refusal strategies

Refusal Strategies between Arabic and English

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1. Overview

The act of speech can be performed by understanding the language, such as refusing someone

or requesting for something. In many cultures and regions, the refusing strategies are different.

According to Austin (1962) cited in (Al-Kahtani, 2005), “speech act is defined as functional

element of any interaction or communication”. This act is performed by the speaker when

making any utterance. It is seen that when a person refuses someone straightaway, that person

feel awkward because it sometimes seems as an insult of that person. In many cultural contexts,

the refusing strategies are different and based on this there are certain ways for refusing

someone so that other person who has been refused does not feel bad (Al-Kahtani, 2005).

Utterance is the part of conversation that is bounded by the silence. However, sometimes it is

the way of refusing or show disconnectedness towards any situation. In language, it is

important to understand pragmatic features that mostly native speakers adopt to communicate

in certain situations. In many cases, speakers make some mistakes while using pragmatics in

their conversation. They make errors in communication and this loses their control over the

situation. There are many examples where the speaker makes general mistakes of paragma-

lingiustic errors. For example, guests on dinner inquires, “How much your house cost?” which is

known as socio-pragmatic error considered in US context (Nelson et al., 2002).

In language and communication, refusal is referred to as a face-threatening act in the speech

acts. These are the sensitive situation in the communication process, which might create a

positive or a negative affect over the communication. The positive affect occurs when the

speaker handles the refusal situation with sensitivity, whereas the negative situation occurs

when the speaker follow straightaway or rude behaviour without giving importance to one’s

non-native pragmatic aptitude (Nelson et al., 2002).


The refusal methods vary from culture to culture. However, the conflict occurs when the people

of two different cultures try to communicate with each other without knowing the appropriate

techniques of refusal strategies or even common pragmatic indicators. The conversation

changes from culture to culture. The speech act between English to English, English to Chinese,

English to Japanese, English to American, English to Russian, English to Arabic or English to

Indian is different because of difference in cultural orientation. Therefore, for a speaker, it is

important to know the cross-cultural methods of communication and the avoidance of common

errors (Al-Kahtani, 2005).

To understand the refusal strategies, it is important to learn the request strategies because

request is one of the effective ways to reduce the error in communication especially while

refusing for something. Even if the hearer refuses for something, s/he should give the

impression that they cares for whatever the speaker feels and should show contented towards

him/her. Studying the cross-cultural methods and techniques of different face-threatening acts

helps in contributing a successful communication. It brings the speaker and hearer into the

comfortable communication where they can judge each other by their facial expressions.

However, many speech acts turn out to be failure because of the gap in request and refusal

techniques (Nelson et al., 2002).

Many authors studied the refusal strategies of two different culturally oriented individuals by

using the method of DCT. Saeki and O’keefe in 1994 studied the Japanese and America refusal

strategies through DCT. DCT is said to be the Discourse Completion Test that elicits pragma-

linguistic studies. Al-Issa’s used DCT to study the Jordanians Arabic refusals (Nelson et al.,

2002).

Four major factors were analysed and presented by the authors in these studies. It includes [1]

the refusal strategies vary from culture to culture. [2] The status affects the directness of a

person while using or making any refusal. [3] Arabic speakers use indirect strategies to soften

the refusal situation. [4]Writing is used to collect data based on refusal strategies. The latter


chapters of this research will help in understanding and focusing on the refusal strategies

between two major languages or cultures (Nelson et al., 2002).

1.2. Research Questions

This research is mainly focusing on the refusal strategies of two different cultures: English and

Arabic. The questions are designed based on the idea of understanding that how refusal

techniques vary from one culture to another. These will help in narrowing down the research

specifically to know few important things. Following are the questions of this research:

1. Are there differences or/and similarities between native and non-native English

refusal patterns?

This question will present the idea of differences and similarities of non-natives refusal

patterns who visit to UK or Saudi Arabia for seeking education. They face difficulties in

communication, but they need to follow some tactics to manage communication

challenges.

2. Do Saudi's and British use direct or indirect refusal strategies? If they are using

indirect refusals, are they different or similar?

This question aims to understand indirect refusal methods because they are of different

types that are used in different situations.

3. Given that indirect refusal patterns are usually associated with politeness, how is

this affected by the interlocutor status?

