So sánh cách thức từ chối lời mời của người việt nam học tiếng anh và người bản ngữ nói tiếng anh

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Pragmatic competence
To become effective communicators in today’s connected world, it is necessary for
language learners to gain true communicative competence. Communicative competence,
according to Hymes (1967), includes not only knowledge of linguistic forms but also
knowledge of when, how and for whom it is appropriate to use these forms. Likewise, Ellis
(1994:696) states that communicative competence “entails both linguistic competence and
pragmatic competence”.
Pragmatic competence is defined as ‘the ability to use language effectively in order
to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context’ (Thomas 1983:94).
She also distinguishes between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence.
Pragmalinguistic competence refers to the appropriate language to accomplish a speech
act, whereas sociopragmatic competence refers to the appropriateness of a speech act in a
particular context.
Increasing attention has been paid to pragmatic competence due to the fact that
many learners may have good knowledge of grammar and a wide range of vocabulary but
they may still fail in real interaction with native speakers. Moreover, in accordance with
Thomas (1983), native speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic and lexical errors
made by L2 speakers but usually interpret pragmatic errors negatively as rudeness,
impoliteness or unfriendliness.
Over the past few decades, language teaching in the world and in Vietnam has
witnessed a shift from the focus on the development of learners’ linguistic competence to
the development of learners’ communicative competence. To facilitate this change, there is
a need for more studies on learners’ pragmatic competence, including studies on
interlanguage pragmatics. This study is carried out in an attempt to understand more about
the interlanguage pragmatics of Vietnamese learners of English.
1
1.2. The speech act of refusal to invitation: a face - threatening act
Refusals are considered to be a ‘sticking point’ for many non-native speakers
(Beebe et al. 1987). Refusals to invitations occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says

‘No’ to an invitation. It is, in fact, a face – threatening act. Face, in Brown and Levinson’s
(1987:61) definition, is ‘the public self image that every member wants to claim for
himself’, that is the emotional and social sense that everyone has and expects everyone else
to recognize. Therefore, in interaction, people often cooperate to maintain each other’s
face. However, some acts, by their nature, make it difficult to maintain the face of the
participants in an interaction. These acts are referred to as face-threatening. Some acts
threaten the hearer’s face, others threaten the speaker’s face, still others threaten the face of
both the hearer and the speaker. To reduce the risk of possible communication breakdown
due to these face-threatening acts, the participants can say something to lessen the threat to
the face of the others. This is referred to as a face-saving act.
Refusing an invitation contradicts the inviter’s expectation; thus, it is a face -
threatening act. It tends to risk the interpersonal relationship of the speakers. To maintain
the face of the inviter, the person who refuses the invitation is expected to use many face-
saving acts or strategies. Or in other words, it is important for that person to give the
impression that he/she still cares about the inviter’s wants, needs or feelings. It requires a
high level of pragmatic competence. However, the way people refuse, or the manipulation
of the face-saving strategies, varies across languages and cultures. Language learners, due
to the limitation in language proficiency and the high requirement of pragmatic
competence for this speech act, are at a great risk of offending their interlocutor when
carrying out a refusal to an invitation. Beebe et al. (1987:133) claim that ‘the inability to
say ‘No’ clearly and politely, though not directly has led many non-native speakers to
offend their interlocutors.’ The present study is an attempt to understand more about
Vietnamese EFL learners’ refusal strategies in the hope to raise their pragmatic awareness
and partly improve their pragmatic competence.
2
1.3. Structure of the thesis
The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 discusses pragmatic competence, the
speech act of refusal to invitation and the rationale of the study. The chapter ends with
information on the structure of the thesis.
Chapter 2 reviews previous studies on the speech act of refusal, especially those

examining the factors under investigation of the study, i.e. the strategy use in relation to the
interlocutor’s social status. The review helps form the theoretical background for the study.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in the study, including the aims, the
research question of the study, the data collection method, the data collection instrument,
data collecting procedures and the subjects of the study. The coding framework and data
analysis are also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the results of the study with regard to the
strategies used by the two groups of subjects, native speakers of English (NSEs) and
Vietnamese learners of English (VLEs) in relation to the interlocutor’s social status for the
speech act of refusal to invitation.
Chapter 5 summarizes the major findings of the study, gives implications for
language teaching, points out the limitations of the study and suggests areas for further
research.
3
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Research on the speech act of refusal
Although the speech act of refusal is a face-threatening act which causes problems
for not only non-native speakers but also native speakers, fewer studies have investigated
the act than other acts such as request, apology or greeting. However, the studies on the
speech act of refusal vary across the areas of study around the act. Some of them aim to
reveal the speech act in one language or culture, for instance, Chinese (Chen, Ye & Zhang,
1995; Bresnahan, Ohashi, Liu, Nebashi & Liao, 1999), English (Kitao, 1996), Japanese
(Moriyama, 1990; Laohaburakit, 1995), Peruvian Spanish (Garcia, 1992, 1996). Some
have been interested in the cross-cultural perspective of the speech act. They compare the
refusal patterns or strategies used by speakers of a language other than English with those
used by native speakers of English (Shigeta, 1974; Liao & Bresnahan, 1996; Phan, 2001;
Nelson, Carson, Batal & Bakary, 2002; Kwon, 2004; Hsieh, Chia-Ling & Chen, 2005;
Dang, 2006). Others study the refusal strategy use of non-native speakers of English and
native speakers of English or focus on pragmatic transfer (Beebe & Takahashi & Uliss-

Weltz, 1990; Beebe & Cumming, 1996; Lauper, 1997; Al-Issa, 2003; Al-Eryani, 2007).
This chapter will review previous studies investigating the speech act of refusal.
Specifically, the studies on cross-cultural refusals will be reviewed in section 2.2 and those
on interlanguage refusals will be reviewed in section 2.3.
2.2. Cross-cultural refusals
Some major studies on cross-cultural refusals are Kwon (2004) and Nelson et al.
(2002). Besides, there are some unpublished studies which are MA theses on the speech act
of refusal to requests and refusals to invitation in English and Vietnamese, Phan (2001)
and Dang (2006).
4
Kwon (2004) examines the refusal expressions in Korean and American English.
She used the DCT taken from Beebe et al. (1990) to collect refusals from 40 Korean
speakers in Korea and 37 American English speakers in the United States of America. The
DCT included 12 situations designed to elicit refusals to requests, invitations, offers, and
suggestions in lower, equal or higher status situations. The data were analyzed in
terms of semantic formulas and categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by
Beebe et al. (1990). They compared the frequency and content of semantic formulas
of the two groups and found out that although the range of refusal strategies are
similar between the two groups, the frequency and content of semantic formulas are
different. For instance, Korean speakers hesitated more frequently and used direct
refusal formulas much less frequently than 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. With regard to content of semantic formulas, the two language
groups differed in terms of the types of reasons used in their refusals. Korean
speakers typically used reasons, for example, referring to a father’s 60
th
birthday
when refusing a boss invitation which was not included in the English data.

Nelson et al. (2002) investigate similarities and differences between Egyptian
Arabic and American English refusals. They used a modified version of the DCT
developed by Beebe et al. (1990) as their data collection instrument for 30 American
interviews and 25 Egyptian interviews. They gained 289 American English refusals
and 250 Egyptian refusals. Each refusal was divided into its component strategies and
the data were analysed to compare the average frequencies of direct and indirect
strategies, the average frequencies of specific indirect strategies. Results indicate that
both groups use similar strategies with similar frequency in making refusals. This
finding is contrary to Kwon’s (2004).
Research investigating the refusal strategies in Vietnamese and English includes
Phan (2001) which was restricted to refusals to requests between Vietnamese speakers and
English speakers and Dang (2006) which focused on hedging in invitation declining in
5
American English and Vietnamese. Both of the studies used DCT questionnaires to
collect data.
Phan (2001) found out that both Vietnamese and native informants tended to
use more indirect refusals than direct ones. In both Anglophone and Vietnamese
cultures, city dwellers were more direct than rural people and the informants who
did not know any foreign languages are more indirect than those with knowledge of
some foreign languages. However, she also pointed out some difference between the
two groups of informants. All the Anglophone informants were more direct than the
Vietnamese.
Dang (2006) found seven main hedging strategies utilized by the two groups of
informants, Vietnamese and NSs of English, including delaying, showing regret,
giving excuses, showing appreciation, blaming the partner, giving an alternative and
mixing different ways. Among these, mixing different ways was the favourite strategy
of both groups, whereas blaming the partner is the least favoured tactic. The
frequency of each strategy used by both parties varies according to age, gender,
power, distance of the speakers and the hearers and to the formality of the
invitations.

Some important factors which emerge from the above reviewed studies inform the
present study. Firstly, speakers of other languages (Korean & Egyptian Arabic) and
NSEs employ similar range of refusal strategies (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002).
Secondly, the frequencies of use of refusal strategies vary according to languages. In
Nelson et al. (2002), the frequency of use of refusal strategies are similar between
speakers of Egyptian Arabic and NSEs, whereas Kwon (2004)) found that the
frequency of use of this speech act is different between speakers of Korean and NSEs.
Thirdly, the contents of the semantic formulas of the refusals by Korean speakers and
NSEs are different (Kwon, 2004). With regard to the data collection instrument, both
studies (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al. 2002) utilized the DCT constructed by Beebe et al.
(1990) and their data were analyzed according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al.
(1990). As for the research on the speech act of refusal in Vietnamese, it was found
that Vietnamese people were substantially more indirect than NSEs (Phan, 2001). The
6
frequency of each strategy among seven strategies listed by Dang (2006) varies
according to age, gender, power, distance of the speakers and the hearers and to the
formality of the invitation.
2.3. Interlanguage refusals
Studies on interlanguage refusals can be divided into two groups. The first group
includes those focusing on comparing refusals by non-native speakers of English and those
by native speakers of English. The other includes those concentrating on pragmatic
transfer. Five studies belonging to the first group are Chen (1996), Widjaja (1997),
Sadler and Eroz (2001), Tanck (2002), Nguyen (2006).
Interested in finding the similarities and differences in the strategy use, Chen
(1996) examined the speech act of refusal by American NSs and Chinese advanced
EFL learners. Her data collection instrument was DCT questionnaires modified from
those of Beebe et al. (1990). The collected data were analyzed and categorized
according to the refusal taxonomy developed by Beebe et al. (1990). She found out
that direct refusal (i.e., ‘No’) was not a common strategy for any of the subjects,
regardless of their language background. Moreover, she found that an expression of

regret, common in American speakers’ refusals was not generally produced by the
Chinese learners, which could lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an
American context.
Widjaja (1997) investigated date refusals between Taiwanese females versus
American females. In the study, 10 Taiwanese and 10 American female college
students performed three different dating role plays (classmate, stranger and
boyfriend contexts) in English as a second language versus native language with
retrospective interviews to get at thought processes and negative and positive
politeness strategy formulation. Negative politeness strategies included a direct
refusal, a refusal, an indirect refusal, an expression of regret, an excuse, an objection,
and a hedge. Positive politeness strategies included offering an alternative, a vague
future acceptance, a future acceptance, a postponement, solidarity, a positive remark,
7
a positive opinion and thanking. Results showed that both groups preferred negative
politeness strategies but the Taiwanese preferred higher directness in refusing dates.
Sadler and Eroz (2001) used the written refusal DCT developed by Beebe et al.
(1990) as the data collection instrument in an examination of English refusals by NSEs,
Laotian and Turkish. Thirty participants filled in their refusal DCT in English – 10
Americans, 10 Laotians, and 10 Turkish. The data were also analysed in terms of
semantic formulas and categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al.
(1990). It was found that the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic
formulas utilized in the refusals of all the three groups were different. Although all
the respondents tended to use excuses, explanations or reasons with a statement of
regret preceding or following the reasons or excuses, the Turkish subjects refused a
bit less than the others. The Turkish and American subjects used pause fillers and
then statements of gratitude and appreciation, while the Laotian respondents used
more statements of regret followed by adjuncts.
Tanck (2002) compared refusals by NNSs of English speaking different L1
(Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai) and
those by NSEs. She found that NSEs and NNSs used the components of a refusal

(expression of regret, excuse, offering alternative) with similar frequency. However,
the result of her study also indicated that the quality of the components of the speech
act of refusal produced by NNSs was different from those produced by NSEs. NNSs’
responses were less appropriate in the situations under study. They were
linguistically correct, but often lacked the pragmatic elements that allow this face-
threatening act to be received by the interlocutor.
In exploring similarities and differences in the strategy use of Vietnamese learners
of English (VLEs) and the NSEs, Nguyen (2006) investigated the strategy use in the
speech act of refusal, but restricted to refusals of request. She used a questionnaire in
the form of DCT based on the Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project
(CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984) for data collection. 40 NSEs and 40
VLEs participated in the study resulted in 1440 speech acts of refusal. The data were
categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990) and analyzed to
8
compare the frequency of the speech act of refusal to request in selected situations. It
was found that the frequency of the use of the speech act of refusal by the Australian
NSs of English was different from that by the VLEs. Although the VLEs and the
Australian NSs of English employed the same number of speech acts of refusal, the
VLEs used more statements of regret, more statement of empathy and more reason/
excuse/ explanation than Australian NSs of English. Moreover, Australian NSs of
English tended to be more direct in their refusals.
The studies investigating the refusal strategies of learners of English and focusing
on pragmatic transfer include Beebe et al. (1987, 1990), Lauper (1997), Yamagashira
(2001), Al-Issa (2003) and Al-Eryani (2007),.
In both of their studies (1987, 1990), Beebe and her colleagues investigated the
speech act of refusal produced by Japanese learners of English. Their data collection
instrument was DCT questionnaire consisting of 12 situations eliciting refusals to
requests, invitations, offers and suggestions. These situations vary according to the
hearer’s status, i.e. higher, equal and lower. The findings generally suggested that the
Japanese learners transferred their native refusal patterns into the target language,

and the transfer was evidenced in the frequency, order and content of the semantic
formulas they used. Beebe et al. (1987) also found that pragmatic transfer was
pervasive, not limited to any specific level of foreign or second language learning.
However, more advanced learners tended to make more transfer because their high
level of proficiency helped them express themselves more easily in their native ways
while speaking English.
Also being interested in Japanese ESL learners’ refusals, Yamagashira (2001)
compared the language patterns used to make refusals by both Japanese learners of English
and American English NSs in different situations. Additionally, pragmatic transfer was
considered. Such factors as learners’ English proficiency, the time spent in the States, and
explicit instructions on pragmatic knowledge were also examined. The DCT questionnaire
developed by Beebe et al. (1990) was used to collect data. The data were also analysed
and categorised according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990). The results
showed that pragmatic transfer did occur in the learners’ refusals. The time spent in the
9
States, the L2 proficiency of the Japanese speakers, and explicit instructions on pragmatic
knowledge were shown to affect pragmatic transfer. If a subject was immersed in English,
his/ her response was more similar to that of NSs. Moreover, the lower L2 proficiency
subjects used their L1 refusal style, whereas the highest L2 proficiency subjects used only
American English refusal strategies. The subject who had received explicit instructions on
pragmatics responded to the refusal situations appropriately in English.
Lauper (1997) investigated whether or not the learners’ native language and their
reason for refusing would have an effect on their refusal strategies. The subjects were 60
NSs of English, 60 NSs of Spanish and 60 Spanish learners of English. A DCT
questionnaire was used to elicit refusals for 20 situations. The data also concerned the
subjects’ age, gender, level of education. Analysis of the responses resulted in a taxonomy
of 43 refusal strategies. Results indicated that the three groups had different refusal
patterns. In some cases, the Spanish learners of English refused similarly to NSs of Spanish
and differently from NSs of English, suggesting pragmatic transfer in this group. However,
in some cases, refusal strategies of the learners approximated those of NSs of English, and

in other cases, their refusal strategies were different from those of both groups of NS.
Moreover, it was found that the three groups varied their refusal strategies according to the
reason for refusing.
Al-Issa (2003) investigated the patterns of the speech act of refusal by Jordanian
learners. Her data collection instrument was a DCT questionnaire which had been
developed based on observational notebook data. The data were collected from 150
subjects who were divided into three groups: Jordanian learners of English, NSs of Arabic
and NSs of English. Each group consists of 50 participants, 25 males and 25 females. The
DCT was then followed by semi-structured interviews. Using semantic data as units of
analysis, the learners’ refusal responses were compared with that of NSs of English and
NSs of Arabic responding in Arabic. The results showed three areas in which the native
language of the learners affected their refusal speech: the choice of semantic formulas, the
length of responses and the content of semantic formulas.
Al-Eryani (2007) carried out a pragmalinguistic investigation into the speech act of
refusal made by Yemeni EFL learners. The subjects of the study were 20 Yemeni
10
learners of English, 20 Yemeni Arabic NSs and 20 American English NSs. The data
collection instrument was a written DCT questionnaire modified from that of Beebe
et al. (1990). The data were analysed in terms of semantic formula and were
categorized according to the refusal taxonomy developed by Beebe et al. (1990). The
data collected from the learners were compared with those collected from NSs of
their first language, Yemeni Arabic and with those collected from NSs of English.
Results showed that there were differences in the strategies used by the Yemeni
learners of English and NSs of English. Specifically, the frequency, the order and the
content of the semantic formulas used by the two groups were different. Due to their
high proficiency, the Yemeni learners showed pragmatic competence in the target
language in all three areas: order, frequency and content of the semantic formulas.
However, they at times displayed some of their native speech community norms,
falling back on their cultural background when formulating refusals.
The review of this section also provides several important points for the

present study. First of all, the direct refusal ‘No’ is not a common strategy for any of
the language groups (Chen, 1996). Moreover, although they use similar range of
refusal strategies, the frequency, order and content of the semantic formulas utilized
by learners of English and NSEs are different (Chen, 1996; Beebe et al., 1987, 1990;
Yamagashira, 2001; Nguyen; 2006; Al-Eryani, 2007). Additionally, the learners’
refusal strategies in English are affected by their native language (Beebe et al. 1987,
1990; Yagamashira, 2001; Al-Issa, 2003). However, Beebe et al. (1987, 1990) and
Yagamashira (2001) had contrary results. In Beebe et al. (1987), more advanced
learners are more affected by the refusal strategies of their native language, whereas
the native language of the learners in Yagamashira’s study had more influence on the
lower proficiency learners. In terms of data collection and analysis, the DCT
questionnaire developed by Beebe et al. (1987) and the refusal taxonomy constructed
by Beebe et al. (1990) were widely used in research on the speech act of refusal (Beebe
et al., 1990; Yamagashira, 2001, Nguyen, 2006). Finally, in Lauper (1997), the native
language of the learners sometimes affects their refusal strategies in English,
sometimes their strategies are similar to the NSs of English and sometimes their
strategies are different from both groups of NSs.
11
2.4. Interlocutor’s status and the choice of refusal strategy
One of the contextual variables which many of the studies considered when
examining the use of refusal strategies employed by NNSs or learners of English and NSs
of English is the interlocutor’s status. The reason is that this factor is closely related to the
choice of refusal strategy.
Findings from previous studies show that people from different cultures do not
perceive the status of the interlocutor in the same way and therefore they do not always
choose the same strategies for the same speech act in general and the speech act of refusal
in particular (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002; Beebe et al., 1990; Phuong, 2006). For
example, Nguyen (2006) found out that Australian NSEs did not care much of the social
status of the interlocutor when they said ‘No’, whereas VLEs experienced differences
when they refused people of different status. The VLEs were more sensitive to the social

status of the interlocutor. Similarly, Beebe et al. (1990) found that Japanese learners of
English tended to respond differently to higher versus lower status interlocutors, while
NSEs were sensitive to status equals versus status unequals. Kwon (2004) showed that
Korean speakers were more sensitive to higher status people than to people of equal
or lower status. They tended to take a more mitigating approach in dealing with a
higher status person than with other status types. However, American English
speakers did not shift their refusal strategies noticeably according to the status of the
interlocutors.
The above review of the related literature of the speech act of refusal shows
that the use of refusal strategies by Vietnamese learners of English is still a gap in the
literature which needs to be filled to gain a better understanding of learners’
interlanguage in general, and of Vietnamese learners of English in particular.
Moreover, the literature review also provided the background and theoretical
framework for the present study. The specific issues of the study, including the aims,
the research questions of the study, the data collection method, the data collection
instrument, data collecting procedures and the subjects, the coding framework and data
analysis of the study will be presented in the next chapter.
12
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents and discusses the issues related to the method conducting this
study. Section 3.1 outlines the aim of the study and the research question addressed to
obtain the aim. Section 3.2 discusses the issues in the data collection, including the data
collection method, data collection instrument, data collection procedures and the
description of the subjects. Section 3.3 presents the coding framework used in the study. In
the final section, section 3.4, the method of data analysis is described.
3.1. Aims and research question
3.1.1. Aims of the study
As can be seen in chapter 2, there is a gap in our understanding of how the
Vietnamese learners use refusal strategies in English. This study aims at investigating the

strategies of refusal to invitations which are employed by the VLEs and NSEs.
Specifically, the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic formulas utilized to
refuse by the VLEs are compared with those by NSEs as the base line in relation to the
interlocutor’s social status.
3.1.2. Research question
13
The study aims to answer the following question:
How do Vietnamese learners of English (VLEs) differ from native speakers of English
(NSEs) in their strategies of refusal to invitations in terms of frequency, order and
content of semantic formulas in relation to the interlocutor’s status?
3.2. Data collection
In this part, the issues relating to the data collection will be discussed. Section 3.2.1
discusses the data collection method. Section 3.2.2 gives details of the data collection
instrument. Section 3.2.3 describes the data collection procedures and the subjects of the
study.
3.2.1. Data collection method
As shown in section 3.1.1, the aim of this study is to investigate the refusal strategy
used by VLEs and NSEs in relation to a contextual variable, the interlocutor’s social status.
This aim is pursued by comparing the frequency, order and content of semantic formulas
used by VLEs with those by NSEs. The instrument to collect data for this comparison is
the DCT.
DCTs are ‘written questionnaires including a number of brief situational
descriptions, followed by a short dialogue with an empty slot for the speech act under
study’ (Kasper and Dahl, 1991: 221). The dialogue usually starts with an ‘opener’ followed
by a blank for the respondents to write their responses to complete the dialogue.
A DCT is used to collect data in the present study for the following reasons. Firstly,
the DCT has been proved to be an effective means of gathering a large amount of data in a
relatively short period of time (Wolfson, 1989; Beebe et al., 1990; Beebe and Cumming,
1996). Due to the time constraint of the present study, the DCT is a proper solution.
Moreover, it is a useful method to elicit data for cross-cultural comparability (Blum-Kulka,

House, and Kasper, 1989). Additionally, it allows the researchers to control variables of
the situations under study, for example, the interlocutor’s status. Therefore, the data
collected will be consistent, making it easier to achieve the aims of the study.
14
Apart from the recognized advantages of the DCT, there are arguments against this
data collection method. First, the DCT usually lacks contextual variation (Rose, 1994). In
addition, the real complex interactions are not fully reflected in the DCT. They are
simplified (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Another limitation of the DCT, in accordance
with Nelson et al. (2002), is that the situations in the DCT are hypothetical in nature. Many
of the DCTs are used to elicit spoken speech. However, what people claim they would say
in a hypothetical situation is not necessarily what they would actually say in a real
situation. Furthermore, as reviewed in chapter 2, the finding of the study by Beebe and
Cumming (1996) reveals that DCTs do not elicit natural speech with actual wording, range
of formulas and strategies, length of responses and number of turns. They also do not
adequately represent the depth of emotion and natural occurrence of the speech. Sharing
this idea with Beebe and Cumming, Nelson et al., (2002) claim that DCTs fail to reveal the
socio-pragmatic complexities of face-threatening acts such as refusals.
Recognizing both advantages and limitations of the DCT, the researcher of the
study agrees with Rose and Ono (1995) that it should not be expected that a single data
source will provide all the necessary insights into speech act usage. Each type of data will
provide different information.
According to Kasper (2000), the DCT is an effective means of data collection if the
goal of the study is to ‘inform about speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge of the
strategies and linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented’.
Congruent with Kasper (2000), Nelson et al., (2002) also argue that the DCT may be
appropriate for collecting pragmalinguistic data. Since this is a pragmalinguistic
investigation into the speech act of refusal to invitations, the DCT is believed to be
appropriate to collect data for the study.
3.2.2. Data collection instrument
A modified version of the DCT constructed by Beebe et al. (1990) is used for the

present study because the DCT of Beebe et al. (1990) had been developed and piloted with
status embedded in the situations. It is, therefore, convenient to collect data for the
consideration of the interlocutor’s status. Moreover, it can be seen in Chapter 2 that many
15
of the studies on the speech act of refusal have utilized the DCT by Beebe et al. (1990),
which shows the high reliability of this DCT questionnaire.
The questionnaire consists of two parts. In the first part, the respondents are asked
to supply background information such as their nationality and their gender. Part two
comprises three situations in which the respondents are required to refuse the invitations of
three people. These people are at different social status in comparison with the
respondents. One is a higher-status person (a professor who invites the respondent, a
student, to have dinner in the canteen while finishing the student’s project). One is of
equal-status with the respondent (a friend invites the respondent to dinner). In the last
situation, a lower-status person, a salesman invites the respondent who is the director of a
printing company to a luxurious restaurant to firm up a contract.
For a full version of the DCT questionnaire, see the Appendix.
3.2.3. Data collection procedures and subjects of the study
3.2.3.1. Data collection procedures
After the DCT questionnaires were produced, they were delivered to two groups of
participants: Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English. For the
Vietnamese group, we contacted most of the Vietnamese participants in person and some
via e-mail to ask them to fill in the questionnaires. The VLEs were asked to refuse the
invitations in English. This was conducted in Hanoi. For the NSEs, due to time and contact
condition constraints, I could meet only five of the subjects who were tourists in Vietnam.
After they completed the questionnaires, I had small talks with them about their responses
to the situations in the questionnaire. Some of the questionnaires for this group were
delivered to the NSEs by two of my friends who were in Australia. Still others were
administered through e-mail. No time limits were imposed on completing the DCT.
3.2.3.2. Subjects of the study
The two groups of subjects who provided the refusal data for the study were

Vietnamese learners of English (VELs) and native speakers of English (NSEs). The first
16
group consists of 20 advanced Vietnamese learners of English (2 males, 18 females). They
are all graduate students of Vietnam National University, College of Foreign Languages,
Post Graduate Studies Department. The second group comprises 20 native speakers of
English (7 males and 13 females). These are subjects of convenience. They come from
different countries: Australia (9), England (3), the United States (3), Canada (2), New
Zealand (2), and Ireland (1).
3.3. Coding framework
After the refusal data were collected, they were coded into semantic formulas. 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 coding the refusal data in terms of semantic formulas, the refusal
taxonomy developed by Beebe et al. (1990) was used. For example, a respondent refused
an invitation to a friend’s house for dinner, saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m going to a concert on
Sunday night. Maybe next time.’ This was coded as [expression of regret] [reason] and
[alternative].
The refusal taxonomy developed by Beebe et al. (1990) is as follows:
I. Direct:
A. Performative
B. Non-performative statement
1. ‘No’
2. Negative willingness/ ability
II. Indirect
A. Statement of regret
B. Wish
C. Excuse/ reason/ explanation
D. Statement of alternative
1. I can do X instead of Y
2. Why don’t you do X instead of Y

E. Set condition for future or past acceptance
17
F. Promise of future acceptance
G. Statement of principle
H. Statement of philosophy
I. Attempt to dissuade the interlocutor
1. Threat/ statement of negative consequences to the requester
2. Guilt trip
3. Criticize the request/ requester, etc.
4. Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding the
request
5. Let interlocutor off the hook
6. Self defence
J. Acceptance that functions as a refusal
1. Unspecific or indefinite reply
2. Lack of enthusiasm
K. Avoidance
1. Non-verbal
a. Silence
b. Hesitation
c. Do nothing
d. Physical departure
2. Verbal
a. Topic switch
b. Joke
c. Repetition of part of request, etc.
d. Postponement
e. Hedging
f. Ellipsis
g. Hint

Adjuncts to refusals
1. Statement of positive opinion/ feeling or agreement
2. Statement of empathy
3. Pause filler
18
4. Gratitude/ appreciation
5. Addressing term
However, this study investigated the verbal refusals only, thus the non-verbal
formulas were excluded. Moreover, in the process of coding, some of the semantic
formulas of Beebe et al. (1990) were not found in the collected refusal data. They,
therefore, were removed from the list of semantic formulas. Those which were found in the
data but do not belong to any of the formulas in the list of Beebe et al. (1990) were added
and labeled *. The followings are the coding framework of semantic formulas, their codes
(the initial letter of the code is the category which a semantic formula belongs to) and
explanation for them:
I. Direct
1. Performative (DP)
Leech (1983) defines performatives as ‘self-naming utterances, in which the
performative verb usually refers to the act in which the speaker is involved at the moment
of speech.’ (p. 125). For example: NSE subject number 17 (NSE 17) responded:
I have to refuse your invitation.
2. Non-performative (DN)
Negative willingness/ ability
Negative willingness ability includes the expressions which contain negations.
Negation can be expressed by ‘not’ or by any other words which negate a proposition.
For example: (NSE 17) I can’t stay.
II. Indirect
1. Statement of regret (IR)
The statements that contain the words ‘sorry’, ‘regret’.
For example: (NSE 16) I’m terribly sorry but I have to pick up a friend at the

airport.
2. Statement of wish (IW)
Sometimes to refuse an invitation indirectly, the respondents indicate his/ her wish.
For example: (VLE 18) I wish I could join with you.
19
3. Excuse/ reason/ explanation (IERE)
The respondents sometimes refuse an invitation by giving an excuse, an
explanation or a reason. The explanations and reasons may be general.
For example: (VLE 14) I’m not free tonight
They can also be specific.
For example: (VLE 20) We have had a plan to take our children out.
4. Statement of alternative (IA)
Although the respondents cannot satisfy the inviter’s want, they suggest
alternatives in the hope to reduce the negative impact of their refusal.
For example: (VLE 3) Can we leave it till the beginning of next week?
5. Statement of principle (IPR)
The statements which show that the respondents would violate the principles which
they have followed for a long time if they accept the invitation are categorized as the
statements of principle.
For example: (VLE 5) I’m not used to firming up contracts in restaurants.
6. Statement of philosophy (IPH)
The respondents also at times refuse an invitation by indicating an obvious
sequence of activities in our life.
For example: (NSE 16) We can always have dinner after everything is settled.
7. Let the interlocutor off the hook (IOH)
With this formula, the refusers show that they sympathize with the inviter and it is
not necessary for that person to invite.
For example: (VLE 3) There is no need to do this.
8. Repetition of part of the invitation (IRI)
While the respondents cannot accept the invitation for some reason, they still show

their interest or surprise by repeating part of the invitation.
For example: (NSE 12) Lettuce! (The name of a luxurious restaurant in New York)
20
9. Postponement (IP)
The respondents sometimes soften their refusals by postponing the invitation
without suggesting a specific time.
For example: (VLE 8) I’ll call you when we are in need.
10. Elaboration of the reason * (IER)
After giving a reason, some of the refusers still give more details about their
reasons. Statements of this kind are categorized as ‘Elaboration of the reason’
For example: (NSE 18) I’m busy. I have to pick up my friend at the airport.
11. Rhetorical question * (IRQ)
Some people want to express what they think about an invitation by asking a
rhetorical question.
For example: (NSE 19) It would not look too good now, would it?
III. Adjuncts to refusals
Preliminary remarks which could not appear alone and function as extra
modification to protect the inviter’s face are the adjuncts to refusals. This category includes
the following formulas:
1. Statement of positive opinion/ feeling or agreement (APO)
For example: I’d love to come.
2. Pause filler (APF)
For example: Oh/ Well/ Ahh
3. Gratitude/ Appreciation (AGA)
For example: Thank you very much for your invitation
4. Addressing term (AAT)
For example: Professor
3.4. Data analysis
21
As noted in section 3.1.1, the strategies of refusals to invitation of the VLEs are

investigated by comparing the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic
formulas of this language group with those of the NSEs in relation to the interlocutor’s
status.
First, to compare the frequency in the use of the semantic formulas of the two
language groups, the total number of each semantic formula used by each group in the
three situations was calculated. Then they were shown a chart. The chart would help
compare the overall frequencies in the use of each of the semantic formulas. The number
of each semantic formula in each situation is also presented in a table to compare the
frequency of the semantic formula while considering the interlocutor’s status.
Second, to compare the order of the semantic formulas of the two language groups,
the total number of each semantic formula in each situation was counted for each of the
language group and listed in order in a table. Then, the similarities and differences of the
order of semantic formulas used by the VLEs and the NSEs were analysed. For example,
E.g. Refuser status: Higher
Group
Order of semantic formulas
1 2 3 4
VLEs Expression of
regret (6)
Excuse(5) Offer of
alternative (7)
NSEs
The example in the table shows that there are 6 statements of regret of the
responses by the VLEs expressed in the first position of the refusals to invitation, 5 excuses
in the second position and 7 offers of alternative in the third position. This order would be
compared with the NSEs’.
Third, with regard to the content of the semantic formulas, the types of reasons and
the mitigating formulas used by the the VLEs and the NSEs were examined. For example,
22
‘I’m busy’ and ‘We’ll visit our parents on Sunday evening.’ are both categorized as

reasons. However, they are different in terms of specificity and persuasiveness.
As for the types of mitigating formulas used by the two language groups, it can be
seen that the ways in which refusals are mitigated have a major impact on the overall tone
of the refusals. For example, one might refuse directly by using negative willingness, but
the refusal effect can be greatly softened by providing various mitigations such as a
statement of positive opinion (e.g. I’d love to, but…), an apology (e.g. I’m sorry) or a
statement of alternative (e.g. Why don’t we get together next Saturday?).
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter reports the results and discusses the findings of the study. The results
will be presented in section 4.1. Specifically, the frequency of the semantic formulas by the
two language groups, VLEs and NSEs will be reported in section 4.1.1, the order of the
semantic formulas in section 4.1.2 and the content of the semantic formulas in section
4.1.3. The findings of the study will be discussed in section 4.2.
4.1. Results
4.1.1. The frequency of semantic formulas
In this part, the total number of uses of semantic formulas by the VLEs and the
NSEs will be presented in section 4.1.1.1 and the frequency of semantic formulas in
relation to interlocutor’s status in section 4.1.1.2.
4.1.1.1. Total number of uses of semantic formulas
The results of the data collected on the total number of semantic formulas by the
two language groups are presented in the chart below:
23
Total number of uses of semantic formulas
The chart shows that overall the VLEs utilized semantic formulas more frequently
than the NSEs. In fact, in 8 out of 13 categories, the VLEs used more semantic formulas
than the NSEs. Four categories that the NSEs had higher frequency of use were
performative (DP), statement of philosophy (IPH), repetition of part of the invitation (IRI)
and postponement (IP). However, the frequency of use of these formulas of NSEs was not
much higher than the VLEs’. Direct – non-performative (DN), statements of regret (IR),

excuse/ reason/ explanation (IERE) and statement of alternative (IA) were the four most
commonly used and in all cases the VLEs used them more frequently than the NSEs. The
only formula which was used equally by both groups was statement of wish (IW).
Regarding the use of Adjuncts to refusals, the two most common were positive opinion/
feeling or agreement (APO) and gratitude/ appreciation (AGA).
A distinguishing feature of the chart is that the formula of excuse/ reason/
explanation (IERE) is most frequently used by both the VLEs and the NSEs. This semantic
formula plays a crucial role in the refusal structures of both groups of participants, though
VLEs employed the formula more frequently (53) than NSEs did (48).
24
Another noticeable feature which can be seen in the chart is that the group of 3
types of semantic formulas, including non-performative (DN), statement of regret (IR), and
statement of alternative (IA) was used at a quite high frequency, ranging from nearly 20 to
30 times. Nevertheless, it is noted that the VLEs used all these categories more frequently.
The last group of semantic formulas includes those which were not used more than
7 times and some formulas were not used by either the VLEs or the NSEs. They are
perfomative (DP), statement of wish (IW), statement of principle (IPR), statement of
philosophy (IPH), let the interlocutor of the hook (IOH), repetition of part of the invitation
(IRI), postponement (IP), elaboration of the reason (IER) and rhetorical question (IRQ).
As for the two adjuncts to refusals which were employed more by both the VLEs
and the NSEs, it is noticeable that the NSEs used the formula of positive opinion/ feeling
or agreement (APO) more frequently than the VLEs, whereas the VLEs utilized the
formula of gratitude/ appreciation (AGA) more often.
4.1.1.2. The frequency of semantic formulas in relation to interlocutor’s status
The results of the data collected on the frequency of the semantic formulas by the
two language groups in relation to the status of the interlocutor are presented in Table 1
below:
25