The American University in Cairo

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

"How to say no without saying no"

A cross-cultural study of the realization and perception

of speech act of refusal among German Learners of Arabic

as a Foreign Language and Egyptian native speakers

A Thesis Submitted to The Department of Applied Linguistics

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts

By

Sherif Farawila

Under the supervision of Dr. Zeinab Taha

May 2019

II

To my parents with love

III

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my genuine gratitude and sincere appreciation to my major

professor, Dr. Zeinab Taha, for her constant support, timely guidance, generosity with

her time, and continuous encouragement. I appreciate her graciousness and patience,

and I admire her commitment to academic excellence and her impressive knowledge of

the field.

Also, I would like to express my genuine appreciation and appreciation to my

committee members, Dr. Raghda El Essawi, Dr. Mona Hasan, for their valuable advice,

enlightening comments, and for encouraging me to finish my dissertation.

I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Abdelhalim Ragab, Chair of Arabic Studies at the

Institute of Oriental Studies of Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, for being

extraordinarily helpful in facilitating my data collection at the Arabic School, and for

being exceptionally supportive and encouraging.

Finally, I am also very thankful to Prof. Dr. Lale Behzadi the Director of the

Institute of Oriental Studies of Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, for her invaluable

assistance in data collection. I would like to express my thanks, too, to all my colleagues

at the Arabic School of the Institute of Oriental Studies of Otto-Friedrich-Universität

Bamberg for their invaluable help in facilitating my data collection, and for their

encouragement and good wishes.

IV

Abstract

This study investigates the realization and perception of the speech act of refusal

among German Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language and native Egyptian speakers

cross-culturally. Besides, it examines the extent of pragmatic transfer from L1 and its

nature of being negative or positive one. Three groups participated in the study: eight

native speakers of Egyptian Arabic, eight AFL German learners, and three native

speakers of German. The data were collected using enhanced open-ended role plays.

Furthermore, to increase the creditability of the interaction data, the study triangulated

the data by utilizing retrospective verbal reports. Both quantitative and qualitative

methods were employed for analyzing the interactions. Results show essential

differences between Egyptians and German AFL learners concerning the frequency of

direct and indirect strategies and the utilization of individual strategies. For example,

German AFL learners employed a higher percentage of indirect strategies and a lower

percentage of direct strategies than the native speakers of Egyptian Arabic, especially

in higher status situations. Moreover, German AFL learners used a higher percentage

of the Statement of Regret and Request for Information/Clarification strategies than the

native Egyptians. However, the native Egyptians have utilized a higher percentage of

indirect strategies than the AFL group within the deference relations. Comparing the

pattern of refusal strategy of the three groups reveals evidence of positive and negative

pragmatic transfer in the AFL group. Social factors differences, during the interactions,

were found to play a significant role in how refusals were realized in both cultures.

From a pedagogical point of view, the results imply that refusals are worth

incorporating and be integrated into the language curriculum. That is, AFL learners not

only need to recognize the linguistic forms necessary to produce the speech act, but

they must be aware of sociocultural values that characterize the target speech

V

community of the target Language. Therefore, the study suggests that AFL teachers

should be aware of the significant role of pragmatic variation when teaching pragmatics

inside the classroom. This awareness could be reflected by focusing on awareness-

raising activities at the cognitive level, production activities for the speech act of

refusals, and teaching grammar as a communicative resource to encourage AFL to

produce refusals according to the different sociocultural values of the target Language.

Keywords: pragmatic competence, pragmatic transfer, role plays, politeness, cross-

cultural communication

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1

1.2 Politeness................................................................................................................2

1.3 Background of the problem ...................................................................................3

1.4 Speech act studies...................................................................................................4

1.5 Speech acts in context: Refusals.............................................................................5

1.6 Research questions & hypothesis............................................................................5

1.6.1 Research Question (1) ................................................................................6

1.6.2 Research Question (2) ................................................................................6

1.6.3 Hypothesis...................................................................................................6

1.7 Definition of terms...................................................................................................7

1.8 Organization of the remainder of the study..............................................................7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................8

2.2 Speech act theory.....................................................................................................9

2.3 Between illocutionary act and perlocutionary act..................................................10

2.4 Speech acts as the minimal units of linguistic communication..............................11

2.5 Characteristics of various speech acts/ Conditions of speech acts.........................12

2.6 The intention notion Searle, J. R, 2011..................................................................13

2.7 The most influential models of face/ facework, politeness....................................14

2.7.1 Grice’s theory 1975 ..................................................................................15

2.7.2 Brown & Levinson theory 1987 ...............................................................16

2.7.3 Criticisms for Brown & Levinson theory (1978, 1987..............................18

VII

2.7.4 Face: Scollon & Scollon’s face systems ...................................................19

2.7.5 Watts’ politic behavior and relational work..............................................20

2.8 Empirical cross-cultural studies.............................................................................23

2.8.1 Empirical cross-cultural studies on speech acts of refusals.......................23

2.8.2 Empirical cross-cultural Arabic studies on speech acts.............................25

2.9 Instruments used in cross-cultural pragmatic studies.............................................27

2.9.1 Authentic data............................................................................................28

2.9.2 Discourse completion tasks (DCT)............................................................29

2.9.3 Role-plays..................................................................................................29

2.10 Concluding remarks.............................................................................................30

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................32

3.2 Participants............................................................................................................33

3.2.1 German Learners of Arabic as a foreign language...................................33

3.2.2 Native Speakers of Egyptian Arabic.........................................................34

3.2.3 Native Speakers of German......................................................................34

3.3 Data collection procedures for the study...............................................................35

3.4 Design of the Role-play scenarios.........................................................................36

3.5 Retrospective verbal reports..................................................................................37

3.6 Projected treatment of each research question.......................................................37

3.7 Delimitations..........................................................................................................38

3.8 Data analysis..........................................................................................................39

3.9 refusals strategies...................................................................................................40

3.9.1 Direct refusals............................................................................................41

3.9.2 Indirect refusals..........................................................................................42

VIII

3.9.2.1 Mitigated refusal...........................................................................42

3.9.2.2 Examples for the different indirect refusal strategies....................42

3.9.3 Adjuncts to refusals...............................................................................52

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................56

4.2 The overall frequency and distribution of the linguistic pragmatic strategies.......58

4.2.1 Similarities and differences in the realization of the direct refusal

strategies...................................................................................................59

4.2.2 Similarities and differences in the realization of the indirect refusal

strategies...................................................................................................59

4.3 Most frequently used strategies by German AFL and native Egyptians...............61

4.4 Individual variability..............................................................................................69

4.5 Directness & Indirectness situational variation according to face systems...........73

4.5.1 Directness & Indirectness Hierarchical face system [+P, +D] ..........................75

4.5.1.1 Forms of addressing...............................................................................76

4.5.2 Directness & Indirectness Deference face system [–P, +D] ..............................77

4.5.3 Directness & Indirectness Solidarity face system [–P, –D] ...............................79

4.6 Discussion of two selected examples from the interactional data ........................80

4.6.1 Boss issues request/ Employee declines request (NNSA part #5) ............81

4.6.2 Boss issues request/ Employee declines request (NSA part #4) ................84

4.7 Perceptions of refusals at the discourse level ........................................................87

4.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................87

4.7.2 Perception of refusal as a manifestation of politeness in interactions.......88

4.7.3 Perception of directness or indirectness.....................................................91

4.7.4 Perception regarding an insistence of requesting or invitation..................94

IX

4.8 Pragmatic transfer..................................................................................................99

4.8.1 Discussion of selected example from the German controlled group data...........103

CHAPTER 5: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................107

5.2 Limitations ..........................................................................................................112

5.3 Pedagogical Implications ....................................................................................114

5.4 Directions for Future Research............................................................................115

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................117

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1A. Role plays (English) ..........................................................................120

Appendix 1B. Role plays (Arabic) ............................................................................121

Appendix 1C. Role plays (German) ..........................................................................123

Appendix 2A. Retrospective reports (English) ...................................... .................125

Appendix 2B. Retrospective reports (Arabic) ...........................................................125

Appendix 2C. Retrospective reports (German) .........................................................126

Appendix 3: Consent for participation in the Research ............................................126

Appendix 4: Transliteration Key ...............................................................................127

Appendix 5: comparison of the CEFR and ACTFL proficiency levels.....................128

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Language is a set of codes which have meanings. These codes may be verbal

like sounds, words, or non-verbal such as gestures, facial expressions, and body

postures. All the members of any given speech community know the rules and

principles of their code and how to perform its sounds, words, and sentences.