This question will give the idea that how indirect refusal patterns affect the people who

are involved in the dialogue or conversation and how politeness is maintained in it.

1.3. Aims and objectives

The aim of this research is to understand the importance of referral strategies in the cross-

cultural communication. This will help in providing a valid justification that how much


important it is for the natives and non-natives to understand the basic of pragmatics in

linguistics. Following are the objectives of this research:

1. To explore the basic difference in the refusal strategies of Arabic and English

2. To understand the behaviour of non-natives while making refusal

3. To understand the indirect refusal patterns in speech acts

4. Examining the basic difference in direct and indirect methods of refusal in the

communication or speech acts

1.4. Focus of the research

The focus of this research is towards the Arabic and English refusal strategies. This created the

limitation on this research and narrowed down the focus as well. The researcher will only

explore the facts based on the given objects. However, there is little chance of expanding the

research to those variables that are not included in this research. For example, request

strategies, sociolinguistic errors, manners etc.

1.5. Structure of the research

The research is usually divided into five major chapters. These chapters give the systematic

information over the issue or topic. Chapter one of this research is based on introduction. This

chapter gives the overview on the research and the questions that will give the direction to the

readers as well as experts to know what is mentioned or discussed in further chapters.

Chapter two is based on the literature review. This chapter will help in presenting the

theoretical framework over the research issue and the discussion of various authors in different

time. It will give direction to select suitable tool for data collection, which is mostly used by the

authors whose sources are mentioned in the literature.


Chapter three is based on the methods of the research. it will help in knowing that what method

is appropriate to use for the research based on the nature and the convenience of the

researcher. In this chapter, the researcher identifies the targeted sample for the data collection.

Chapter four of the research is based on the analysis and results. The analysis highlights the

information that is collected. It interprets the information and make it easier by illustrating it in

the form of figures and data so that readers can gain the understanding. This chapter gives the

analytical projection over the research.

Chapter five – Conclusion, which is the last chapter summarises the whole research and the

concepts of it. It outlines the research main idea and the comparison of that idea with the

proposed or identified issue. This chapter helps the readers to know the solution of the issue

discussed.


In today’s global economic system, increasing communication or pragmatic trend in

different cultures have seen. Communications across cultures are difficult, especially for

those cultures, which shares symbolic meaning and have complex learning system.

There are two ways to understand the cultures universalistic and particularistic

approaches. According to Morand (1996) approach that investigates and understands

the universal dimensions by using constructs, which are generalized in all human

cultures, is known as Etic approach. This approach shows that some elements are

universal in human interaction like conceptions of time and interpersonal proximity but

these variables vary from culture to culture. Interpersonal distance is the average

distance one partner maintain from another one. Different cultures have different

degrees of distance; it depends upon culture to culture. In some cultures, it is very small

and measured in inches while others have large degrees of distance (Morand, 1996).

Same goes with conception of time, some cultures give high importance to time and

others treat time oppositely, which is very frustrating for others. Another approach f

understanding a culture in emic approach, which studies a cultures socials and

historical context for example Saudi Arabia’s customs, gestures, language, symbols,

religion etc all comes under emic approach. Both studies have different way of studying

cultures, both have valid points and study a culture from different points (Morand,

1996).

The term speech act is a basic means of communication. Speech act includes responding,

complimenting, apologizing, leaving and giving refusals etc. According to Nelson et al

(2002), the goal of speech act research is to study how NS and NNS do communication

to achieve their goals. Pragmatic competency is the ability to use the language in order

to accomplish the goals. There are two different concepts one is pragmalinguistic and


sociopragmatic competence. Pragmalinguistic is use to fulfil the speech act and

sociopragmatic is used to refer speech act in a particular context. Nelson et al (2002) has

notice that Egyptians are more conscious than the Americans are. Refusals are face

threatening that why face saving strategies are used, especially for high status people. It

is very difficult to maintain each participates face in the interaction such acts are known

as face threatening. Some threats also occur on hearer’s face. In order to protect the face

of another person it is important to use refusal strategies so that no other person feels

face threatening. These strategies are more important in cross-cultural communications

(Nelson et al., 2002).

