%) 5 (8.3%) 7 (11.7%)

Excuse 27 (45%) 25 (41.7%) 23 (38.3%)

27 (45%) 23 (38.3%)

27 (45%)

Regret 15 (25%) 19 (31.7%) 15 (25%) 16 (26.7%) 14 (23.3%)

14 (23.3%)

Wish 8 (13%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.3%) 0 (0%) Future Acceptance

0 (0%) 1 (1.7%) 2 (3.3%) 2 (3.3%) 5 (8.3%) 6 (10%)

Set conditions for acceptance

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1(1.7%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%)

Repletion 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.7%) 3 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Beside, both groups were found to be similar in that they used excuse and regret strategies.

However, Malay group used more regret strategy than Iraqis. It should be noted that regret is one of the common indirect strategies and has been found in most refusal studies including the ones investigating Arabic (Al-Issa, 1998; Al-Shalawi, 1997). Through this strategy, the speaker expresses regret for his or her inability to grant the interlocutor’s request or accept his or her offer. The findings show that the subjects used regret strategy to soften the perlocutionary effect of the face-threatening act on the addressee for declining an invitation. It should be noted that the use of such apologetic expressions is a significant act of politeness and, hence, a redressing strategy. In Malay culture, it is a norm to refuse in a polite way; thus the Malay subjects, when speaking in English, used their own cultural norm of speaking indirectly, starting their refusals with “sorry”, which is equivalent to “maaf” in their native tongue. Basically, they are lexical and syntactic markers of politeness which speakers usually use to show their awareness that something wrong has happened and it has to be amended. So, such speech forms are seen by Malay people as markers of solidarity. See examples below:

1. I am so sorry I think I cannot because I have to work on my paper first.

2. Oh, I’m sorry but I don’t feel like eating at the university’s cafeteria.

Moreover, both groups used excuse more often than regret. The use of explanation is probably the most common indirect strategy to express refusal. Explanation or excuse was the most frequently used semantic formula among the subjects and occurred in responses given to all three DCT situations. This strategy is used to reduce the illocutionary force of the refusal by communicating to the interlocutor that the speaker would accept if it was not for some reasons or excuses. Some reasons can be given in detail and some can be general. This is particularly important since in some cultures such as Japanese (Beebe et al., 1990) and Arabic (Al -Issa, 1998; Al-Shalawi, 1997), speakers tend to give vague reasons and excuses when refusing an invitation whereas in the American culture speakers tend to be more specific (e.g. Nelson, Carson, Al Batal & El Bakary, 2002). This can be explained by the fact that many subjects, being non-native speakers of English, were not as specific and to the point as native speakers, as indicated by pervious empirical studies such as Beebe et al. (1990). It is, as indicated by Al -Kahtani (2005), attributable to their background cultural norms is beyond the scope of the present study. However, it can be hypothesized that the interference of the background cultures of the non -native speakers may contribute to their “vague” excuses as in the examples below:


19.

9

3. I have something to do.

4. I have some emergency job to do. 5. ..because I have to go to my cousin’s house.

6. ..I have class on that day.

7. Oh but I have a lecture at that time.

As for Iraqi sample, they show a tendency in accepting the invitation at first by expressing their wish to comply. Eight Iraqi subjects used wish as a semantic formula to start their refusals. The use of this strategy implies the speaker’s desire to help his or her interlocutor but at the same time his or her inability to do so. This strategy also aims to minimize the threat to the interlocutor’s positive face by expressing the speaker’s desire to help. Based on the finding reported in the table above, it is clear that there is a difference in the use of wish strategy between Iraqi and subjects as it is used more by Iraqis than Malays.

As for Situation Two (S2), where a friend invites a student to dinner, the subjects form both groups similarly used No and negative ability. However, Malay expressed excuse more often than Iraqis. Few subjects from both groups used other semantic formulas including repetition, future acceptance and wish strategies. Repetition strategy or repeating part of the requested act is another avoidance strategy that aims to give the interlocutor time to prepare his or her refusal as in examples 8 and 9. It also seems to serve as a distraction to the interlocutor from the refusal itself. It is used by Beebe et al. under the verbal avoidance strategies.

