Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence
development in Iranian EFL learners
Hamid Allami a,*, Amin Naeimi b,1
a
b
English Dept, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
Islamic Azad University, Yazd Branch, Yazd, Iran
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 17 March 2009
Received in revised form 29 June 2010
Accepted 4 July 2010
The present study aimed to recast the issue of production of refusals by Iranian EFL
learners, exploring the frequency, shift and content of semantic formulas with regard to
learners’ language proficiency (lower-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate), status of interlocutors (lower, equal and higher) and types of eliciting acts (requests,
invitations, offers, and suggestions) on realization of the strategies. Thirty Persianspeaking learners of English were asked to fill out a Discourse Completion Test (DCT),
consisting of 12 situations realizing the refusal of 4 types of eliciting acts. In addition, 31
native speakers of Persian were asked to fill out the same DCT, rendered into Persian, for
comparative analyses. Responses of 37 American native speakers in a relevant study
(conducted by Kwon, 2004) were also reviewed for evidence of common components of
speech act sets to establish a set of baseline responses. All data were coded and analyzed
according to the taxonomy of refusals developed by Beebe et al. (1990). The results
revealed that there were differences in the frequency, shift and content of semantic
formulas used in refusals by Iranian and American speakers when responding to a higher,
an equal, and a lower status person. For instance, while both groups used providing
excuse/reason for the refusal, the American participants’ excuses were more specific,
concrete and to the point in both place and time. On the other hand, native speakers of
Persian displayed a nearly high level of frequency shift in their use of several semantic
formulas, whereas American patterns for refusals were quite consistent regardless of
status level. Data also indicated pragmatic transfer in the realization of the speech act of
refusal among Iranian EFL learners, and that there was a positive correlation between L2
proficiency and pragmatic transfer; upper-intermediate learners tended to transfer more
L1 sociocultural norms to L2 and made more pragmatic errors than the lowerintermediate learners. The results indicate that refusing in an L2 is a complex task as it
requires the acquisition of the sociocultural values of the target culture.
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Pragmatics
Speech act of refusal
Semantic formula
Language proficiency
Status of interlocutor
1. Introduction
One of the issues which has come under the spotlight of many involved in the field of language teaching, especially over
the past two decades, is pragmatic competence. The development of pragmatic rules as to produce and perceive the language
that is appropriate in a given situation appears to be very important for language learners, failure to do so may culminate in
misunderstanding or even serious communication breakdown and the labeling of language users as people who are
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 351 8210250.
E-mail addresses: hamid_allami@yahoo.com (H. Allami), naeimiamin@gmail.com (A. Naeimi).
1
Member of Young Researchers Club.
0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010
386
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
insensitive, rude, or inept. Lacking knowledge of pragmatic rules of the target language, learners may simply transfer
pragmatic norms from their native language.
Crystal (1985) defines pragmatics as ‘‘the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they
make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other
participants in the act of communication’’ (p. 240). As such, the proper use of speech acts has been contended to play a vital role
in this regard. Performing speech acts involves both sociocultural and sociolinguistic knowledge. Sociocultural knowledge
determines when to perform a speech act and which one is appropriate in a situation in which one is functioning and
sociolinguistic knowledge determines the actual linguistic realization of each speech act (Cohen, 1996). The study of speech acts
appears to be necessary to the understanding of international communication styles and the differences in this regard. Whereas
some speech acts such as requests, compliments, apologies and complaints have been extensively perused in the field of crosscultural pragmatics, the speech act of refusal, as a face-threatening has not been as widely studied. It has been indicated that
such acts are particularly crucial to study since they are the source of so many cross-cultural miscommunications.
The present study investigates the types of refusal strategies which EFL learners use in situations that require refusal in
order to study to what extent their refusal strategies map those used in their L1, and to find the areas of difference between
native and non-native speakers of English. It is particularly intended to address the following questions:
1. What are the most common semantic formulas used by Iranian learners at different proficiency levels with regard to the
contextual variables of the status of interlocutors (higher, equal, or lower) and the eliciting acts (requests, invitations,
offers, and suggestions)?
2. What are the areas of difference between Iranian EFL learners and American speakers with regard to the strategies
employed to make refusals?
3. If Iranian EFL learners’ refusals are different from those of the American native speakers, does the L2 proficiency of the
Iranian learners affect their possible pragmatic transfer or not?
2. Background
It has been contended by numerous studies that the ability of learners to use appropriate speech acts in a given speech
event is a major component of pragmatic competence. Fraser (1983) defined pragmatic competence as ‘‘the knowledge of
how an addressee determines what a speaker is saying and recognizes intended illocutionary force conveyed through subtle
attitudes in the speaker’s utterance’’ (p. 29). Among empirical studies of speech act behavior, Cohen (1996) listed studies of
the cross-cultural speech act realization project as the most comprehensive studies, both in depth and breadth. In 1997,
Rintell even went further to define pragmatics as the study of speech acts, arguing that L2 learners’ pragmatic ability is
reflected in how they produce utterances to communicate some specific intentions, and also how they interpret the
intentions conveyed by these utterances. Comparisons of speech acts have also revealed that the same speech act may be
realized differently across cultures, following norms of usage particular to the speech community. Hence, it is obvious that L2
learners must be aware of L2 sociocultural constraints on speech acts in order to be pragmatically competent.
In addition to culturally acceptable mappings of speech events to speech acts, choosing appropriate pragmatic strategies
is crucial for speech act ability (Wolfson, 1981). As a case in point, Wolfson notes a tendency among middle-class Americans
to ‘‘make their compliments original and less formulaic in order to convey sincerity. . .Arabic speakers prefer proverbs and
ritualized phrases’’ (p. 18).
The speech act of refusal, as the focus of this study, occurs when a speaker directly or indirectly says ‘no’ to a request,
invitation, suggestion or offer. Refusal is a high-risk face-threatening act, because it contradicts the expectations. It is often
realized through indirect strategies, and therefore, unlike acceptance, it requires a high level of pragmatic competence
(Cohen, 1996). Miscommunication may occur if the non-native speaker does not know how to make refusals in the target
community. Refusals are known as a ‘sticking point’ in cross-cultural communication (Beebe et al., 1990). They are a complex
and tricky speech act to perform due to the inherent possibility of offending the interlocutor for failure to refuse
appropriately might endanger the interpersonal relations of the speakers (Kwon, 2004).
Refusals usually include various strategies to avoid offending one’s interlocutors, but the choice of them may vary across
languages and cultures (Al-Eryani, 2007). As Chen (1996) notes, arriving at a set of strategies typically used by native speakers of
the target language is one of the main concerns of speech act researchers. Al-Kahtani (2005) elaborates on the speech act;
Saying no is difficult for nonnative speakers. How one says no is more important in many societies 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, the speech act and its social elements depending on each group and their culturallinguistic values (Al-Kahtani, 2005:36).
He, further, stresses on the way refusals are performed as an indication of one’s pragmatic competence; ‘‘refusals, as
sensitive and high-risk, can provide much insight into one’s pragmatics’’ (p. 36).
Refusals can be used in response to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions. They belong to the category of
commissives because they commit the refuser to (not) performing an action (Searle, 1969). They function as a response to
‘‘an initiating act’’ and are considered a speech act by which ‘‘a speaker fails to engage in an action proposed by the
interlocutor’’ (Chen et al., 1995:121).
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
387
In a preliminary study, Shigeta (1974) compared responses by Japanese and Americans in six DCT (Discourse Completion
Test) situations; 2 apologies, 2 requests, and 2 refusals, and found that the Japanese were concerned about relative status
while the American counterparts paid more attention to the personal relations or closeness with the person. Besides, the
Japanese were more unclear in their responses.
A major study carried out by Beebe et al. (1990) compared the refusals produced by native speakers of Japanese and native
speakers of English, also using a DCT. The authors administered a discourse completion test with 60 participants (20 Japanesespeaking in Japanese, 20 Japanese-speaking in English, and 20 Americans speaking in English), investigating pragmatic transfer
in refusals directed at higher-, equal-, and lower-status interlocutors. Analyzing refusals as a formulaic sequence, they found
that Japanese speakers of English and native speakers differ in three areas: the order of the semantic formula, the frequency of
the formula, and the content of the utterances. For example, American participants tended to offer specific details when giving
explanations, while the Japanese ones often produced explanations that might be interpreted as ambiguous.