Speech act is an action done by language mode of communication, which includes

requesting, refusing and complaining something. Speech act is the functional unit of

communication, which is performed by speaker while making an utterance. While

talking on phone speaker does utterance, which is a speech of unit used to ignore

silence. Sometimes utterance is only use to refer as speech in studies. Term utterance is

used by linguistic to distinguish from a traditional word sentence. Term utterance we

use have three meanings, first is the literal meaning of utterance which is prepositional

content, simple example of this kind is that a person utters a word or sentence and he

means to say exactly and literally what he said. However, not all time cases are as

simpler. Most of the time what speaker says is not the real or exact intension in which

he/she have said. What speaker wants to say, sometimes come out in a different context

due to which misunderstandings occur between parties. This is also called as

miscommunication. Second is the functions of utterance used in social context this is

called illusionary meaning and the third one is perlocutionary meaning which tells the

effects of utterance in that context (Al-kathani, 2005).


In the framework of speech, act interlanguage pragmatics has been conducted. The

minimum use of communication in speaking anything is the performance of linguistic

act. All languages have their own means of performing speech act. The form of speech

act may differ from culture to culture. It depend that how speech act of a person effect

on the interpretation by a NS, it is known as the cross-cultural differences on second

language. The main components of pragmatics is the abilities of a learner that how

much appropriate speech act person can use according to the event, situation or in

context. Pragmatic competence is the knowledge that determines what speaker is

saying and how it is interpreted by the other person; the differences occur especially

when one person or party is NS and other is NNS. It is also pointed out in some studies

that pragmatic is the study of speech acts. It also depends that how a learner produces

the utterance in large audience and how they interpret their intentions, which they

conveyed through utterance. Abed (2011) study has shown that there is no doubt that

speech act is a universal behavior but it varies largely from culture to culture, language

to language and from countries to countries.

It also depends upon the learner that which strategies they have chosen even though if

they are provided with the same strategies as the NS have. In order to make learners

pragmatic competent they must be aware of socio cultural constrains of speech acts. It is

natural thing that difficulties arise when a second language learner speaks to NS

because of their lacking in that language. They make mistakes in conversational norms

involved in that speech act, these norms can be very important for NS and they give high

value to those norms so they do not accept it when second language learners or NNS

make those mistakes. These kinds of conversations can also leads towards severe

breakdowns in interethnic communication. Risk is also involved when NS violate speech


acts such risks are called as perennial risk. Communication difficulties occur when

knowledge is not transfer in proper way and by following rules are regulation or by

interpreting them wrongly or not in the context. Abed (2011) noticed that NNS use

conversational rules of their native language into their second language, which also not

appropriate for the conversations.

Pragmatic transfer occurs when a person use rules of its native language while talking

non-native language or second language. Top down processing shows that what second

language learners should know for successful speech act performance. Learners must

first recognize the cultural constrains and the context and then use appropriate speech

acts. They must know how to use speech act properly not to violate any socio cultural

norm, this is also known as socio cultural knowledge. Socio cultural knowledge is the

ability of speakers to determine the acceptability of speech act in the given situation (Al-

Eryani, 2007).

2.1. Strategies for refusals

As in all other languages, speech act of refusal is present. However, all languages have a

different way of refusing and use various strategies while refusing in order to make

themselves and others comfortable. Refusal occurs when a person says no directly or

indirectly to other person for any invitation or for any work. Refusal is a FTA because

listeners expectations are contradict. Refusals are done in an indirect way also in order

to protect listener from FTA. Refusal requires a high level of pragmatic competence.

Semantic formulas are used to analyze refusal speech acts. Al-Eryani (2007) analysis

shows that no one uses the direct refusal method, which says no, until and unless it is in


the background. For example, in America expression of regret was created by Chinese,

they created an unpleasant feeling between Americans. It is not necessary that a person

who is good in second language and have good vocabulary and grammar but they can

still lack pragmatic competence. In order word, they can be unable to communicate in

appropriate social and cultural language.

Refusals are also known as striking point for NNS. Refusals are very tricky speech act

because while refusing you has to make sure that other person is not offended or not

feel like FTA. If you fail to refuse in an appropriate manner, you can destroy your

interpersonal relations with that person. That is why refusal uses refusing strategies to

avoid offending the person. These strategies may differ from language to language and

from culture to culture. For example in American suggestions are made while refusing

but not in Egyptian Arabic speakers. Therefore, strategies are different from culture to

culture. Another example is of Chinese, they are used to give positive opinions while

refusing. However, this strategy is very uncommon in American English (Al-Eryani,

2007).

