REFUSALS TO INVITATIONS: The Use of Vietnamese Learners of

English and the Use of Native Speakers of English - A Comparison

By : Lê Thị Bích NguyệtSupervisor: Phạm Xuân Thọ, M.A.

OUTLINE

Rationale Methodology Results Conclusion

Rationale

The speech act of refusal to invitation is a face-threatening act.

Language learners are at a great risk of offending their interlocutor when carrying out a refusal to an invitation.

The inability to say ‘No’ clearly and politely, though not directly has led many non-native speakers to offend their interlocutors (Beebe et al., 1987:133)

Methodology

Aims and research question Data collection Coding framework Data analysis

Aims and research question

Aims: to investigate the strategies of refusals to invitations of the VLEs (Vietnamese learners of English) and the NSEs (Native speakers of English) – frequency, order and content of semantic formulas

Research question: How do Vietnamese learners of English differ from native speakers of English in their strategies of refusals to invitations in terms of frequency, order and content of semantic formulas in relation to the interlocutor’s status?

Data collection

Data collection method Data collection instrument Data collection procedures and subjects of

the study

Data collection method - DCT

Reasons An effective means of gathering a large

amount of data in a short period of time (Wolfson, 1989; Beebe et al., 1990; Beebe and Cumming, 1996)

A useful method to elicit data for comparability (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper, 1989)

Data collection instrument

The DCT questionnaire consists of two parts: Part 1: elicit background information of the

respondents Part 2: three situations to elicit the

respondents’ refusals to invitations - each shows a difference in interlocutor’s status

Data collection procedures

DCT questionnaires were produced and delivered to two groups of participants: VLEs and NSEs

Participants were contacted in person or through e-mail

No time limits were imposed on completing the questionnaires.

Subjects of the study

VLEs: 20 Vietnamese learners of English (2 males, 18 females) – graduate students of VNU-CFL

NSEs: 20 speakers of English (7 males, 13 females) – Australia (9), England (3), The USA (3), Canada (2), New Zealand (2), Ireland (1)

Coding framework

The refusal data were coded into semantic formulas. The refusal taxonomy developed by Beebe et al.

(1990) was used.E.g. A refusal to an invitation to a friend’s house for

dinner: ‘I’m sorry. I’m going to a concert on Sunday night. Maybe next time.’ [Expression of regret] [Reason] [Alternative]

Data analysis - Frequency

The total number of each semantic formula used by each group in the 3 situations was calculated and shown in the form of 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 was also presented in a table to compare the frequencies of the semantic formulas while considering the interlocutors’ status.

Data analysis - Order

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.

The similarities and differences of the order of semantic formulas used by the VLEs and the NSEs were analysed based on the table.

Data analysis - Content

Types of reasons: E.g. I’m busy.

We’ll visit our parents on Sunday evening.

Types of mitigating formulas:Statement of positive opinion (e.g. I’d love to,

but…); an apology (e.g. I’m sorry); Statement of alternative (Why don’t we get together next Saturday?)

Results - Frequency

The frequency of semantic formulas The total number of uses of semantic

formulas

Results - Frequency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DP DN IR IW IERE IA IPR IPH IOH IRI IP IER IRQ APO APF AGA AAT

VLEsNSEs

Results - Frequency

• The VLEs utilized semantic formulas more frequently than the NSEs.

• DN, IR, IERE and IA were the four most commonly used and in all cases, the VLEs used them more frequently than the NSEs.

• As for the adjuncts to refusals, the VLEs employed the formula of gratitude/ appreciation more often.

Results - Frequency

The frequency of semantic formulas in relation to the interlocutor’s status:• None of the subjects from both groups used IPR, IPH, IOH, IRI in their refusals

to a higher-status person’s invitation.• The VLEs used DN more frequently to a higher status person than the NSEs

did, the NSEs used this formula to an equal-status person.• Both groups showed their regret more frequently to a higher-status person than

to an equal-status person. • The formulas which were not utilized to refuse a higher-status person and an

equal-status person were used to a lower-status person, though not frequently.• As for the adjuncts, VLEs used APO with similar frequency in all cases,

whereas NSEs used this formula more frequently to an equal status person than persons of other cases.

• The formula of AGA was not frequently used for a higher-status person by both groups but the VLEs employed AGA more frequently to an equal- and a lower-status person.