8. This Sunday night? …

9. Sunday night? I don’t think so…

Future acceptance is the strategy in which the speaker makes a promise to accept a similar request or offer at some point in the future. This is can be seen in the use of the phrase next time. This is another strategy to soften the illocutionary force of the refusal and minimize the impact on the interlocutor’s positive face. However, this strategy does not seem to be very common. For example, it was not found in two of the refusal studies that used the role play method for data collection (e.g. Felix-Brasdefer, 2002; VonCanon, 2006). However, it was found in two of the Arabic refusal studies (e.g. Al-Issa, 1998; Nelson et. al, 2002). This is also one of the strategies listed by Beebe et al. (1990). The following are some examples from the data. See examples below:

10. I’m sorry. I have class after this, maybe next time.

11. I’m sorry. I just had my lunch, maybe next time. 12. Sorry, I can’t maybe another time.

Situation Three (S3) is the one in which a freshman invites a senior student to lunch in the

university cafeteria. The most frequently used semantic formulas in S3 were excuse and regret strategies. Beside, direct strategies like no and negative ability were used by 14 Iraqi and 12 Malay subjects. In order to seek the satisfaction and the approval of the other person, respondents also employed an indirect strategy, future acceptance (5 Iraqi and 6 Malay subjects). Few subject used the set conditions strategy in which the speaker sets conditions for accepting the request or offer. It serves as a strategy to show the speaker would be willing to comply if the situation was different. This strategy also distracts the interlocutor from the impact of the refusal and serves to minimize the threat to the interlocutor’s face. See examples below:

13. If you have told me earlier maybe I could spend my time for the dinner.

14. Sorry I’m in a hurry but if you could wait for me, I’ll have lunch with you.


19.

10

B. Adjuncts to refusals Adjuncts to refusal do not form part of the refusal itself but they are external modifications to

the main refusal and they serve as strategies used to attend to the needs of the interlocutor’s positive face by expressing solidarity with the interlocutors (Beebe et al., 1990). Some of the strategies used to achieve this type of solidarity with the interlocutor include expressions of gratitude, expressions of positive opinion of the interlocutor, and showing consideration to the interlocutor’s feelings. These strategies were identified by Beebe et al. (1990) and were found in many other refusal studies including those investigating Arabic (Al-Issa, 1998; Nelson, et al., 2002). In this study, the subjects also used some additional semantic formulas that function as adjuncts as a way to modify their refusals such as pause f iller, thanking and positive feeling as explained in table 3.

Table 3: Adjuncts to refusals in S1, S2 and S3

Adjuncts S1 Lecture [+P, -D] S2 Dinner [=P, -D] S3 Lunch [-P, -D]

Iraqis Malaysia

ns Iraqis Malaysia

ns Iraqis Malaysia

ns

Pause filler 3 (5%) 13 (21.7) 3 (5%) 10 (16.7%)

3 (5%) 9 (15%)

Thanks 4 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%) 7 (11.7%)

5 (8.3%) 10 (16.7%)

4 (6.7%)

Positive feeling 5 (8.3%) 6 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.3%) 0 (0%) 5 (8.3%)

Address terms 4 (6.7%) 10 (16.7%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Both groups were found to be similar in the use of adjuncts in the three situations. Re sults

show a similar use of adjuncts like pause filler, thanks and positive feeling when they refuse an invitation. However, findings show that Malays used more pause filler as an adjunct when they refused an invitation to a high and equal status person than their Iraqis counterparts. It was also found that Malays used positive feeling as an external modifier to their refusals more than Iraqi subjects.

The subjects also softened their refusals’ responses in S1 by the use of address terms. Since the person to be refused was a professor, the use of “Prof.” was usual for both Iraqi and Malay subjects. In the researcher’s view Iraqi subjects are commonly known to rank-conscious. This is demonstrated by an attempt to emphasize, and even exaggerate their recogniti on of the higher social rank of their interlocutors as a way of showing respect. For example in S1, the subjects began their refusals’ responses by defining the relationship between their interlocutors and themselves with regard to social status. This was accomplished by referring to the rank of the hearer using address terms (i.e., professor, teacher, doctor and Sir) which gave their refusals responses a formal tone. This is might be the influence of mother tongue as in the Arabic language community there is an elaborate set of terms of address like (Sir sayedy, Mr. sayed, Mrs. Sayeda, Miss anissa, Doctor dicktor, Professor ustath). The case is also true for Malay respondents, as they feel bound to use such terms as it is to give the person greater recognit ion or respect. Therefore, the use of forms like ‘professor’, ‘Dr.’ or ‘sir’ were evident in the data as seen in the following responses:

15. Sorry Dr I can’t come I have an exam.

16. Well Prof. I do not think I can come because I have a lot of things to do. 17. Thank you Doctor. Unfortunately I have to focus on the paper. There is a lot to do.


19.

11

C. Sequence of semantic formulas used for refusing invitations

Table 4. Sequence of semantic formulas used for refusing invitations in S1, S2 and S3

Malay Sample Iraqi Sample

S1 Lecture [+P, -D] Regret + Negative ability + explanation 9 Positive feeling + explanation 2 Regret + explanation 4 Regret + negative ability 3 Regret + wish + explanation Positive feeling + explanation + regret Negative ability + explanation 2 Wish + explanation

Thanks + negative ability + explanation Wish + explanation 7 Regret + explanation + Thanks Regret + negative ability 2 Positive feeling + explanation Positive feeling + regret +explanation Regret + explanation 3 Regret + negative ability + Explanation 3 No + regret + explanation 2 No + regret + negative ability +explanation

S2 Dinner [=P, -D] Regret + negative ability + explanation 5 No + explanation + future acceptance No + thanks + Explanation 3 No + explanation + regret Negative ability + Regret Negative ability + explanation 5 Repletion + No+ Negative ability + Explanation Repletion + set condition + regret + future acceptance + Thanks Regret + explanation 4 No + explanation Repletion +Negative ability + Explanation Regret + Positive feeling + explanation

No + explanation 4 Regret + negative ability + future acceptance No + regret + negative ability + explanation Wish + explanation + regret No + regret + explanation Regret + explanation 3 Regret + negative ability 2 No + Thanks No + Thanks + Explanation No + regret + explanation Thanks + negative ability +explanation Thanks +explanation 4 Regret + future acceptance

S3 Lunch [-P, -D] Regret + Negative ability + explanation 4 Regret + Negative ability + explanation + Thanks Positive feeling + explanation + Future acceptance 2 Explanation + Future acceptance No + Thanks No + explanation 3 Regret + explanation 4 Positive feeling + explanation 2 Regret + explanation+ Future acceptance 2 Regret + explanation+ set condition No + Thanks + explanation 2 Positive feeling + Negative ability +explanation + Thanks Positive feeling + Negative ability+ regret Negative ability + explanation

No + Thanks + Explanation 2 Wish + Negative ability + Explanation No + Negative ability Regret + Negative ability 2 No + Negative ability + Explanation No + Thanks 2 No + Thanks+ Future acceptance No + Thanks+ regret Regret + Explanation 4 Thanks + explanation 3 Negative ability+ explanation No + regret + explanation Regret + explanation + Future acceptance 4

In Situation One (S1), a professor invites his student to attend a guest speaker’s lecture , the

typical order of the semantic formulas used in refusing invitations by the Malay subjects is Regret + Negative ability + explanation and Regret + explanation.


19.

12

Examples:

18. Sorry professor, I can’t make it. I have something on.

19. I’m sorry I can’t attend I have something going on. 20. Sorry Dr. I have to finish my assignments.

Similarly, the Iraqi subjects are found to use the same set of semantic formulas as regret +

negative ability + explanation and regret + explanation. They are also found to use another set where they express wish at the first position then followed by Explanation.

Examples:

21. I wish I can but I have exam in the time of your lecture. 22. I wish I can but I’m very busy.

The Iraqi subjects happen to be different from the Malay group in the use of the patterns: no

+ regret + explanation and no + regret + negative ability +explanation where the use of flat no is evident.

As for Situation Two (S2), where a friend invites a student to dinner, the Malay respondents used the same set of semantic formulas as in S1 regret + negative ability + explanation. They use other patterns like negative ability + explanation and regret + explanation is also evident in their responses.