The strategy used to protect the person from FTA also depends upon speaker’s status

and relationship with that person. Refusal is not only FTA for listener but also for

speaker because it imposes threats on face of listener and change positive face of

speaker. To maintain this face situation face saving strategies are used to protect their

relationship and harmony. According to Umale inappropriate replies are also because of

socio cultural influences. These replies create problems because NS fells rude and think

that reply is very harsh. In Arab culture, they use different strategies while talking,

sometimes they do not speak and those things are of high importance and what is said

by them is not that important. Umale study shows that they do not openly disclose what


they mean by their saying. These strategies depends upon their socio cultural norms

because they are very family and friends focus they give high importance on greeting in

a formal way and by giving sincere hospitality. They are polite in their culture, but as it

is said that things vary from culture to culture therefore, for them they are very polite

and following their socio cultural norm. However, it is not necessary that the other

person also feel the same because they may be having different culture and background

and different socio cultural norms, which can be completely different from them

(Umale).

2.2 Reasons of NNS Un-influential Refusals

Eslami-Rasekh (2005) Study of pragmatic competency shows that grammatical

development does not only guarantee the second language learners. They must know

the intentions and politeness value of those culture and socio cultural norms of that

society in order to become perfect in second language. It is teachers’ responsibility to

teach pragmatic competence to students of second language learners otherwise it is

counted the fault of teachers. Teacher also faces certain problem of trainings and

material or resource on pragmatic competence in order to teach them to students. The

most important thing seen here is that less emphasize is done on pragmatic competence

when a student is learning second language. In order to make students learn about

those pragmatic competence to minimize the level of miss communication and bad

results of their communication with NS, pragmatic competence must be added into their

course and special emphasize must be done so that they can avoid face threatening

situations. Not only pragmatic competence should be added in course theoretically but

also practically. Students must be given practical example to make them learn properly

and try to make them practice by giving practical problem and making them do it


practically so they can become perfect in speaking second language (Eslami-Rasekh,

2005).

According to Austin (1955) study, sometimes when remarks are felt very dangerous is

because of the obvious act that uttering has been done in a wrong way or interpreted in

a wrong way. It is important that utterance is done in an appropriate way and is taken

or interpreted in the following way in which it is said. If the speaker is not good in

second language then they must do their action of what they are saying or what their

intention is. By acting in that way they can show their intentions and other person can

easily understand in the same manner as it is delivered (Austin, 1955).

Austin (1955) study shows that the chances of miscommunication drop down and

conversation is done successfully. It is not necessary that the act is of exactly same

words, which are uttered but their meaning, must be same and conveying the same

message they wanted to convey by utterance. Other than acts are the expressions,

expression of a person must be same and supporting the utterance otherwise listener

can feel face threatening because of negative impressions. For example if a person

wanted to say “I seriously…..” and if he is not serious or not giving serious impression

than the listener can feel something bad and disagree because utterance and

impressions are not matching (Austin, 1955).

Suggesting someone is a direct speech act, in which speaker’s purpose is to commit the

listener for any future course of action. Martínez-Flor (2005) study has shown that

while speaker is performing utterance the action of hearer’s are result of the NNS

attitude and intention. Another relevant feature of directives is opposing to other

speech acts. In order to do the interaction speaker and hearer must be performing

speech acts. Because whatever NS does is because of the NNS’s speech act and their


intentions and attitudes, which force listeners to perform such actions. While dealing

with directive speech it is necessary that speaker’s intentions must be fully accepted by

the listener otherwise speech act cannot be done successfully (Martínez-Flor, 2005).

