Does it Matter? Speech Acts of Refusal and Pragmatic ...… · 02.01.2016 · Speech Acts of...

The Bridge: Journal of Educational Research-Informed Practice

Volume 2, Issue 3: December 2015 ISSN 2056-6670

3

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Does it Matter? Speech Acts of Refusal and Pragmatic Failure in an

International Business Environment in Germany

Geraldine Royds-Betz

International Language School, Frankfurt

Abstract

This study investigates the directness and indirectness in speech acts of refusals in an

international business environment in Germany, specifically the differing use of semantic

formulas and strategies by native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) depending on if

they are speaking to NSs or NNSs. A further aim was to explore the perceptions of business

professionals about the use of direct and indirect refusal strategies and if they cause or contribute

to pragmatic failure. The questions used to focus research were: Do speakers use different

refusal strategies depending on if the recipient is a NS or a NNS? If so, what are the differences?

Are these differences likely to cause pragmatic failure? A Discourse Completion Test designed by

Beebe et al., (1990) was modified to reflect if participants were responding to a NS or a NNS.

Twenty-five native speakers from the UK, USA, South Africa and Ireland and the thirty-one

non-native speakers included business professionals from Germany, Russia, Romania, Japan and

the Philippines. The data was analysed and categorised using the refusal taxonomy developed by

Beebe et al., (1990). A written open-ended interview was completed by 27% NSs and 87%

NNSs to provide additional insight. Results indicated that three times as many NSs compared to

NNSs modified their responses depending on if the recipient was a NS or NNS. Where

responses were modified, both NSs and NNSs preferred direct interaction with NNSs with

almost three quarters of NNSs favouring direct interaction with other NNSs. Where indirect



4

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

strategies were used, both NSs and NNSs tended to use similar semantic formulas and often

responded the same regardless of the recipient. The main conclusions drawn from this study are

that while there are some similarities in the use of directness/indirectness in speech acts of

refusals there are also significant differences although these differences do not appear likely to

cause pragmatic failure for this group.

Keywords: Directness; Indirectness; Pragmatic failure; Politeness; Speech acts; Face-threatening

act; Interlanguage pragmatics; Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF)



5

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Introduction and Background

English is widely recognized as the world language for information exchange and as the language

of international business communication (Sweeney & Hua, 2010; Charles, 2007).

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) are not seen

as a language belonging to a particular country with its linguistic and its cultural background but

rather as a neutral, shared “international code and operating language used at work, to do the

work” (Kankaanranta and Planken, 2010:400). This does not mean the language is cultureless,

but rather that it creates a new operational culture of its own, although, as Charles (2007) points

out, to date a set of rules for English as a business lingua franca have not been established.

Many researchers (Poncini, 2004; Jenkins, 2007; Sweeney & Hua, 2010) include NS to NNS as

well as NNS-NNS interaction arguing that NSs are often involved in ELF interactions. Although

there is considerable debate (Davies, 2003; McKay, 2003) over the terms native and non-native

speaker these terms are used because there is no consensus on alternative terms (Rogerson-

Revell & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010).

Global isat ion

In an increasingly global world, there are now more non-native speakers using English than

native speakers and Crystal (2012) estimates that NNSs will outnumber NSs by 50% by the year

2060. Therefore, business communication in English should not necessarily use native English

as a language model (Jenkins, 2007) even though, in a business context, speakers still focus on

native speaker correctness as the desired goal (Seidlhofer, 2004). Abandoning the goal of perfect

native-like English might free up resources for focusing on other useful skills (Seidlhofer, 2004).



6

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

One of those key skills is pragmatic knowledge, that is, the “underlying component” of language

ability that lets us extract meaning from a context (Tsugawa, 2013:1).

Pragmatic competence

Pragmatic competence is the ability to perform speech acts in socially appropriate ways and

pragmatic failure describes the inability to do so although quantifiable definitions of both

pragmatic ability and disability are vague (Perkins, 2007). Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983)

distinguished between pragmalinguistic failure (when a learner tries to perform the right speech

act but uses the wrong linguistic means) and sociopragmatic failure, when the learners choose

the wrong act for the social context (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Leech, 1983).