Furthermore, they agree together on the norm of using their code of Language among

them. This norm includes the knowledge of the possibilities the language offers and

what is impossible concerning different social situations. Thus, social factors are

essential that individuals, in any given speech community, have access to it and

continuously show that they do so by taking care of it properly. Codes of Language,

verbal, or non-verbal, carry different meanings according to a different context,

situation, or specific social relation between the parties of the communication.

Accordingly, these different meanings are to be employed to do different functions.

This is the core notion of speech act theory which states that people use Language as a

tool to perform specific function/s.

Speech act theory proposed by Austin (1962), who points out that saying

something can involve doing something. Searle revisited the speech act term and

redefined it as a minimal unit of discourse (Searle, 1969). He proposes a classification

of speech acts that includes five categories as follow: Directives like requests and

commands, commissive such as promises, representatives like assertions or claims,

declaratives such as declaring war, and expressive in giving apologies or thanks. The

present study falls under the category of expressive according to Searle’s taxonomy. In

his explanation of his classification of these five categories, Searle points out that there

are three types of acts: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. For example, X

2

told his friend Y "would you please give me 1000 Dollar ". The locutionary act refers

to producing this sentence with a specific reference in English and sense. The

illocutionary act compromise in the act performed by uttering this sentence, here it is a

request. Returning to our example, Y now got X's message via the rules of English and

fully understands X’s intentions. So, X has achieved what Searle calls the illocutionary

effect. But X wants something more he wants the thousand Dollar immediately. Here

we talk about the impact of the illocutionary act on the hearer, Y, which is to refer to

as the perlocutionary force. However, if Y refuses to give X the 1000 dollars, he would

say in response “no way!” in this case X wouldn’t achieve his goal via his

perlocutionary act of trying urge Y to give him the money; thus, the perlocutionary

effect will be negative. In sum, the perlocutionary act refers to the impact of the

illocutionary action on the addressee. Besides, (Searle,1979) in his book Expression

and meaning presents a taxonomy of speech acts by identifying twelve ways that speech

acts can differ from one another. This taxonomy is a classification of various speech

acts to avoid one or other kind of confusion about how we do things with language.

1.2 Politeness

Since the speech act under investigation is the speech act of refusal which may

create disagreement, conflict or tension between the interlocutors, thus; person refusing

may resort to politeness as a discourse strategy to elevate the effects of her/his refusal

and to avoid face threating acts. In addition, many scholars state the importance of

investigating the notions of face, and relational phenomena in cross-cultural studies

(Arundale 2006; Locher & Watts 2005; Watts 1989, 2003). Therefore, chapter two,

literature review, discusses the most influential models of politeness, face, facework,

and relational work that explain proper behavior in social interaction. The discussion

includes details about Grice’s cooperative principle and the maxim of politeness,1975;

3

Brown & Levinson theory,1978, Watts’ politic behavior and relational work; Scollon

& Scollon’s intercultural communication and face systems which consists of three

politeness systems: solidarity, deference, and hierarchical to classify the negotiation of

face relationships.

1.3 Background of the problem

While the majority of the cross-cultural refusal research is conducted in a few

languages, with a comparative language often being English (Fukushima 1996;

Haverkate 1988, 1994; Jakubowska 1999; Márquez Reiter 2000; Sifianou 1992;

Wierzbicka 2003, 2006), to date no study has conducted cross-culturally to investigate

the realization and the perceptions of refusals among Germans and native speakers of

Arabic (Egyptians) at the discourse level. In addition, the majority of these studies have

examined written or non-interactional data to analyze the linguistic strategies for

expressing refusals in isolated contexts, except a few studies that utilized interactional

data. For example, the research that investigated the realization of the speech act of

refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a foreign language.

Another example is the study of Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008) which investigated the

realization and perception of refusals in Mexico and the United States. So, there is a

research gap which is in need to be addressed. Further, in light of statistics about the

number of immigrants from Arab currently living in Germany, German linguist experts

demand Arabic as a compulsory subject at all German schools. For example, a

university professor demands that if Arab children have to learn German, Germans

should learn Arabic. (Retrieved from https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Experte-fordert-

Arabisch-als-Pflichtfach-article16923231.html). Therefore, based on the above

mentioned, it is worth to investigate the refusal patterns, in this variety, to observe what

4

Germans and Egyptians do in social interaction, and how the notions of politeness,

social distance, power, and how both societies perceive directness and indirectness

during a refusal interaction at the discourse level.

1.4 Speech act studies

Speech act studies have two main broad categories; these are the intralingual and

interlanguage researches. First, studies that are referred to as intralingual focus on

investigating speech acts within a single language or culture, for example, apologies in

Korean (Hahn, 2006), compliments in Chinese (Yuan, 1998). The second category is

the interlanguage researches which entails two main sub-categories. First, cross-

cultural studies that examine the realization of a specific speech act in two or more

cultures or languages. For example, Bataineh (2004) has investigated the speech act of

apology in Jordanian Arabic and American English. Findings from her study indicate

that Jordanians different from native speakers of American English in their frequent

use of specific apology strategies, for example, invoking the name of God, and using

proverbs. Whereas, their American counterparts use more compensation strategies. In

addition, Beckers (1999) compared refusal strategies to invitations, suggestions,

requests, offers in German and American English. The second sub-category of the

interlanguage studies is the learner-centered studies referred to as pragmatic

interlanguage studies. These researches focus on the examination of how learners

perform speech acts and how their performance compares to that of native speakers. In

addition, interlanguage pragmatic studies have four subcategories: descriptive studies,

instruction-based studies, study-abroad studies, and studies that investigate the

realization of speech acts online. The descriptive studies describe the strategies used by

learners and compare them to those used by the native speaker. The present study aims

5

to describe the strategies used by AFL German learners of Arabic and compare them to

those used by native speakers. The strategies are referring to the semantic formulas

used by speakers as they perform a refusal speech act. So, this study falls under the

category of interlanguage, descriptive, learner-centered, speech act studies.

1.5 Speech acts in context: Refusals Speech acts are frequently investigated in the literature include apologies,

requests, compliments, compliment responses, complaints, refusals. The investigations

of speech act can play an essential rule in the process of teaching foreign languages to

the extent that teachers and materials developers can depend upon its results. Previous

researches state that findings from speech act studies can be an invaluable source for

foreign language teachers and developers of teaching materials (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996).

Previous studies prove that teaching these pragmatic aspects of language can minimize

intercultural communication breakdowns and help reduce cultural stereotyping (Meier,

1995; Takahashi & Beebe, 1993). In specific, the speech act of refusal is a crucial

speech act that it compromises the using of different patterns. Therefore, Refusals at

the discourse level would explain the notions of politeness, social distance and power,

and how directness and indirectness are perceived during a refusal response in

communications cross-culturally.

1.6 Research questions & hypothesis

The present study aims to investigate the speech act of refusal. The focus of the

research is to examine how German learners of Arabic realize this speech act in

Egyptian Arabic and how their performance compares to that of native speakers of

Egyptian Arabic. In addition, the study aims to analyze different strategies used by

German learners of Arabic as they respond in Arabic and that of their counterpart from

6

native speakers of Germans, in the German Language, to spot any pragmatic transfer

incidents at the discourse level, if any, from the learner’s L1. In doing so, the study

specifically aims to answer the following research questions.

1.6.1 Research Question (1)

In what ways, if any, do Germans from learners of Arabic as a foreign Language

differ from native speakers of Egyptian Arabic in their realizations of the speech act of

refusal in Egyptian Arabic in equal and unequal status situations, in terms with the

frequency and the content of semantic formulas?