To distinguish any sort of illocutionary act from another is called taxonomical effort. In

order to do anything further one must know the species of predicting, reporting etc.

there many different ways of distinction. Most commonly, there are three different

ways, which force utterance different from source of other utterance. This is because of

the expressions are misleading. That is why it is suggested that while utterance actions

and expressions must be conveying the same message as the utterance is conveying. It

is also because of the verbs use in utterance; many verbs can be having different

meaning so there is more chance of miscommunication because it is not necessary that

the way in which speaker is using that verb is exactly the same way which listener is

using to interpret. Illocutions are always part of the language no matter what language

it is. There are differences in illocutionary verbs, which are a good, guide but not perfect

for the illocutionary acts. There are twelve kinds of differences in the illocutionary act,

which includes differences in point, direction of fit between word and world, differences

in between psychological state of acts, strength of illocutionary acts etc are some of the

differences (Searle, 1976).

Many researchers have been done on the modes of discourse, which includes metaphor,

references and indirect speech acts. Researches also represent rational taxonomy as a

type of speech acts. Researchers have explored the relationship between context in

which utterance has been done and the meaning of utterance. More difference these two

have there are more chances of miscommunication or misunderstanding which are

sometimes very dangerous and can destroy relationships. The relationship between


utterance and sentence meaning must be same in order to convey the message properly.

There are also other factors in speech act which create problems are intentionality of

mind and philosophy of language connection with the philosophy of mind (Searle,

1979).

The analytical way of thinking is very fruitful especially in the field of philosophy of

language. Many researchers have done work on the philosophy of language it has been

almost three decades that researches have been done in this field. Many new

approaches and frameworks have been designed for language. There is also criticism

done on these researches, according to some researchers there is no impact of talking in

context to the situation the only thing that matters is what speaker is saying. However,

any do not agree they believe is that whatever you are saying it must be in the context

to the situation otherwise, there is no use of utterance. Utterance and the meaning or

context must be supporting each other and conveying the same message (Searle, 1991).

The corresponding notion of illocution is locutionary act. They are very unhelpful and

are forced to adopt different distinctions between propositional acts and illocutionary

acts. This difference is more than taxonomical issues and includes high philosophical

issues. Philosophical issues include truth and falsehood of statements, meaning of

statements and their context in which they have been spoken. There is a relationship

between utterance and the meaning of sentences. Originally, the distinction is supposed

to be between utterance and the description or meaning of sentence. Utterance is

supposed to be an act of apologies, promises, warning, bets etc. There is a difference

between what utterance is saying and what utterance is doing (forgusan, 1973).


There is certain subclass of nonconventional implications, which are also known as

conversational implications. There are some characteristics, which have degrees of

cooperative efforts, which are recognized by each participant. The purpose and

directions are set or fixes from start or it can be done during the exchange. It has to

means fairly definite or indefinite to show the considerable latitudes of the participants.

However, it is not necessary that all conversations are kept at the end; at each stage, the

unsuitable conversations are excluded. A rough principle can also be made according to

do expectations of the participants. Conversations must be made according to the

criteria’s and requirements. At each stage of conversation, the requirement changes and

so, the unsuitable conversations must be excluded in order to stay connected and make

your conversation relevant and successful. The direction of conversation must be same

from the start of conversation to the end (Grice, 1975).

The model of brown and levinson on politeness aims for the phenomena of politeness

and the utterance which a person chose to use to express themselves in an unrelated

language. There are underlying modes of communications that are universal for all

human interactions. These modes are reflected in the speech act by showing the

inferences and assumptions made in the planning of speech. The expression on face can

be managed by the use of politeness in the conversation. Politeness help to prevent the

negative face of the listener and speaker both and by being polite hearer are specially

prevented from the FTA (Gilks, 2009).


RESAEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, it will be focused on the data collection and sampling. This chapter will

include research design and instrument evaluation on eliciting refusal patterns used in

this study. This study first describes the information about their background and the

research context for selecting them as the information for each group. The validation for

determining DCT questionnaire as the core material employed in the current study is

provided. Moreover, the interpreter reliability and pilot testing are also presented. To

exemplify and discuss the study in detail, the instrument is also discussed.

Subject

The numbers of participants selected for this study are 20. The purpose of choosing the

limited number of participants is that the narrower the research is, the more convenient

it is to study the similarities and differences in the refusal strategies of Arabic and

English.