Examples:

23. I’m sorry. I can’t I have a class on Monday morning and I don’t want to wake up late.

24. I am really sorry. I can’t make it. I have a date on Sunday night. 25. I don’t think I can come over. I have to attend my secondary school reunion.

26. Sorry I have other things to do.

The Iraqi subjects also used the set regret + explanation in addition to thanks + explanation.

More direct strategies used by Iraqi subjects through the set no + explanation. Example:

27. Sorry I have something to do on Sunday. 28. Thank you very much for your invitation but I have something to do on Monday.

29. No, I’m so busy on Sunday.

30. No, I’m very busy. I have another dinner party.

Situation Three (S3) is the one in which a freshman invites a senior student to lunch in the university cafeteria. In this situation, the typical order of the semantic formulas used in refusing invitations by the Malay subjects is similar the one used in S1 that is regret + negative ability + explanation and regret + explanation.

Examples:

31. I’m sorry I can’t join because I have promised to eat my lunch together with my

friends. 32. Sorry I can’t. My friend is waiting for me.

33. I am sorry. I have something else to do.

34. Sorry, I have a lecture.

The use of direct strategies by the Malay subjects can be seen very clearly in the sets below:

35. [No + Thanks] such as: No. Thanks 36. [No + explanation] such as: No I’m busy. 37. [No + Thanks + explanation] such as: No thanks I still have a lot of work to do.


19.

13

38. [Negative ability+ explanation+ such as: I can’t join. Sunday is the due date for me to

settle my assignments.

As for the Iraqi sample, the use of the patterns regret + explanation and thanks + explanation is frequent as they did in S2. Moreover, they are also found to use the set regret + explanation + future acceptance.

Examples:

39. Sorry I’m about to leave.

40. Thank you but I don’t have time.

41. Sorry, but I need to get these done, maybe next time.

However, direct strategies are also employed by use of flat ‘no’ or ‘I can’t’. This occurred in the use of different patterns as follows:

Examples:

42. *No + Negative ability + Explanation+ such as: No I can’t because I’m busy. 43. [No+ Thanks] such as: No, thanks a lot. 44. [No + Thanks+ Future acceptance] such as: No, thanks maybe next time. 45. *No + Thanks+ regret+ such as: No, thanks. I’m sorry. 46. *No + regret + explanation+ such as: No, I’m sorry but I have a lecture. 47. *No + Negative ability+ such as: No, I can’t. 48. [No + Thanks + Explanation] such as: No thanks I have it a little time ago.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This research is concerned with the strategies used in refusing an invitation by Iraqi and Malay university students. This study investigates refusing invitations between people of higher, equal and low status and familiar interlocutors.

By analyzing the results of the present study, many observations about how both groups react to an invitation can be made. First, within the context of refusals, the findings of this study seem to reinforce the notion stated by Brown and Levinson (1987) that people cooperate in maintaining face in interactions. Refusals are intrinsically face-threatening (Beebe et al., 1990). Thus, indirect refusals are preferred by both groups. These indirect strategies are used to s often the illocutionary force of their refusals in order to minimize the offense to the interlo cutor’s positive face (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In fact, these indirect strategies have been found to be used more frequently than the direct ones (Al-Issa, 1998; Nelson et. al, 2002).

However, the use of direct strategies like ‘no’ was employed by few subjects from both Iraqi and Malay groups in situation 1. This can be explained, as indicated by Wannaruk (2008), “The manner of avoiding saying ‘no’ is probably due to the fact that both groups consider the ‘face’ of the interlocutor of the most importance in an interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1978). They do not want to hurt people's feelings or insult people by saying no”. However, the use of ‘no’ was more by the Iraqi subjects in the three situations than the Malay subjects. The Malay subjects were found to use more ‘negative ability’ as a strategy to refuse an invitation. Although ‘negative ability’ carries a degree of directness, it is less direct than ‘no’ in the respondents’ opinions. They used ‘negative ability’ because they wanted to be direct, but were still able to sound polite. These linguistic forms, such as ‘I don’t think’, ‘maybe’, and ‘probably’ are used to soften the illocutionary force of a statement (Felix- Brasdefer, 2006; Farnia & Abdul Sattar, 2009).