In addition to pragmatic competence, Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen (2010) argue that

business professionals need business competence or ‘business know-how’ (Kankaanranta and

Louhiala-Salminen, 2013:17) and an integral part of business know-how is competence in using

business English (Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen, 2010).

Inter language pragmatics

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) can be described as “the performance and acquisition of speech

acts” in a second language (Ellis, 2010:160) and much work in ILP has been done within the

framework of speech acts. Speech act theory was founded by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). A

speech act is an utterance that performs a locutionary act (saying something) and an illocutionary

act, that is, a language function such as invitations, offers, requests, suggestions and refusals

(Ellis, 2010).



7

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Speech acts

Speech acts of refusal are interesting for interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) because they present a

major cross-cultural “sticking point” (Beebe et al., 1990:56) particularly for NNSs. Refusal can be

a face-threatening act (FTA) where “either the speaker’s or listener’s positive or negative face is

risked when a refusal is called for” (Chen et al., 1995:6), an act further complicated by the fact

that cultures may differ in what they regard as a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Pragmatic transfer

Refusals therefore require a high level of pragmatic competence which may include the transfer

of the speaking rules of the learner’s native language (L1) into the second language (L2) setting

which is a complicated process involving many factors including status, learner’s stage of

development, culture and linguistic competence (Ellis, 2010).

Studies have found both similarities and differences in terms of the directness of refusals in L1

(e.g., Beebe et al., 1990; Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002) as well as evidence of pragmatic

transfer ( Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003; Rose, 2000; Nelson et al., 2002). It

appears that while learners have no problems making refusals, they often do not perform them

in the same way as native speakers (Ellis, 2010). Positive transfer occurs where the two languages

are similar enough to allow successful transfer from L1 to L2. Negative transfer happens when

learners mistakenly generalise from pragmatic knowledge of L1 to a L2 setting. Even when

learners are aware of similarities between their L1 pragmatic knowledge and L2, they sometimes

fail to transfer the speech act rules. Koike (1989) found that only half of his study respondents

transferred their politeness rules to the second language even though they were similar to their

native language rules. Pragmatic failure occurs when a native speaker (L1) speaker perceives the



8

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

purpose of an second language (L2) utterance as something other than the L2 speaker intended

(Thomas, 1983).

Poli t eness

Another dimension of speech acts is degrees of politeness. While theorists such as Leech (1983)

and Brown & Levinson (1987) see indirect speech as a form of politeness aimed at some form of

cooperative interaction, Pinker (1997) maintains that social interaction and indirect speech

involves conflict as well as cooperation. Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that it is in the mutual

interest of interlocutors to save each other’s face and the more face threatening an act is, the

more indirect the strategy chosen by the speaker will be (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Lee &

Pinker (2010), on the other hand, propose the theory of the ‘strategic speaker’ who, when he or

she is uncertain of whether the hearer is cooperative or antagonistic, seeks plausible deniability

by using indirect speech to identify and negotiate “what kind of cooperation should be in effect

between them” (Lee & Pinker, 2010:785).

Refusals

Refusals often involve complex negotiations and because of the risk of offending the

interlocutor they often include indirect speech strategies (Beebe et al., 1990). As Chen (1996)

points out, if refusals are complex for NS, they are even more challenging in NS-NNS or NNS-

NNS communication. In addition to the risk of causing offence and the risk of

misunderstandings caused by the use of indirect speech strategies, refusals can reflect cultural

values and inappropriate refusals may not only threaten the interpersonal relations of the

speakers (Kwon, 2004) but could lead to communication or pragmatic failure (Salazar Campillo

et al., 2009).



