Cross-Cultural Comparison of Non-Native Speakers' Refusal Strategies in English

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies
IJ-ELTS
e-ISSN: 2308-5460
Volume:1, Issue: 3
[October-December, 2013]
Editor-in-Chief
Mustafa Mubarak Pathan
Department of English Language & Translation Studies
The Faculty of Arts, the University of Sebha
Sebha, Libya
editor@eltsjournal.org
Senior Associate Editors

Dr Nicos C. Sifakis, Hellenic Open University, Greece
Dr. Anastasia Novoselova, Birmingham Metropolitan College, UK
Dr. Muhammad Abdel-Wahed Ali Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt
Dr. Abdurahman Ahmad Hamza, The University of Sebha, Libya
Dr. Firdevs KARAHAN, Sakarya University, Turkey
Dr. Sabria Salama Jawhar, King Saud bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Science, KSA
Dr. Claudia Porter, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Oregon, USA
Dr. Kuniyoshi Kataoka, Aichi University, Japan
Dr. Choudhary Zahid Javid, Taif University, KSA
Sayed Khaja Ahmad Moinuddin, MANUU, Hyderabad, India
Dr. M. Maniruzzaman, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh
Dr. Nagamurali Eragamreddi, Faculty of Education, Traghen, Libya
Dr. Zaheer Khan, University of Benghazi, Libya
Dr. Mzenga A. Wanyama, Augsburg College, Minneapolis, USA
Mirza Sultan Beig, S. R. T. M. University, India
B. Somnath, VNGIASS, Nagpur, India
Dr. Hassen ZRIBA, University of Gafsa, Tunisia
Dr. Sana Akram Saqqa, Al-Jouf University, KSA
Mariam Mansoor, The University of Sebha, Libya
Safia Ahmed Mujtaba, The University of Sebha, Libya
Assistant Editors
Omran Ali Abdalla Akasha, The University of Sebha, Libya
Dr. Prashant Subhashrao Mothe, Adarsh College, Omerga, India
Elena Bolel, Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Noura Winis Ibrahim Saleh, The University of Sebha, Libya
Technical Assistant
Samir Musa Patel, India
Indexed in: DOAJ, Index Copernicus International, Islamic World Science Citation Center,
Linguistics Abstracts Online, Open J-gate
www.eltsjournal.org
ISSN: 2308-5460
Cross-cultural Comparison of Non-native Speakers' Refusal

Strategies in English
[PP: 106-128]
Mehmet ASMALI
School of Foreign Languages
Balkesir Universit y
Turkey
Abstract
Alt hough the number of pragmat ics-based studies has increased recent ly, the co mparison
of speech act performances of non-nat ive speakers of English is an under-researched area.
The present study was conducted to bridge this gap by comparing the refusal responses o f
Turkish, Polish and Latvian pre-service English teachers in terms of the strategies they
used and the appropriateness levels by using a Discourse Complet ion Test created by the
author including 4 refusal elicit ing situat ions. The responses were coded and evaluated.
According to the results, it was found out that indirect refusal strategies were more
popular than direct strategies for all groups. The most commo n strategies found for direct
and indirect categories are the same for all groups. Evaluat ion of a nat ive speaker showed
that there was no significant difference amo ng the groups in terms of appropriate use of
refusal strategies.
Keywords: Refusal Strategies, Pragmat ics, Speech Act, Appropriateness, Cross-Cultural
Comparison
Suggested Citation:
ASMALI, M. (2013). Cross-cultural Co mparison of Non-nat ive Speakers Refusa l
Strategies in English . International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
Vol-1, Issue-3 , 106-128. Retrived from http://www.eltsjournal.org
Vol-1, Issue-3 October-December, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
106
ISSN: 2308-5460
1. Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Problem
In the history o f mankind, people always needed a language to communicate. Wit h the
successive discoveries in the area of linguist ics, the focus of linguists has changed. Only in
the 70s it was realized that, as Leech (1983: 1) states in his work: we cannot really
understand the nature of language itself unless we understand pragmat ics: how language is
used in communication". Therefore it has been clearly understood that having just
linguist ic co mpetence would not be enough to have a full understanding o f how people
communicate in their daily life. Due to this fact, pragmat ic co mpetence and teachabilit y of
pragmat ic co mpetence has beco me important. As the teachers are responsible for the job
of teaching and improving the pragmat ic competence of the learners which is direct ly
interrelated with how they are taught, the prospective English teachers, the pragmat ic
competence o f them and how the issue o f teaching pragmat ic co mpetence is handled in
English Language teacher training programs are crucial aspects of research.
The comparison of the speech act performances of the nat ive and non-nat ive speakers
of English do minates the field of pragmatics based research especially in Turkish context
(Tunel, 1999; Balc, 2009; Akpnar, 2009; ime n, 2009; Kank, 2010). In addit io n to the
insistence on a single type o f research in the case of pragmat ics, although because of
certain outcomes o f globalizat ion such as immigration and trade patterns, overseas
educational opportunities, and the internet, English as a foreign language has beco me the
most popular language among the non-English speaking populat ions (Otu and Zeyrek:
2008:265), the number of studies dealing wit h the co mparison of the speech act
productions of the users fro m different first language backgrounds is relat ively low.
Bearing these in mind, in order to have a new perspective in this field, this study was
carried out with the objective o f co mparing the refusal strategy preferences o f Turkish,
Polish and Latvian final year English Language Teaching undergraduate learners. The
difference amo ng the groups in terms o f the appropriateness o f the use o f refusal strategy
preferences was also evaluated by a nat ive speaker of English.
1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study
The present study has the primary object ive o f determining the refusal strategy
preferences o f the prospective English Language Teachers fro m different first language
backgrounds, namely Turkish, Polish and Latvian. The second object ive o f this study is to
specify whether there is a significant difference in appropriateness o f the use o f these
refusal strategies among groups according to the evaluat ion o f a nat ive speaker o f English.
Having two major aims, this study tries to find answers to the fo llowing quest ions listed
below:
1) What are the refusal strategies used by Turkish final year undergraduate students in the
ELT department?
2) What are the refusal strategies used by Po lish final year undergraduate students in the
ELT department?
3) What are the refusal strategies used by Latvian final year undergraduate students in the
ELT department?
4) Does the cho ice of refusal strategies differ across three groups of participants?
www.eltsjournal.org
107
ISSN: 2308-5460
5) How different are the productions o f refusal speech act of Turkish, Po lish and Latvian
participants in terms of appropriateness?
In todays globalized world, English will put you in touch with more people than any
other language (Crystal, 1997: 3). Crystal (1997: 141) suggests that: "there are probably
already more L2 speakers than L1 speakers" which therefore propounds the need to focus
on the non-nat ive speakers performance on English. This fact shows that, performance
comparison on how the speech acts are used should not be just between native and nonnat ive speakers o f English, rather it can be made just amo ng non-nat ive speakers. In this
sense, this study is significant because, it is one of the first studies focusing on the
comparison o f the refusal productions of participants fro m less co mmonly spoken
European languages such as Turkish, Polish and Latvian where English is taught as a
foreign language. Because of the fact that English is a medium of co mmunicat ion amo ng
non-nat ive speakers, the speakers having different first languages should be invest igated to
explore and analyze the differences and similarit ies in speech acts due to the fact that the
teacher candidates can get ready for the possible mistakes of their learners regarding
speech acts so that they can correct them when they start actively teaching English. The
reason why Turkish, Po lish and Latvian languages are chosen is that these languages are
among the less co mmo nly spoken languages of Europe and they have not been
investigated in pragmat ics based studies very o ften.
The findings of this study which has the object ive o f enriching the learning and
teaching environment especially in the pragmat ics context are important for the
researchers interested in pragmat ics, the speech act of refusal, ELT trainers and the
program coordinators due to the fact that lack o f studies in this field may result in some
deficiencies such as cont inuous use of the same methods in teaching and learning process.
When the number o f the studies alike rises, the potential deficiencies in both teaching and
learning pragmatics will be realized more easily and in accordance wit h the needs, both
the teacher training facult ies and their program organizers would be able to eliminate the
lacks and create better programs to improve pragmatic co mpetence o f the teachers.
2. Background
2.1 Speech Act of Refusal and Refusal Strategies
The definit ion o f pragmat ics has been put forward by different researchers in several
different ways. It is defined as the study o f communicat ive action in it s socio-cultural
context (Kasper and Rose 2001: 2) rather than linguist ic structure. It is also explained by
Yule as "the study o f what speakers mean, or speaker meaning (2006: 112). After it was
understood that a full understanding o f how formal properties are learnt will not be
achieved without examining the way in which these properties are used in actual
communicat ion" (Ellis, 2008, p.159), speech acts used to describe act ions such as
"request ing", "co mmanding", refusing or apo logizing and known as basic or minima l
units o f linguist ic co mmunicat ion (Searle, 1969, p.16) became popular amo ng
researchers.
One of the frequent ly researched speech acts is the act of refusal. A refusal is a speech
act which represents one type o f dispreferred response (Flix-Brasdefer 2008: 42).The
speech act of refusal occurs when a speaker directly or indirect ly says "no" to a request,
www.eltsjournal.org
108
ISSN: 2308-5460
invitat ion, suggest ion or offer (Allami & Naeimi 2011: 386). The idea that refusals belo ng
to the category of co mmissives because they co mmit the refuser to performing an action
(Searle 1977) is rejected by Ellis. He claims that "the speech act of refusals do not easily
fit into Searles classification o f speech acts. They occur in the form of responses to a
variet y of illocut ionary acts such as, invitat ions, offers, requests and suggest ions. It might
be better to treat refusals as an interactional turn rather than a speech act" (2008: 186).
Refusing can differ across cultures, languages and even among the people in the same
culture and amo ng the people o f the same language. Due to this fact, imen states:
"refusing so mebody is a serious action which can cause breakdowns in interpersona l
relat ions if not handled delicately" (2009: 35). People fro m one culture may refuse in a
very different way than the people from another culture. Refusing in another language
may cause problems for the interlocutors of different languages. For this reason it requires
a high level o f pragmat ic co mpetence (Ellis 2008: 187). The idea of Ellis on the
requirement of a high level o f pragmatic co mpetence for a successful refusing is supported
by Al-Kahtani. He states that "saying no is difficult for nonnat ive speakers. How one says
no is more important in many societ ies than the answer itself. Therefore, sending and
receiving a message o f no is a task that needs special skill. The interlocutor must know
when to use the appropriate form and its funct ion, the speech act and its social elements
depending on each group and their cultural linguistic values (2005: 36).
Mit igat ion strategies are crucial as refusing may cause so me serious breakdowns in
interpersonal relat ionships as ment ioned earlier. They are emplo yed in refusals to smooth
interact ional management by reducing risks for participants at various levels, e.g. conflict,
face loss and so forth (Caffi 1999: 882).
In a series of invest igat ions, refusals o f second language learners were researched.
Some o f these studies are Beebe and Takahashi 1989a, 1989b; Takahashi and Beebe 1987;
Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz 1990; Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1991; Gass and
Houck 1999; Felix- Brasdefer 2004. The data for these studies were most ly gathered
through a written discourse complet ion test or role plays which means that the data
gathered were mostly elicited. However, some examples of naturally occurring data were
also discussed.
One of the earliest attempts to classify the refusal strategies of different language
users was done by Rubin (1983). According to this study, it was claimed that there were
the fo llowing 9 ways of refusing across a number of cultures:
1. Be silent, hesitate, show a lack of enthusiasm
2. Offer an alternat ive
3. Postponement
4. Put the blame on a third party or something over which you have no control
5. Avo idance
6. General acceptance of an offer but giving no details
7. Divert and distract the addressee
8. General acceptance with excuses
9. Say what is o ffered is inappropriate
www.eltsjournal.org
109
ISSN: 2308-5460
After some attempts to find the best taxono my for refusal strategies, the most
commo nly known and used semant ic formulas in coding refusals by Beebe, Takahashi,
and Uliss-Weeltz (1990) appeared and it is shown in table 1 below:
Table. 1. Refusal Strategies
Type
Direct
Indirect
Strategies
Performative
Nonperformative
1. "No"
2. Negative willingness/ability
Semantic Formulas
"I refuse"
Statement of regret
Wish
Excuse, reason, explanation
"Im sorry ", "I feel terrible "