As mentioned before, indirect strategies have been found to be used more frequently than the direct ones in this study. For the Malay group, the reason for making an indirect refusal is to save face of others and to maintain good relationship among the interlocutors and the society as whole (Maros, 2006). This leads to the conclusion that the Malay’s cultural rules of indirect speaking are evident in the use of request strategies as employed by the res pondents.


19.

14

Therefore, the use of strategies like regret and explanation were quite high. This confirms previous studies such as Farnia, Buchheit and Jenny Wu (2010), where explanation was the second most frequently used strategy by the Malay subjects when they refused an invitation to both higher and equal status person (e.g. a friend or a supervisor) after expressing regret. Identical refusal behaviour by the Malays was found when refusing a request in a previous study conducted by Farnia and Abdul Sattar (2010) as it has been reported that the preference for indirect strategies by the Malays, particularly the use of regret, explanation and alternatives could be explained by the subjects’ tendency to politely mitigate the refusal to request. However, it seems that the subjects might have thought that when refusing a request, they needed to offer more than a simple apology, an explanation as well suggesting alternatives in the form of solutions. Another way of mitigation in the Malay responses was found in the use of external modifiers like the use of pause filler in situation 1 and situation 2. They also used positive feeling as a way to modify their refusals by showing their desire to help his or her interlocutor but at the same time his or her inability to do so.

As for the Iraqis, the findings indicated that they show great variations in the employment of both conducted on native speakers of Arabic like Nelson et al. (2002) who investigated the speech act of refusal and found that Egyptian males employed more direct strategies when refusing invitations to individuals of either higher or lower status than the Americans. As for the use of indirect strategies, the Iraqi subjects show an identical behaviour in the use of similar strategies like explanation, regret and others. This is also in line of other studies conducted on native speakers of Arabic such as Al-Kahtani (2005) who indicated that Arabic speakers used excuse most frequently and regret the second most frequently used strategies. He also reported that Arabic speakers in his study make use of other semantic formulas including gratitude, positive opinion and negative ability. They also exploited agreement and wish. This is also in line with the results obtained from the present study as the Iraqi subjects used significantly more wish strategy by showing their desire to help his or her interlocutor but at the same time his or her inability to do so than.

Therefore, in the light of the findings, there is no concern for cross-cultural communication among the Iraqi and Malaysian groups. For example, Iraqi students who study in Malaysia and who thus interact with familiar local students and staff and perhaps with students from other countries might not face a great chance of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and mismanagement since there much similarities than differences in the use of strategies when accepting or refusing an invitation. The language used in social interactions carries with it nuances of two different cultures yet both are dominated by identi cal Islamic traditions. Therefore, people from both cultures are expected to show a similar behaviour and treatment even upon using a different linguistic code like English. This might leads us to conclude that the fear of not fitting socially, when interaction among both groups might not be felt.

Finally, this study gives further relevance to the importance of the understanding of speech acts across cultures and the fact that the understanding, or lack thereof, can hinder or strengthen the communication exchanges between cultures. This study could be especially relevant for teachers of foreign or second languages as it further supports the idea that language, particularly in speech acts, is laden with culture. Speech acts include real life interactions and require not only knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language within a given culture. Though the results of the present study show more similarities than differences between the subjects under study, further research may provide us with a more global view of the cultural tendencies in the act of accepting and refusing invitations among non-native speakers like Iraqis and Malays.


19.

15

References

Abdul Sattar, H. Q., & Lah, S. C. (2010). Intercultural communication: Iraqi and Malaysian postgraduates’

request. Issues in intercultural communication Journal, 3(1) 65-82. Aliakbari, M. & Changizi, M. (2012). On the realization of refusal strategies by Persian and Kurdish

speakers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 659- 668. Allami, H. & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence

development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385–406. Al-Kahtani, S. W. (2005). Refusals realizations in three different cultures: a speech act theoretically-based

cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud Univ., 18, 35-57. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://digital.library.ksu.edu.sa/paper2490.html Al-Khatib, M. A. (2006). The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian society. Journal

of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 272-294. Al-Eryani, A. A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9(2), 19-34. Al-Shalawi, H. G. (1997). Refusal Strategies in Saudi and American cultures. Unpublished Master’s thesis.