9

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Intercul tural

Politeness can be influenced by partner interaction and what is considered polite behaviour may

vary across speech communities (Salazar Campillo et al., 2009) and cultures (House and Kasper,

1981). House (2006) notes that indirect formulas can also be rated as less polite and Lee &

Pinker (2010) observe that indirect speech can be rated not only as less polite but as rude (Lee &

Pinker, 2010). Moreover, as speech acts are culturally and linguistically sensitive NNSs may

perceive the politeness of a speech act realisation differently from NSs (Kasper & Dahl, 1991).

English as a business lingua franca is important in successful business communication. However,

as Louhiala-Salminen (2009:311) notes there has not been much research into “how and why it

matters” and I hope this study contributes some insight into how NNSs and NSs interact in an

international business environment.

Method

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and classification system developed by Beebe et al.,

(1990) is one of the most influential and widely used tests in the analysis of directness and

indirectness and was therefore an attractive instrument for use in this study. The DCT consists

of 12 situations with a short dialogue containing a blank in which only a refusal can be made.

One DCT was labelled for responses to NSs (DCT 1) and a second labelled for responses to

NNSs (DCT 2). In order to record experiences and insights that might help interpret the data, a

qualitative open-ended questionnaire asked participants if they thought differences in use of

directness and indirectness caused communication problem or pragmatic failure in the

workplace. Answers were collated into 25 categories.



10

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Firstly, many NNSs (74%) and some NSs (28%) reported that they would not differentiate

between NS and NNS recipients and would respond the same to both groups. These DCTs were

removed from the study allowing the research to focus on DCTs where different responses were

recorded.

Secondly, the DCTs where different responses were recorded were analysed in terms of the

frequency of use of direct compared to indirect strategies. A Chi-square test was used to evaluate

how likely it was that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance.

Thirdly, the frequency and type of direct and indirect semantic formulas used was analysed. The

five most frequent semantic formulas used are discussed.

For the questionnaire, 25 topic categories emerged and the percentage of participants

mentioning the topic category was presented in table form allowing the researcher to look for

patterns of similarity and difference.

Participants

25 NSs from the UK (52%), USA (36%), Ireland (8%) and South Africa (4%) and 31 NNSs

participants were involved in the study. The NNSs were language students working in an

international business environment. 74% were German with one participant from each of the

following nationalities: Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Japanese, Philippino, Belgian, Mexican and

Russian.

Participants were a mixture of men and women with NSs 44% men and 56% women and NNSs

45% men and 55% women. The age range was between 25 and 45. All students were upper



11

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

intermediate level, that is, they can understand complex concrete and abstract topics and can

interact with fluency and spontaneity.

This was a convenience sample although with its range of nationalities, native languages, business

contexts and industries it could be argued that it was fairly representative of the target population

(Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010).

Findings and Interpretations

The findings indicated that while there are similarities in the use of directness and indirectness in

speech acts of refusals there are also significant differences although these differences do not

appear likely to cause pragmatic failure for this group.

While NSs modify their use of directness and indirectness strategies to accommodate NNSs,

many NNSs do not modify their responses. Of the participants who did modify their strategies,

there were marked differences particularly in the reluctance of NNSs to use direct strategies with

NSs. There were also differences in the type of semantic formulas used.

There were no reports of different usage of direct and indirect strategies leading to pragmatic

failure. On the contrary, according to interview responses, both NSs and NNSs seem to have a

high degree of pragmatic awareness about communication, other languages and cultural norms in

an international business environment and a high tolerance of pragmatic errors. Interview

responses suggest that participants have developed a range of strategies such as simplifying

language, checking and clarifying, and checking body language to avoid misunderstandings in

indirect communication. All participants regarded inappropriate directness from NNSs as a



12

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

language and/or cultural difference rather than a lack of politeness. Consequently, pragmatic

failure for these groups in this environment is unlikely (Nelson et al., 2002:184).

Theme 1. Same Response to NS and NNS

72% of NSs modified their use of directness/indirectness strategies according to if they were

speaking to NS or NNS while only 26% NNSs modifed their responses (see Graph 1). There are

a number of possible reasons:

1. Lack of or perceived lack of proficiency may have been a contributing factor explaining why

NNSs did not modify responses (Sweeney & Hua, 2010).