The findings of Beebe et al. (1990) clearly demonstrated the importance of status in the refusal strategies selected by the
respondents. Americans, in refusing requests usually employed a form of indirect communication. Conversely, the Japanese
used more direct strategies if the respondents were addressing a lower-status person. Status was also an important factor in
refusing invitations. As with requests, the Japanese respondents were more likely to use direct strategies in refusing from
someone of lower status. However, in refusing invitations from persons of higher status, the Japanese were more polite, using
more indirect strategies than in addressing persons of lower status. However, Americans used similar indirect strategies in
refusing invitations. With status equals, they often ended the refusal with a ‘‘thank you’’. Generally speaking, the difference
was that Japanese learners were mostly aware of the necessity of stressing the status difference in interactions, while the
Americans denied the existence of such differences (Beebe et al., 1990).
Robinson (1992) reported that Japanese ESL learners were all aware of the differences in appropriate American and
Japanese situations of the speech act. Yet, the lower proficient students were more influenced by their native language
refusal style, while the more proficient learners knew how to use the rules of English in completing the DCT items.
In another comparative study, Lyuh (1992) concluded that native speakers of Korean normally used more semantic
formulas and more polite strategies per response than native speakers of American English. Besides, Korean speakers used
more avoidance and gratitude formula than native speakers of American English. The latter often used reference to their
personal decisions and preferences in their excuses and preferences whereas the former resorted to circumstances beyond
their control, de-personalizing their explanations (Lyuh, 1992). In addition, plain refusal such as no and thank you were rarely
used by Korean speakers because, as Lyuh states, they were highly face-threatening. Finally, as for the content of formulas,
excuses were present for all groups, but they were less specific for Japanese and Korean speakers alike. Korean refusals were
more elaborate, more indirect, and more accommodating to face needs. The reason for the frequent use of these indirect,
mitigated and less transparent refusals such as ‘‘I am sorry’’ (Regret), ‘‘Don’t worry’’ (Letting the interlocutor off the hook), ‘‘I
am not sure’’ (Hedging) or ‘‘If I don’t show up on time, my wife will kill me’’ (Elaboration on the reason) lies in the fact that
they contain a strategy that softens and cushions the blow of the refusal.
In another study, Saeki and O’Keefe (1994) investigated the way American and Japanese speakers make refusals.
Participants responded to a scenario where they were asked to refuse to hire a candidate looking for a job, by writing what
they would say to the person in the situation. Three independent variables were nationality, relation with the candidate, and
qualification of candidate and the dependent measures were the responses in terms of the idea units. Americans and
Japanese were reported to be similar in that they both employed more literal and direct strategies than was expected.
The magnitude of the request, status of the interlocutors, and the closeness of the interlocutors were manipulated in a DCT
on refusals by Kitao (1996). The most common strategy was demonstrated to be an expression of regret followed by an excuse or
reason (30% of the responses). Regarding the American English data, giving a reason seemed to be central, and the reasons were
found to be generally clear, concrete and specific. Expression of regret occurred in more than half of the refusals (especially
refusing a small request by those of equal status) although apologies were more often offered in response to a larger request.
A set of semantic formulas was used by Chen (1996) to study refusals employed by American and Chinese speakers of
English. It was noticed that ‘‘direct refusal was not a common strategy for any of the subjects, regardless of their language
background’’, and also that ‘‘an expression of regret, common in American speakers’ refusals, was generally not produced by
the Chinese speakers, which could lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an American context (Chen, 1996:261).
Liao and Bresnahan’s (1996) analysis of American English and Mandarin Chinese refusal strategies revealed that Americans
used more strategies than the Chinese in making refusals. The Chinese tended to begin the refusal with an apology, an
indirect strategy, followed by a reason attributed to a concern for ending the refusal quickly. Respondents from both cultures
varied their refusal strategies according to the status of the requester.
A number of studies on Arabic made further contribution to the general study of the speech act of refusal. Arabic and English
refusals were earlier studied by Stevens (1993) who used a written DCT consisting of 15 situations. He came to this conclusion
that refusals involve multiple strategies and that interlocutors seldom refuse outright. His analysis indicated that both Arabic
and English speakers used many of the same strategies (e.g., explanations, partial acceptances, and white lies). Discussing
refusals in Arabic, Hussein (1995) listed the strategies used by Arabic native speakers in refusals and maintained that indirect
refusals are used with acquaintances of equal status and with close friends of unequal status. His study was descriptive in nature
and based on examples which he gathered by means of a participant observation. Yet a caveat exists; even though he asserted
that the data occurred naturalistically (spoken), most of the examples used were written in Modern Standard Arabic, a formal
variety which is not used for daily communication. Al-Issa (1998) found that Jordanians were more likely to express regret (e.g.,
388
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
‘‘I’m sorry’’) than Americans and that both groups employed explanations and reasons more than any other strategy. However,
results of study by Nelson et al. (2002) on Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals via a modified version of DCT indicated
that both groups used similar direct and indirect strategies with similar frequency in making refusals.
In another influencing probe, Al-Issa (2003) studied the phenomenon of sociocultural transfer and its motivating factors
within the realization patterns of the speech act of refusals by Jordanian EFL learners. EFL refusal data were, again, collected
using a DCT which was designed and developed based on observational field note data. Using semantic formulas as units of
analysis, EFL refusal responses were compared with similar data elicited from native speakers of English responding in
English and native speakers of Arabic responding in Arabic. The results showed that sociocultural transfer appeared to affect
the EFL learners’ choice of semantic formulas, the length of their responses, and the content of the semantic formulas. In
actual facts, the cases of transfer were seen to reflect cultural values transferred from Arabic to English.
In a recent comparative study on the use of refusals by the two language groups of Yemeni and American, Al-Eryani
(2007) noticed that in spite of the presence of a similar range of strategies, cross-cultural variation was evident with regard to
the frequency and content of semantic formulas in relation to the contextual variables, including the status of interlocutors
(i.e., higher, equal, or lower status) and eliciting acts (i.e., requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions). Nevertheless, the
subjects in question afforded enough indications of pragmatic competence of the target language.
Kwon (2004) studied refusals of 40 Korean speakers in Korea and 37 American English speakers in the USA. The results
indicated that Korean speakers ‘‘hesitated more frequently and used direct refusal formulas much less frequently than did
English speakers. Thus, Korean speakers’ refusals at times sounded less transparent and more tentative than those of English
speakers. In addition, Korean speakers frequently paused and apologized before refusing, while English speakers often stated
positive opinion and expressed gratitude for a proposed action’’ (Kwon, 2004:339). It was also suggested that Korean
speakers ‘‘tended to take a more mitigating approach in dealing with a higher status person as compared to other status
types, whereas English speakers did not seem to be particularly sensitive to one status versus another in their refusals across
the different situations’’ (Kwon, 2004:339). Kwon concluded that the way Korean-as-a-foreign-language learners speak
often digresses from conventional patterns and may fail to convey the intended illocutionary force or level of politeness and
appear unintentionally rude, uncultured or awkward.
In a very recent and relevant study, Keshavarz et al. (2006) investigated the pragmatic transfer in refusal strategies used
by Iranian EFL learners, demonstrating that even speech acts of language learners with a fairly advanced level of proficiency
still contain non-native pragmatic features arising from pragmatic transfer. Their findings showed that ‘‘the level of
directness used and the amount of transfer is related not only to proficiency level but also to other factors such as the eliciting
speech act, the importance of L1 cultural values, and the ease of use of the formula in L1 or L2’’ (p. 391). Regarding the
pragmatic transfer of tone Keshavarz et al. (2006) alluded to the fact that Persian is a more ‘‘flowery’’ language than English,
which is perceived as ‘‘dry’’; ‘‘Persian learners of English, especially the advanced learners, complained that they couldn’t
express the same sentiments and warmth in their English language use’’ (p. 390).
In general, current literature on refusals indicates that specifically one’s cultural orientation, language proficiency,
interlocutor status and residence in the target community seems to affect the type and frequency of strategies, and also the
amount of directness a person uses in making a refusal. In this regard, age and gender have not been generally discussed as
factors that might influence refusal strategy. As it was brought up earlier in this paper, the study of speech acts appears to be
vital to the understanding of international communication styles and differences. Research has been mostly done on a
number of face-threatening speech acts, for example, on apologies, requests and complaints, yet the speech act of refusal, as a
face-threatening has not been as widely studied with regard to Iranian foreign language pedagogy. Learners of all languages
are shown to have difficulty understanding the intended meaning communicated by a speech act, or producing a speech act
using appropriate language. In fact, Bardovi-Harlig (2001) provided evidence that learners differ considerably from native
speakers in their perception and production of speech acts. Besides, one should bear in mind that ESL and EFL learners
potentially have different characteristics which must be studied separately. Takahashi and Beebe (1987), for example, found
that transfer of Japanese refusal strategies was more prevalent among English as a foreign language than English as second
language learners. Thus, any cross-linguistic examination of the speech acts in this area should be based on data,
systematically collected and analyzed, that take into account many influencing factors such as status, language proficiency,
context, etc (Nelson et al., 2002). This study attempts to present such an inquiry.
