Speech Acts of Refusal - Research Paper Example

A Contrastive Study of the Speech Acts of Refusal A Contrastive Study of the Speech Acts of Refusal This paper looks into the occurrence of the refusal speech act and in the process explores the acculturation concept by using a sample test of British citizens living in both the UK and Saudi Arabia. I wrote this paper in parts in order to attain my goal as the literature review part states and defines these two phenomena and how they come about. In a quest to prove both concepts, I set up a test where a group of twenty British participants, ten of whom work in Saudi Arabia and ten whom work in England, with the age range of 35 to 50 years were asked to fill out a written Discourse Completion Test (DCT). The gathered data was coded and analyzed according to the taxonomy of refusals of Typical Order of Semantic Formula. The main study model and theoretical framework model was deployed as a secondary model for the purpose of making the research more accurate. The results revealed that the British citizens in Saudi Arabia frequently used regret, excuses, and alternatives in answering the questioners on typical order of Semantic Formulas in refusal of requests and similarly did so in typical order of semantic formulas in refusal of suggestions test. This can be atrributed to the fact that Saudi Arabian citizens are known to hold a collectivist kind of culture. Their moral, social, political, spiritual, or economic outlook stresses the interdependence of every citizens. Their counterparts living in England used more of the theoretical framework refusal strategies as they used pause filler direct no and regret for the refusal of requests and did the same in the refusal of suggestions test . This was also atributed to the fact that British citizens in the UK are individualist and they further hold a low context type of culture in refernce to laungage. By defination, individualism is an ethical stance, political viewpoint, ideology, or social position that stresses the moral worth of an individual (Al-Zahrani & Kaplowitz, 1993). These findings gave light to the existence of the politeness theory and acculturation concept from the case study. This results, however, came under scrutiny since the subject number was low, which made it hard to understand the degree of how the two concepts affect subjects and still gave a very small sample range of answers though the discourse completion test was designed to give subjects the freedom to go beyond simple answers. In the case where the population of the participants was larger, other such precise culture strategies may have been recorded, for instance, a common English trait such as ‘swearing’. I later gave recommendations to make sure that the next test would be more accurate and comprehensive on a border view. I finally concluded the paper stating what I had learnt throughout the investigation process. Literature Review Freedom of speech is the conception of the innate human right to express ones view publicly without distress of censorship or reprimand. "Speech" is not restricted to public speaking and is largely taken to comprise other forms of communication (Bezanson, 2009). The right is well explained and protected in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is established as formal acknowledgment by the laws of most nations. On the other hand, the degree to which the Act is advocated in practice differs greatly from one country to another. In many countries, predominantly those with somewhat dictatorial forms of government, blatant government restriction is enforced. These restrictions have also been suggested to occur in different forms and there are dissimilar approaches to matters such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in nations seen as liberal consensuses (Hofstede, 1983). Due to the fear of being put through punishment on what is said, a numerous number of individuals liable to such claims employ the politeness theory (Sivasubramaniam & Goodman-Delahunty, 2014). This theory advocates the Refusal Speech Act, which Tracy who is a well-known author on freedom of speech articles defined it as a complex speech act in which the speakers directly or indirectly says “no” to the request, offer, or invitation of another person . In 1985 as a way to comprehend to this Act, Stella Ting-Toomey proposed the Face-Negotiation Theory (Ting-Toomey,1988). The theory was set to allow the public to understand how different cultures throughout the world respond to conflict in terms of their speech. The theory suggests “face”, or self-image as a worldwide phenomenon that encompasses all cultures. It states that in conflicts, one’s face is vulnerable and thus the individual tends to exclude or restore his or her face in other words personality. According to the concept, this convention of communicative behaviors is called “face-work”. Several persons framed the sited meaning of “face” and “face-work” in different ways depending on their cultural views, which makes the theory to hold a cultural-general outline to scrutinize face work concession (Gass & Houck, 1999). We all think of ourselves to be unique personalities with our identifiable set of personal opinions, likings, habits, and idiosyncrasies. Certainly, all of us are unique, but most of us share numerous feelings, views, and habits with a large number of the people who exist in our society. As shown above, different nations hold diverse ideas in terms of what, how to, whom and why they say what they intend to a public lay out. However, this paper aims to recognize if one may change their initial opinion based on staying in a different environment for a prolonged period. It also holds a case study of a set of individuals of British origin living in England and another set of British nationals living in Saudi Arabia (Chamberlain, 2005). Acculturation concept describes the procedure of cultural alteration and mental change that is evident following convention between cultures. The changes caused by acculturation can be realized in various levels in both interrelating cultures (Berry, 2003). At a non-personal level, acculturation frequently results in variations to values, customs, and social organizations. Visible group level outcomes of acculturation regularly include variations in food, dressing, and language (Al-Shalawi, 1997). At the personal level, changes in the way personalities acculturate have been revealed to be related not only with variations in everyday behavior, but with several measures of emotional and bodily well-being. Equally enculturation is used to define the practice of first-culture adaptation, which makes acculturation to be assumed of as second-culture assimilation. Research Aims The above stated information is represented as theories, but a practical test would prove them wrong or right. Furthermore, in case the theories are confirmed, it would be beneficial to comprehend the extent to which the acculturation concept and the politeness theory affect individuals. This paper will do so by exploring the similarities and differences in using the speech act of refusal between British Saudi residents and British permanent residents of the UK. This is so since the two countries are believed to hold different views and cultures in language and change effect of culture on the use of refusal strategies by British would be visible (Berry, 2002). Research Questions In the process of finding out more about this phenomenon, the research will be based on establishing the difference between the semantic formula of refusal strategy used by British Saudi residents and British permanent residents of UK. Additionally, the research will also give more light on the effect that culture has on the use of refusal speech act. Methodology I decided to use questioners in order to find out how the responses between the participants would be. The participants living in the United Kingdom were used as the base of the test. This was done since they held a more consistent view towards the same issues while the participants living in Saudi Arabia would be the test subjects. This would be apparent since this would be considered as a changed phenomenon in case they gave different responses from those of their British compatriots. Participants A total of twenty British employees were chosen at random in order to find out a non-biased result. Ten were selected on both sides of the study. Participants were also chosen on the basis of the age group of workers in Saudi Arabia while the general age range was set between 35 to 50 years (Al-Shalawi,1997). The participants generally work at British Air Space Company (BAE) and Princess Noura University (PNU) in Saudi Arabia while their compatriots in the UK work at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) and Manchester School of English (English Center). Data Collection A Discourse-Completion Task (DCT) is a device used in dialectology and pragmatics to prompt certain speech acts. A DCT comprises of a one-sided imaginary situational prompt questions, which a contributor will read or write to elicit the reactions of another participant. Subjects were asked to participate in the study in person by the researcher and were provided with a survey packet comprised of the Informed Consent, the Demographic Survey, and the Discourse Completion Test (DCT). Subjects were asked to complete the Informed Consent and then responded to a written Demographic Survey in which they provided the information described in the questionnaire. This was attained by creating Modified questioners to fit Saudi Arabian context. Questionnaires were sent by email to British compatriots in Saudi Arabia and were returned after answering. On the other hand, the participants in UK were given paper document Questionnaire in order to answer their respective set of questions. The questionnaire was set to be a ten Written role-play or situation questionnaire as shown on figure1 on the Index section of this paper. Data Analysis I analysed the data collected in the questionnaire based on the Typical Order of Semantic Formula and theoretical framework. In order to increase accuracy and efficiency of the practice, I used Typical Order of Semantic Formula method as the main refusal strategy model. However, I decided to use the theoretical framework as a secondary model in case the participants used it in turn. I made this decision based on the fact that the theoretical framework taxonomy is one of the most widely used classifications of refusal strategies. It has been widely employed and adapted to examine refusal strategies of speakers of different languages and hold different ideologies on key features of the society. Typical Order of Semantic Formula Semantic formulas represent “the means by which a particular speech act is accomplished in terms of the primary content of an utterance”, which include instances such as an excuse, an explanation, and an alternative. To make the point clear, an example of a refusal to an invitation is provided such as ‘Sorry, I cannot, because we have some guests that night or Maybe another time! Thanks for the invitation’. The semantic formulas used in this example include expression of regret (Sorry), statement of negative ability (I cannot), providing reason (we have some guests that night), postponement (May be another time), and expression of gratitude (Thanks for the invitation). Theoretical Framework Model These are proposed universal models of refusal strategies used in refusal to offers, suggestions, invitations, and requests. The model included three main sections, direct refusals, indirect refusals, and adjuncts to refusals. Direct refusals refer to the situations in which the speaker expresses his or her inability to conform using negative propositions including per formatives such as “I decline” and non- per formatives like “no” or “I cannot”. Indirect refusals denote the instances where a quest, an invitation, an offer, or a suggestion is declined indirectly. Indirect refusals, in this model, include ten strategies: regret, wish, excuse or reason, statement of alternatives, setting condition, promise of future acceptance, statement of principle, statement of philosophy, attempt to dissuade interlocutor, mitigated refusal, and avoidance. Finally, adjuncts to refusals include four strategies: positive opinion or feeling or agreement, statement of empathy, gratitude or appreciation, and pause fillers Results Table 1: Typical order of Semantic Formulas in Refusal of Requests: Group Order of Formulas 1 2 3 4 British in Saudi Arabia Regret(I’m sorry) 6/ (I feel bad) 3 / Regret (4) Excuse (6) Wish(2) Regret (5) Can’t (3) __ British in UK Pause filler(well…) 5 /direct no (4)/ regret(1) Excuse (3) Can’t (2) __ Table 2: Typical order of Semantic Formulas in Refusal of Suggestions: Group Order of Formulas 1 2 3 4 British in Saudi Arabia Excuse (5) postponement (4) Excuse (4) Pause filler (3) Excuse (2) Gratitude (1) __ British in UK Regret (5) Direct “NO” (3)/criticise the suggestion (2) Excuse (3) Joke(1) From the data provided by table 1 and 2, the findings indicated that the citizens differed in the employment of semantic formulas. However, this phenomenon had been put to account and anticipated as the two set of participants that gave their feedback. According to the data collected from table 1, the British persons in Saudi Arabia used the semantic formulas. Six candidates used regret with an apology “I am sorry”, three participants employed a form of excuses “I feel bad”, and the remaining used alternatives when refusing. Their British counterparts used the theoretical framework, which included five candidates using Pause filler, in this case “well”, four participants gave a direct no while the remaining chose regret. A similar result is also evident from findings indicated by table 2. The British persons in Saudi Arabia used the semantic formulas. Five participants used excuses, four participants opted for postponement as the remaining ones saw it wise to give no answer. On the other hand, their British counterparts used the theoretical framework as five participants used Regret, three of the remaining gave a Direct “NO” while the remaining two candidates went to the extent of criticizing the suggestion (Bezanson, 2009). From the above data given by table 1 and 2, I have come to the realization that culture has an effect on the use of refusal strategy used by British in Saudi Arabia due to acculturation. It has to be taken to context that Saudi Arabia has stringent Islamic laws that may view certain speech, though harmless to the speaker, as as illegal and blasphemy in Islam. The British citizens in the Middle East kingdom are known to be collectivists. This culture trait as higlighted before is a moral, social, political, spiritual, or economic outlook that stresses on the interdependence of every citizens. Collectivism is an elementary cultural part that exists as the inverse of individualism in human nature or culture. The phenomenon exists in the same way high context culture does, which is as the opposite of low context philosophy, and in some occasions, stresses on the importance of group objectives over individual aims. In turn, the British nationals living in this Islamic state have to watch what they say in order to avoid misfortunes just as the local population does, which can be identified as high contex in tanure since many issues are left unsaid. This is evident since their British counterparts are not afraid to say what they feel. England, unlike Saudi Arabia, is liberal in showing freedom of speech and they are idividualist by nature. The low context nature is evident when two of the selected candidates criticized the suggestion while their counterparts fail to answer the querries directly (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Recommendation Conducting the study on a larger number of participants would have been more reliable for the data results. It is hard to give a conclusive research outcome when the number of participants are limited to twenty. In such a case, a larger number would give a variation on the answers given by the candidates on both sides of the test. Additionally, other data collection instruments such as interviews and ethnographic data collection could have been used to get natural results but I chose the DCT due to lack of time. These tools would also give a clearer view of the changes as a result of acculturation in terms of the duration spent by the individuals in Saudi Arabia. Conclusion In conclusion, freedom of speech is the conception of the innate human right to express ones view publicly without distress of censorship or reprimand. However, the degree to which the Act is advocated in practice differs greatly from one country to another. These restrictions have also been suggested to occur in different forms and there are dissimilar approaches to matters such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in nations seen as liberal consensuses. Due to the fear of being put through punishment on what is said, a numerous number of individuals liable to such claims employ the politeness theory. It is said that individuals with fear of punishment will always use this theory not to answer questions they view as a risk to them. In order to comprehend this phenomenon, a number of citizens of England in the UK and in Saudi Arabia were selected to show if this phenomenon was transferable. Through the use of Typical Order of Semantic Formula and Theoretical framework model data was collected, retrieved and analyzed by the use of a Discourse-Completion Task (DCT). At the end of the study, I realized that the acculturation concept is real and it did affect the British nationals living in Saudi Arabia as they adopted the refusal language of their hosts. Despite this result, I did not find a conclusive answer to the concept. However, the study shed light on what earlier scholars had highlighted, and in addition to this, I gave recommendations on how to improve the test at a later period. We all think of ourselves to be unique personalities with our identifiable set of personal opinions, likings, habits, and idiosyncrasies. Certainly, all of us are unique, but most of us share numerous feelings, views, and habits with a large number of the people who exist in our society. In many countries, predominantly those with somewhat dictatorial forms of government, blatant government restriction is enforced. Due to the fear of being put through punishment on what is said, a numerous number of individuals liable to such claims employ the politeness theory. Face-Negotiation Theory theory was set to allow the public to understand how different cultures throughout the world respond to conflict in terms of their speech. Culture has an effect on the use of refusal strategy used by British in Saudi Arabia due to acculturation. The changes caused by acculturation can be realized in various levels in both interrelating cultures Acculturation concept describes the procedure of cultural alteration and mental change that is evident following convention between cultures. In the process of finding out more about this phenomenon, the research will be based on establishing the difference between the semantic formula of refusal strategy used by British Saudi residents and British permanent residents of UK. I believe that a larger number would give a variation on the answers given by the candidates on both sides of the test. This paper has recognized that people change their initial opinion when they stay in a different environment for a prolonged period. This finding resonates on the case study of a set of individuals of British origin living in England and another set of British nationals living in Saudi Arabia. References Al-Shalawi, H. G. (1997). Refusal strategies in Saudi and American cultures(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Department of Linguistics & Languages). Al-Zahrani, S. S. A., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Attributional biases in individualistic and collectivistic cultures: A comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 223-233. Berry, J. W. (Ed.). (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge University Press.ces in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research. American Psychological Association. pp. 17–37. Berry, J.W. (January 2003). "Conceptual approaches to acculturation". In Chun, Kevin M.; Organista, Pamela Balls; Marín, Gerardo. Acculturation: Advan Bezanson, R. P. (2009). Art and freedom of speech. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Chamberlain, S. P. (2005). Recognizing and responding to cultural differences in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 195-211. Gass, S. M., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin [u.a.: Mouton de Gruyter. Gudykunst, W. B. (1983). Uncertainty reduction and predictability of behavior in low‐and high‐context cultures: An exploratory study. Communication Quarterly,31(1), 49-55. Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46-74. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M, J. (1936). "Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation ". American Anthropologist 38 (1): 149–152. Sivasubramaniam, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Cultural Variation in Australia: Ethnicity, Host Community Residence, and Power-Distance Values.Cross-Cultural Communication, 10(4), 136-144. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Appendix: 1. Questionnaire Modified Discourse Completion Test Situation 1: At noon, a colleague who is careless comes to borrow your car. He has borrowed your car twice before. You do not want him to borrow it again. You: ___________________________________________________________________. Situation 2: You are the president of a company. An old salesman from a company invites you to an expensive dinner but you don’t want to go. The salesman says, ‘We have met several times to discuss your purchase of my company products .I was wondering if you would like to be my guest at the (name of expensive restaurant) in order to firm up the contract. You: _____________________________________________________________________ Situation 3: One day your boss calls you into his office. He says ‘Next Saturday I have a little party. I know it is a short notice, but I hope all of my top executives will be there with their spouses’. What would you say? You: _______________________________________________________________________. Situation 4: You are at a friend’s house watching TV. The friend offers you a snack. You turn it down, saying that you have gained some weight and don’t feel comfortable in your new clothes. You friends say, ‘Hey, why don’t you try this new diet I’ve been telling you about? You: _______________________________________________________________________. Situation 5: You are at your desk trying to find a report that your boss just asked for. While you’re searching through the meson your desk, your boss walks over and says, ‘you know, maybe you should try and organize yourself better. I always write myself little notes to remind of things. Perhaps you should give it a try.’ You: _______________________________________________________________________. Situation 6: You arrive home and notice that your cleaner is extremely upset. She comes rushing up to you and says, ’Oh God, I am sorry! I had an awful accident. While I was cleaning I bumped into the tables and your China vase fell and broke. I insist on paying for it.’ You: ______________________________________________________________________. Situation 7: You are at friend’s house for lunch. Your friend says’ How about another piece of cake?’ You: ______________________________________________________________________. Situation 8: Your friend, whom you have known for several years, has the habit of borrowing money and not repaying it for long periods of time. Your friend borrowed 2000 thousand pounds from you and again did not repay it as promised. You waited a few days more, but found that you really need some money. At last, you friend suggests returning only 1000 pounds. You: _______________________________________________________________________. Situation 9: While you were walking down the street, a woman comes to you and asks if you can drive her back home. You: _______________________________________________________________________. Situation 10: You are at work and it is getting close to the end of the day and you want to leave work. But your colleague who did you a favor says,’ If you don’t mind. I’d like you to spend some time to help me finish this’. You: _______________________________________________________________________. Thank you for participating. 2. Classification of refusal 1- The used Semantic formula of refusal by B (UK) AND B (SA): Refusal classification B (UK) B(SA) 1-Direct: -Non-Performative (no) -Non-per formative (I can’t) √ √ √ 2-Indirect: -Regret -Wish -Excuse -Alternative -Criticize the request -Let the interlocutor off the hook -Joke -Postponement -Hedging √ ( I am sorry) √ √ (not a good idea) √ (it’s ok) √ √ √( I feel bad) √ ( I wish I can help you) √ √ (maybe next time) √ (don’t worry about it) √ √ (I’m not sure 3-Adjuncts to refusal: -Positive opinion /agreement -Pause filler -Gratitude -appreciation (I really appreciate that) √ √ (well,,) √ √ √ √ (I really appreciate that) Read More