1.6.2 Research Question (2)

Are there any incidents of L1 pragmatic transfer, if any, from the German

Language when German learners of Arabic as a foreign Language realize the speech

act of refusal in Arabic, in equal and unequal status situations in terms with the

frequency and the content of semantic formulas?

1.6.3 Hypothesis

German learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language are affected more or less, by

their mother Language L1. As the study of Morkus, N. (2009) has revealed evidence of

positive and negative pragmatic transfer from L1 to the target Language of English. So,

I hypothesis that German AFL's would show a similar tendency.

1.7 Definition of terms

For ease of reference, this section introduces brief definitions of several

terminologies to be used in the upcoming chapters and which are specifically relevant

to this present study.

Speech act

Searle defines the term speech act as a minimal unit of discourse (Searle, 1969).

Searle proposed a taxonomy of speech acts that included five categories as follow:

7

Directives like requests and commands, commissive such as promises and threats,

representatives like assertions or claims, declaratives such as declaring war, and

expressive in giving apologies of thanks. The focus of this study is the speech act of

refusal which comes under the category of expressive utterances.

Refusals

The negative responses to requests, invitations, suggestions, offers, and the like

which commonly used in our daily lives (Sadler & Eroz, 2001).

Pragmatic Transfer

Generally, it refers to the transfer of knowledge about the socio-cultural rules

governing language use from the learner’s L1. Negative pragmatic transfer refers to the

transfer of rules that are not consistent in L1 and L2, and positive, pragmatic transfer

refers to the transfer of rules that L1 and L2 share.

Social distance (D)

This term represents the social distance between the speaker and the hearer.

Power (P)

Power is the addressee’s position in society, age, and the social status; and the

relative power of the hearer over the speaker and vice versa.

Relational work

This notion of relational work concerns with the work interlocutors engages in

during any given social interaction when negotiating their intentions with others in

specific sociocultural contexts. Relating to others is referring to a relational stage,

whereas interacting with others compromise the interactional stage. (Locher & Watts

2005; Watts 2005).

8

1.8 Organization of the remainder of the study Chapter two discusses the relevant literature related to the problem just described.

Chapter three describes and discuss the selected research methodology to respond to

the question and the analysis approach. Chapter four presents the results along with the

discussion. Chapter five presents the limitation and the conclusion drawn from the data

and the implications on teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Since this study investigates the speech act of refusal cross-culturally at the

discourse level to analyze the realization patterns of refusals in German Language and

Egyptian Arabic dialect, the upcoming chapter reviews the literature from different

perspectives. First of all, this chapter provides an overview of speech act theory,

followed by an overall revision for speech act in context. Besides, because of the strong

bond between refusals as social interaction and the concept of politeness, chapter two

presents a critical revision for the most influential models of face/ facework, politeness,

to explain behavior in social interactions in light of previous Interlanguage pragmatics

studies. Next, the main approaches used for examining speech act sequences, at the

discourse level, is introduced, in light of social interaction concept. Lastly, this chapter

ends with a review of the empirical studies on refusals in terms of its results and issues

on research methodology and instruments used for data collection concerning the aim

of this present study.

9

2.2 Speech act theory

Inspired by Austin’s original classification of illocutionary force, Searle (1977)

revisited the speech act term and redefined it as a minimal unit of discourse (Searle,

1969). Searle classifies speech acts according to a taxonomy of illocutionary force:

representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations.

Representatives constitute assertions to carry true or false values, e.g., statements;

directives speech acts represent the speaker's attempt to get the hearer to act, e.g.,

requests, advice. Commissive speech acts create an obligation on the part of the

speaker. That is, they commit the speaker to perform an act, e.g., promising; expressive

speech acts express an attitude or an inner state of the speaker which says nothing about

the world, e.g., apologies, congratulations, compliments; declarations include speech

acts in which declarative statements are successfully performed, and no psychological

state is expressed, e.g., an excommunication or baptism. According to Searle’s

taxonomy, the speech act of refusal, which is the focus of the present study, falls under

the category of expressives. The term “illocution” is John Austin’s from his book "how

to do things with words" Austin (1975). The prefix “il” is taken to mean “in,” and

“locution” as “speech” So “illocution” means “in speaking” or “in saying” something.

Refusals, as a whole, are classified as one illocutionary force which is the expressives

one, but this illocutionary force could be represented either directly or indirectly by

using a wide range of speech act verbs. Therefore, we should differentiate between two

kinds of refusals which are direct and indirect. That it is, whereas direct refusal can be

committed by employing a direct speech act verb such as "I can’t”; I will not ...., "I

refuse", indirect refusal can be done by employing different speech act verb, another

illocutionary verb, such as I apologize/ sorry which may or may not, depending on the

situation and the social factors, be followed by using another speech act verb of direct

10

refusal speech act, e.g. (I can’t). For instance, if we have two parties in an interaction

and the speaker number 1 performs a directives speech act of request, the refuser may

resort to refuse indirectly by saying (I apologize) Or (I apologize, No, I can’t). Direct

Refusals are tough speech act because it involves face threating act (FTA) by using a

speech act verb which indicates direct refuse; thus, refuser normally resorts to refuse

indirectly by employing another strategy. Indirect refusals are not only a speech act;

rather they are a very complicated mental process which needs all the possible

pragmatic, and sociolinguistics knowledge to be gathered and employed in one pool to

overcome the situation. Besides the situation factor, there are many other factors to be

calculated and be processed by the refuser before choosing between alternatives; thus,

the refuser may employ a mix of different illocutionary forces. These mental processes

are depending heavily upon the cultures, in which these utterances are performed. In

sum, refusals are complex speech acts that require not only a long sequence of

negotiation and cooperative achievements but face-saving maneuvers to accommodate

the noncompliant nature of the act” (Gass & Houck 1999). The linguistic expressions

employed in a refusal sequence may include direct and indirect strategies, and

expressions to reinforce positive facework on the part of the speaker.

2.3 Between illocutionary act and perlocutionary act

In his explanation of his classification of the five categories of speech acts,

(Searle, 1977) points out that there are three types of acts: locutionary, illocutionary

and perlocutionary. For example, an utterance of "is there any salt?" can be divided into

these three types of acts as follows: Locution is what to be said such as “is there any

salt?" it is literal by asking a question about the presence of salt, Illocution is what was

meant. So, the meaning conveyed here is "please give me some salt." Finally,

11

perlocution act is what happened. As a result, it is the actual effect to cause somebody

to hand the salt. In terms of the speech act's structure, Searle explains the distinction

between the illocutionary effect, which deals directly with the rules of language, and

the perlocutionary effect, or the act, which concerned with the causal effects that take

place after a full speech act is issued. In other words, to distinguish the illocutionary act

from the perlocutionary act, we can consider the difference between "I was warning

him" from " I convinced him.” The perlocutionary act is the attempt to warn and

convince, while the illocutionary act is the warning and the convincing. The

perlocutionary effect is a causal response to an already fully delivered linguistic act,

and so it is not strictly speaking a part of that act. It is what results from speaking

(uttering a full illocutionary act).

2.4 Speech acts as the minimal units of linguistic communication

(Searle, 1969) In his book "Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of

Language" explains that the reason for concentrating on the study of speech acts is that

all linguistic communication involves linguistic acts. The unit of linguistic

communication is not the symbol, word or sentence, but the production or issuance of

this symbol or this word or that sentence in the performance of the speech act; thus,

speech acts are the basic and the minimal units of linguistic communication. Our

linguistic production within our social interactions is speech acts. So, knowing how

speech acts work involves the consideration about the context and the situation, for

example, when a commander tells a soldier to do something, understanding the speech

act of commanding presupposes knowing about rank and military traditions (Fotion,

2014). This example illustrates that we cannot understand how language works by

looking at language in isolation because Speech acts which are the minimal units

12

embedded in the context itself. For we find that we need to analyze the minimal unite

of linguistic communication, speech acts, to be able to analyze the discourse as a whole.