"I wish I could help you "
"My children will be home that night"; "I
have a headache"
"I can't", "I dont think so"
Statement of alternative
1. I can do X instead of Y
"Id rather ", "Id prefer "
2. Why dont you do X instead of Y

Set conditions for future or past acceptance
Promise of future acceptance
Statement of principle
Statement of philosophy
Attempt to dissuade interlocutor
1. Threat or statement of
consequences to the requester
2. Guilt trip
negative
"Why dont you ask someone else?"

"If you had asked me earlier, I would
have"
"Ill do it next time", "I promise Ill ", or
"Next time Ill "__using "will" or
promise or "promise"
"I never do business with friends"
"One cant be too careful"
"I wont be any fun tonight" to refuse an
invitation
For instance: waitress to customers who
want to sit a while: "I cant make a living
off people who just order coffee"
"Who do you think you are?" "Thats a
terrible idea!"
3.Criticize the request/requester, etc.

(statement of negative feeling or opinion);
insult/attack
4. Request for help, empathy, and
assistance by dropping or holding the
request.
5. Let interlocutor off the hook
"Dont worry about it", "Thats oka y",
"You dont have to"
6. Self-defense (e. g., "Im trying my best",
"Im doing all I can do")
Acceptance that functions as a refusal
1. Unspecific or indefinite reply
2. Lack of enthusiasm
"Im trying my best", "Im doing all I can

do"
www.eltsjournal.org
110
ISSN: 2308-5460
Avoidance
1. Nonverbal
a. Silence
b. Hesitation
c. Do nothing
d. Physical departure
2. Verbal
a. Topic switch
b. Joke
c. Repetition of part of request, etc.
"Monday?"
d. Postponement
"Ill think about it"
e. Hedging
Adjuncts to refusals
1. Statement of positive opinion/feeling or
agreement
2. Statement of empathy
3. Pause fillers
4. Gratitude/appreciation
"Gee, I dont know", "Im not sure"

