Refusal Speech Act Theory - Literature review Example

Refusal Speech Act Theory Introduction The origin of the speech act was in the philosophy of language. It attempted to explain the ways in which humans use language. It explores the various differences and similarities that existed in the use of language. Since then, this theory has been used in a widening context in linguistics. Computational models have also utilized this theory. Continued use of the Speech theory proved that its early structure and development was no longer useful in providing explanation to the use of language. The speech theory encompasses the role of the indirect speech acts and cognitive aspects of the speech theory. The origin of this theory was J.L Austin in 1962 following a series of lectures by William James (Jaworowska, 2012). He argued that the statement of fact required some verification. He additionally posited that most philosophical problems existed because of the inherent desire to regard all utterances as verifiable statements. The word “constative” that refers to direct statements of fact originated from this setting. Austin argued that “statements that do not report or constate anything at all are not true or false and for which the utterance of the sentence is, or is part of the doing of action which would normally be described as saying something.” Speech is the basic element of any communication or interaction. People of various cultures are able to understand each other and communicate their ideas through speeches. The speaker performs this act when he/she makes an utterance. People perform the act of speech by understanding language. The refusal strategies involve refusing someone outright in a way that makes them feel awkward and inferior. The refusal can occur because of failure to understand each other through barrier in language, culture or religion. In various cultural contexts, refusal can make people to feel unwanted since they perceive the refusal as forms of insult. This paper looks at the constative similarities and differences that exist in the refusal act theory of British Speakers in Saudi Arabia and the British in UK. Literature Review Refusal strategies differ from cultural context to the other. In most cases, the refusal speeches are done in a manner that does directly demean or refuse the person. It is a way of showing or expressing the disconnection that exists between people towards a particular situation. There are pragmatic features in language that most native speakers adopt to express themselves in various situations. British native speakers are not the exception. They utilize these pragmatic features to pass information from one person to the other. While employing this pragmatics in communication, certain errors are bound to be made by the communicator. These errors are always normal and may make the communicator to lose control of the direction of their speeches. In the British context, there are social pragmatic errors that communicators make. For example, a visitor may enter and a restaurant and ask, “How much food cost?” This is a socio-pragmatic error because question in normal circumstance ought to “How much does your food cost?” In language, refusal acts are said to be face-threatening acts in speech chats. There are various cases in the communication when the use of refusal may bear negative or positive effects. When a speaker handles the refusal strategy with care and due sensitivity in a manner that does not humiliate or threaten the other party in the communication process, the positive outcomes of the communication process may likely be achieved. However, when the speaker employs the refusal strategies in manner that directly demean and undermines the dignity of the other party, the negative effects of the communication is likely to be realized. Positive communication should be embraced at all time to enable the message flow well from the speaker to the recipient. Every speaker should take cognizance of the non-native pragmatic aptitude while giving his speeches. Jaworowska (2012) posits that the refusal strategies between the Arabic and English have cultural variance. Despite these differences, conflicts may occur if two people of various cultures engage in a communication process without any regard to the existing refusal strategies or pragmatic indicators that can guide the communication process. The speech act between English to English, English to Arabic and English to other languages vary because of the existing cultural orientation. Culture affects the way we speak, the way we act and what interests us. In this regard, the British in Saudi Arabia are regarded as non-natives because they are not part of the prevailing Saudi Arabian culture. Due to this condition, they can embrace the Saudi Arabian culture by practicing their language. Speakers should know the cross cultural methods of communication to avoid common mistakes and errors that exist. Simple ways of request can help individuals to understand the refusal strategies. The request makes it possible to minimize errors that exist in the communication process. The cross cultural methods help to create successful communication. The gaps that exist between the refusal techniques usually create poor understanding in the communication process. Scholars that have studies the refusal strategies use the DCT method to understand two groups of individuals that are culturally diversified. DCT method involves Discourse Completion Test. This test elicits pragma-linguitics studies. Nerlich (2009) used this method to study Jordanians Arabic refusals. They analyzed four factors that includes the cultural variance of the refusal strategies, how Arabic speakers use indirect strategies to soften their refusal. The third item was how writing is used to collect data that is based on these strategies. The fourth item was the effect of status on the directness of an individual while making refusal. The DCT questions used in this research are premised on the idea of knowing how the refusal strategies vary across the cultures. The key question addressed in this paper seeks to identify the differences and similarities between native British speakers and the non-native speakers and the refusal patterns. It will also find out if the Saudis and British use direct or indirect strategies. The significance of the refusal strategies between the Saudi Arabia and British is vital for both the natives and non-natives to understand the foundation of pragmatics in linguistics. Communications across cultures is not easy. This has made the British and Arabic cultures to constitute a global economic system that encourages interaction and communication among people of varied cultures. To understand these cultures, an investigation of the universal dimensions that influence culture is important. These studies reveal important elements that are universal in the interaction of humans. Ghazanfari, M., Bonyadi, A., & Malekzadeh, S (2013). Investigating cross-linguistic differences in refusal speech act among native Persian and English speakers According to Ghazanfari et al (2013), speaking a language extends beyond the usual utterance of the grammatically correct sentences. They posit that people can initiate various changes in the environment by use of good utterances. These scholars argue that the building blocks for pragmatics were founded by speech act theories. People do not only use language to make statements about the world phenomena. Additionally they use language to perform various actions. These actions can change and influence the world around them. Pragmatics studies the use of language in daily communication. Methodology This paper tests the similarities and differences of the refusal speech acts between British living in Saudi Arabia and the British in UK. A qualitative technique was used in identifying various resources that provided useful information for the development of the argument in this paper. The researcher reviewed varied scholarly literature ranging from books, articles to journals to cement the argument in the paper. Literature on the speech act theory was analyzed. The researcher explored various differences the refusal speech acts. Annotated bibliography was utilized. Additionally, factors such as request strategies and sociolinguistics errors were also looked at. The research, by virtue of its descriptive nature, should not be taken to be exhaustive or complete. Results Various issues in cross-cultural communication involve individualism and collectivism. The uniqueness of an individual is highly valued in cultures that are individualistic in nature. Self-made people are more desired in such societies because they can make their own independent decisions. Collectivism proposes working in groups instead of individuals. The paradox that exists in individualistic cultures is the belief in universal values that should be shared by all people (Shulrfu & Dixon, 2011). The British in Saudi Arabia found it hard to cope with the situation since the Saudi Arabian culture is predominantly collectivist. The British in UK exercise an individualistic culture. In this regard, it is impossible to switch from a culture that is individualistic to one that is collectivist. But through time, the British in Saudi Arabia adopted the collectivist culture there. The collectivist culture adopted is less confrontational than the individualistic culture. This implies that chances of refusal among the British in Saudi Arabia are less compared to the refusal. Many expressions are used to describe a disagreement rather than saying no. References Ghazanfari, M., Bonyadi, A., & Malekzadeh, S (2013). Investigating cross-linguistic differences in refusal speech act among native Persian and English speakers Jaworowska, J. (2012). Speech act theory. Retrieved June, 5, 2012. Nerlich, B. (2009). History of pragmatics. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (2nd ed.,pp.328-335). Oxford: Elsevier. Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2011). Intertwinement of individualist and collectivist attributes and response sets. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(1), 51. Read More