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Al–Issa, A. (2003). Sciocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: evidence and motivating factors.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581–601. Abdullah, A. (1996). Going glocal: Cultural dimensions in Malaysian management. Malaysian Institute of

Management. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying “no” in English: Native and nonnative

rejections. Pragmatics and language learning, 2, 41-57. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a

study abroad context. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals". In R. Scarcella. E.

Anderson and S.D. Krashen (Eds.), On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A cross cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.),Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. 1-34.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politness phenomena. Chen, H. J. (1996). Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University. Chen, C. Y. (2006). An interlanguage pragmatic study of refusals by Chinese learners of English in Taiwan.

Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Chiao Tung University. Chang, Y. F. (2009). How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer.

Language Sciences, 31(4), 477–493. Dalmau, M. S., & Gotor, H. C. (2007). Form "sorry very much" to "I'm ever so sorry": Acquisitional patterns

in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287-315. Farnia, M., Buchheit, L, & Jenny Wu (2010). Intercultural communication: a study of Chinese International

students’ refusal to invitation. Paper presented at (IACL-18) and the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22). (May 20-22), Harvard University United States.

Farnia, M., & Abdul Sattar, H. (2009). Intercultural communication: Iranian and Malaysian responses to Apology. In the proceedings of 1st International Conference on Language Learning and Teaching (COLT 2009), (5-6, March). Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Malaysia.

Farnia, M., & Abdul Sattar, H. (2010). Intercultural communication: Malay and Thai university students’ refusal to request. Paper presented at 4th International Mahidol Conference. (24 & 25 March). A joint conference by University Kebangsan Malaysia, Malaysia and Mahidol University, Thailand. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

http://digital.library.ksu.edu.sa/paper2490.html


19.

16

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2002). Refusals in Spanish and English: A cross-cultural study of politeness strategies among speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American learners of Spanish as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English. Multilingua, 22(3), 225–255.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158–2187.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 4(2), 159-185.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and pre-patterned speech (pp.259-272). The Hague: Mouton.

Hasan, A. (1999). Arabic Food and Arab Hospitality. Suite101 Com, Real People Helping real People. Page 1. Retrieved October 15, 2013 from: http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/3810/23719

Holmes, J. (1990) 'Apologies in New Zealand English', Language in Society 19 (1)55-99. Ghareeb, E. Ranard,D. & Tutunji, J. (2008). Refugees from Iraq. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from

www.culturalorientation.net/content/.../1340/.../Refugees+from+Iraq.pdf‎‎ Gass, S., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: a cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin;

New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gaudart, H. (2008). Some Ways of Speaking in English: A Malaysian Perspective. Malaysian Journal of ELT

Research, 4, 43-5. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer- Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking.

Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 316-341). London and New York: Continuum. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339–364. Linde, A. (2009). How polite can you get?: A comparative analysis of interlanguage pragmatic knowledge

in Spanish and Moroccan EFL university students. Porta Linguarum, 12, 133-147. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). Compliment responses among British and Spanish university students: a

contrastive study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 107-127. Maros, M. (2006). Apologies in English by adult Malay speakers: patterns and competence. The

International Journal of Language, Society and Culture.19, 1-14. Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/journal/ARTICLES/2006/19-2.htm

Marzuki, E., Damio, S., & Hie, T. S. (2009). Pragmalinguistic differences between proficient Malay learners of English in request. The Proceedings of UPALS International Conference on Languages.

Morrow, C. (1995). The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners production of complaint and refusal speech acts. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 411-432.

Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross -cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 163-189.

Nelson, G., AlBatal, M., & EL Bakary (2002) . Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 39–57.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 18-35

Ramos, J. (1991). No . . . because: A study of pragmatic transfer in refusals among Puerto Rican teenagers speaking English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Sadeghi, K. & Savojbolaghchilar, S. (2011). A comparative study of refusal strategies used by Iranians and Americans. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 601–606.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory: Continuum International Publishing Group.

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/3810/23719

http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/journal/ARTICLES/2006/19-2.htm


19.

17

Tanck, S. (2003). Speech acts sets of refusals and complaint: a comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ production. TESL Second Language Acquisition,1-22.