"Thats a good idea "; "Id love to "
"I realize you are in a difficult situation"
"uhh", "well", "oh", "uhm"
As it can be seen, several different refusal strategy sets have been used by different
researchers depending on the factors taken into account. The detailed refusal coding
schema prepared by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weeltz (1990) is used for this study
(Appendix B).
2.2 Speech Act of Refusal in Cross-Cultural Studies
The invest igat ion o f the speech act of refusal has taken place in so me of the crosscultural studies o f the researchers. For instance, in a study carried out by Tanck (2002),
nat ive and non-nat ive speakers strategies o f refusals and co mplaints were invest igated.
The data were gathered through a discourse complet ion test from the part icipants who
were 25 graduate students of the Universit y of Washington DC. It was found that the
strategies o f "expressio n of regret", "excuse", and "offering alternat ive" were the most
commo nly used refusal strategies for both of the groups.
In another study, Gass and Houck (1999), by using video recorded open role pla ys,
investigated the refusals of Japanese learners to requests, suggestions, o ffers and
invitat ions wit h the aim o f finding the sequencing of strategies in refusals. The results o f
the study showed that the co mmonly used strategies were non performative refusal,
statement of regret, excuse/reason and alternat ive. It was also found out that participants
preferred "empathy", "pause fillers" and "expressio ns o f gratitude" for adjuncts in their
answers. The Japanese learners did not just transfer the strategies fro m their own language
but they tried to find linguist ically and attitudinally most suitable resources to refuse. It
can be clearly seen fro m the results o f this study that culture and cultural habits shape the
responses o f the participants. As it is seen in this study, participants from Japanese culture
having empathy and tolerance do not have tendency to blame the others or having
arguments, rather they tend to show the reasons and express their gratitude.
Second language learners refusals were investigated in a major study by Beebe,
Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990). The data were gathered by means of a discourse
complet ion test from 20 Japanese speaking in Japanese, 20 Japanese-speaking in English,
www.eltsjournal.org
111
ISSN: 2308-5460
and 20 Americans speaking in English. The goal of the study was to investigate pragmat ic
transfer in refusals together with the key quest ion of "to what extend the transfer is
influenced by t he learners level o f pro ficiency. The order of the semant ic formula, the
frequency o f the formula, and the content of the utterances were the three areas found to
be different between the nat ive speakers and Japanese speakers of English. It was found
out that although proficient Japanese speakers of English in the United States used the
same range of strategies as Americans did, they observed a difference in the order. For
instance, while the social status is important for Japanese participants; what is important
for American participants is how familiar they are with the interlocutor in refusing. The
number o f strategies used is also different between Japanese and American part icipants.
While Japanese participants used more strategies while refusing a higher status
interlocutor; American participants used more strategies while refusing familiar equals.
Therefore, it can be said that the strategy preference of Japanese part icipants is power
oriented; the strategy preference o f American participants is related to solidarit y.
Americans speaking English, advanced American learners o f Spanish and Lat in
Americans were compared in a study by Fe lix-Brasdefer (2003). The aim o f the study
was to find out the differences between the two groups in terms o f using politeness
strategies while refusing invitat ions in both formal and informal situat ions. According to
the results, Americans were found to be more direct and Latin Americans were found to be
more indirect and verbose in declining the invitatio ns. Lat in American Spanish speakers
responses also showed that they were not very socio-culturally knowledgeable in Englis h
although their level o f proficiency was high. The results may show that having a high leve l
of linguist ic level o f proficiency does not mean that the participant is socio-culturally
knowledgeable enough in target language. Also the results show that participants from
different cultures can show different react ions while refusing such as being verbose or
more direct.
Fe lix-Brasdefer (2004) carried out another research on the effect of length o f
residence in the target communit y over refusals. The part icipants were 24 Spanish
learners. It was stated that learners who had stayed longer period of t ime in the target
communit y made more attempts to negotiate and mit igate their refusals and the ones wit h
shorter period of target communit y experience showed indirectness and they preferred
solidarit y. The results show that length of residence in the target communit y affects how
the people refuse. According to the study, in terms of Spanish learners, it can be said that
with the effect of the culture of the target communit y, the learners way of refusing
changed.
25 Egyptian Arabic users and 30 American English users were co mpared in a study by
Nelson, Carson, Al Batal and El Bakary (2002) by using written discourse complet ion test
as a means o f data gathering. The results showed that they used similar strategies wit h
similar frequency in refusing. According to the result of this study, alt hough it cannot be
generalized to all, so met imes it is possible to see participants fro m very different cultural
backgrounds such as Arabic and American having similar ways of refusing.
Refusals were invest igated in a study by Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1991). 39
audio-taped academic advis ing sessio ns were used to gather the data fro m 7 nat ive
www.eltsjournal.org
112
ISSN: 2308-5460
speakers and 39 proficient non nat ive speakers o f English. According to the analysis of the
results, for both groups, the most popular semant ic formula was "explanation" which was
fo llo wed by "giving alternat ives" for nat ive speakers and "avo idance" for non nat ive
speakers. The reasons of non native speakers were also found to be unacceptable.
By using the taxonomy o f Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990), Sadler and Erz
(2002) invest igated 30 Turkish, Lao and American participants. According to the results of
the study, "excuses/reasons" and "statement of regret" were the most commo n strategies
for American nat ive speakers o f English. The same strategies were chosen by Lao and
Turkish speakers as well. The reason o f the simila r use of the strategies was explained by
the researchers as the high proficiency level of the participants.
Another study was carried out by Kwon (2004) in which 40 Korean speakers o f Korean
and 37 American English speakers were compared in terms of directness in refusals. It was
found that Americans were more direct than Korean speakers in refusing. Koreans also
tried to explain the reasons to soften the situat ion and mit igate especially when they talked
to a higher status person.
Another study co mparing Korean speakers and American English speakers was
carried out by Lyuh (1992). In this study, Korean speakers used more semantic formulas
than Americans and they used more avo idance and gratitude formula than nat ive speakers
of American English. The result was the same with the study of Kwon (2004) as Korean
refusals were found to be more indirect and more elaborate in this study.
As it is seen in many studies, culture of the participants is more influent ial than so me other
factors such as gender and the pro ficiency level in the target language in using refusal
speech acts. Due to the fact that how people act and behave is a part of their culture, it is
possible to see and expect different ways o f performing refusals when the responses o f the
participants fro m different cultures are observed as in this study.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The data for the this study was gathered from the final year undergraduate students
studying in the department of English Language Teaching in anakkale Onsekiz Mart
Universit y (Turkey), Universit y o f Latvia (Latvia) and Adam Mickiewicz Universit y
(Poland). The total number of part icipants is 45, with 15 participants in each group. The
reason why only the final year students were chosen as the participants is that they are
considered to have the highest level o f English and for the very reason they can best serve
for the purpose of the study.
3.2. Instruments
Two different data collect ion instruments were utilized for the data gathering
procedure of this study. The primary data gathering tool is the Written Discourse
Complet ion Test (Appendix A). Alt hough various data gathering methods can be used to
collect data for speech acts-based studies such as self-report or audio/video recordings or
role plays, Discourse Complet ion Tasks are the most commo n method of do ing
pragmat ics-based research. It is particularly useful if one wants to invest igate speech acts
such as apologies, invitations, refusals, and so forth (Mackey and Gass, 2005, p. 89).
www.eltsjournal.org
113
ISSN: 2308-5460
The Discourse Complet ion Test was created by the researcher of this study. One
important point was taken into considerat ion during the creating process o f Discourse
Complet ion Test. Due to the fact that the focus of the study is on the teachers of Englis h