The DCT questionnaire prepared for this research is adopted from the article of Nelson

et al., (2002). The study done in the article of Nelson was based on the comparison of

Egyptian Arabic and American English refusal. This research is quite comparable to the

current research. Therefore, the questionnaire of Nelson article will be helpful in order

to evaluate and to understand the refusal strategies of Arabic and English (British). The

two questionnaires are prepared for this research. One questionnaire is for the native

speakers and the other is for non-native speakers. This will help in knowing the

similarities and differences in the refusal strategies of both the speakers. The DCT is

especially helpful to understand the speech acts. It helps in evaluating the differences


and similarities in the speech in very convenient manner. It is one of the reliable and

valid methods to study the refusal strategies of two different cultures.

The subjects of the research are the native and non-native speakers of English (BEn)

and Arabic (SAr). This will help in evaluating their similarities and differences in

convenient manner. There were few questions asked from the respondents based on

their demographics. Some extra questions were asked from the non-native speakers

based on their level of understanding of English at different places. They were asked

about the IELTS level. They are also inquired about the time they have spent in the UK.

They were also inquired that how often they speak English for the communication

purpose. Few options were given to them for their ease. The common demographic

questions include their age. They need to specify their age so that it gets easier to

evaluate the survey. Their current educational level is also asked. The gender was also

inquired, which will help in knowing that either males feel difficulty to communicate or

females feel difficulties to speak English. After the basic questions on demographics, the

DCT questions are asked from the respondents.

Instrument

As DCT is considered one of the most effective and frequent method in pragmatics to

extract respondent utterance, so data in this research is collected via open-ended DCT

questionnaire (Ogiermann, 2009). In this instrument, different contextual situations are

followed by a blank. The participants had to provide the appropriate responses to fill in

the blank. In DCT, the questionnaire is considered by number of occurrence and word

“directives” is not used in the specified situational description to avoid biasing

participants' choices of responsiveness (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989).


DCT is one of the instruments to collect data. There are three reasons to choose this

instrument. Firstly, the respondents in various researches like this vary their refusals

based on the status of the interlocutors. The situations that are developed in DCT are

based on the status embedded in given situations. Secondly, by using this method for

both the respondents, Arabic and English, native and non-native, it is easier to compare

they way and method adopted by them for the refusal strategies. This will help in

knowing the differences and similarities in the refusal strategies of Arabic and English.

It will also help in knowing the directive and indirect strategies and the strategic

relationship used for the status of interlocutors. Thirdly, it yields to the larger number

of refusal that is opposed in the natural-occurring data (Nelson et al., 2002).

With its several benefits, there are certain criticalities in the DCT questionnaire. There is

a lack of contextual variation and there is complex interaction too because the

situations are because either the respondent had ever faced it or they have not faced it

yet. Moreover, the hypothetical situations are based on the assumptions. The

respondents usually mention that whatever they say in a hypothetical or supposing

situation cannot be applied or predicted on actual situation. The response may vary

based on the situation to situation. Moreover, it is also argued that in DCT, as it is the

study based on the cross-cultural refusal strategies therefore, there are issues in the

comparison of the respondents of different cultures (Nelson et al, 2002).

The instrument, which is the open-ended questions are based on 10 situations. These

situations are based on four major factors. It includes requests, invitations, offer and

suggestion. Two questions are based on request, three questions are based on

invitations, three are based on offers and two questions are based on suggestions.

Request is defined as the demand that is made by the individual in polite manner. This


demand is for something. It is based on the favour that a requester asks from the other

person (e.g., to borrow notes, pen or book). Invitation is the type of request in which the

individual instead of asking for a favour invites a person. It is usually attempting to be

kind and thoughtful (e.g., Inviting a friend on dinner or on party). Offer refers to the

state where an individual asks or wants something. The individual offers other person

something in this state (e.g., offering a friend for a chocolate or a piece of cake).

Suggestion is the state where one person gives advice to the other person so that s/he

can work in effective manner in order to be facilitated with some benefit. It is the idea

that a person put forward for the other person (e.g., to try new colour of dress, to try the

cuisine of any particular restaurant). In this research, the DCT presents the situations

based on status level. There are two situation types that are offer and invitation, which

includes the refusal of the person at higher status, the person at equal status and the

person at lower status. Two situation types that are invitation and offer include the

refusal of person at higher status and the equal status. The purpose of studying the

different status level is to understand the refusal situation at different levels. These

situations have open-ended answers in which the respondent will propose his or her

refusal strategy. This will help in knowing that how they will respond to the given

situation and what strategy they going to adopt so that the other person who has been

refused does not feel awkward.