2. NSs may have had a higher level of pragmatic awareness than NNSs which led NSs to modify

their responses or NNSs may have chosen not to modify their responses because using the same

strategies was seen as appropriate for the social and cultural context.

3. The high percentage of NNSs responding the same may also be because other factors such as

social and institutional roles, personality, nationality and culture are of more concern in an

international business environment than NS/NNS differences.

Theme 2. Direc t or Indirec t Strateg ies?

Of the 72% NSs and 26% NNSs who changed responses depending on if they were speaking to

a NS or NNS, NSs used 37% direct strategies and 59% indirect strategies. NNSs used 29%

direct strategies and 40% indirect strategies (see Graph 1).

Graph 1: Percentage of Direct and Indirect Strategies used by NSs and NNSs



13

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Because native English speakers usually opt for indirect strategies (Blum-Kulka and House,

1989) one might expect that English NSs would show a general preference for indirect strategies.

Because German speakers generally prefer direct speech (House, 2006) and 73% of NNSs were

German native speakers with the other participants living and working in Germany and therefore

likely to have adopted German preferences, one might expect that NNSs would prefer directness

but this was not the case.

It is possible that participants such as Japanese and Mexican favoured indirect responses in their

L1 which would modify the results or that that the preference for indirect strategies is not from

L1 transfer but from other sources such as interaction with a person of higher or lower status

(Beebe et al., 1990; Kwon, 2004).

Pearsons Chi-square Test was used to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference

between the sets arose by chance. Both NSs and NNSs were significantly more direct with NNSs

and both NSs and NNSs prefer indirect strategies in interaction with NSs.

12 27

2

25

51

14

69

36 37 59

29 40

0 20 40 60 80

Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies

Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies

Native Speakers Nonnative Speakers

Per

cen

tag

e

Direct and Indirect Strategies used by NSs and NNSs

Native

Nonnative

Same



14

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Use of Indirec t Strateg ies

Indirect strategies were used in 27% of NS–NS interaction, 25% NNS-NS interaction, 14% of

NS-NNS and in 36% NNS-NNS. The choice of indirect strategies is possibly influenced by NS

English preference for indirectness (Félix-Brasdefer, 2003), and NNS recognition that English

NSs favour indirectness. The marked NNS preference for indirectness in NNS-NS (25%)

interactions suggests there might be a stereotype regarding English NS indirectness that may be

at odds with the need for clarity and directness in an international business environment

(Sweeney & Hua, 2010).

Use of Direc t Strateg ies

Direct strategies were used in half of NS-NNS interaction, 69% of NNS-NNS interaction but

only 12% in NS-NS and 2% NNS-NS interaction. There are a number of possible reasons for

the preference for direct strategies in communication with NNSs by both NSs and other NNSs.

1. NSs and NNSs believe there are fewer opportunities for misunderstandings in direct

communication (Sweeney & Hua 2010).

2. Clarity and effectiveness are more important than hurting the interlocutor’s feelings (Kitao,

1996) and directness and clarity is valued over politeness in a business context ( Bargiela-

Chiappini, 2006).

3. NSs and NNSs do not necessarily see directness as impolite in this context. German speakers

may even see direct communication as the more polite style (House, 2006).



15

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Theme 3. Dif f erences by Semantic Formulas

Findings show that NSs said “No” more frequently (65%) to NNSs than to other NSs (17%).

NSs also expressed “Negative Willingness” more often to NNSs (43%) than to NSs (10%)

although it is important to note that 47% said they would treat both NSs and NNSs the same

(see Graph 2).

Graph 2: Frequency of Semantic Formulas in Direct Refusals

Indirec t Semantic Formulas

The five most frequent semantic formulas used were Regret, Explanations, Principle,

Alternatives and Jokes. 73% NSs used excuses, reasons and explanations compared to 48%

NNSs regardless of the recipient. These findings are supported by other studies (Allami and

Naeimi, 2011; Nelson et al., 2002; Kwon, 2004).