Language, the situations were in a way to fit the possible situat ions teachers o f English can
face. In order to eliminate and make the necessary changes if needed for the situations in
Discourse Co mpletion Test, a pilot test was conducted with 9 participants wit h the equal
number of participants fro m each group. The main object ive was to make it sure that the
situations prepared by the researcher elicited the aimed speech act of refusal and the coder
reliabilit y was established.
Before the pilot study was conducted, the Discourse Complet ion Test included five
refusal elicit ing situat ions. According to the results of the pilot study, it was decided that
one of the situations created by the researcher did not elicit the refusal speech act and it
was eliminated fro m the Discourse Complet ion Test. In accordance with this, the main
study included 4 refusal situat ions.
Another crucial step for the reliabilit y o f the data and results is establishing the intercoder reliabilit y. This step is important because it a must to have an agreement on the
codings of the responses gathered fro m the participants between two independent
researchers to claim that the data is reliable. Trumbull (2005, p.121-122) suggests that
co mpare your coding to that of the second coder and strive for a percentage agreement
between 80-90 % (....) Once this level is met, coder reliabilit y will be established and data
will not be considered to be subject ive". As a final step of the pilot study, the researchers
coding was co mpared to that of the second coder to establish the inter-coder reliabilit y.
In order to find the agreement percentage between the independent raters, total
strategy numbers were found for each group respectively. Fo llowing this step, the
mismatching strategies between the raters were also found. According to the evaluat ion,
the match between the independent researchers for the groups was found as % 81.8 for
Latvian responses, % 87.5 for Polish responses and % 87.5 for Turkish responses, with a
total o f % 85.1 overall agreement. According to Trumbulls suggest ion ment ioned above,
the inter-coder reliabilit y was considered to be established for the data of the present
study. After the modificat ions required wit h the results o f the pilot study, the Discourse
Complet ion Test used for the main study included 4 refusal situat ions (Appendix A).
The second data gathering tool used to compare the appropriateness levels o f the
participants' responses for the given situat ions is the Speech Act Appropriateness Scale.
The ten po int appropriateness scale used by Balc (2009) is used in this study as the
grading scale. It was originally used for grading the request and apo logy situat ions, in this
study it was used for refusal situat ions. This scale (Appendix C) includes codes of the
participants in co lumn and codes of the situat ions in row. The nat ive speaker responsible
for rating the responses was provided wit h the information (Appendix C) explaining what
each grade means such as number 5 is "expressions are only so mewhat appropriate and
grammat ical and discourse errors are noticeable, but they do not interfere
appropriateness". The appropriateness shows how appropriate the productions o f the
participants is for the nat ive language.
3.3. Coding and Data Collection Procedure
www.eltsjournal.org
114
ISSN: 2308-5460
The data gathered for this study was coded by the researcher in order to be able to find
the similarit ies and differences in refusal strategy use of Turkish, Polish and Latvian
prospective English Language Teachers. The coding schema emplo yed for this study is the
one used by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weelt z (1990) (Appendix A). In this coding
schema, there are basically two different strategy types which are direct and indirect. The
direct type of strategies includes two different strategies named as performat ive and
nonperformat ive. Performat ive strategy is a direct refusal strategy used for actual refusing
which means the person will not do the suggested or offered act ion by generally saying "I
refuse". Nonperformat ive strategies are also direct refusal strategies used to express that
the act ion will not take place in different ways. It has two sub categories. The first one is
"no" in which the person says "no" for instance to show that the offer is not accepted.
Negative willingness is the second nonperformat ive strategy in which the person is not in
tendency to do the action by saying for instance "I cannot". Indirect strategies are also
divided into twelve different strategies. Some o f these strategies have some subcategories.
The strategy codes were created by the researcher by giving "D" for the direct strategies
and "I" for the indirect strategies. Together with these, so me extra codes were given such
as the numbers, letters and roman numerals for the subcategories of refusal strategies.
The data was co llected via e-mail fro m Po land and Latvia wit h the help of lecturers
working at those universit ies. The data fro m Turkish participants was gathered by the
researchers in 25 minutes in a normal course hour at the facult y. Due to the suffic ient leve l
of English pro ficiency of the participants, no translation was needed.
3.4. Analysis
As a first step to analyze the data gathered for this study, coding o f the data was
conducted by the researcher. The main stay for the coding of the responses was the refusal
speech act coding schema used by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weeltz (1990). Fo llowing
coding o f the data, the descript ive statist ics was used to quantitatively analyze the
strategies preferred by Turkish, Polish and Latvian groups.
Second step of the analys is is the appropriateness of the speech act of refusal
according to the evaluat ion of a nat ive speaker. In order to find out whether there is a
statist ically significant difference amo ng the participants from different groups in terms of
appropriateness o f the use o f the speech act of refusal, descriptive statistics and KruskalWallis H test were conducted by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the current study because it is a non-parametric test and
the number of participants fro m each group is 15. It was suggested by Kesici and Kocaba
(1998, p. 307-308) that: to be closer to the normal distribution, the sample size must be at
least 30. If the sample size is lower than 30 and if the distribut ion of the part icipants
forming the sample is not known, non-parametric tests are used. In addit ion, the number
of groups is three in this study and it was suggested by Tailor (2005, p.216) that "KruskalWallis test compares medians for three or more groups." So the reason of using KruskalWallis test for the analys is o f this study is that there are three groups (Turkish, Polish and
Latvian) and the populat ion of each group is lower than 30 (15).
4. Results and Discussion
www.eltsjournal.org
115
ISSN: 2308-5460
In this sect ion, number o f the refusal strategies used by all three groups of
participants, the percentages of these refusal strategies according to how often they are
used and examples of most commo nly preferred refusal strategies from the responses o f
participants will be given and they will be illustrated with the tables for more detailed
statist ical results.
4.1. Analysis of Refusal Strategies
As it was explained before in coding section, the coding schema emplo yed for this
study is the one used by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weeltz (1990) (Appendix B). The
codes together with their meanings will be used through the analysis sect ion to explain t he
refusal strategy preferences of Turkish, Polish and Latvian participants. The coding
schema was mainly divided into two as direct and indirect refusal strategies.
4.1.1. Comparison of Refusal Strategy Use of Turkish, Polish and Latvian
Participants in the Category of Direct
The first category to be invest igated under the name o f refusal strategies is direct
category. The details of the category of "direct" according to the responses o f Turkish,
Polish and Latvian participants are illustrated in table 2 below:
Table 2. Distribution of the Refusal Strategies of Turkish, Polish and Latvian
Participants in the Category of Direct"
Refusal
strategies
identified in
the data
Direct"
D-1
Participants
Turkish
Tokens
Percentages
Polish
Tokens
0, 00
D-2-a
D-2-b
TOTAL
Percentages
Latvian
Tokens
Percentages
5, 56
10, 00
4, 76
0, 00
18
90, 00
20
95, 24
17
94, 44
20
100, 00
21
100, 00
18
100, 00
As it can be seen in the table above, the strategy named as negat ive
willingness/abilit y coded as D-2-b is the mo st popular refusal strategy in direct
category for all three groups. The percentages o f using this strategy for Turkish, Polish
and Latvian participants are % 90, % 95 and 94 respectively.
While the strategy named as "performative" coded as "D-1" is not preferred by
Turkish and Po lish part icipants; the strategy "no" coded as "D-2-a" is not preferred by
Latvians. Whereas the strategy coded as "D-1" is used by Latvians only 1 t ime; the
strategy coded as "D-2-a" is used by Turkish participants with a percentage of 10, 00 and
by Po lish part icipants with a percentage of 4, 76.
General evaluat ion of the category of "direct" shows that Polish part icipants use more
strategies than the other groups. However the numbers show that there is not much
difference among the groups in the total number of strategy use.
Some o f the examples o f Turkish, Polish and Latvian part icipants refusal productions in
the category of "direct" are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Refusal examples selected from the participants responses in direct category
Refusal Strategies Examples
www.eltsjournal.org
116