Each situation involves the refusal of a particular group or person. For example, in

situation one, the group discussed is of classmates, the second situation is based on

president and salespersons; the third situation is of executive person and boss, and so

on. These situations however revolve around friends, bosses, office, home or university.

Each situation involves two or more people where the respondents have to refuse in


suitable manner. Few situations are there that are designed to evaluate the level of

formality in a parallel relationship. Some are based on informal relationships that are

unparallel. Some are unparallel and formal relationship and some are parallel and

informal relationship. However, it depends upon the situation and level of the status of

each individual.

The DCT was originally conducted and designed by Blum-Kulka (1982) and since then it

is widely used in many studies. It was used by Saeki and O’keefe in 1994, Al-Issa’s in

1998 and Beebe et al. in 1990 (Nelson et al., 2002). The respondents of both the groups

were asked to fill the DCT questionnaire. The situations are based on real-life discourse.

It states the situation or scenarios that any individual might encounter in his/her daily

routine (See Appendix C).

Pilot Testing

To elicit the directives of the DCT, it is piloted on three non-natives and one native

speaker of English (BEn) and Saudi Arabic (SAr) and the demographic information was

changed accordingly. Special consideration is given on the words of the questions so

that it could be accepted in cross-cultural terms. The situations were discussed before

the testing in order to reduce the chances of errors. The pilot testing ensures that the

questionnaire is well prepared and acceptable for the native and non-native speakers.

The words used in the questionnaire are lucid to understand. After assuring few basic

things, the questionnaire was employed for the testing purpose. The material was

reviewed thoroughly to make it error-free. This was done to rule out the complexity and

ambiguity.

Validity


The validity of the written DCT questionnaire has been a debate. In this questionnaire,

there is a lack of authenticity and arbitration because it is insufficient and conflicting to

collect oral responses in a written questionnaire to imitate the real speech act

behaviour. Studies done by Beebe & Cummings in 1996, Turnbull in 1997 and Bodman

& Eisenstein in 1988) have noted that the response of participants in DCT are shorter in

length, less face maintaining, easier in wording and interactive. As the comparison of

the DCT for the native and non-native is complex therefore, it is expected that the

responses given by the respondents will be complex. Therefore, to reduce the

complexity; the DCT is prepared in order to evaluate the stereotypical response of the

participants. Blum-Kulka et al. in 1989 indicated that to study the cross-cultural studies

in speech act; it is required to use the stereotypical language. Therefore, it helps in

reducing the level of complexity and assures the response in authentic manner.


Consent Form

Aims of the project: This questionnaire aims at finding the difference between refusal patterns (saying: No) between native speakers of British English and non-native speakers of English (speakers of Saudi Arabic).

What you will be asked to do: refuse in all hypothetical situations

How the data collected will be used: The data will be analysed and used anonymously for an MA dissertation project.

You are asked to participate in a research project on an MA dissertation project. I will keep all personal information completely confidential and though I may describe and analyse the data, all data will be presented with complete anonymity. Additionally you are free to withdraw from participation at any time with no need for explanation.

Please tick

I confirm that I have read and understand the information above study and have had the opportunity to ask questions.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason.

I agree to take part in the above-named survey.

Finally, if you would like a copy of a paper that presents preliminary results from this study (based on other participants’ data/responses), please email Musha’al AlBugami : mushaaluk”gmail.com and I will send that to you.

Thank you for your help!

Please select your answer:


1. Gender

Male

Female

2. Age : _______________________

3. Current Educational Level:

Bachelors

Masters or equivalent

Post-Graduate

Any other (Please Specify): _________________________________

4. Level of IELTS _____________________________ band

5. I have taken IELTS __________________ times.


Appendix Three:

This questionnaire adopted from Nelson’s DCT. This questionnaire is prepared in the research conducted by Nelson et al., 2002 “Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals”.

The research questions are:

4. Are there differences or/and similarities between native and non-native English refusal patterns?

5. Do Saudi's and British use direct or indirect refusal strategies? If they are using indirect refusals, are they different or similar?

6. Given that indirect refusal patterns are usually associated with politeness, how is this affected by the interlocutor status?