0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

17%

65%

17%

0%

73%

27%

10%

43% 47%

4%

64%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

NS NNS SAME NS NNS SAME

NATIVE SPEAKERS NON NATIVE SPEAKERS

Direct Semantic Formulas

A Performative

B.Nonperformative No

B.Nonperformative Neg.Willingness



16

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

The semantic formula of principle was used almost twice as often by NSs (67%) compared to

NNSs (33%). Interestingly, NSs used statements of principle to other NSs in 28% of cases but in

only 5% of NS to NNS interaction.

NSs offered an alternative in 46% of responses to other NSs but in only 3% to NNSs. NNSs

offered alternatives in 69% of responses to NSs and NNSs alike with 33% to NNSs only and 0%

to NSs. Most NSs and NNSs offered statements of alternatives the same to NSs and NNSs

which is in contrast to research findings by Kasper (1997) who noted that NSs offered

alternatives which NNSs never did. Nguyen (2006) also noted that Americans used roughly

three times more statements of alternatives than Vietnamese NNSs.

Interestingly, only 14% NSs used the same jokes compared to 34% NNSs. 72% NSs used jokes

in NS-NS interaction. 66% NNSs made jokes in NNS-NNS interaction but no one made a joke

to a NS. Although jokes can be used to express indirectness (Tsuda, 1993), positive politeness

and as a strategy to reduce the threat in a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson, 1987)

British humour notoriously mystifies NNSs (Chiaro, 2006). The fact that NNSs makes jokes to

other NNSs but not to NSs suggests that this may be perceived to be the case. That only 14%

NSs used the same jokes regardless of the recipient suggests that NSs are also aware that their

jokes may not be transferable.

Insights from the Qualitative Interview

25 common themes were identified from the qualitative data generated by the interview.

Participants were aware of many factors that could cause misunderstandings, in particular, the

inappropriate use of directness and indirectness and the role of cultural norms in business



17

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

communication. However, the observed differences do not appear to cause pragmatic failure for

this group.

Firstly, 50% NSs reported that indirectness can cause confusion and 38% NSs noted that

indirectness leaves the underlying meaning unclear compared to only 15% NNSs and 4% NNSs

respectively, that is, a surprisingly low number of NNSs report that indirectness can cause

confusion or lack of clarity in meaning. NNSs may be adept at checking, clarifying and

confirming content and therefore feel that there is a low risk of confusion or it may be that

NNSs take statements at face value and do not recognize that there might be an illocutionary or

underlying meaning (Austin 1962).

Differing attitudes to politeness are also a potential cause of pragmatic failure. Many NSs (63%)

and NNSs (55%) recognize that directness can be seen as rude, offensive or as an attack.

Interestingly, more NNSs (63%) than NSs (38%) report that indirectness is more polite. Given

the importance of notions of face in politeness theory, face saving is mentioned by only a few

NNSs.

There was a high level of awareness of cultural differences in international business

communication with 81% NSs and 63% NNSs noting that culture was an important factor.

Interestingly, 41% NNSs mentioning personality as important factor compared to none of the

NSs.

Participants reported using a number of strategies to avoid miscommunication. Almost one third

of NSs and NNSs report that they adjust their speech and more than half say they make

allowances for others. Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) interactions are known to



18

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

include a good deal of checking and re-checking (Bhatia, 1993) and the fact that no one reported

misunderstandings as leading to pragmatic failure suggests both NSs and NNSs have strategies

such as clarifying, asking for clarification and adapting levels of directness and indirectness to

ensure communication success.

Conclusion

The present study aimed to contribute to the existing findings on cross linguistic speech act

research in an international business environment in Germany because, in an increasing

globalised world, international business teams consisting of NSs and NNSs are increasingly

having to do business using English as a business lingua franca.