("Direct")
Turkish
Polish
D-1:
"Performative"
Not used
Not used
I am sorry again but NO!

(Tur 13, 6)
D-2-b : " Negative You alwa ys want me to
willingness/ ability lend you m y notes. Sorry
but I cannot. (Tur 11, 6)
"
D-2-a: "No"
ISSN: 2308-5460
Latvian
Sorry this time I wouldnt do it,

because I want to learn and to take a
great note. So I need to refuse. (Lat
13, 6)
No, I cant. I need to study Not used
as well. (Pol 6, 6)
Sorry, but I cant. I want I have so much work that I cant do
to read my notes now. (Pol this. (Lat 4, 5)
9, 6)
4.1.2. Comparison of Refusal Strategy Use of Turkish, Polish and Latvian

Participants in the Category of Indirect
The second category under the main heading o f refusal strategies is named as
indirect. The details o f the category of "indirect" according to the responses o f Turkish,
Polish and Latvian participants are illustrated in table 4 below:
Table 4. Distribution of the Refusal Strategies of Turkish, Polish and Latvian
Participants in the Category of "Indirect
Refusal
strategies
identified in the
data
"Indirect"
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4-a
I-4-b
I-5
I-6
I-7
I-9-a
I-9-b
I-9-c
I-9-d
I-9-e
I-9-f
I-10
I-11-b-iii
I-11-b-iv
I-11-b-v
I-12-a
I-12-b
I-12-c
I-12-d
Total
Participants
Turkish
Tokens
Percentages
Polish
Tokens
Percentages
Latvian
Tokens
Percentages
25
0
35
3
5
3
5
4
1
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
7
1
3
1
102
14
1
34
6
4
1
4
4
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
11
0
3
10
100
14, 00
1, 00
34, 00
6, 00
4, 00
1, 00
4, 00
4, 00
0, 00
2, 00
0, 00
1, 00
1, 00
1, 00
1, 00
1, 00
0, 00
1, 00
11, 00
0, 00
3, 00
10, 00
100, 00
18
1
30
2
4
7
5
4
1
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
2
3
10
1
3
6
102
17, 65
0, 98
29, 41
1, 96
3, 92
6, 86
4, 90
3, 92
0, 98
0, 00
2, 94
0, 00
0, 98
0, 98
0, 00
0, 00
1, 96
2, 94
9, 80
0, 98
2, 94
5, 88
100, 00
24, 51
0, 00
34, 31
2, 94
4, 90
2, 94
4, 90
3, 92
0, 98
0, 00
2, 94
0, 00
3, 92
0, 00
0, 00
0, 00
1, 96
0, 00
6, 86
0, 98
2, 94
0, 98
100, 00
The co mmo nly used strategies are the same when the responses o f all groups are
compared. The most popular strategy for Turkish, Polish and Latvian participants is
www.eltsjournal.org
117
ISSN: 2308-5460
"excuse, reason, explanat ion" coded as "I-3" which is used to express the reason of
refusing in the given situat ions. Turkish and Polish part icipants having almo st the same
percentage of use, Latvian participants use it less commo nly co mpared to other groups
with a percentage of 29.
Being the second most popular strategy o f all groups, "statement of regret" coded as
"I-1" is used more co mmo nly in the responses o f Turkish participants with a percentage of
24, 51. Latvian (17, 65) and Polish (14, 00) participants are also found to express their
regrets while producing refusals as well.
Po lish (11, 00) participants being the leader, all groups use the strategy named as
"statement of posit ive opinion/ feeling or agreement" coded as "I-12-a" very commo nly.
Another strategy which is very commo nly used by Polish participants is "grat itude/
appreciat ion" coded as "I-12-d" with a percentage of 10, 00. Turkish part icipants are not
seemed to use "gratitude/ appreciation" very popularly.
There are so me strategies which are just preferred by Po lish participants such as "guilt
trip" coded as "I-9-b", "acceptance that funct ions as a refusal" coded as "I-10", "repet ition
of part of request" coded as "I-11-b-iii". When the groups are compared in terms o f the
total strategy numbers used in this category, Latvian and Turkish part icipants using more
strategies than Po lish participants seem to use equal number of strategies (102).
So me of the examples o f Turkish, Po lish and Latvian part icipants refusal productions
in the category of "indirect" are given in Table 5 below:
Table 5. Refusal examples selected from the participants responses in indirect
category
Refusal
Strategies
("Indirect")
I-1:
"
Statement
of
regret "
Examples
Turkish
Polish
Latvian
I am sorry but I
can't. You are alwa ys
doing the same thing.
(Tur 9, 6)
Sorry, but I already

have lent my notes to
somebody else. (Pol
14, 6)
Im sorry, Jeremy. Id like to

help you, but Im attending a
conference this weekend in
another city. (Lat 8, 5)
I-3 : Excuse,
reason,
explanation
I already have plans

and other works for
the weekend. (Tur 1,
5)
Id love to be there
but I am sorry. (Tur
13, 7)
I need them to study so

I can't give them to
you. (Pol 13, 6)
I would like to ver y much but

unfortunately, I cant because I
expect visitors. (Lat 13, 7)
I would be very glad to

help you but I cannot
(Pol 13, 5)
I would like ver y much to attend

your wedding (Lat 6, 7)
I-12-a
:
Statement of
positive
opinion/ feeling
or agreement
4.2. Comparison of Appropriateness of Refusal Strategy Use of Turkish, Polish and

