Refusals to invitations the use of vietnamese learners of english and the use of native speakers of english a comparison

1

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.

2

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 facesaving 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.


3

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.


4

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 & UlissWeltz, 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).


5

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


6

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 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.


7

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, 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

8

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 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.


9

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
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


10

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 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


11

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.

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


12

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.


13

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
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


14

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.
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


15

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
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


16

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
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


17

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
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


18

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
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

19

(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.
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)


20

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)
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’