2.5 Characteristics of various speech acts/ Conditions of speech acts

As cited in the book "John Searle" (Fotion,2014), Searle defines four primary

structural conditions by which any given speech act can analyze. That is, the issuing of

speech acts is committed under certain circumstances. These are the propositional

content condition which comprises both of the referring acts and the predicating acts.

For an instant, it has no sense if one would constitute promise using the past tense; thus,

speech acts of promising should be formed in the future. The speech act of apologizing

is quite the opposite that it requires a propositional content which is in the form of the

past. Thus, the impeded predicting act in the propositional content helps in determining

the sort of speech act is being issued. The other condition is the preparatory conditions.

These conditions should be existing before issuing proper speech acts. For example, in

issuing the speech act of command, a speaker who issues this speech act know the

existing of the needed preparatory condition which is his power over his interlocutors.

With a promise, it is required that the speaker knows about his hearer's need for this

promise. With a question, the speaker does not know the answer to his question in

advance, so he asks. In addition, a speech act of apology requires an existing of a

previous harmful event or thought to be harmful to the hearer. The third condition

Searle calls the sincerity condition.

Regarding the speech act of command, this condition is satisfied solely if the

speaker wants the hearer, the speaker aware of his power over his speaker who is

inferior to him in terms of power, to do what he orders. Whereas with the issuing of a

speech act of promising, the same condition is satisfied when the speaker intends to

13

help his hearer, because of his prior knowledge manifested through the satisfaction of

the preparatory conditions about the needs of the hearer. In terms of being true or false,

the sincerity condition is satisfied when the speaker believes what he claims. So, the

sincerity condition might not be satisfied at all. For example, the person who is showing

sincerity by issuing the speech act of promising might show up. Therefore, the

preparatory conditions have abused here. Thus, a promise still counts as a sincere or

insincere promise until it comes to be true. Austin calls the lack of the sincerity

condition of these sorts of cases "speech act abuse" (Austin, 1975).

Searle points out that these infelicities or flaws in the production of speech acts

make them null and void. The fourth condition is the essential condition which could

be explained in terms of intentions since speech acts are issued intentionally. In the case

of promising, the speaker, by uttering a speech act of promising, places himself

intentionally under obligation to do a specific action. In contrary, commands put the

hearer under the same kind of obligation. (Searle,1979) Talks about this condition in

light of the illocutionary point or purpose of a speech act. Finally, Searle claims that

the essential condition is the condition which generates the point of a speech act.

2.6 The intention notion Searle, J. R, 2011

Searle, J. R, (2011) talks about the intention notion decided before uttering any

specific speech act as a cognitive process. In addition, he pointed out to the idea of the

negotiation and flow of communication which control the choice of particular speech

act/verb. The study of the effect of instruction on learners’ use of refusal strategies and

concern for pragmatics provides evidence of the positive effect of instruction at the

cognitive level on learners’ use and negotiation of refusals (Alcón, 2007; Fernández-

Guerra, 2008; Martínez-Flor, (2008). Within this study, the instruction treatment is

provided utilizing TV scenes and was controlled for the speech act of refusals to

14

requests in the presence of different social factors (power and social distance). The

study proposes that AFL's are in need to have instructional treatment at the cognitive

level to find and choose the appropriate speech act verb, and the illocutionary force to

stimulate the production of the native speakers by accommodating the cultural norms

of the target community within different situations, while expressing their intentions

and believes and maintaining the flow of the communication. In particular, during the

refusal situations, rejecting someone can be almost tricky, speakers need to say no in a

polite diplomatic manner concerning the cultural norms of their interlocutor. In the

same time, they need to keep their private space intact without using any face threat

acts FTA.

2.7 The most influential models of face/ facework, politeness

While engaging in conversations, as one mean of human social interaction, a

speaker who performs a refusal would employ a wide range of linguistic and non-

linguistic expressions to communicate a refusal according to the conventional norms of

communication of a given culture. In addition, interlocutors tend to make assessments

of the interaction and direct their attention to perceptions of polite and impolite

behavior. From a sociolinguistic perspective, refusals are vital because they are

sensitive to social factors such as gender, age, level of education, power, social distance,

and because what is considered appropriate refusal behavior varies across cultures.

From a pragmatic perspective, the negotiation of refusal may entail frequent attempts

at directness or indirectness and politeness or impoliteness that are appropriate to the

situation. People receive the rules of politeness from their own culture. Since a refusal

may create conflict or dispute between the interlocutors, the person refusing may resort

to politeness as a discourse strategy to soften the effects of the unwelcome news. From

15

this above mentioned, politeness should address as we investigate refusals in social

interaction. Politeness manifests itself in social interaction and conditioned by the

sociocultural norms dictated by the members of a society who negotiate their intentions

using verbal and non-verbal actions. Different linguistic devices may be employed to

elevate the illocutionary force of a specific speech act or to soften any expected adverse

effects because of another one. To illustrate, using the past progressive as in "I was

thinking of asking you ...”, Or another option would be the using of past progressive

followed by a conditional, for example, "I was wondering if you.". All these forms have

undergone an internal modification to be accepted as conventionally indirect requests

to express politeness in formal situations. Reviewing the literature shows several

models which are proposed to shape a framework for the politeness' concept. The next

section represents the most influential models of social interaction that attempt to

explain the notion of linguistic politeness.

2.7.1 Grice’s theory 1975

Grice’s theory of meaning represents the foundation of most models of politeness.

Grice's theory proposes that people exerted cooperative efforts while they are involved

in the process of any conversational exchanges. These cooperative efforts

(CP)compromise the speaker’s intention and the hearer’s recognition and inferences of

that intention in particular situations. In other definition, the CP is a mean of factors

operating together during the creation of a talk exchange (Arundale 2005). Grice

proposed four maxims governing the rules of conversation as follow:1) the maxim of

quantity: do not give your contribution more informative than is required; 2) the maxim

of quality: do not speak what you believe to be false or that for which you lack evidence;

3) the maxim of relation: be relevant; 4) the maxim of manner: be brief and orderly.

16

However, literature shows that Grice’s framework cannot directly explain why people

are often indirect in conveying what they mean (Leech 1983). Grice’s maxims specify

how participants must behave to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, and

cooperative way according to the norms of Western society. As observed by Levinson,

in this ideal language model, participants should “speak sincerely, relevantly and

clearly, while providing sufficient information about what is not always the norm of all

cultures.

2.7.2 Brown & Levinson theory 1987

Brown and Levinson use the notion of face to explain politeness. To them,

politeness is universal, resulting from people's face needs: positive face and negative

face. A person’s positive face refers to the person’s desire to be liked and approved of

by others, whereas negative face refers to his or her desire to be free from imposition.

Brown and Levinson have defined "face" as " the public self-image that every member

of any given society wants to claim for himself " In addition, they stated that the goal

of politeness is to minimize the imposition on the hearer by conveying to him the

message that his desires are similar to the speaker’s desires. Brown and Levinson

explain certain speech acts that are by definition face-threatening FTA.

This face-threatening speech acts, or FTA’s can be classified according to

whether they threaten the speaker’s face or the hearer’s face, and whether they threaten

the positive face or the negative face. Besides, three social factors determine the weight

of a given FTA. These factors are: power "P" of speaker overhearer, Social Distance

(D) between the speaker and the hearer, and the absolute ranking (R) of impositions

which determine the right of the speaker to perform the act, and the degree to which the

hearer welcomes the imposition, for example, asking someone to open the window vs.

17

requesting to borrow someone’s notes. The speech act under investigation which is

refusal threatens the hearer’s positive face since it shows that the speaker does not

consider the hearer’s wants or desires and that the speaker’s desires are not the same as

the hearer’s desires. Brown and Levinson have proposed a formula by which the

seriousness for an FTA can be calculated using the formula: Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S)

+ Rx. Where: Wx represents a value that measures the weightiness of an FTA, D (S, H)

measures the degree of social distance among the speakers and hearers, P (H, S)

measures the value of power that a hearer has over a speaker, Rx is the value that

measures the degree of imposition of a FTA in a particular culture. Thus, these face-

threatening speech acts (FTA’s) is classified according to whether they threaten the

speaker’s face or the hearer’s face, and whether they threaten the positive face or the

negative face. Speaker could resort to employing different strategies as they are

engaging in the social interactions. Brown and Levinson model claim that all the

speakers have one of three options when performing FTA’s. These options are 1. (go

bald on record) which means that the speaker is performing the speech act without

softening or mitigating its illocutionary force, this can be in relation with the authority

of speaker overhearer such as the social factor of power. 2. go on record by using

politeness markers such as mitigation strategies, or 3. (go off the record) to elevate the

imposition on the hearer, the speaker may resort to making his intention vague by using

some pragmatic metaphors. Besides, not all strategies used in conversations are a

positive one which indicates positive politeness by emphasizing solidarity and making

rapport with the hearer, but some of these strategies are considered negative ones.