Nearly three quarters of NSs modified their responses depending on the recipient compared to

only quarter of NNSs. While there were many similarities in the choice of strategies between the

two groups, both NSs and NNSs were strikingly more direct with NNSs. Many researchers

(Koike, 1995; Thomas, 1983; Wolfson, 1981, 1989) have shown that NSs are more forgiving of

second language user’s phonological, syntactic and lexical errors than pragmatic errors. The

findings of this study suggest that both NSs and NNSs are remarkably forgiving of both

pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic errors and that differences in the use of direct and indirect

strategies in speech acts of refusal are unlikely to lead to pragmatic failure for this group.

These findings are important because of their implications for teaching, business communication

training and future research.



19

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Firstly, there is a need for teaching material and teaching methods in the field of sociocultural

competence. Many researchers have shown that teaching pragmatics and the sociocultural

variables involved in refusals is one way to reduce instances of pragmatic failure (e.g., Kasper &

Rose, 2002; Allami & Naeimi, 2011; Salazar Campillo et al., 2009). NSs should be included in

training in Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002) as

NSs also both cause and suffer from communication problems. Charles (2002) suggests that

corporate training schemes should not focus on any one language but need to investigate the

“broad spectrum of international communication” (Charles, 2002:9).

In terms of future research, there is a need for quantitative interview data that might explain the

reasons for NNS and NS choice of refusal strategy (Nelson et al., 2002) and might bring insight

into why NNSs use direct strategies with each other but rarely with NSs. Further investigation

into NNS and NS perceptions of notions of face, politeness, and the relationship between

politeness and indirectness in a multilingual, multicultural business context would also be of

interest.

The findings of this study also suggest that further investigation is required into the strategies NS

and NNS use to avoid pragmatic failure in an international business context in line with results

from other studies (e.g., Vuorela, 2005; Charles, 1996; Charles & Charles, 1999; Poncini, 2004;

Nikko, 2007).

While effort was made to select a convenience sample, to use appropriate methodology and valid

and reliable instruments and while some clear patterns emerged from the data, due to the small

scale of the study (only fifty six participants) results cannot be generalised to other business



20

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

environments or other NS and NNS groups and additional research is needed to draw any valid

conclusions.

References

Allami, H. and Naeimi, A. (2011) ‘A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners’, Journal of Pragmatics. 43(1), pp.385-406. Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2006) ‘(Whose) English (es) for Asian Business Discourse (s)?’, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(1), pp. 1-23. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990) Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals, in R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, New York: Newbury House. pp. 55-73 Bhatia, V.K. (1993) Analysing Genre-Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). ‘Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena', in: E. Goody, (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 56-289. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Charles, M. L. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), pp. 19-36. Charles, M. L. (2002) Corporate policy and local realities in communication, in E. L. Björk (ed.), Life-long learning in business and industry: Information and communication technology (ICT) Halden, Norway: Hogskolen I Ostfold, pp. 91-108. Charles, M.L. (2007) ‘Language matters in global communication’, Journal of Business Communication, 44, pp. 260-282. Charles, M. L., & Charles, D. (1999)’ Sales negotiations: Bargaining through tactical summaries’, in M. Hewings & C. Nickerson (eds.) Business English: Research into practice. London: Longman, pp. 71-82.



21

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002) 'Language training for enhanced horizontal communication training: A challenge for MNCs’, Business Communication Quarterly, 65, pp. 9-29. Chen, X., Ye, L., Zhang, Y. (1995) ‘Refusing in Chinese’, in Kasper, G. (ed.) Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language. University of Hawaii, Hawaii, pp. 119–163. Chen, H.J. (1996) Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal. Ph.D. Diss. Indiana University. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED408860 Chiaro, D. (2006) The language of jokes: Analyzing verbal play. Routledge, Crystal, D. (2012) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, A. (2003) ‘Three heresies of language testing research’, Language Testing, 20(4), pp. 355-368. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010) Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Ellis, R. (2010) ‘Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy’, Language teaching, 43(2), pp. 182-201. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003) ‘Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish’, Multilingua, 22(3), pp. 225-255. House, J. (2006) ‘Communicative styles in English and German’, European Journal of English Studies, 10(3), pp. 249-267. House, J. & Kasper. G. (1981) ‘Politeness Markers in English and German’, in F. Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routine .The Hague: Mouton, pp. 157-185. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010) ‘English?—Oh, it’s just work!’: A study of BELF users’ perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, pp. 204-209. Kankaanranta, M., and Louhiala Salminen.L. (2013) ‘What language does global business speak?"-The concept and development of BELF’, Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE) 26, pp. 17-34.



