REFUSALS TO INVITATIONS: The Use of Vietnamese Learners of English and the Use of Native Speakers of English - A Comparison By : Lê Thị Bích Nguyệt Supervisor: 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 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

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 1 st to 3 rd position, similar numbers - both groups; except 2 nd position IERE: used 1 st position by NSEs, not by VLEs IA: not popularly used by both groups to a higher- status person and only appeared from 2 nd and 3 rd position backward for NSEs and VLEs respectively Gr Order of SF VL Es DN-1 IR-10 IW-1 APO-5 APF-2 DN-7 IR-2 IERE-9 IER-1 AAT-2 DN-2 IR-1 IERE-9 IA-4 IER-1 AAT-1 IERE-2 IA-5 IER-1 IR-1 IA-2 NS Es DN-1 IR-14 IERE-2 APO-3 DN-2 IERE- 12 IA-1 IER-1 APO-1 DN-3 IR-1 IERE-3 IA-4 IER-2 APO-1 IERE-1 IA-2 AGA-1

Results - Order To an equal-status person IERE: not given in 1 st position by VLEs and utilized most in 2 nd position by both groups NSEs varied formulas, whereas VLEs used fewer formulas in all positions but 3 rd AGA: used mainly in 1 st position by VLEs, whereas none of NSEs used in this position but from 2 nd backward Gr Order of SF VL Es IR-8 APO-5 AGA-7 DN-4 IR-2 IERE- 14 IR-2 IERE- 6 IA-7 IER-1 IRQ-2 AGA- 1 IA-1 IER-1 IA-1 N SE s IR-3 IERE-4 IP-2 APO-9 APF-2 DN-6 IW-1 IERE- 8 IP-1 AGA- 1 IR-1 IERE- 2 IA-1 APO- 3 AGA- 1 DN-1 IERE- 2 IA-1 IERE- 1 IA-1

Results - Order To a lower-status person IERE: not used in 1 st position by VLEs, but used by NSEs; similarly used by both groups in 2 nd and 3 rd positions IP: mostly used in 1 st position by NSEs, in 3 rd and 4 th positions by VLEs AGA: employed most often by both groups in 1 st position Gr Order of SF VL Es DN-1 IR-3 IOH-1 APO-6 APF-1 AGA-8 DN-1 IR-1 IERE- 10 IA-2 IPR-3 IRQ-1 APO-1 AGA-1 DN-2 IERE- 3 IA-5 IP-2 IER-1 AGA-1 IP-4AGA-2 NS Es IR-4 IERE-3 IRI-1 IP-3 IRQ-1 APO-2 AGA-6 DN-2 IR-1 IERE- 6 IA-2 IPH-1 IP-1 APO-2 AGA-1 DP-1 IR-1 IERE- 4 IA-2 IRQ-1 AGA-1 DN-1 IA-2 AGA-1IPR-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 1 st 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 1 st 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!