Retrieved November 23, 2007 from: http://www1.american.edu/tesol/wptanck.pdf Teo, K. S. (1996). The acquisition of Malay as a Second language: A case of the essentiality of culture

learning. A paper presented at Southeast Asian Linguistics Society VI, May, 10-12. VonCanon, A. L. (2006). Just saying “no”: Refusing request in Spanish as a first and second language.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC journal, 39(3), 318-337.

http://www1.american.edu/tesol/wptanck.pdf


19.

18

Appendix A

Classification of Refusals

I- Direct A. Performative (e.g., “I refuse”)

B. Nonperformative statement

1. “No” 2. Negative willingness/ability (“I can’t.” “I won’t.” “I don’t think so.”)

II- Indirect

A. Statement of regret (e.g., “I’m sorry…”, “I feel terrible…”)

B. Wish (e.g., “I wish I could help you….”) C. Excuse, reason, explanation (e.g., “My children will be home that night.”; “I have a

headache.”)

D. Statement of alternative 1. I can do X instead of Y (e.g., “I’d rather do…””I’d prefer”)

2. Why don’t you do X instead of Y (e.g., “Why don’t you ask

someone else?”) Set condition for future or past acceptance (e.g., “If you had asked me earlier, I would have…”)

F. Promise of future acceptance (e.g., “I’ll do it next time”;” I promise

I’ll…” or “Next time I’ll…”- using “will” of promise or “promise”) G. Statement of principle (e.g., “I never do business with friends.”)

H. Statement of philosophy (e.g., “One can’t be too careful.”)

I. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor 1. Threat or statement of negative consequences to the requester

(e.g., “I won’t be any fun tonight” to refuse an invitation)

2. Guilt trip (e.g., waitress to customers who want to sit a while: “I can’t make a living off people who just order coffee.”)

3. Criticize the request/requester, etc. (statement of negative feeling or opinion); insult/attack (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”; “That’s a terrible idea!”)

4. Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding the request.

5. Let interlocutor off the hook (e.g., “Don’t worry about it.” “That’s okay.” “You don’t have to.”) 6. Self-defense (e.g., “I’m trying my best.” “I’m doing all I can.”

J. Acceptance that functions as a refusal

1. Unspecific or indefinite reply 2. Lack of enthusiasm

K. Avoidance

1. Nonverbal a. Silence

b. Hesitation

c. Do nothing d. Physical departure

2. Verbal

a. Topic switch b. Joke

c. Repetition of part of request, etc. (e.g., “Monday?”)

d. Postponement (e.g., “I’ll think about it.”) e. Hedging (e.g., “Gee, I don’t know.” “I’m not sure.”)


19.

19

Adjuncts to refusals

1. Statement of positive opinions/feeling or agreement (“That’s a good idea…”; “I’d love to…”)

2. Statement of empathy (e.g., “I realize you are in a difficult situation.”)

3. Pause filler (e.g., “uhh”; “well”; “uhm”) 4. Gratitude/appreciation

Appendix B

Biodata:

1. Gender: ……………

2. Age:…………… 3. Level of study: Degree, Master, Doctorate, other :………

4. Nationality:

Instructions: Please read the following 3 situations. After each situation you will be asked first to

refuse an invitation as a response in the blank after “You”. Respond as you would in actual

conversation

Example: One of your close friends invites you to dinner.

Your friend: How about coming over for dinner Sunday night?

You refuse by saying: Hmm, no. You know I’m busy in my exams .

1. You are in your professor’s off ice talking about your final paper which is due in two weeks.

Your professor indicates that he has a guest speaker coming to his next class and invites you to attend that lecture.

Your professor: By the way, I have a guest speaker in my next class who wi ll be discussing issues

which are relevant to your paper. Would you like to attend?

You refuse by saying:

2. A friend (who is a student) invites you to dinner.

Friend: How about coming over for dinner Sunday night? We’re having a small dinner party.


3. You are a senior student in your department. A freshman, whom you met a few times before,

invites you to lunch in the university cafeteria.

Freshman: I haven’t had my lunch yet. Would you like to join me?


2014- GJFLT- Refusal to Invitation

Documents

Transcript of 2014- GJFLT- Refusal to Invitation