Latvian Participants
The appropriateness co mparison of the responses o f Turkish, Polish and Latvian
participants after coding was conducted by emplo ying a quant itative analysis by using the
ten point appropriateness scale o f Balc (2009) according to the evaluat ion o f a Nat ive
American speaker. Due to the different cultural and educational backgrounds and nat ive
languages o f the participants fro m groups, it is hypothesized that the appropriateness
www.eltsjournal.org
118
ISSN: 2308-5460
levels of the responses would show significant difference according to groups' nationalit y.
To test this hypothesis, Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted. The results of the test are
given in table 6.
Table 6. Test Statistics
Situations
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
(p)
Sit1
2, 064
Sit2
4, 600
Sit3
4, 283
Sit4
, 045
, 356
, 100
, 117
, 978
a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: nat ionalit y
It can be seen that significance levels o f all situat ions are higher than 0, 05 which requires
to reject to proposed hypothesis (p> 0, 05). It means that the appropriateness of the
responses o f the participants for the given situat ions according to the appropriateness scale
does not show difference according to the nationality of the participants.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
For the analysis sect ion of this study, as it was stated above, the refusal performances
of Turkish, Po lish and Latvian prospect ive English teachers were coded by using the
detailed refusal strategy coding schema emplo yed by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weeltz
(1990) by the researcher. The main categories in this coding schema are direct and
indirect. The responses of the participants were placed in these main categories.
When the refusal performances of part icipants from different groups are observed in
the category of direct, it can be said that they use the strategy negat ive
willingness/abilit y mo st commo nly because they do not want to refuse direct ly. It is
known that refusals are face-threatening acts (Ellis, 2005: 187) thus it is possible to
expect that this strategy seems to be the best way of refusing wit hout hurting the feeling o f
the hearer for the participants. Considering the fact that speech act of refusal is facethreatening and during the performance o f refusing, it is always hard to say I refuse
direct ly, especially Turkish part icipants did not prefer the strategy performat ive in their
refusals.
Alt hough the most co mmon strategy preference is the same in the category o f direct
refusals for all groups, some minor differences can be seen as well. While the most
popular strategy o f Latvian part icipants in this category is the same wit h Po lish and
Turkish participants in order not to be unkind, Latvian part icipants preferred a direct way
of refusing by using performative which was not chosen by the other two groups. The
reason of using this strategy can be that using direct refusals ma y not make the
relat ionships worse in Latvian culture. However, it is not always possible to make
generalizat ions because participants cho ice o f strategies in refusal speech acts change in
their nat ive languages and the target language. For instance, the difference is exemplified
by Ziebka- Bialo zny. According to the results o f her study, she suggests that (2010: 9):
Po les tend to use negat ive politeness strategy in Polish and posit ive politeness strategies
in English. When using Po lish they try to avoid responsibilit y for the event, when using
English they are more likely to apologize explicit ly for the situation. Considering all
these results related to the category o f direct, alt hough the popularit y o f strategies are
www.eltsjournal.org
119
ISSN: 2308-5460
almost the same, there are some differences among groups as well. Thus, the results of
this study are in accordance wit h the study o f Fe lix-Brasdefer (2003) who found out in a
study co mparing Americans speaking English, advanced American learners of Spanish
and Lat in Americans in terms of po liteness strategies in refusals that participants fro m
different cultures can show different react ions while refusing such as being verbose or
more direct. However, as in many other cross-cultural studies related to refusals (Tanck,
2002; Gass and Houck, 1999; Nelson et al. 2002; Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1991),
using indirect strategies outnumbers the use of direct strategies.
The similarit y can also be observed in strategy preferences o f all groups in the
category o f indirect. The mo st commo nly used strategies are excuse, reason,
explanat ion coded as I-3, statement of regret coded as I-1 and statement of
posit ive opinio n/ feeling or agreement coded as I-12-a. When the analys is o f the
category o f indirect is observed, it can be said that regardless o f different cultures,
nat ive languages or different educat ional backgrounds, all part icipants try to explain and
show the reasons and find an excuse for not doing the suggested action. The reason of
using this strategy can be expect ing sympathy from the hearer in order keep the posit ive
relat ionship. They also show regret before refusing to show that they are sorry for refusing
the offer. To show that the suggested offer is a good idea, part icipants use the strategy
statement of posit ive opinion/ feeling or agreement with the aim of showing that he/she
has actually the same posit ive idea about the offer to have a positive relat ionship wit h the
interlocutor. In terms of the indirect category strategy preference results, this study shows
similarit y to many studies such as the study conducted by Tanck (2002) who co mpared
nat ive and non-native speakers strategies of refusals and co mplaints and found out that
"expressio n of regret", "excuse", and "offering alternat ive" were the most commo nly used
refusal strategies for both of the groups. Similarly, Gass and Houck (1999) invest igated
the refusals of Japanese learners and found out that statement of regret, excuse/reason and
alternat ive were the most popular strategies as they were found in this study.
The results o f this study are also in accordance with the study of Bardovi-Harlig and
Hartford (1991). They also found out while co mparing refusal productions o f nat ive and
non-nat ive English speakers that "explanation" was the most preferred strategy as in the
case o f this study. In addit ion, using the same refusal coding schema, Sadler and Erz
(2002) invest igat ing Turkish, Lao and American participants refusals stated that
"excuses/reasons" and "statement of regret" were the mo st commo n strategies for all three
groups which is exact ly the same for this study. The possible reason of using the same
strategies of all three groups was stated as the high proficiency level o f the participants in
the study o f Sadler and Erz (2002) which may also be the case for the present study
because the part icipants fro m Turkey, Poland and Latvia are the final year students in
English Language Teaching departments.
To sum up, the preferred strategies by all three groups for refusal speech act are
almost the same. So it can be concluded that participants fro m different cultures perform
refusals in similar ways by using similar refusal strategies when they face situat ions
requiring refusals. It is also interesting finding that Turkish, Latvian (102) and Po lish
(100) participants total number o f indirect strategy use is very close to each other. It can
www.eltsjournal.org
120
ISSN: 2308-5460
be said that three different groups not only use the same strategies for refusals but also
they use almost the same number of strategies. As the participants are from different
cultures, difference in the use of refusal strategies would be expected. The potential reason
of this situation would be related to the fact that the participants in three different groups
have the same level of linguist ic proficiency and same level o f socio-cultural knowledge
of L2. Considering the very similar strategy preference and almo st the same number of
indirect strategy use in spite o f the participants different cultures, the deduction taken from
the study of Nelson, Carson, Al Batal and El Bakary (2002) can also be used for this study
which states that it is possible to see participants from very different cultural backgrounds
such as Arabic and American having similar ways of refusing.
In addit ion, the evaluation of a nat ive speaker showed that there was no statist ically
significant difference amo ng the groups in terms of the appropriateness o f the use of
refusal strategies. It was hypothesized that there would be difference amo ng groups due to
the fact that the culture of the countries affects the way of speaking in the target language.
Especially it is more possible to see this in pragmat ics studies as these studies are not
based on grammar or mistakes but on how people use the language when they face certain
kind of situat ions. Another factor affect ing the appropriate use of target language is how it
is taught. Each country has its own curriculum for teaching English. For this study it is
possible to expect the curriculums used in Turkey, Poland and Latvia to affect the
appropriate use of language.
English which is the glo bal language now is spoken in any part of the world. As
Poland and Latvia are the members o f European Unio n, the people living in these two
countries have more chances to visit other countries. This chance automat ically makes the
people in these two countries and the other European Union countries feel the need to
speak the glo bal language English to be able to communicate well. However, as this
chance not being very high for Turkish people because o f not being part of European
Unio n, Turkish people do not feel this need as Polish and Latvian participants. It is also a
fact that the more you speak a language the more appropriate you can be in that language.
Being this case, it could have been expected to see some differences in terms of
appropriateness in refusal productions o f Turkish, Polish and Latvian part icipants but
according to the test statist ics there is no significant difference amo ng the groups.
About the Author:
Mehmet Asmal is a lecturer at Balkesir Universit y, School o f Foreign Languages,
Balkesir, Turkey. He ho lds a BA in English Language Teaching (Akdeniz Universit y,
Antalya, Turkey) and a Med. (Masters of Education) in English Language Teaching
(anakkale Onsekiz Mart Universit y, anakkale, Turkey). Mehmet Asmal is interested in
English Language Teaching, cross-cultural pragmatics and teacher educat ion.
www.eltsjournal.org
121
ISSN: 2308-5460
Works cited:
Akpnar, D. K. (2009). "Using Theatre Extracts in Teaching Speech Acts to
Turkish EFL
Students with Special Reference to Apologies and Refusals",
Gazi Universit y, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Department
of Foreign Language
Education, Divisio n of English Language
Teaching, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ankara .
Al-Kahtani, S. A. (2005). Refusal Realizat ions in Three Different Cultures: a Speech Act
Theoretically-based Cross-cultural Study, Journal of King Saud
University, 18, 3557.
Allami, H. & Amin, N. (2011). A Cross-linguist ic Study of Refusals: An Analysis o f
Pragmatic Competence Development in Iranian EFL Learners, Journal
Of Pragmatics, 43, 385406.
Balc, B. (2009). A Co mparat ive Study on the Performance of Requests and Apo logies
by Turkish and American Teenagers: A Pragmat ic Co mpetence Point of
View, Universit y o f ukurova, The Institute of Social Sciences, The
Department of English Language Teaching, Unpublished MA Thesis,
Adana.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen; Beverly S. H. (1991). " Saying no in English: Native and
Non-nat ive Reject ions", Pragmatics and Language Learning: Monograph
Series, 2, 41-57.
Beebe, L. & Tomoko, T. (1989a.) Do you have a bag?: Social status and pattern
Variat ion in Second Language Acquisit io n In S. Gass et al. (Eds.),
Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse, Pragmatics and
Communication (103-125), Mult ilingual Matters, Clevedon
_________(1989b) Socio linguist ic variat ion in face-threatening speech acts:
Chast isement and Disagreement, In M.R. Eisenstein (Eds.), The
Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language
Variation (199-218), Plenum, New York.
Beebe, L. , Tomoko T. & Robin Uliss-Weltz. (1990) Pragmat ic Transfer in ESL
Refusals In Scarcella, R., Anderson, E., Krashen, S. (Eds.) Developing
Communication Competence in a Second Language (5573), Newbury
House, New York .
Caffi, C. (1999). On Mit igat ion, Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 881909.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language, Cambridge Universit y Press,
Cambridge
imen, . S. (2009). "Cross-Linguist ic and Cross-Subject Invest igation o f Speech Acts of
Refusals", Mula Universit y, Graduate School o f Social Sciences,
Department of Foreign Language Education, Divisio n of English
Language Teaching, Unpublished MA Thesis, Mula.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Second Edit ion, Oxford
Universit y Press.
Flix-Brasdefer, J. Csar. (2003). Declining an Invitat ion: a Cross-cultural Study of
Pragmatic
Strategies in American English and Lat in American Spanish,
www.eltsjournal.org
122
ISSN: 2308-5460
Multilingua, 22/3, 225255.