Negative politeness attends to the hearer’s negative face by showing that the speaker

does not intend to invade the personal space of her/his hearer. Finally, the model

proposes the term of "redressive act" which is a verbal, non-verbal, or extra-verbal, e.g.,

18

prosody, tone, or behavior which, in a given culture, mitigate or “redress” some degree

of a face threat. From all above we can notice that the Brown and Levinson model

concerns in the first place with the hearer, not the speaker.

2.7.3 Criticisms for Brown & Levinson theory (1978, 1987)

Literature shows some criticisms for Brown & Levinson theory. For example,

this model of politeness concentrated on the hearer’s face while ignoring the speaker’s

face (Meier,1995). So, the claim of the universality of politeness' concept as being

either positive or negative is coming into question. Brown and Levinson suggest that

the three independent and culturally-sensitive variables (i.e., social distance, relative

power, and ranking of imposition) are present in all cultures, as though all speakers

come from one speech community and share the same cultural values. Instead, power

and social distance should be seen, and thus interpreted, as a changing notion by the

context of a specific situation within a particular culture. Reviewing some works which

were devoted to investigating the social interaction within some non-western societies

showed that this model failed to represent the politeness behavior of non-Western

cultures, in which a group rather than an individual orientation is the behavioral norm.

For example, a study of Ecuadorian society, showed that speakers using specific

strategies to show deference in conversation, is not due to the desire to protect one’s

individuality or territory (i.e., negative politeness as in Brown and Levinson), but rather

to “conform to the social norms of the group and dictate respect to the elderly and

19

parents” (Placencia, 1996). Therefore, speech act at the discourse level cannot be

investigated cross-culturally from the theoretical point of view of Brown and Levenson

because their model concern with the politeness as a predominant behavior regardless

the role of the society and its norms. Furthermore, what is perceived as polite may be

observed in another culture or situation as rude behavior? All the studies mentioned

above noted that Brown and Levinson’s model of the positive and negative face is not

appropriate in investigating speech act at the discourse level cross-culturally;

especially, when one of these cultures is a non-western culture, which is the case of this

study.

2.7.4 Face: Scollon & Scollon’s face systems

Scollon and Scollon (2001) model of social interaction proposes the notion of the

negotiation of relationships of the face in intercultural communication. To bypass the

confusion that might result from the use of the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative,’ Scollon

and Scollon (2001) examine the notion of the face by considering individual and group

needs. They point out that the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ "could simply be

forgotten and readers can too easily begin to conceive of ‘positive politeness’ as good

and ‘negative politeness’ as bad” (Scollon and Scollon, 2001). Thus, this model

proposes the term involvement to emphasize and to shed light on the right and the needs

of the speaker to be considered as a contributing member of the society. Involvement

can be realized, within any given social interaction, by employing some discourse

strategies to show that she/he belongs to the hearer, for example, by using first names,

or by paying attention to the hearer.

On the other hand, the term "independence" is shown by such discourse strategies

as making minimal assumptions, using formal names and titles, or by giving options to

20

the interlocutor. According to the authors neither of these aspects face, involvement,

and independence, should be considered as absolute expressions; instead, in any

communication, both aspects of the face must be investigated to show the appropriate

degree of involvement or independence toward the interlocutor. In terms of face, these

model face relationships are described using three face systems (deference, solidarity,

hierarchy) and by three social factors (distance [D], power [P], and weight of imposition

[W]). In a deference face system, the interlocutors see themselves at the same social

level with no interlocutor exerting social power over the other (–Power), but with a

distant relationship (+D). As a result, both interlocutors may use independence

strategies that include expressions that minimize the threat to avoid the risk of losing

face. In a solidarity face system, interlocutors see themselves as being of equal social

position (–Power) and with a close relationship (–D); in this system, the interlocutors

use involvement strategies to assume or express reciprocity or to claim a common point

of view. Finally, in a hierarchical face system, one participant is in a superordinate

position (+P), and the other is in a subordinate position (–P). In this asymmetric system,

where the relationship may be close (+D) or distant (–D), Scollon and Scollon observe

that while the participant with power may use involvement strategies, the participant in

a lower position may employ independence strategies to minimize threat or to show

respect to the interlocutor. Overall, the independence aspect of the face reveals that “a

person may act with some degree of autonomy and that she/he respects the rights of

others to their autonomy” (Scollon & Scollon 2001).

2.7.5 Watts’ politic behavior and relational work

According to Watts 2005 (as cited in the book of Politeness in Mexico and the

United States Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., 2008), the scope of politeness has two main views.

21

First-order politeness view which concerns with the perception of politeness by

different members from different sociocultural groups, and second-order politeness

view through which politeness is seen and defined just as a theoretical construct of

politeness1 (Eelen 2001; Watts 2003, 2005; Watts, Ide, & Ehlich 1992). The term

Politeness1 sheds lights on how people perceive and judge politeness through the

manifestation of politeness in social interaction. In other words, politeness in use. This

category of politeness compromise three types of politeness: expressive, classificatory,

and metapragmatic. Expressive politeness1 can be realized in communications by

spotting the using of particular forms of address or conventional expressions. These

expressions reflect the intention of the speaker to be polite. For example, (‘thank you,’

you welcome). In addition, different linguistic devices may be employed to elevate the

illocutionary force of a specific speech act or to soften any expected adverse effects

because of another one. To illustrate, using the past progressive as in "I was thinking

of asking you ...”, Or another option would be the using of past progressive followed

by a conditional, for example, "I was wondering if you ...". All these forms have

undergone an internal modification to be accepted as conventionally indirect requests

to express politeness in formal situations. (Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D., 2012;

Chodorowska-Pilch 2004). The other classification of the first-order politeness is the

Classificatory which refers to politeness as a tool by which the hearer can judge

people’s behavior or their utterances. This judgment encompasses the process of

categorizing others in terms of being polite or impolite. In doing so, the hearer depends

on his pragmatic linguistic competence based on the sociolinguistics factors which

governs the situation and the norms of the shared community.

Finally, the metapragmatic politeness1 is the third category through which people

talk about politeness as a concept in everyday interaction and different practices. The

22

Relational work is defined as the work people invest in negotiating their relationships

in interaction (Locher 2004; Locher and Watts 2005; Locher 2006a). Relational work,

in other words, comprises the entire spectrum of the interpersonal side of social relation

in interactions. The model of Relational work is based on the notion that to investigate

speech acts in communication/ at the discourse level, what to be counted as a speech

act should be decided on pragmatic grounds. For example, Utterances such as 1. "Can

you tell me the route to the station?"; 2. "Please, tell me the way to the station! "; and

3. "I would like to know the way to the station" are all requests for information, even

though the form used in (1) is interrogative, in (2) imperative, and (3) assertive.

Therefore, the same form can be used for different speech acts that the analysis of

speech act at the discourse level. Watts’ view of polite behavior is embedded within a

broader notion of social interaction and facework; thus, he defines politic behavior as

“that behavior, linguistic and non-linguistic, which the participants construct as being

appropriate to the ongoing social interaction. The construction may are made before

entering the interaction, but is always negotiable during the interaction, despite the

expectations that participants might bring to it”. According to Watts, relational work

refers to the interactional negotiation of face relationships; it encompasses various

aspects of social interaction such as (indirect/direct), (polite/impolite), or

(in)appropriate behavior.