Results - Order

To a higher-status person• DN: spread from 1st to 3rd

position, similar numbers - both groups; except 2nd position

• IERE: used 1st position by NSEs, not by VLEs

• IA: not popularly used by both groups to a higher-status person and only appeared from 2nd and 3rd position backward for NSEs and VLEs respectively

Gr Order of SF

1 2 3 4 5

VLEs

DN-1IR-10IW-1APO-5APF-2

DN-7IR-2IERE-9IER-1AAT-2

DN-2IR-1IERE-9IA-4IER-1AAT-1

IERE-2IA-5IER-1

IR-1IA-2

NSEs

DN-1IR-14IERE-2APO-3

DN-2IERE-12IA-1IER-1APO-1

DN-3IR-1IERE-3IA-4IER-2APO-1

IERE-1IA-2AGA-1

Results - Order

To an equal-status person• IERE: not given in 1st

position by VLEs and utilized most in 2nd position by both groups

• NSEs varied formulas, whereas VLEs used fewer formulas in all positions but 3rd

• AGA: used mainly in 1st position by VLEs, whereas none of NSEs used in this position but from 2nd backward

Gr Order of SF

1 2 3 4 5 6

VLEs

IR-8APO-5AGA-7

DN-4IR-2IERE-14

IR-2IERE-6IA-7IER-1IRQ-2AGA-1

IA-1IER-1

IA-1

NSEs

IR-3IERE-4IP-2APO-9APF-2

DN-6IW-1IERE-8IP-1AGA-1

IR-1IERE-2IA-1APO-3AGA-1

DN-1IERE-2IA-1

IERE-1IA-1

IA-1

Results - Order

To a lower-status person• IERE: not used in 1st

position by VLEs, but used by NSEs; similarly used by both groups in 2nd and 3rd positions

• IP: mostly used in 1st position by NSEs, in 3rd and 4th positions by VLEs

• AGA: employed most often by both groups in 1st position

Gr Order of SF

1 2 3 4 5 6

VLEs

DN-1IR-3IOH-1APO-6APF-1AGA-8

DN-1IR-1IERE-10IA-2IPR-3IRQ-1APO-1AGA-1

DN-2IERE-3IA-5IP-2IER-1AGA-1

IP-4 AGA-2

NSEs

IR-4IERE-3IRI-1IP-3IRQ-1APO-2AGA-6

DN-2IR-1IERE-6IA-2IPH-1IP-1APO-2AGA-1

DP-1IR-1IERE-4IA-2IRQ-1AGA-1

DN-1IA-2

AGA-1 IPR-1

Results - Content

* To a higher-status person Both groups gave specific reasons in refusals to a higher-status

person.• E.g. I have to go to the airport to pick up my friend in 30 minutes. • I must leave in 15 minutes. I have to pick up my friend at the airport VLEs were unwilling to refuse a higher-status peron’s invitation,

whereas NSEs seemed not to find it difficult to do so. VLEs employed more mitigating devices (other semantic

formulas) such as IA, AAT• I’m really sorry, Professor. I need to leave soon to pick up my friend from the

airport. Some NSEs used only one formula in their refusal.• I’d better go soon. My friend is waiting for me at the airport.

Results - Content

* To an equal-status person Half of VLEs and NSEs’ reasons were vague• E.g. I’ve already had a prior commitment. With specific reasons, the contents were different between the two

groups – NSEs usually mentioned their prior engagement with their spouse or children, VLEs gave more reasons related to their parents, their mother’s birthday or a dinner with their mother-in-law

• E.g. I have to take my kids to the doctor. (NSE)• This Sunday night we are having my mother-in-law round for dinner.

* To a lower-status person VLEs’ reasons: related to work NSEs’ reasons: personal

Conclusion - Major findings

Similarities: Employ a similar range of semantic formulas Similar frequency of use of IERE in all cases, IR to

higher- and lower-status interlocutors, IP, IPR, IRQ, AGA to higher-status interlocutors

Order: similar use of IR in 1st position to higher-status interlocutors

Content: similar content of reasons in refusals to higher-status interlocutors

Conclusion - Major findings

Differences: VLEs used more semantic formulas than NSEs VLEs used AGA more frequently and APO less frequently than

NSEs NSEs gave reasons in 1st position of the refusals, whereas

VLEs did not. To equal-status interlocutors, NSEs cited reasons relating to

their spouse or children, VLEs mentioned reasons relating to their parents such as their mother’s birthday, dinner with mother-in-law…

To lower-status interlocutors, VLEs gave reasons relating to work, NSEs’ reasons were personal

Conclusion - Implications for language teaching

Help learners to acquire the strategies which are used most frequently by native speakers of English and rules for implementing them

Socio-cultural information should be corporated into language curriculum or textbooks

Conclusion - Limitations of the study

VLE and NSE participants were not similar in their backgrounds

No time constraints in filling out the questionnaires which might yield different results from natural occurring data

Conclusion – Recommendations for further research

Factors such as facial expressions, non-verbal gestures, prosody of the speech act of refusals to invitations can be taken into consideration in further research.

Only one variable, i.e. interlocutor’s social status was considered in this study; therefore, other variables such as gender, social distance, the time spent learning English of the learners should be further studied.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!