Flix-Brasdefer, J. Csar. (2004). "Interlanguage Refusals: Linguist ic Politeness and
Length of
Residence in the Target Communit y", Language Learning, 54
/4, 587 653.
Flix-Brasdefer, J. Csar. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and The United States A
Contrastive Study
of the Realization and Perception of Refusals, John
Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Gass, S. & Noel, H. (1999). Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-cultural Study of JapaneseEnglish, Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
Kank, M. (2010). "The Use of Pragmatic Strategies by Nonnat ive English-Speaking
Teachers of English as a Foreign Language in Turkey and Nat ive EnglishSpeaking Teachers o f English as a Second Language in the USA", stanbul
Universit y, Graduate School o f Educational Sciences, Department of Foreign
Language Education, Divisio n of English Language Teaching, Unpublished
PhD Thesis, stanbul.
Kasper, G. & Kenneth, R. R. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching, Cambridge
Universit y Press.
Kesici, T. & Zahide, K. (1998). Biyoistatistik, Ankara niversitesi Eczaclk Fakltesi
Yayn No: 79, Ankara.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing Refusals in Korean and American English, Multilingua,
23, 339-364.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London.
Lyuh, I. (1992). "The Art of Refusal: Co mparison of Korean and American Cultures",
Indiana Universit y, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Bloomington .
Mackey, A. & Susan, M. G. (2005). Second Language Research Methodology and
Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
Nelson, G. L., Joan, C. Mahmoud, Al Batal, Waguida, El Bakary. (2002)" Cross-Cultural
Pragmat ics: Strategy Use in Egypt ian Arabic and American English
Refusals. ", Applied Linguistics, 23/2, 163-189.
Otu, B. & Deniz, Z. (2008). Development of Requests: A study on Turkish Learners of
English In Martin Ptz and Jo Anne Neff- van Aertsealaer (Eds.)
Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (265-298), Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Rubin, J. (1983). How to Tell When Someone is Saying No Revisited In N. Wo lfson
& E. Judd
(Eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (10-17),
Newbury House, Rowley.
Sadler, Randall W. & Bet il, E. (2002). I Refuse You! An Examinat ion of English
Refusals by Native Speakers of Englis h, Lao, and Turkish, Arizona
Working Papers in SLAT,
9, 53-80.
Searle, John, R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge
Universit y Press, London.
Searle, John, R. (1977). Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida, In S. Weber
and H. Sussman (Eds.), Glyph: Johns Hopkins Textual Studies, Johns
www.eltsjournal.org
123
ISSN: 2308-5460
Hopkins Universit y Press, Balt imore.

Tailor, G. R. (2005). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research,
Second Edit ion, Universit y Press of America, Oxford.
Takahashi, T. & Leslie, B. (1987) . Development of Pragmat ic Co mpetence by Japanese
Learners of English, .Journal of the Japan Association of Language
Learners, 8 (2).
Tanck, S. (2002). Speeach Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Co mparison of Nat ive
and Non-Native English Speakers Production, Second Language
Acquisit io n at American Universit y, Washington, DC.
<http://observer.american.edu/cas/teso l/pdf/upload/WP-2004-Tanck-SpeechAct.pdf>
(05.01.2012)
Tunel, R. (1999). Speech Acts Realizat ions of Turkish EFL Learners: A Study on
Apologizing and Thanking, Anado lu Universit y, The Inst itute of Social
Sciences, Department of English Language Teaching, Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Eskiehir.
Trumbull, M. (2005). Qualitat ive Research Methods In George R. Tailor (Eds.)
Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research, Second
Edit ion, Universit y
Press of America, Oxford.
Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language, Third edit io n, Cambridge Universit y Press,
Cambridge.
Ziebka- Bialozny, J. (2010). "Gender Differences in the Acquis it ion of L2 Sociopragmat ic
Co mpetence", Portal Naukowy Wiedza i Edukacja, Katowice 2010.
<http://wiedzaiedukacja.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Just yna-Zi%C4%99bkaBia%C5%82o%C5%BCny-Gender-differences...pdf> (20.04.2012)
Appendices
Appendix A: Discourse Completion Test
Dear Respondent,
This instrument has been designed to invest igate The Refusal Strategies of Turkish,
Polish and Latvian Prospective English Teachers. You are kindly requested to give the
most appropriate responses to the situations given below. The answers should be written in
the provided spaces and in English. They should be whatever you would say in the given
conversational situat ions. Rest assured that the informat ion obtained in the course o f this
study will be kept confident ial and used only for the purposes of academic research.
Thanks for your participat ion.
Instructions: Read each of the situat ions on the fo llowing pages and write after each
situation what you would normally say in the given situat ion. Please write the actual
words you would say rather than saying I would
Situation 1: You are a language teacher. One of your less successful students asks to
speak to you in private.
www.eltsjournal.org
124
ISSN: 2308-5460
Student: As you know, Ive been studying in your class more than 6 mo nths. I really enjo y
studying English, but to be quite honest, I cannot get good marks. If you have free time for
this weekend, I will be glad to study with you for the next weeks exam.
You:
Student: Then I guess Ill have to look for another person. Thank you anyway.
Situation 2: You are a junior in college. You attend classes regularly and take good notes.
Your classmate often misses a class and asks you for the lecture notes.
Classmate: Oh God! We have an exam tomorrow but I dont have notes fro m last week.
I am sorry to ask you this, but could you please lend me your notes once again?
You:.....................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
Classmate: O.K., then I guess Ill have to ask somebody else.
Situation 3: You are working as a professor at a facult y. One of your assistants comes
into your office to invite you to her wedding ceremony.
Assistant: Sir, I know that you are too busy these days but I will be honored if you attend
my wedding this weekend.
You:.....................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
Assistant: I am sorry to hear this. I really would like to see you there.
Situation 4: Youre a language teacher at a universit y. Its just about the middle of the
term now and one of your students asks to speak to you.
Student: Ah, excuse me, so me of the students were talking after class recently and we kind
of feel that the class would be better if you could give us more practice in conversation and
less on grammar.
You:.....................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
Student: O.K., it was only a suggest ion.
Appendix B: Refusal Strategies Coding Schema
Type
Coding
Strategies
Semantic Formulas
of
t he
strategies
Performat ive
"I refuse"
Direct
D-1
Nonperformat ive
D-2
1. "No"
D-2-a
2. Negative willingness/abilit y
"I cant", "I dont think so"
D-2-b
Indirect
I-1
Statement of regret
"Im sorry ", "I feel terrible