Figure 1. Relational work (Watts 2005)

23

2.8 Empirical cross-cultural studies

2.8.1 Empirical cross-cultural studies on speech acts of refusals

Garcia (1992) had compared the politeness strategies to investigate how native

speakers of Spanish realize the speech act of refusal when declining an invitation from

a friend in one role-play situation. Garcia (1992) had used the model of Scollon &

Scollon (1983) to represent both face systems of solidarity and deference politeness

strategies. The analysis of her study had investigated how refusals for an invitation in

two stages; invitation-response, and insistence-response. The finding of the study

revealed that speakers resorted to using more deference politeness as the refusal head

act to express a degree of respect toward their interlocutors, but for the insistence-

response stage the speakers tended to show more solidarity politeness

expressions/strategies as their preference head acts. According to Garcia, Peruvian

culture considers the insistence as a polite act, but not insisting does not reflect the

sociocultural expectation norm for Peruvian speech community.

The second stage in the speech act was incorporated because, according to Garcia,

in this Peruvian sociocultural setting, the act of insistence constitutes a polite act as well

as a sociocultural expectation. Conversely, not insisting “might make the invitation

sound insincere and the potential guest feels unwanted.” In a later study, García (1999)

set out to investigate the patterns of politeness strategies used by 40 Venezuelans in

two speech acts, inviting and responding to an invitation, using role-play data. Results

suggested that when refusing an invitation, participants were highly respectful in the

first two stages, invitation-response, and insistence-response, and they chose deference

politeness strategies over solidarity politeness strategies as head acts. However, for the

third stage, wrap-up, these participants preferred the exclusive use of solidarity

politeness strategies as head acts.

24

Studies on American refusals has revealed that in the United States refusals

should be clearly articulated, and reasons do not necessarily have to be offered

(Kanemoto 1993). For example, in a situation in which the speaker refuses a professor’s

advice to take a particular class, it is observed that Americans in the United States are

more likely to maintain status balance with a professor by offering alternatives and

mitigated rejections, whereas second language learners of English resort to avoid an

FTA. Besides, advanced EFL is unable to choose the appropriate status-preserving

strategies when producing a speech act of refusal with a professor (Bardovi-Harlig &

Hartford 1991).

Concerning German refusals, Beckers (1999) in his doctoral dissertation study of

" How to say "no": A study of the refusal strategies of Americans and Germans"

acknowledged that Germans use different refusal strategies from Americans; thus, the

choices of the strategies reflecting distinct characteristics of each culture. Native

speakers of German, when speaking in their first language, tend to modify their refusal

strategies based on social distance rather than status while native speakers of American

English are likely to depend on status rather than social distance.

In addition, Germans employ more gratitude and politeness strategies than

Americans. Furthermore, Germans tend to use the avoidance strategy more often than

Americans, and their refusals might be less direct and resort to explanations other than

their inclinations. Finally, Germans sometimes use a third party for their explanations

while Americans relied on their own decisions for their explanations.

Finally, the contrastive study of J. Cesar Felix-Brasdefer (2008) has investigated

the perception of refusals in English among Mexican and Americans within the

politeness theory framework, in situations of equal and unequal status in Mexican and

American societies. He has adopted Scollon and Scollon’s model as a theoretical

25

framework because it offers an alternative for examining cross-cultural communication

while considering the face needs of each group. Felix-Brasdefer has utilized an

interactional data set to analysis the data according to a classification system of

pragmatic strategies, as a manifestation of relational work between the interlocutors. In

his study, the examination of the refusal interactions included an analysis of both the

speaker’s and the addressee’s speech behavior.

2.8.2 Empirical cross-cultural Arabic studies on speech acts

Several studies have investigated the speech act of refusal in Arabic and English.

Some of these studies have concerned only with Arabic, whereas some other studies

have investigated refusals cross-culturally, in Arabic and American English. Further,

some other studies looked at how refusals are realized by Arab EFL learners.

For example, Al- Issa (1998) study has examined the realization of this specific

speech act, refusal, by Jordanian EFL learners as well as native speakers of Jordanian

Arabic and native speakers of American English. The researcher was investigating

whether there was evidence of pragmatic transfer from Arabic and the factors causing

this transfer. The researcher used a DCT to elicit the data from three groups: 50

Jordanian advanced ESL learners, 50 Jordanian native speakers of Arabic and 50

American native speakers of English.

There was a problem in the instrument by which the data were gathered that Al-

Issa used prompts written in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), which is the formal,

written variety of Arabic what encouraged the participants to answer in MSA, instead

of using the dialect. Therefore, my study will tackle this by employing role-plays as an

instrument for collecting the data to avoid this problem from happening. Regarding the

Diaglossia problem, this current study hypothesis that the responses of AFL group of

26

German would entail, to some extent, ECA content, lexicon, and styles as a result of

their exposure to that variety of Arabic inside the classrooms.

In the study of "Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & Bakary W. E. (2002).

Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy used in Egyptian Arabic and American English

refusals" They found that Egyptians employ some refusal strategies such as:

"Classification of Arabic Refusal Strategies "I. Direct (I refuse, No, I can't); II. Indirect.

Indirect refusals are conducted through different strategies examples of these are:

giving Reason; hedging (Oh, I'm not sure); Concern of the feelings of their interlocutor;

Suggestion of willingness; let the interlocutor off the hook; apologizing.; and Criticize

the proposition. Findings of their research point out that native speakers of Egyptian

Arabic favor to utilize more indirect rather than direct refusal strategies. Besides, as

opposed to native speakers of American English, Egyptian Arabic speakers tend to

employ fewer direct refusal strategies. Egyptian refusals often consist primarily of

reasons for the refusal, especially when refusing someone of lower status.

Al-Eryani (2007) has investigated the refusal strategies of Yemeni EFL learners

and compared them to those by native speakers of Yemeni Arabic and native speakers

of American English. The researcher used a written DCT which consisted of 6

situations in which participants refused offers, requests, invitations, and suggestions

from someone higher, lower, and equal in status to them. Data analysis was based on

the scheme used by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990). Findings from the study

show that native speakers of Yemeni Arabic tended to be less direct in their refusals

when compared to their American counterparts.

The EFL learners showed similarities with native speakers of English in three

areas: order of semantic formulas, their frequency, and their content. Therefore, it is

relevant to the study that it looks at pragmatic transfer and it investigates many of the

27

areas that the present study examines such as the frequency, type, and order of the

semantic formulas.

In another study of Ghazanfari, M., Bonyadi, A., & Malekzadeh, S. (2013)

examined the speech act of refusal performed by native Persian and English speakers

concerning linguistic devices. They founded that there were some differences between

the two languages about refusal utterances and gender. Hedayatnejad, F., & Rahbar, B.

(2014) investigated the effect of gender on the realization of refusals to suggestions in

formal and informal situations among Iranian EFL learners. Findings from their study

showed that learners' realization of refusal strategies were depended upon the

interlocutor's social distance.

Finally, (Hedayatnejad, F., Maleki, R., & Mehrizi, A. A. 2015) have Examined

the effect of social status and gender on the realization of refusal of suggestion among

Iranian EFL intermediate learners. They found that learners utilized more indirect

strategies to address people of equal social status, they applied more direct strategies to

people of low social status, where they applied the same level of direct and indirect

strategies to people of high social status. Both females and males showed no differences

in terms of using specific refusal strategy while interacting with people from different

social status.

2.9 Instruments used in cross-cultural pragmatic studies

Over the past years, many data collection instruments are employed to investigate

speech acts empirically. Almost, all of these studies used a DCT, example of exception

the studies of Morkus, N (2014); and J. Cesar Felix-Brasdefer (2008), for collecting the

data. Furthermore, the majority of these studies examined written or non-interactional

data to analyze the linguistic strategies for expressing refusals in isolated contexts

except for a few studies that utilized interactional data (Labov & Fanshel 1977;

28

Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 1991; Gass & Houck 1999; Labov & Fanshel 1977; Félix-

Brasdefer, J. C. 2008; Arnándiz, O. M., & Salazar-Campillo, P. (2013). The following

is a revision for the instruments which are employed to investigate speech acts

empirically.