22

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Kankaanranta, A, & Planken, B. (2010) ‘BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals’, Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), pp. 380-407. Kasper, G. (1997) Can Pragmatic Competence be taught? NetWork, 6, pp.105-119.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991) Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. (2002) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kitao, S.K. (1996) ‘Communicative competence, preference organization, and refusals in British English’, Sougou Bunka Kenkyujo Kiyou, 13, pp. 47–58 Koike, D.A. (1989) ‘Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlanguage’, The Modern Language Journal, 73 (3), pp. 279-289 Kwon, J. (2004) ‘Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English’, Multilingua, 23, pp. 339–364. Lee, J. J., & Pinker, S. (2010) ‘Rationales for indirect speech: the theory of the strategic speaker’, Psychological Review, 117(3), pp. 785. Leech, G. N. (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London/New York: Longman. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2009) ‘Business communication’, in Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (ed.) The Handbook of Business Discourse, Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 305-316. McKay, S. L. (2003). ‘Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), pp. 1-22. Nelson, G.L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., El Bakary, W. (2002) ‘Cross-cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals’, Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), pp. 163–189. Nikko, T.(2007) Co-constructing meaning in international work place meetings: A dialogical approach to communicational understanding in face-to-face interaction. Doctoral dissertation in preparation. Helsinki School of Economics, Finland. Available at: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/11529 (Accessed: 10 February 2015) Nguyen, T. (2006) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Refusals of requests by Australian Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese Learners of English. MA thesis. Available at: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis_Phuong.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015) Perkins, M. (2007) Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge University Press,



23

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Pinker, S. (1997) ‘Words and rules in the human brain’, Nature, pp.547-548. Poncini, G. (2004) Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Peter Lang. Rogerson-Revell, P and Louhiala-Salminen, L (2010) ‘An Introduction to Language Matters: Part 2’, Journal of Business Communication, 47 (4), pp. 375-379 Rose, K. (2000) ‘An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, pp. 27–67. Salazar Campillo, P, Safont Jordà, M.P. and Codina Espurz, V. (2009) ‘Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic approach’, Revista Electronica Lingüistica Aplicada, Numero 8, pp.139-150. Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Seidlhofer, B. (2004) ‘Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209-239. Sweeney, E., & Hua, Z. (2010) ‘Accommodating Toward Your Audience: Do Native Speakers of English Know How to Accommodate Their Communication Strategies Toward Nonnative Speakers of English?’, Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), pp. 477-504. Takahashi, T., Beebe, L.M. (1987) ‘ The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English’, JALT Journal, 8 (2), pp. 131–155. Thomas, J. (1983) ‘Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure’, Applied Linguistics, 4(2), pp. 91-112. Tsuda, S. (1993)’ Indirectness in discourse: What does it do in conversation’, Intercultural Communication Studies, 3(1), pp. 63-74. Tsugawa. F.S. (2013) ’Pragmatic Knowledge and Ability in the Applied Linguistics and Second Language Assessment Literature: A review’, TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 13, pp. 1-20 Vuorela, T. (2005) Approaches to a business negotiations case study: Teamwork, humour and teaching (Helsinki School of Economics A-261). Helsinki, Finland: HSE Print. Wolfson, N. (1981) ‘Invitations, compliments, and the competence of the native speakers’, International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8, pp. 7–22.



24

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wolfson, N. (1989) Perspectives: sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House Publishers.

Date post:	27-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vukhanh
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Does it Matter? Speech Acts of Refusal and Pragmatic ...… · 02.01.2016 · Speech Acts of...

Documents