2.1. The study
The present study was carried out with the aim of finding the relationship between pragmatic transfer and language
proficiency, and to expand pragmatic studies to EFL contexts. A cross-linguistic differences between Persian speakers and
American speakers of English were perused in the frequency, shift and content of semantic formulas used by each group with
respect to the effect of the learners’ language proficiency (lower-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate), status of
interlocutors (lower, equal and higher) and types of eliciting acts (requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions) on realization of
the strategies. In this regard, the total number of a given semantic formula in each situation for each group was examined (e.g.,
the total number of reasons used by the Iranian native speakers in situation 4). Then the frequency shift (the range of difference
in frequency) of semantic formulas used by the three groups according to the status of the interlocutors was compared (e.g., Did
the high proficiency learners tend to elaborate more on reason to a higher status person than to a lower status person, while the
native speakers of English elaborated on reason with similar frequency regardless of the status of the interlocutor?). Finally, any
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
389
difference in the actual content of semantic formulas, along with the incidence of transfer, was analyzed (e.g., the difference in
type of reasons, regrets, empathies, etc. based on the respondents language proficiency and native language).
2.2. Participants
30 Persian-speaking learners of English who were all undergraduate males, and 31 native speakers of Persian (all males)
participated in this study. The EFL learners were between 16 and 29 years of age, with the mean of 19. The reason for choosing 30
learners was that, it has been claimed that in using the DCT for interlanguage speech act studies, questionnaires with 30 subjects
will serve as an appropriate guide (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). Regarding the native speakers of Persian, the ages ranged from 17 to 27,
with a mean range of 21. The EFL learners selected for the research project consisted of three different groups of 10 upperintermediate, 10 intermediate and 10 lower-intermediate students at a Language Institute in Yazd. All of the learners were the
researchers’ students for at least three terms, hence the teachers being largely aware of their language proficiency.
According to their TOEFL scores; the learners were assigned to these different classes. Out of 640, scores below 400 were
placed in the lower-intermediate class, scores from 400 to 530 in the intermediate class, and scores above 530 in the upperintermediate class. The native speakers of Persian were a heterogeneous group of 31 teachers and students of various fields
of study. In order to have a pertinent cross-linguistic examination of the speech act of refusal, 37 Americans’ responses to the
same DCT in a study conducted by Kwon (2004) were also analyzed. The American speakers were between 18 and 22 years of
age, and were all university students in Boston.
2.3. Instruments
Research data were gleaned through a written Discourse Completion Test (DCT) which was in the form of a questionnaire
introducing some natural situations to which the respondents were expected to respond when making refusals. DCTs have their
own advantages in interlanguage pragmatic research; they can be readily administered to a large number of participants, no
transcription is needed, and they are easy to assess. DCTs are controlled elicitation methods to provide researchers with a means
of controlling for various variables and establish the differences statistically which are significant intralinguistically as well as
cross-culturally (Olshtain, 1993). Kasper argues 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’’ (Kasper, 2000:329). Besides, as pointed out by Hill and his associates (1986 as cited in Kwon,
2004:341), ‘‘the virtue of authenticity in naturally occurring speech must be weighed against its reflection of speakers’
sociolinguistic adaptation to very specific situations’’. Here, the respondent is, in fact, ‘‘providing the prototype of the variants
occurring in the individual’s actual speech’’, and hence the DCT tends to ‘‘trigger subjects’ mental prototypes, while natural
speech data are more likely to include atypical items’’ (p. 342). Since the goal of the present study was to scrutinize the
participants’ use of refusal strategies under some given situations, a DCT was believed to be an adequate instrument to choose.
The English format of the DCT in the present study was, in fact, an open-ended modified version of the 12-item discourse
completion test developed by Beebe et al. in 1990 (Appendix A). The DCT consisted of three requests, three invitations, three
offers, and three suggestions. Requests are defined by Nelson et al. (2002) as polite demands for something; the requester
asks a favor of the other person (e.g., asking to borrow class notes). Invitations are considered as 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.
They referred to offers as asking individuals if they want something (e.g., a piece of cake), and suggestions as ideas put
forward for people to consider (e.g., to lecture less in class).
Furthermore, each situation type included one refusal to a person of higher status, one to a person of equal status, and one
to a person of lower status (for classification of the DCT, see Appendix C). Some minor modifications were made to make the
questionnaire appropriate for Iranian context. For example, in situation 4, ‘‘Next Sunday, my wife and I are having a little
party ay my house. . .’’ was changed to ‘‘Next Friday’’ to show the weekends based on Iranian calendar.
In addition, a second group of participants were asked to fill out the same DCT translated into Persian (see Appendix B). It
was designed for the comparison of Persian native speakers’ employed semantic formulas with those of the EFL learners. It is
worth mentioning that in translating the DCT several necessary changes were made to make the situations more familiar for
the respondents. To insure the equivalence of the Persian and English versions of the elicitation instrument, the Persian
version was assessed by five individuals (English teachers) fluent in Persian and English, and the existing discrepancies were
resolved over some discussion sessions. Qualitatively, four native speakers’ responses were analyzed to account for the
validity of questionnaires and comparative purposes.
2.4. Procedure
The respondents were given the DCT and were encouraged to respond quickly. They were asked not to carefully analyze
what they thought their response should be. Responses were returned to the researcher personally. All subjects responded
immediately, taking about 20–30 min in the researchers’ presence.
The responses were reviewed to determine which language forms (semantic formulas) were present or absent as
compared with the 31 native speakers’ responses in Persian, and with 37 native speakers’ responses in English. The collected
390
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
data were analyzed for components of each speech act present in the responses. In order to have a sound analysis of the data,
the produced refusals were parsed into strategies. This keeps the researchers analytically honest, and also all the data are
accounted for. As Miles and Huberman (1994) argue, qualitative data should be quantified as a test for possible researcher
bias. Using the subjects’ responses to the DCTs, the speech act sets were formulated for each item. The same classification of
semantic formulas as employed by Beebe et al. (1990) was used (Appendix D).
2.5. Data analysis
All data were coded according to the taxonomy of refusals developed by Beebe et al. (1990). Responses of American native
speakers were reviewed for evidence of common components of speech act sets and establishing a set of baseline responses. The
responses made by non-native speakers were then evaluated for the presence and quality of the speech act components as
compared to the native speakers. Semantic formulas were used as units of analysis. A semantic formula refers to ‘‘a word,
phrase, or sentence that meets a particular semantic criterion or strategy; any one or more of these can be used to perform the
act in question’’ (Cohen, 1996:265). In the case of a refusal, for example, one might produce three separate speech acts: (1) an
expression of regret, ‘‘I’m so sorry,’’ followed by (2) a direct refusal, ‘‘I can’t come,’’ followed by (3) an excuse, ‘‘I will be out of
town on business’’.
Moreover, new categories of semantic formulas were identified through this study. The complexity of the speech act of
refusal was illustrated by the number of strategies in each refusal. The average number of semantic formulas used by the
American respondents was 4.00. The Iranian refusals in the Persian DCT averaged 3.10 formulas while regarding the EFL
learners it was 3.30. Americans appeared to use more semantic formulas whereas the variety of the strategies used by
Iranians was demonstrated to be significantly more.
The number of semantic formulas employed by each group in response to each DCT situation was also calculated and
tabulated. The obtained frequencies were converted into percentages. If among the 10 upper-intermediates, for example, 8
used the semantic formula of excuse/reason in refusing a suggestion from a person in a lower status, 80% would be written in
the table. Analyzing the Persian questionnaire, we did not consider the responses separately. In other words, the 31
respondents have been regarded as one group of native speakers.
Having a detailed analysis of each semantic formula is beyond the scope of this study; nonetheless, we are to bring into
focus the main points regarding the similarities and differences among these three groups of 37 American native speakers
answering the DCT (in Kwon’s study), 30 Iranian EFL learners responding to the same DCT, and 31 Persian native speakers
answering the DCT translated into Persian by the researchers.
The shift of frequencies of semantic formulas relative to status of interlocutors was also considered. The character used
for higher status was a boss. For equal status, a classmate and a friend were used. For lower status, an employee, a salesman, a
student and a cleaning lady were included. For example, in one item in the DCT, a boss asked the subject to spend extra time
in the office. The type of this act is request, and subject’s status is lower than the boss. In addition to the frequency of the
semantic formulas, any difference in the content in which the semantic formulas were expressed was also investigated. The
use of different formulas with regard to respondents’ level of proficiency has also been scrutinized.
2.6. Refusal of request
Respondents were asked to refuse three requests each from a person of a different status;
Situation 12: A boss asks an employee to spend an extra hour or two at work.
Situation 2: A classmate asks to borrow the respondent’s notes.
Situation 1: An employee asks a boss for a raise.
3. Frequency and shift of formulas and the EFL learners’ level of proficiency
The respondents were divided into 5 groups of 37 American native speakers, 31 native speakers of Persian, 10 upperintermediate EFL learners, 10 intermediate EFL learners and 10 lower-intermediate EFL learners. Table 1 presents the frequency
and shift of semantic formulas used in refusals of requests from a higher, an equal and a lower status person i.e. situations 12, 2
and 1, respectively. The numbers (in percent) show how many respondents in each group used a given semantic formula. 80, for
example, shows that 80% of the upper-intermediate EFL learners (8 respondents) used direct refusal to a person of lower status
(situation 1). A typical example of an Iranian refusal in the situation where a friend asks for some notes (situation 2) consisted of:
na, nemshe.?akhe man ham fardaa emtehaan daram. lotfan dige az man jozve nagir. xodet baayad dar kelaas sherkat koni.
No, it is not possible (Direct refusal). It is that I also have an exam tomorrow (Excuse). Please never take my notes
(Request). You yourself have to attend the class (Criticize).
Generally speaking, Iranians were shown to use a greater variety of strategies as compared with their American counterparts.
Among the three groups, the most frequent coded semantic formulas were excuse/reason, direct refusal, and expression of
regret.
The difference between Iranian EFL respondents at the three levels of proficiency and American native speakers on the
one hand and the similarity between EFL learners and Iranian native speakers who answered the Persian DCT on the other
Table 1
Frequency and shift of semantic formulas in refusals of requests relative to interlocutor status (situations 12, 2, 1).
Formulas
37 native Americans to the
English DCT
31 native Persians to the
Persian DCT
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
43
54
0
0
8
5
3
0
81
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
54
8
14
0
3
0
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
46
0
0
3
11
8
5
46
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
62
0
0
6
0
0
0
90
0
6
3
6
0
27
0
0
0
3
3
6
0
37
44
0
17
0
0
6
3
90
0
6
0
3
0
24
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
10 upper-intermediates to
the English DCT
10 intermediates to the
English DCT
10 lower-intermediates to
the English DCT
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
90
41
0
3
0
27
0
3
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
0
3
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
10
10
10
10
10
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
80
0
10
0
0
0
10
90
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
30
0
0
10
10
40
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
30
60
0
0
0
10
0
0
100
0
0
0
10
30
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
40
70
0
0
0
30
0
0
100
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
60
0
10
0
30
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
40
80
0
0
0
0
20
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
50
40
0
20
0
0
20
10
80
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
10
10
0
0
80
40
0
0
0
20
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
Direct refusal
Regret
St. principle
Criticize
Postponement
St. empathy
Pause fillers
St. solidarity
Excuse, Reason
Wish
Set condition
Promise
Request
Gratitude
Elaboration
Ask. question
St. consequence
St. philosophy
St. pos. opinion
Hedging
Joke
St. alternative
Respondents and status
% of each group that used a given formula.
391
392
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
hand, was demarcated in the frequency of the use of some formulas in refusing the requests. As shown in the table, the most
frequent formula, among the three groups, was excuse/reason. Accepting such similarity, we also have to admit that the
lower-intermediates’ answers were more similar to the English data.
Also, the frequency of the semantic formula of excuse/reason was, as expected, more in higher and equal status than in the
lower status in all cases. Besides, while the frequency of some semantic formulas such as making criticism (esp. in equal
status) was observed to be similar across the three groups (x2 = 5.40, df = 4, p = .248), there were also some differences.
An interesting point indicating the reliance of Iranian learners of English on their native culture-specific refusal strategies was
the use of direct refusal. The EFL learners of English used direct refusal considerably more towards a person of low status as
compared with high or equal one at the three levels of proficiency, this being similar to those used in the Persian DCT and distinct
from those of Americans; the frequency mean by the EFL learners was 83.33%, in the Persian data 90%, and in the English data
49%.
Further, as it was expected, all respondents used statement of empathy much more frequently in addressing the requester
in lower status, regarding the EFL intermediate and lower-intermediate learners (30% and 20%) and Iranian natives
responding to the Persian DCT (27%), the frequency being more similar. Considering the upper-intermediates’ responses,
however, the frequency of use of empathy was similar to the American’s (x2 = 0.04, df = 1, p = .822).
Taking a closer look at the frequency of elaborations on reason and statements of solidarity used by upper-intermediate and
lower-intermediate EFL learners, we can see that there was no difference between these two groups in using these refusal
strategies. Nonetheless, the responses by the intermediate learners in this regard were shown to be similar to those by the
Americans.
Save for the case of excuse/reason, native speakers of English did not show a high level of frequency shift of the use of
formulas based on the interlocutors’ status, and therefore, did not seem to be sensitive to a certain status type.
Native speakers of Persian, however, displayed a nearly high level of frequency shift in their use of several semantic
formulas based on the status of the interlocutor. Most noticeable examples were the use of direct refusals (at all three
proficiency levels), regret (by upper- and lower-intermediates) and excuse/reason (at all three proficiency levels). For
instance, regarding the use of regret, there was no significant shift of frequency of semantic formulas by the American
respondents (x2 = 0.87, df = 2, p = .645). The same was true about the intermediate learners’ responses (x2 = 1.05, df = 2,
p = .591). However, like the native Persians’, the upper-intermediate and lower-intermediate learners’ use of regret was
sensitive to interlocutor status (x2 = 28.00, df = 2, p = .000 and x2 = 20.00, df = 2, p = .000).
3.1. Content of semantic formulas
Speech act realization by learners and native speakers may also differ with regard to content, and it is within this issue
that things seem to get more difficult for learners. The quality of the components produced by native speakers is claimed to
differ from those produced by non-native speakers. To illustrate the content of common refusal strategies used by the Iranian
and American respondents, some examples are provided. The refusals, indeed, consisted primarily of excuses/reasons, as is
illustrated by the following examples in which the respondent refused a boss’s request to work late (situation 12):
raiis, man xeyli mixam bemunam vali emruz xunamun mehmunie. baayad zud beram. bebaxshid.
Boss, I really want to stay, but we have a party in the house today. I have to go early. Sorry.
In the same situation, an Americans answered:
I had a prior commitment and since you just told me now, and my shift usually ends at seven, I probably can’t stay late this
evening.
Some EFL learners’ answers are mentioned below:
I really want it, but I can’t give you much money too (a lower-intermediate’s response).
Oh no, I haven’t take a look at them myself. Sorry (an intermediate’s response).
My note is away from me, I don’t have anything (an upper-intermediate’s response).
In all, excuses/reasons were commonly given as part of American refusals. Americans typically started with expressing a
pause filler or direct refusal, then expressed regret, and finally gave an excuse (e.g. Umm, I’m sorry I have already made other
plans that I can’t reschedule on such short notice). Iranian speakers typically used the order of regret, excuse/reason and,
especially in refusing a higher-status person, elaboration on reason. (e.g., Sorry, I need my notes. I have promised to give them to
someone else). However, Americans were generally more concrete and specific in their responses than Iranians. For example, an
upper-intermediate learner, when asked to spend an extra hour or two at work, responded ‘‘I will have a party somewhere’’.
Also, Americans and Iranians gave reasons that were different in content. For example, in situation 12 (refusing a boss’s
request to stay longer at work), Americans customarily referred to a previous engagement or dinner with a spouse or friends
(Kwon, 2004) whereas Iranians usually resorted to their poor physical well being (e. g., ‘I am really tired’ or ‘I have a headache’).
Americans usually asserted their alternatives to the boss as in ‘‘I’ll come in early tomorrow and finish it’’ (Kwon, 2004). However,
Iranians sounded more mitigating than Americans in general. They used various formulas to soften their refusals that were not
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
393
used by Americans. Specifically, Iranians in refusing an employee in both DCTs used a statement of solidarity to as in ‘‘I know you
always work very hard’’, or ‘I know that you are one of my best workers’ to let the interlocutor know that his request is respected.
3.2. Refusal of invitation
Respondents were asked to refuse three invitations each from a person of a different status;
Situation 4: A boss invites the respondent to a party at short notice.
Situation 10: A friend invites the respondent to dinner.
Situation 3: A salesman from another company invites the respondent to dinner.
4. Frequency and shift of the formulas and the EFL learners’ level of proficiency
Table 2 presents the frequency of semantic formulas used in refusals of invitations from a higher, an equal and a lower
status person. While, compared with refusing requests, the number of direct refusals decreased; there was a considerable
increase in the frequency of pauses and statement of positive opinions. Excuse/reason was, once more, coded as the most
frequent used refusal strategy among all groups.
Overall, areas of similarities between groups were vast mostly in using direct refusal, regret, reason and statement of
positive opinion, leading us to this tentative conclusion that in refusing invitations there exit many common patterns and
strategies between Iranians and Americans.
Nevertheless, there were some slight differences particularly associated with the use of semantic formulas of
postponement, elaboration, condition setting, statement of positive opinion and gratitude where the EFL learners’ responses
roughly across all three levels seemed to be more similar to those of Iranians answering the Persian DCT as compared with
those of Americans, showing some cross-linguistic variations in their refusal patterns. For instance, regarding the use of
elaboration by Americans, we have the frequency of 11%, 3% and 0% for each of the interlocutor status, respectively. 10% of
Persian speakers completing the Persian DCT used elaboration on the reason regardless of the status of interlocutor. Now, the
frequency of semantic formulas by the EFL learners is pretty much more like that of the Persian natives.
Moreover, in refusing the invitation of a friend, 11% of the Americans stated an alternative, while this was never used by
Iranian respondents. Instead, gratitude (e.g. thanks a lot) was used especially by the lower-intermediate EFL learners (40%),
and condition setting (e.g. if you had told me earlier) especially by the upper-intermediate EFL learners (30%), these two
never being used by the American natives. Evidence contrary to this has been offered in the study conducted by Keshavarz
et al. (2006), in which the American native speakers were shown to express gratitude much more frequently than Iranians in
refusing a friend’s invitation to a dinner party.
As for the shift of the frequency of semantic formulas, Americans appeared to be more status-difficult in refusing
invitations than in other types. Yet, Iranians’ sensitivity was depicted to be more dramatic especially in using the formulas of
regret, excuse/reason and statement of positive opinion. An example is in realizing regrets by intermediate learners who
counter-intuitively used 10%, 70% and 100% regret to a higher-, equal- and lower-status person, respectively (x2 = 70.00,
df = 2, p = .000). The noteworthy point is that, in many cases, lower-intermediate learners, like their American counterparts,
were not sensitive to status especially in their use of pause fillers, regret and excuse/reason.
4.1. Content of semantic formulas
As already brought up in the previous part, regarding the respondents’ declining invitations, expression of excuse and
regret was the most frequently used strategy. Broadly speaking, since Iranians mitigated the refusals more than Americans
and used more expressions of regret, solidarity, promise, gratitude, and statement of positive opinion, their overall refusal
tone seemed softer than those of Americans. Traces of possible pragmatic transfer were found in EFL learners’ content of
semantic formulas. For instance, A lower-intermediate student in refusing the invitation of his boss (situation 4) wrote ‘‘oh,
really. I’m very happy from hearing this suggestion. But if you let me, I don’t come because I am sick’’. Taking a look at the
counterpart of this utterance to the Persian questionnaire, we are bound to admit the role of the learners’ L1:
man az shanidane in pishnehad xeyli xoshhaalam, vali age ejaze bedid sherkat nakonam.
I am very happy from hearing this suggestion, but if you let me, I don’t take part.
Some other instances are as follows:
Sorry, but I have visit with my doctor (an intermediate’s response).
No, I can’t. I have to go outside for a work (an intermediate’s response).
That is a proud for me. I wanna come, but my son is waiting for me. I’m really sorry (an upper-intermediate’s response).
An statement of refusal in the same situation by an American is illustrated in the following:
Saturday night? Oh goodness, I have an appointment Saturday night. I can’t make it. I’m sorry.
394
Table 2
Frequency and shift of semantic formulas in refusals of invitations relative to interlocutor status (situations 4, 10, 3).
Formulas
Respondents and status
Direct refusal
Regret
Hesitation
Postponement
Pause fillers
St. solidarity
Excuse, Reason
Set condition
Promise
Request
Gratitude
Elaboration
St. pos. opinion
Hedging
Joke
Self-defense
St. alternative
Repetition
31 native Persians to the
Persian DCT
10 upper-intermediates to
the English DCT
10 intermediates to the
English DCT
10 lower-intermediates to
the English DCT
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
24
43
0
0
8
0
97
0
0
0
25
11
22
0
0
0
0
0
27
35
0
8
24
0
97
0
0
0
11
3
11
0
0
0
11
0
32
27
0
3
3
0
81
0
0
0
8
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
37
67
0
13
3
0
93
3
0
0
10
10
31
0
0
0
0
0
27
48
0
6
3
3
93
17
0
0
17
10
13
0
0
0
0
0
44
48
0
27
3
0
67
3
0
0
10
10
20
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
0
30
0
10
80
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
20
20
0
10
10
0
70
30
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
10
70
0
10
0
10
90
10
0
10
0
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
42
10
0
10
10
0
100
0
0
0
0
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
14
70
0
0
10
0
100
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
42
100
10
0
60
0
90
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
50
50
0
0
20
0
90
10
10
0
20
20
60
0
0
0
0
0
30
50
0
10
20
0
90
0
0
0
40
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
0
10
20
0
90
0
10
0
10
10
30
0
0
0
0
0
% of each group that used a given formula.
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
37 native Americans to
the English DCT
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
395
Iranian speakers sometimes gave less clear and specific excuses when refusing invitations as in ‘‘sorry I am busy’’, ‘‘let me
have it another time’’, ‘‘if I were alone, I would come. But. . .sorry’’, and or ‘‘I can’t accept it’’. American speakers, on the other
hand, usually gave more concrete and specific excuses. An example was, ‘‘I’d love to go, but I have to attend a wedding on that
day’’. Besides, in giving reasons, Americans usually mentioned dinners they had planned with their spouse or family. They
never used parents’ birthdays as an excuse (Kwon, 2004). They also sounded much less formal than did Iranians. Iranians
mostly referred to another appointment or invitation.
4.2. Refusal of suggestion
Respondents were asked to refuse three suggestions each from a person of a different status;
Situation 6: A boss gives the respondent a suggestion on how to be better organized.
Situation 5: The respondent is asked by a friend to try a new diet.
Situation 8: A student gives the respondent a suggestion for more conversation practice.
5. Frequency and shift of the formulas and the EFL learners’ level of proficiency
Table 3 presents the frequency of semantic formulas used in refusals to suggestions from a higher, an equal and a lower
status person. We can see that the number of semantic formals decreased with regard to American speakers. The reason
might be due to the fact that the respondents felt no necessity to elaborate or apply so many face-saving strategies for
suggestions. Americans’ statements of reason also appeared more frequently as compared with other strategies, yet the
frequency was significantly higher in both DCTs filled up by Iranian respondents, with the mean of 76.5% for the Iranians and
45% for the Americans (x2 = 8.39, df = 1, p = .004). This indicates that Iranians attempt to observe more politeness in such
situations mirroring their cultural specificities.
Another area of similarity among Iranian respondents is related to the use of direct refusal. In general, Iranians sounded more
direct in their frequency and tone of refusals (saying ‘‘no’’) than Americans did. The frequency of direct refusal was, naturally, the
lowest in addressing a higher-status person (the boss) while American respondents used more direct refusals in addressing
their friend than in addressing their boss or the student who suggested including more conversation in a language classroom.
American respondents never expressed regret (apology) in refusing the invitations regardless of the status of the
interlocutor, while Iranian learners followed the norms of their L1 by apologizing, especially to a person of higher status.
While Americans never elaborated on reason, Iranians tended to use elaboration with approximately similar frequencies.
This might be influenced by the different features of high and low-context cultures. In a high-context, less direct culture such
as Iran, people tend to use more elaborations on reasons trying to adopt politeness strategies and avoid offending the
addressee. Similarly, Cohen (1990) points out that in a high-context culture ‘‘circumlocution, ambiguity, and metaphor help
to cushion against the danger of candor’’ (p. 43).
Instead, Americans stated some principles such as ‘‘I was never one for notes’’ and ‘‘Fad diets never work in the long run’’
to the person in higher and equal status, whereas Iranians never used that in either DCTs. All the groups were to some extent,
similar in the frequency of using the semantic formula of gratitude. Besides, while Americans stated more alternatives
especially in an equal status, Iranians used a diverse set of semantic formulas including postponement, saying I tried,
criticism, statement of positive opinion, self-defense, pause fillers and joking more frequently. Iranians also used promises
and postponement strategies by asking questions, not being used by the Americans.
Interestingly, Americans were shown to be more status-sensitive with regard to declining suggestions. In other words,
the native speakers of English did show a high level of frequency shift of the use of formulas based on the interlocutors’ status
when refusing a suggestion, and therefore, appeared to be sensitive to a certain status type. Examples abound; direct refusal,
statement of principle, excuse/reason, gratitude, joke and statement of alternative. The same was true for Iranian
respondents especially by upper- and lower-intermediates. For example, the frequency shift of the semantic formula of
direct refusal was significantly different from a higher-status person to a person of equal-status (x2 = 45.00, df = 1, p = .000).
5.1. Content of semantic formulas
The data illuminate that sociocultural similarities to L1 norms were present in the actual content of the semantic
formulas employed by EFL group members in refusing suggestions. Of special interest is the fact that many of these
similarities were reported to be produced by the upper-intermediate learners. Some instances of the learners’ refusal,
primarily consisting of reasons, are as follows:
I have habit this situation if I change it I will have many problems (an upper-intermediate’s response).
If I am the teacher, I’ll know what to do (an upper-intermediate’s response).
I have been teaching for many years, and I have experienced many paths. I think it’s the best way (an upper-intermediate’s
response).
In addition, certain tones were found in the Iranian refusals, being absent in those of Americans and vice versa. For
example, in refusing a student’s suggestion, Iranians emphasized their positions as teachers and sometimes sounded critical
396
Table 3
Frequency and shift of semantic formulas in refusals of suggestions relative to interlocutor status (situations 6, 5, 8).
Formulas
Respondents and status
37 native Americans to
the English DCT
10 upper-intermediates to
the English DCT
10 intermediates to the
English DCT
10 lower-intermediates to
the English DCT
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
8
0
8
0
0
0
8
0
70
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
3
0
24
0
0
0
3
32
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
3
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
11
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
27
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
0
13
0
6
13
0
0
20
0
3
0
6
13
3
48
17
0
0
0
3
3
0
65
0
0
3
6
10
0
3
3
0
13
3
6
0
10
34
3
0
3
0
3
0
0
86
0
3
0
6
27
0
0
10
0
3
0
0
10
3
10
10
0
0
0
0
20
0
100
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
20
0
0
0
10
0
0
70
10
0
0
0
10
20
0
40
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
30
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
40
30
0
10
0
0
10
0
90
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
90
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
70
0
0
30
0
0
10
0
70
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
20
0
0
0
0
20
0
70
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
30
20
0
0
20
0
0
70
20
0
0
0
0
10
10
70
0
0
10
20
10
0
0
10
20
0
0
10
0
0
50
10
0
10
0
0
10
0
90
0
0
0
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
% of each group that used a given formula.
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
Direct refusal
Regret
St. principle
Criticize
Hesitation
Postponement
Pause fillers
St. solidarity
Excuse, Reason
Set condition
Promise
Request
Gratitude
Elaboration
Ask questions
St. philosophy
St. pos. opinion
Hedging
Joke
Topic Switch
Saying I tried
Self-defense
St. alternative
31 native Persians to the
Persian DCT
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
397
towards the student, as in ‘‘my experience shows that’’, ‘‘it is me who decides’’, and ‘‘don’t interfere in my work’’. Americans,
on the other hand, never cited their status as teachers and referred to the curriculum of the school as grounds for the refusals
such as ‘‘Thanks for your suggestion but we’re following a very strict curriculum’’ (Kwon, 2004).
As for the expressions of excuse/reason in refusing their boss’s suggestion, Iranians (in both DCTs) tended to have some
plain reasons mostly referring to their habit as in ‘‘I like to do it, but I do my work with this way’’, ‘‘It’s a habit and I am used to
it’’, or ‘‘I have habit this situation if I change it I will have many problems’’ (all three examples were produced by upperintermediate learners, and interestingly, some lower-intermediate and intermediate learners responded in a way more
similar to the English data as in ‘‘I have tried that, but I don’t know why it doesn’t work’’ or ‘‘It’s a great idea, but I can’t do
that’’. Similarly, Americans tended to state their principle about organizing as in ‘‘I was never one for notes’’.
Regarding a friend’s suggestion to try a new a diet, Iranian respondents unanimously asserted their lack of interest or
ability as in ‘‘I can’t. . ., I don’t like. . ., I don’t care. . ., I don’t need. . ., I hate. . ., I prefer don’t. . ., It’s difficult. . ., it’s hard for me’’,
while Americans, again, tended to state their principle about diets as in ‘‘Fad diets never work in the long run’’, this never
being applied by Iranians.
5.2. Refusal of offer
Respondents were asked to refuse three offers each from a person of a different status;
Situation 11: A boss offers the respondent a raise and promotion.
Situation 9: A friend offers the respondent another piece of cake.
Situation 7: A cleaning lady offers to pay for a broken vase.
6. Frequency and shift of the formulas and the EFL Learners’ level of proficiency
Table 4 presents the frequency of semantic formulas used in refusals of offers from a higher, an equal and a lower status
person. The most noticeable similarity among all groups is the use of the semantic formula of letting the interlocutor off the
hook (95% by Americans, and 85% by Iranians). Other similarities concern refusing directly and expressing gratitude. All
respondents, for example, stuck more to direct refusal strategies as compared with other types of refusal. Also, the lowerintermediates showed an undeniable similarity to their American counterparts, considering the expression of direct refusals
to a higher- and equal-status person, (90%, 100% for the former and 89%, 100% for the latter).
On the other hand, while Iranians expressed regret much more frequently especially to a higher-status person (with a
mean of 33.5%), only 5% of Americans used this formula (x2 = 21.56, df = 1, p = .000). Other areas of difference lay in the use of
elaboration on reason, statement of positive opinion, statement of frankness, criticizing, statement of solidarity, requesting
and setting condition being only used by Iranian respondents. For instance, unlike Americans, Iranians similarly used the
semantic formula of statement of positive opinion especially to a higher-status person, 20% in the Persian DCT and on
average 23% in the English DCT (x2 = 0.20, df = 1, p = .647).
Other examples can be the use of request (only in equal status by upper-intermediate and intermediate respondents) and
condition setting (especially to a lower-status person). While Americans stated alternatives to higher (3%), equal (3%) and
also lower status persons (5%), Iranians used this formula only to a higher status person. Overall, it can be concluded that
Iranians enjoyed a greater diversity of strategies (semantic formulas) as compared with Americans.
As for refusing suggestions, American patterns were shown to be sometimes consistent regardless of status level (in
expressing regret, statement of alternative and pause filler) and sometimes inconsistent (in expressing gratitude, excuse/
reason, direct refusal and letting the interlocutor off the hook), while Iranians were shown to shift the frequency of their
semantic formulas based on the status of the interlocutor in all cases and with no exception. A justification can be that since
the American subjects were college students, their responses could have been affected by their family upbringings as they
were at the point of their lives lacking much workplace experience and maturity.
6.1. Content of semantic formulas
Variations in the quality of the components of the speech acts realized by Iranian learners and American native speakers
are also evident in their refusing offers. A typical example of an Iranian refusal in the situation where a boss offered a raise
and promotion that involved moving (situation 11) consisted of:
Sorry (Regret), I feel comfortable here (Excuse).
Actually, Iranians comparably used this statement of regret more frequently (especially to their boss) than the Americans
did. Many Americans, on the other hand, gave a statement of gratitude often at the beginning or the end, yet, at the same
time, they refused more directly by giving negative willingness as in ‘‘It sounds great, but I really don’t want to move away’’.
The following refusal illustrates the use of gratitude and negative willingness by American respondents:
I appreciate the opportunity, and I would like to take it. But it’s not the best thing for my family right now. I will have to turn
the offer down.
398
Table 4
Frequency and shift of semantic formulas in refusals of offers relative to interlocutor status (situations 11, 9, 7).
Formulas
Respondents and status
37 native Americans to
the English DCT
10 upper-intermediates to
the English DCT
10 intermediates to the
English DCT
10 lower-intermediates to
the English DCT
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
Higher
Equal
Lower
89
5
0
0
0
3
0
60
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
100
0
0
0
0
8
0
35
0
0
0
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
24
0
0
0
0
3
0
84
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
5
58
34
0
3
0
0
6
72
0
0
0
20
17
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
89
3
6
0
0
0
0
51
0
0
10
68
6
3
0
27
20
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
3
0
0
34
0
20
0
3
13
0
0
3
0
3
0
89
0
40
20
0
0
0
10
20
60
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
90
0
20
0
0
10
0
70
0
10
20
70
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
10
0
40
0
10
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
90
0
40
40
0
0
0
30
0
70
0
0
0
30
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
70
30
0
0
0
10
0
90
0
0
30
90
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
10
30
0
30
0
40
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
90
0
90
40
0
0
0
20
0
90
0
0
0
20
10
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
10
0
0
0
20
10
80
0
20
0
70
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
20
20
0
40
0
20
0
20
10
10
0
20
0
10
0
70
0
% of each group that used a given formula.
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
Direct refusal
Regret
Criticize
Hesitation
St. empathy
Pause fillers
St. solidarity
Excuse, Reason
Wish
Set condition
Request
Gratitude
Elaboration
St. pos. opinion
Hedging
Joke
St. frankness
Topic Switch
Saying I tried
Let off the hook
St. alternative
31 native Persians to
the Persian DCT
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
399
Iranians (especially upper-intermediates and intermediates), however, sounded less direct about their unwillingness and
used the strategy of consideration of interlocutor’s feelings more than did the Americans. An example is given below:
Sorry, sir. I think if I stay here, it will be better anyway.
When the respondents were offered a piece of cake by a friend, they mostly refused by expressing gratitude, direct refusal
or excuse/reason. When an American, for example, refused the cake, he commented:
No, thank you, I really shouldn’t.
When a cleaning woman offered to pay for a broken vase, both groups typically said that the vase was not expensive or that
they could get another one. However, while Americans mostly said, ‘‘Don’t worry’’ or ‘‘Never mind’’ and reinforced it with
expressions like ‘‘I know it was an accident’’ or ‘‘It’s really not a big deal’’ to let the interlocutor off the hook (Kwon, 2004),
Iranians mainly stated alternatives to the cleaning lady as in ‘‘just try to be careful’’, ‘‘be careful about the other things’’, ‘‘you
must pay attention at work’’, and ‘‘you should cleaning carefully from this time’’ much more frequently. Iranian respondents
also added a statement of philosophy such as ‘‘things break anyway’’, ‘‘Anyone can make a mistake’’, or ‘‘It’s happen’’.
7. Discussion
Results from the comparative data of EFL learners have been widely used to delineate whether the L1 might influence the L2.
Because of little opportunity for interaction, non-native speakers might not have knowledge of the routines of semantic
formulas or the rules of appropriately producing them. The findings of this study show how a specific speech act is performed in
two culturally and linguistically diverse groups (Americans and Iranians) and how these differences affect the language use of
learners, as different languages and cultures have different criteria of appropriateness of speech act strategies (Rubin, 1981).
Regarding the first research question, the most common semantic formulas used by Iranian learners with regard to the
contextual variables including the status of interlocutors (higher, equal, or lower) and the eliciting acts (requests, invitations,
offers, and suggestions) were elaborated on in the previous parts. Refusals were hence shown to be sensitive to contextual
variables: the four different kinds of refusal situations did get different kinds of responses. Requests were mostly refused by
an excuse/reason, with a statement of regret (especially when refusing someone of higher status) or direct refusal (especially
when refusing someone of lower status). Regarding an invitation, statement of positive opinion was also expressed along
with an excuse/reason, regret and direct refusal. Gratitude and pause fillers were used more while regret and direct refusal
less, along with an excuse/reason in refusing an offer. As for suggestions, beside excuse/reason, gratitude and pause filler,
regret (especially when refusing someone of higher status), direct refusal (especially when refusing someone of equal status)
and letting the interlocutor off the hook (when refusing someone of lower status) were also used.
The second question asked about the areas of difference between Iranians and Americans in employing strategies in
making refusals. Having compared refusals between Iranian and American speakers in terms of the frequency, shift and the
content of semantic formulas, we came to this conclusion that they displayed variations in these aspects of refusals. The
findings showed that the subjects were different in the ways they performed refusals, but not across all situations. The
groups, yet, employed many different strategies. Based on the simultaneous comparison of native language, interlanguage
and target language systems offered by Selinker (1969), the frequency of semantic formulas used in the refusals by Iranian
EFL learners were first compared to those of Americans. The respondents were found to use particular types of semantic
formulas at different degrees of frequency; Iranians normally used a greater proportion of semantic formulas and more polite
strategies per response than native speakers of American English.
As in many other studies (Stevens, 1993; Kitao, 1996; Al-Issa, 1998; Nelson et al., 2002; Kwon, 2004, among others), the
most frequent strategy used by both groups was providing excuse/reason for the refusal; however, Iranians used them more
than Americans did. These refusal strategies, indeed, function to reassure the interlocutor that he/she is still approved of but
that there are some necessary reasons for the refusal. Kanemoto (1993), for example, suggests that in Japanese culture,
refusal means not only a ‘‘no’’ to a request but also to personal relationships and that reasons and other strategies were
employed as a social lubricant to soften the impact of the refusal assertion. Further, Participants displayed a considerable
level of indirectness, though direct refusal strategies were also frequent. It is to be noted that the differences in the level of
directness are on the basis of the eliciting speech act.
The role of status in relation to the use of indirect strategies was also addressed. As we have seen, American patterns for
refusals were quite consistent regardless of status level (except for some cases especially in declining suggestions). In other
words, native speakers of English did not show a high level of frequency shift of the use of formulas based on the interlocutors’
status, and hence, did not purport to be sensitive to a certain status type. Native speakers of Persian, however, displayed a nearly
high level of frequency shift in their use of several semantic formulas in the need for face saving in refusals (particularly in
realizing direct refusal, regret and excuse, respectively). Even wherever American patterns were shown to be sensitive relative
to status level, for example in refusing suggestions, Iranians’ sensitivity was depicted to be more dramatic. The same results
were obtained in the study conducted by Keshavarz et al. (2006) when they examined the range of difference in the semantic
formulas used with different status interlocutors by American and Persian speakers, and came to this conclusion that Iranians
were more noticeably sensitive to higher and lower status types. For instance, in refusing requests, Iranians had a much greater
frequency shift of semantic formulas when addressing higher, equal and lower status interlocutors.
400
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
The third area of variation was recognized as the quality and content of formulas. One noteworthy difference occurred in
the component of excuse/reason. Japanese and Arab native speakers have been shown by Shigeta (1974), Hall and Hall
(1987), Beebe et al. (1990) and Al-Kahtani (2005), to be less clear and specific than their American counterparts with regard
to making refusals. The findings of the present study are in support of both studies regarding the Iranian EFL learners of
English. Seemingly, the American participants’ excuses were more specific, concrete and to the point in both place and time
compared with the Iranians. The same results were driven in Keshavarz et al.’s probe (2006) in which ‘‘the explanations given
by Iranians were, in most cases, less specific as to place, time, and parties involved than American explanations’’ (p. 387).
Similarly, Nelson et al. (2002) concluded that American culture shows a preference for direct, accurate, clear and explicit
communication whereas Arab culture exhibits an indirect, symbolic, ambiguous, and implicit style. The fact that Iranians,
Arabs or Japanese gave less specific reasons than Americans might be explained by the different features of high and lowcontext cultures. In a high-context (i.e., less direct) culture such as Iran, people tend to put more emphasis on the implicit
rather than on the explicit. It is usually left to the hearer to infer what the speaker intended to utter (Triandis, 1995). In their
comparative cross-cultural studies, however, Saeki and O’Keefe (1994) demonstrated that Japanese subjects employed more
direct strategies in making refusals than the US subjects or than the researchers expected.
Beebe et al. (1990) and Al-Kahtani (2005) also discussed that their Japanese and Arab respondents sounded more formal
than the American counterparts because of their more frequent use of statement of principle and statement of philosophy
which are considered formal by nature. In the same way, Iranian respondents used more such semantic formulas as
compared with Americans.
In response to the third research question and in relation to the issue of language proficiency effect on possible pragmatic
transfer, our study supported the positive correlation hypothesis suggested by Takahashi and Beebe (1987); our upperintermediate learners had more instances of similarities to their L1 norms and forms than lower-intermediate or intermediate
learners. This notion that learners’ limited target language competence hinders transferring native language pragmatic
knowledge has also been demonstrated in some other studies (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1982; Cohen, 1997; Cohen and Olshtain, 1981;
Hill, 1997; Olshtain and Cohen, 1989) whose results do support the positive correlation hypothesis. Keshavarz et al. (2006) also
lent support to this claim when the advanced learners of English in their recent study showed the highest amount of pragmatic
transfer in target language use. The difference between the upper- and lower-intermediate learners can be justified regarding
the fact that within the ‘‘intermediate’’ range, learners on the low end, due to their lack of the necessary linguistic resources,
stick more to formulaic conversations from the textbooks (i.e., using memorized formulaic sentences) and thus have made
fewer pragmatic errors, whereas those on the high end feel freer to express themselves in English, stick less to textbooks (i.e.
producing more real utterances) and have consequently made more pragmatic errors. More interestingly, similar to their native
language use, the upper-intermediate learners showed higher sensitivity to status differences than the others. Besides, as the
learners’ general linguistic performance approximated that of native speakers in some parts and differed in some other areas,
the learners themselves differed in the content and frequency of semantic formulas they used. For example in refusing offers,
the lower-intermediate learners were, like the American counterparts, more direct than the higher level EFL learners. To sum
up, the research findings stand to the fact that there are differences in the frequency, shift and content of semantic formulas used
in refusals by Iranian learners and American speakers when responding to a higher, an equal, and a lower status person, and
there is also the evidence of pragmatic transfer on these three levels.
8. Conclusion
The present study tried to contribute to the existing literature on cross-linguistic speech act research by probing into
sociolinguistic variations in the performance of refusals among Persian and American speakers with respect to such
parameters as language proficiency, types of eliciting acts and status of interlocutor. The purpose was to examine the refusal
strategies from the two cultures and some underlying values behind them. The main reason for studying Persian
communication style lies in the fact that so little has been known about the Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic difficulties and
needs, and their pragmatic knowledge of the sociocultural rules of speaking has remained underdeveloped.
The results support Walter’s claim that conceptualization and verbalization of the speech acts vary to a great extent
across cultures and languages, and that even though L2 learners may have access to the same range of speech acts and
realization strategies as do native speakers, they can differ from native speakers in the strategies that they choose (Walters,
1980:340); comparisons of speech acts from the two different cultures of Iranian and American revealed that the same
speech act may be realized differently across cultures, following norms of usage of these speech communities. If the
sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences are neglected in second language learning and teaching, the learners may face
misunderstanding and conflicts of interaction in real-life situations. In fact, the differences in verbalizing speech act of
refusals among the native speakers of English and the non-native speakers can be attributed to lack of sociocultural and
pragmalinguistic ability as well as the interference of the non-native’s first languages (Al-Kahtani, 2005). In order to avoid
this problem, it is crucial for second language teachers to help learners enhance their knowledge or competence of
appropriate use of speech acts in the target language and make them aware of L2 sociocultural constraints on the speech acts
in order to be pragmatically competent.
In all, by providing data about the differences between American and Iranian responses in different refusal situations, the
present study tried to touch upon some pragmatic variations in English and Persian patterns which require thorough heed.
Variation of pragmatic strategies across cultures is very vast and seemingly not so constrained. Actually, research literature
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
401
has identified quite a number of ways in which learners differ from native speakers of the target language (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001). It is therefore natural that language teachers would take up the challenge of implementing instruction in pragmatics
and researchers would investigate the ramifications of such intervention.
Appendix A. The English DCT
Instruction: Please read the following 12 situations. After each situation you will be asked to write a response in the blank
after ‘You’. Imagine that you do NOT want to comply with their request, invitation, etc. Please respond as naturally as
possible and try to write your response as you feel you would say it in the situation. The data will be used for research
purposes only.
402
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
Appendix B. (The Persian DCT)
403
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
404
Appendix C. Classification of the DCT
Stimulus according to the status of the interlocutor
Stimulus type
Refuser status relative to the interlocutor
DCT item
Situation
Request
Lower
Equal
Higher
#12
#2
#1
Stay late at night
Borrow class notes
Request raise
Invitation
Lower
Equal
Higher
#4
#10
#3
Boss’s party
Dinner at fiend’s house
Milad restaurant
Offer
Lower
Equal
Higher
#11
#9
#7
Promotion to move
Piece of cake
Pay for broken vase
Suggestion
Lower
Equal
Higher
#6
#5
#8
Write reminder letters
Try a new diet
More conversation
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
405
Appendix D. Classification of refusal strategies
References
Al-Eryani, A., 2007. Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. The Iranian EFL Journal 1, 84–101.
Al-Issa, A., 1998. Socio-pragmatic transfer in the performance of refusals by Jordanian EFL learners: evidence and motivating factors. Ph.D. Diss. University
of Pennsylvania.
Al-Issa, A., 2003. Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, 581–601.
Al-Kahtani, S., 2005. Refusal realizations in three different cultures: a speech act theoretically-based cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University 18,
35–57.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–32.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., Uliss-Weltz, R., 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In: Scarcella, R., Anderson, E., Krashen, S. (Eds.), Developing Communication
Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House, New York, pp. 55–73.
Blum-Kulka, S., 1982. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second
language. Applied Linguistics 3, 29–59.
Chen, H.J., 1996. Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal. Ph.D. Diss. Indiana University.
Chen, X., Ye, L., Zhang, Y., 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language. University of Hawaii, Hawaii,
pp. 119–163.
Cohen, A., 1996. Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 253–267.
406
H. Allami, A. Naeimi / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 385–406
Cohen, A., 1997. Developing pragmatic ability: Insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In: Cook, H.M., Hijirida, K., Tahara, M. (Eds.), New Trends and
Issues in Teaching Japanese Language and Culture. University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, (Technical Report
No. 15), pp. 133–159.
Cohen, A., Olshtain, E., 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. Language Learning 31, 113–134.
Cohen, R., 1990. Culture and Conflict in Egyptian–Israeli Relations: A Dialogue of the Deaf. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN.
Crystal, D., 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Fraser, B., 1983. The domain of pragmatics. In: Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R.W. (Eds.), Language and Communication. Longman, New York, pp. 29–59.
Hall, E.T., Hall, M.R., 1987. Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Hill, T., 1997. The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Dissertation Abstracts International 58, 3905.
Hussein, A., 1995. The sociolinguistic patterns of native Arabic speakers: implications for teaching Arabic as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning
6, 65–87.
Kanemoto, M., 1993. A comparative study of refusal assertion in the United States and Japan. Ryudai Review of Language and Literature 38, 199–212.
Kasper, G., 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking. Continuum, London/New York, pp. 316–341.
Kasper, G., Dahl, M., 1991. Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Keshavarz, M., Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Ghahraman, V., 2006. Pragmatic transfer and Iranian EFL refusals: a cross-cultural perspective of Persian and English.
Pragmatics and Language learning 11, 359–402.
Kitao, S.K., 1996. Communicative competence, preference organization, and refusals in British English. Sougou Bunka Kenkyujo Kiyou 13, 47–58.
Kwon, J., 2004. Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua 23, 339–364.
Liao, C., Bresnahan, M.I., 1996. A comparative pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences 18, 703–727.
Lyuh, I., 1992. The art of refusal: comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana.
Miles, M., Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Nelson, G.L., 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.
Olshtain, E., 1993. Learning in society. In: Hadley, A.O. (Ed.), Research in Language Learning: Principles, processes, and prospects. National Textbook
Company, Lincolnwood, pp. 47–65.
Olshtain, E., Cohen, A., 1989. Speech act behavior across languages. In: Dechert, H.W., Raupach, M. (Eds.), Transfer in Language Production. Ablex, Norwood,
NJ, pp. 53–67.
Rintell, E.M., 1997. Getting your speech act together: the pragmatic ability of second language learners. Working Papers on Bilingualism 17, 98–106.
Robinson, M.S., 1992. Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target
Language. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Rubin, J., 1981. How to tell when someone is saying ‘‘no’’ revisited. In: Wolfson, N., Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistic and Language Acquisition. Newbury House,
Rowley, MA, pp. 10–17.
Saeki, M., O’Keefe, B., 1994. Refusals and rejections: designing messages to serve multiple goals. Human Communication Research 21, 67–102.
Searle, J.R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Selinker, L., 1969. Language transfer. General Linguistics 9, 67–92.
Shigeta, M., 1974. Ambiguity in declining requests and apologizing. In: Condon, J.C., Saito, M. (Eds.), Intercultural Encounters with Japan: Communication –
Contact and Conflict. Simul Press, Tokyo, pp. 193–195.
Stevens, P., 1993. The pragmatics of ‘‘No!’’: some strategies in English and Arabic Ideal 6, 87–112.
Takahashi, T., Beebe, L.M., 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal 8 (2), 131–155.
Triandis, H.C., 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. West View Press, Inc, Boulder, CO.
Walters, J., 1980. Grammar, meaning, and sociological appropriateness in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 34, 337–345.
Wolfson, N., 1981. Invitations, compliments, and the competence of the native speakers. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 8, 7–22.