"
www.eltsjournal.org
125
ISSN: 2308-5460
I-2
I-3
Wish
Excuse, reason, explanat ion
I-4
I-4-a
Statement of alternative
1. I can do X instead of Y
I-4-b
I-6
2. Why dont you do X instead

of Y
Set condit ions for future or past
acceptance
Promise of future acceptance
I-7
Statement of principle
I-8
I-9
I-9-a
Statement of philo sophy

Attempt to dissuade interlocutor
1. Threat or statement of "I wont be any fun tonight" to
negat ive consequences to the refuse an invitat ion
requester
2. Guilt trip
For instance: waitress to
customers who want to sit a
while: "I cant make a living
off people who just order
coffee"
3.Crit icize
the "Who do you think you are?"
request/requester,
etc. "Thats a terrible idea!"
(statement of negat ive feeling
or opinio n); insult/attack
4. Request for help, empathy,
and assistance by dropping or
ho lding the request.
5. Let interlocutor off the hook "Dont worry about it", "Thats
okay", "You dont have to"
6. Self-defense (e. g., "Im "Im trying my best", "Im
trying my best", "Im do ing all I doing all I can do"
can do")
Acceptance that funct ions as a
refusal
1. Unspecific or indefinite reply
2. Lack of enthusiasm
I-5
I-9-b
I-9-c
I-9-d
I-9-e
I-9-f
I-10
I-10-a
I-10-b
"I wish I could help you "

"My children will be ho me that
night"; "I have a headache"
"Id rather ",
"Id prefer
"
"Why dont you ask so meone
else?"
"If you had asked me earlier, I
would have"
"Ill do it next time", "I
promise Ill ", or "Next
time Ill "__using "will" or
promise or "promise"
"I never do business wit h
friends"
"One cant be too careful"
www.eltsjournal.org
126
ISSN: 2308-5460
I- 11
I-11-a
Avo idance
1. Nonverbal
I-11-a-i
a. Silence
I-11-a-ii
b. Hesitation
I-11-a-iii
I-11-a-iv
c. Do nothing
d. Physical departure
I-11-b
2. Verbal
I-11-b-i
I-11-b-ii
a. Topic switch
b. Joke
I-11-b-iii
I-11-b-iv
c. Repet ition of part of request, "Monday?"

etc.
d. Postponement
"Ill think about it"
I-11-b-v
e. Hedging
I-12
Adjuncts to refusals
I-12-a
1. Statement of posit ive

opinio n/feeling or agreement
"Thats a good idea "; "Id

lo ve to "
I-12-b
2. Statement of empathy
"I realize you are in a

difficult situat ion"
"uhh", "well", "oh", "uhm"
"Gee, I dont know", "Im not

sure"
3. Pause fillers
I-12-c
4. Gratitude/appreciat ion
I-12-d
Appendix C: Appropriateness Scale
Is the expressio n adequate for the level of severity of the situation which necessit ies the
refusal for the relat ionship between the interlocutors? . i.e. regarding the choice of address
terms, whether it has necessary accounts/explanations, softeners etc.
Appropriateness Rating Scale
10 - Expressions are fully appropriate for the situation. - No or almo st no grammat ical and
discourse errors.
9 - Expressio ns are fully appropriate for the situation. - Grammat ical and discourse errors
which do not interfere appropriateness.
8 - Expressio ns are mostly appropriate. - No or almost no grammat ical and discourse errors.
7 - Expressions are mo st ly appropriate. - Grammatical and discourse errors are noticeable,
but they do not interfere appropriateness.
6 - Expressio ns are only so mewhat appropriate. - No or almost no grammat ical and
discourse errors.
5 - Expressio ns are only so mewhat appropriate. - Grammat ical and discourse errors are
noticeable, but they do not interfere appropriateness.
4 - Due to the inference fro m grammat ical and dis course errors, appropriateness is difficult
to determine.
3 - Expressions are not appropriate - No or almo st no grammat ical and discourse errors.
www.eltsjournal.org
127
ISSN: 2308-5460
2 - Expressions are not appropriate - Grammat ical and discourse errors totally interfere
appropriateness.
1 - There is no evidence that the intended speech acts are performed.
0 - No performance.
Participants
Appropriateness
Grades
Refusals
S
S
S
S4
1
2
3
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14
P15
S stands for the situations in the DCTs and P stands for the participants
www.eltsjournal.org
128
ISSN: 2308-5460
Table of Contents
Sr.
No
Paper Title / Author(s) / Country
Pages
1
2
Editorial
A Crit ical Study of Iranian EFL Environment
-Arezoo Molavi Vardanjani, Iran
Adaptable Analyt ical Vistas Illumine a Touchstone: Langston Hughes
as Minor Author/Poet
-Mzenga A. Wanyama, USA
An Explorat ion of English Language Teaching Pedagogy in
Secondary Yemeni Educat ion: A Case Study
-Yehia Ahmed Y. Al-Sohbani, Yemen
Applied ELT: A Paradigm Just ifying Co mplex Adaptive System of
Language Teaching?
-Masoud Mahmoodzadeh, Iran
Brit ishness and Co mmunit y Cohesio n in Muslim News Online
-Hassen ZRIBA, Tunisia
Building an EFL Curriculum for Young Learners: A Brazilian
experience
-Telma Gimenez & Juliana Reichert Assuno Tonelli, Brazil
Communicat ion Strategies between Chinese Employers and their
Basotho Emplo yees
-Ko lobe Mabo leba, Lesotho
Cross-cultural Co mparison of Non-native Speakers' Refusal Strategies
in English
-Mehmet ASMALI, Turkey
Cross-Linguist ic Influence in Third Language Acquisit io n:
Acquis it ion of syntactic structures by students Bilingual in PersianAzerbaijani, Persian-Armenia, and Persian-Gilaki
-Farzaneh Khodabandeh, Iran
Invest igat ing the Difficult ies and Problems Faced by the English
Language Students of Al Quds Open Universit y in Legal Translation
Process
-Ahmed Maher Mahmoud Al-Nakhalah, Palestine
Teaching English Accept ing Mult iple Intelligence Types through Arts
Ivana CIMERMANOV, Slovakia
The Poet as Translator: The Poetic Vision of John Betjeman
-Wisam Khalid Abdul Jabbar, Canada
The Socio linguist ic Status of Islamic English: A Register Approach
-Zaidan Ali Jassem, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Tragic Richness in the Major Novels of Tho mas Hardy
-V. Sudhakar Naidu, Libya
03
04- 19
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
www.eltsjournal.org
20- 39
40- 55
56- 71
72- 87
88- 97
98- 105
106- 128
129- 156
157- 175
176- 183
184- 194
195- 205
206- 216

Cross-Cultural Comparison of Non-Native Speakers' Refusal Strategies in English

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cross-Cultural Comparison of Non-Native Speakers' Refusal Strategies in English

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies

International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies

Senior Associate Editors

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies