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

1. 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.

2. OUTLINE • Rationale • Methodology • Results • Conclusion

3. 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)

4. Methodology • Aims and research question • Data collection • Coding framework • Data analysis

5. 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?

6. Data collection • Data collection method • Data collection instrument • Data collection procedures and subjects of the study

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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)

11. 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]

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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?)

15. Results - Frequency • The frequency of semantic formulas • The total number of uses of semantic formulas

16. Results - Frequency

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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.

29. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!