The research aims at finding the differences or similarities between Saudi Arab speakers of English (non-native) And British Speakers (native).


Consent Form

Aims of the project: This questionnaire aims at finding the difference between refusal patterns (saying: No) between native speakers of British English and non-native speakers of English (speakers of Saudi Arabic).

What you will be asked to do: refuse in all hypothetical situations

How the data collected will be used: The data will be analysed and used anonymously for an MA dissertation project.

You are asked to participate in a research project on an MA dissertation project. I will keep all personal information completely confidential and though I may describe and analyse the data, all data will be presented with complete anonymity. Additionally you are free to withdraw from participation at any time with no need for explanation.

Please tick

I confirm that I have read and understand the information above study and have had the opportunity to ask questions.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason.

I agree to take part in the above-named survey.

Finally, if you would like a copy of a paper that presents preliminary results from this study (based on other participants’ data/responses), please email Musha’al AlBugami : mushaaluk”gmail.com and I will send that to you.

Thank you for your help!

Please select your answer:


6. Gender

Male

Female

7. Age : _______________________

8. Current Educational Level:

Bachelors

Masters or equivalent

Post-Graduate


9. Level of IELTS _____________________________ band

10. I have taken IELTS __________________ times.

11. How many years have you been in the UK?

6 months or less

6 months – 12 months

18 months

24 months or above



12. How often do you speak English with British people?

Once a week

More than twice a week

Once a month

Never

13. If yes, than where?

At the restaurant/shop/post office

Only in university with teachers and classmates

I have a British friend


Appendix Three:

This questionnaire adopted from Nelson’s DCT. This questionnaire is prepared in the research conducted by Nelson et al., 2002 “Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals”.

The research questions are:

7. Are there differences or/and similarities between native and non-native English refusal patterns?

8. Do Saudi's and British use direct or indirect refusal strategies? If they are using indirect refusals, are they different or similar?

9. Given that indirect refusal patterns are usually associated with politeness, how is this affected by the interlocutor status?

The research aims at finding the differences or similarities between Saudi Arab speakers of English (non-native) And British Speakers (native).


Bibliography:

Al-Issa, A. (1998) Sociopragmatic Transfer in the Performance of Refusals by Jordanian EFL Learners: Evidence and Motivating Factors. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Al-Kahtani, S. A. (2005) Refusal Realizations in three different Cultures: A Speech Act Theoretically-Based Cross-Cultural Study. J. King Saud University.

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Abed, A. Q. (2011) Pragmatic Transfer in Iraqi EFL Learners' Refusals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1 (2), pp.166.

Al-Eryani, A. A. (2007) Refusal Strategies by Yemeni EFL Learners. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9 (2).

Al-Kahtani,S.A.W. (2005) Refusals Realizations in Three Different Cultures: A Speech Act Theoretically-based Cross-cultural Study , 18, pp. 35-57.

Austin, J. (1962), How to do things with words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Beebe, L.M and Takahashi, T. (1989) Sociallinguistic Variation in face-threathening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement . In M.R. Eisentein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empricial studies in second language variation (pp.199-218) NY: Plenum.

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005) Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59 (3).

Forguson, L. (1973) Locutionary and illocutionary acts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 160–185.

Gilks, K. (2009). Is the Brown and Levinson (1987) Model of politeness as useful and influential as originally claimed? An assessment of the revised Brown and Levinson (1987) Model. Innervate leading undergraduate work in English studies, 2, pp. 94-102.

Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3, pp.41-58.

Martínez-Flor, A. (2005) A Theoretical Review of the Speech Act of Suggesting: Towards Taxonomy for its Use in FLT1. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, pp. 167-187.

Morand, D. (1996) Politeness as a universal variable in cross-cultural managerial

communication, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, pp. 52-74.


Nelson, G.L., Batal, M.A and Bakary,W.E. (2002) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Strategy Use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23/2, pp. 163-189.

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

Ogiermann, E. (2009) On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Searle, J. (1976) The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society. 5 (1), pp. 1-24.

Searle, J. (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Searle, J. (1991) Response: meaning, intentionality, and speech acts. University Cornell Press.

Umale, J. Pragmatic Failure in Refusal Strategies: British versus Omani Interlocutors Arab. World English Journal, 2 (1), pp. 18-46.