2.9.1 Authentic data

Wolfson (1981) pointed out that data need to be gathered “through [direct]

observation and participation in a great variety of spontaneously occurring speech

situations.” However, Labov’s Observer’s Paradox (1972), pointed out that researchers

who gather natural data to examine the way that people use language when they are not

being observed, are often failing to achieve their goal and mostly resort to using other

techniques in eliciting the data, such as interviews. This failure is because they attempt

to obtain natural and systematic data under controlled circumstances. Cohen (1998)

noted some disadvantages concerning gathering naturalistic data. For example, the age

and gender of the participants would be difficult to control over, and data might not

have yielded enough or any examples of target items such as, in our case, strategies

used in a refusal sequence, and it is a very time-consuming process. Given the cross-

cultural focus of the present study, the collection of natural data would not have allowed

the researcher to control the following variables: age, gender, situation, and linguistic

variable. Further, since data from both groups will be collected in Germany and Egypt,

it would have been impossible to gather natural data from comparable refusal situations

and at different levels of social status (i.e., equal and unequal).

29

2.9.2 Discourse completion tasks (DCT)

By reviewing the literature, it is noted that this elicitation technique is the most

popular used instrument in cross-cultural speech act research. It was first developed by

Blum-Kulka (1982). The original format of an incomplete dialogue that the respondent

is asked to complete by providing the required speech act under investigation. The

advantages of using DCT for investigating speech acts in cross-cultural studies that it

allows for cross-cultural comparison, so it is the most efficient method for collecting

data cross-culturally. On the other hand, there are many disadvantages of using DCT

cross-culturally that it does not provide the opportunity to the participants to opt out of

responding (Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985).

So, the researcher cannot capture the critical cultural difference which

characterizes some cultures when dealing with an interlocutor due to certain contextual

factors such as the age, gender, or status of the interlocutor. Therefore, using a DCT

may not allow the researcher to capture this significant cultural difference. In addition,

the DCT format may encourage respondents to write more than what they would

typically say in a real-life situation (Beebe & Cummings, 1996). Finally, it prohibits

the study from capturing the sequential organization of conversation and any possible

paralinguistic features within the communication such as stress, intonation, facial

gestures and body expressions of the participants.

2.9.3 Role-plays

In contrast with using discourse completion task DCT as an instrument to gather

the refusal sequence, role-plays tool permits the gathering of natural pragmatic features

found in everyday ordinary oral discourse to examine interactional features of refusal

speech act. Some examples of these features are the distribution of turns, sequencing of

30

actions, and other features that may have pragmatic importance such as hesitation,

repetition, reformulation, mitigation, and non-verbal signals (silence, laughter, or

joking) (Cohen 1998; Félix-Brasdefer 2003b, 2007). This advantage made the role-

plays a more reliable instrument to have a systematic, comparable data by having a real-

life respond in a different situation and various contexts. In addition, open role-play

would resemble real-life data; therefore, it produces more accurate pragmatic data than

DCT (Tran, 2003). Felix- Brasdefer (2010) found that through this technique

researchers can examine a particular speech act in a sequence of any given

communication, at the discourse level. Most importantly, it permits the researcher to

control the variables especially in conducting a cross-cultural investigation.

2.10 Concluding remarks

Chapter 2 made an overview of the foundations of speech act theory by reviewing

the work of language philosophers Austin (1962) and Searle (1975) to present a ground

of understanding of speech acts and the role of context in analyzing refusals as

sequences in order to observe the patterns of refusals between AFL Germans and native

speakers of Egyptian Arabic in comparable situations.

Since Politeness illustrates itself in any given social interaction and is perceived

differently through sociocultural norms of every society, the chapter provided a critical

review of the concept of politeness by introducing the most influential models of face,

politeness, and relational work that have attempted to explain polite behavior.

First, Grice’s maxims of conversation (1975) which govern the rules of any given

communication, quantity; quality; relation; and manner discussed. Since Brown and

Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness is used as a theoretical framework for most

previous cross-cultural speech act studies, the literature review has presented Brown

31

and Levinson’s variables that affect the seriousness of an FTA. However, since this

research examines social interaction in two different cultures, in formal and informal

situations, the study will not adopt Brown and Levinson’s theory because their model

of politeness claim that the three independent and culturally-sensitive variables (i.e.,

social distance, relative power, and ranking of imposition) are present in all cultures, as

though all speakers come from one speech community and share the same cultural

values. The chapter discussed the model of Scollon and Scollon’s (2001), which is

utilized in this cross-cultural speech act study. This model shed light on the right and

the needs of the speaker to be considered as a member of the society, by proposing the

terms of involvement face, and independence face. According to this model, both terms

should not be considered as ultimate expressions but must be investigated to show the

degree of involvement or independence toward the others in a specific situation within

a particular culture. Thus, scollon and scollon's model is an ideal for investigating the

notion of face cross-culturally because it offers the opportunity to contrast both aspects

of the face in two different cultures, those of Germany (oriented towards independence

as a western society) and Egypt (geared towards involvement) whereas Brown and

Levinson view these factors as universal. in addition, since the study aims to investigate

how people from two different cultures perceive the speech act of refusal as an

indication of being polite or impolite, the chapter provided a critical overview of Watt

relational work (2005) which explains people's perceptions of politeness as a concept

in everyday interaction. This model points out to a broader view of facework that goes

beyond polite or appropriate behavior that is more suitable for describing social

interaction. According to Watts (2005), Brown and Levinson’s Politeness theory is not

a model of politeness which could explain the perception of politeness, but rather a

model of facework that describes social interaction related to mitigation of face-

32

threatening acts. Therefore, their model cannot explain impolite or inappropriate

behavior. Finally, the chapter discussed the empirical studies on refusals in terms of its

results, followed by a discussion of issues on research instruments used for data

gathering in cross-cultural pragmatic studies. The Roll-play data collection instrument

that is utilized in this study are discussed in detail.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a thorough description of the used methodology in this

study. The first section will be devoted to describing the participants in the study in

terms of their age, native language, educational level. Then, a detailed description of

the data gathering instrument will be provided. Next, the procedure of data collection

will be introduced in detail. Then an explanation for the process of data analysis will

be followed to demonstrate how each one of the research questions will be tackled.

Finally, some examples of collected data will be provided. As mentioned in chapter one

“introduction" the present study aims to investigate the speech act of refusal cross-

culturally. The specific focus of the research is to describe how German learners of

Arabic realize this speech act in Egyptian Arabic and how their performance compares

to that of native speakers of Egyptian Arabic. The study aims to compare different

strategies used by German learners of Arabic as they respond in Arabic to that of their

counterpart from native speakers of Germans to find out any pragmatic transfer at the

discourse level, if any exist, from the learner’s L1. In doing so, the study specifically

aims to answer the following research questions. Research Question (1): In what ways,

if any, do Germans from learners of Arabic as a foreign Language differ from native

33

speakers of Egyptian Arabic in their realizations of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian

Arabic in equal and unequal status situations, in terms with the frequency and the

content of semantic formulas? Research Question (2): Are there any incidents of L1

pragmatic transfer, if any, from the German Language when German learners of Arabic

as a foreign Language realize the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic, in equal and

unequal status situations in terms with the frequency and the content of semantic

formulas?

3.2 Participants

Convenience sampling is used in the present study; this condition will be practical

in terms of time and energy saving during the process of data collection. The

participants will be divided into three groups: German Learners of Arabic as a foreign

language, native speakers of Egyptian Arabic, native speakers of German.

3.2.1 German Learners of Arabic as a foreign language (henceforth NNSA)

The first group of participants consisted of 8 German learners of Arabic studying

Arabic at the Arabic School of Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg. These participants'

gender of this group includes both males and females, and they are ranging in age from

18 to 24. All these participants are undergraduate students, and all of them are familiar

with the Egyptian dialect. It is important to be mentioned that the proficiency level of

the members of this group is varying according to the Common European Framework

of Reference for Languages, CEFR. Five of them are in the level A2, one participant

has reached the level B1, and only one participant is in the level B2. Based on the

information and discussions from the ACTFL-CEFR Conferences and resulting papers

and journals, ACTFL worked with an EU-based research group to develop an ACTFL-

34

CEFR crosswalk to be able to offer CEFR ratings for ACTFL assessments (Assigning

CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments, 2019). The ACTFL system divides the skills

into receptive (reading and listening) and productive (speaking and writing), with the

expectation of different proficiency levels in those skills. The corresponding ACTFL

for the participants' proficiency levels are as the following, (A2: Intermediate Mid/Low;

B1: Intermediate High; and B2: Advanced Mid) (see Appendix: table to shows a

comparison of the CEFR global descriptors and ACTFL proficiency levels). All the

participants within this group (NNSA) are native speakers of German and all of them

are Germans. Besides, these students have different majors and specializations.

3.2.2 Native Speakers of Egyptian Arabic (henceforth NSA)

This group consisted of 8 participants who are native speakers of Egyptian

Arabic. These participants are Egyptian university undergraduate students who are

living in Egypt and studying at the American University in Cairo in different majors

and specializations. Same as the like the NNSA group, this group includes both genders

and are ranging in age between 18 and 24 years.

3.2.3 Native Speakers of German (henceforth NSG)

This group of participants consisted of 3 German university undergraduate

students who are studying at the same above-mentioned German university, who have

voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. It is essential to indicate that this group

of participants did not include any participants who participated in the groups described

above. In addition, all of them are native speakers of German and their parents too are

native speakers of German whose ages range from 18 to 24, belonging to the same age

35

group as the NNSA group. Furthermore, the researcher decided to select the participants

of this group of NSG on the basis that they have no familiarity with the Arabic language

and culture. The decision to use participants with no familiarity with Arabic was made

to avoid the risk of reverse pragmatic transfer from Arabic into German. This group

provided the baseline data in German.

3.3 Data collection procedures for the study

As mentioned in chapter two of this present study, the model of (Scollon and

Scollon’s, 2001) concerns with the interpersonal communication and face systems

(hierarchical [+Power]; deference [+Distance]; solidarity [–Distance]), and both

aspects of the face (involvement, independence).

Following (Félix-Brasdefer, J. C, 2008), the present study uses this model

because it offers the opportunity to contrast both aspects of the face in both of German

and Egyptian cultures, the former represents the notion of independence face as a

western society whereas the latter is oriented towards involvement face. Both aspects

of face are present during social interaction in every culture, but Egyptian culture is

expected to be more oriented towards involvement as the notion of being a member in

a group such as a family, friends, or a work-group. The current study investigates how

Germans and Egyptians involvement, or independence predominate during the

interactions. Based on the model mentioned above, the has e study has employed five

situations to include two types of stimuli to refusal (i.e., requests, invitations).

Due to the nature of the study as cross-cultural investigation research, thus data

should be gathered in two different cultures and most importantly in a controlled way.

And, based on the revision within the literature review for the different Instruments

used for data collection in cross-cultural pragmatic studies, the current study utilizes an

open roleplay instrument to collect the data. These role-plays will to be adopted from

36

the previous study of (Félix-Brasdefer, J. C, 2008) and they are contextualized to

provide the participants with sufficient information about the context, including other

social factors such as social distance (+/– D) and power (+/– P). However, the present

study modified these role-plays, a detailed description for the five roleplays is added to

the Appendixes section. Regarding the data which will be collected in German, the

researcher will recruit a native speaker of German to collect the data. The study will

employ five different open role-play situations to elicit refusals in formal and informal

settings to include two refusals to an invitation, and three two to a request.

3.4 Design of the Role-play scenarios

Determination for the description of each refusal situation was based on two

variables: social power (+P or –P) and social distance (+D or –D).

The five refusal situations were classified according to the three face systems

proposed by Scollon and Scollon's (2001) (hierarchical [P+, D+ ], solidarity [ P-, D-],

deference [ P-, D+ ]) and has included refusals to two invitations (situation of Farewell

& Birthday, ), and three requests (situation of: Bookstore, Notes, and Food). The five

refusal situations employed in the current study are listed below according to the social

factors of Power & Distance.

Face system Situation Context Status Distance Power

Hierarchical Formal Request (Bookstore) Lower: Employee-Boss + +

Hierarchical Formal Invitation (Farewell) Lower: Employee-Boss + +

Deference Informal Request (Notes) Equal: Classmate-Classmate + -

Solidarity Informal Invitation (Birthday) Equal: Friend-Friend - -

Solidarity Informal Request (Food) Equal: Friend-Friend - -

37

3.5 Retrospective verbal reports

To enhance the creditability of the role-play data the present study will be

triangulated utilizing two methods: open role plays and retrospective verbal reports.

Besides, to role-play data, the study has employed retrospective verbal reports as

complementary data to corroborate the findings of the production data. This

retrospective reporting, which is conducted immediately after the role-play task, is used

in pragmatics research after performing a speech act to reconstruct the psycholinguistic

processes of speakers. According to the book "Assessing speech acts in a second

language" Cohen (2004) the conjunction of retrospective reports provides an insight

into the production and perception of speech acts.

3.6 Projected treatment of each research question

Since the study is utilizing a mixed research design, the data are analyzed

qualitatively, and quantitatively. In terms of the quantitative analysis, the frequency of

using semantic formulas and refusal strategies is counted and compared for all groups

to have a descriptive statistic about any existing differences and similarities within the

data.

To answer the first research question, frequencies of all refusal strategies used by

the NNSA group and the NSA group are counted and calculated per participant, group,

and situation. The frequency of direct and indirect refusal strategies is compared across

the two groups and the five refusal situations. Based on the quantitative results a

qualitative analysis is done to answer this research question, based on the contextual

factors that affect strategy use in each situation and for each group. Also, the content of

the different refusal strategies such as excuses and explanations, given by the

participants in each group and each situation, is examined and compared within the two

groups.

38

To address the second research question, the responses of the NSG group, as a

baseline data in German, are compared with the refusal responses of the participants of

the NNSA group, as they were refusing in Arabic the same requests and invitations

issued to them by an Arabic interlocutor, the researcher. This is done to find out if there

any existing pragmatic transfer on the part of NNSA group from their L1, German

Language.

3.7 Delimitations

Concerning the delimitations of the study, it is possible to generalize the findings

of the research to only German learners of Arabic who are studying at German

universities using the course book of Modern standard Arabic" ةرصاعملا ةیبرعلا ":

Textbook integrating main Arabic dialects (Schulz & Maisel, 2013). As stated by the

authors within the preface of their book " Since no one speaks Modern Standard Arabic

(MSA) as native language and communication is strongly influenced by local dialects,

students must be proficient in comprehending expressions, phrases and entire

conversations in local dialects. Thus, this textbook follows a new approach to

incorporating Arabic dialects. Starting with lesson 4 all conversational texts are

recorded in MSA as well as the dialects of four main regions: Iraq / Gulf / Arabian

Peninsula; Syria / Lebanon / Palestine; Egypt; and the Maghreb". They have added that

using this textbook enables the student to reach Level A2 after finishing lesson 12 and

Levels B1 – B2 after lesson 24 according to the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR). This compares to the Novice High and Intermediate

Mid-level according to the rating scale of the American Council of Teaching Foreign

Languages (ACTFL). For the Egyptian participants within the NSA group,

generalizations can be made to Arabic-speaking undergraduate Egyptian students at

39

foreign colleges and universities in Egypt. The study does not claim generalization

claims beyond these two groups. Besides, because the study is limited to the Egyptian

dialect of Arabic, no generalization claims are made to other dialects of Arabic. Another

important delimitation was that this study had controlled the age variable of the

participants.

Finally, (Morkus, N. 2009) has stated within his work study, as a trajectory for

future research, that it is essential to interview learners after conducting the role plays

to reach a better understanding of their decision-making process about which strategies

they utilized. Therefore, this study has used the retrospective reports to make it possible

for us to develop our understanding of politeness; namely, we can investigate what

participants think of the notions of politeness as it is recognized in every day social

interaction and how the concepts of social distance and social power seen in these

cultures.

3.8 Data analysis

The 80 sequential refusal interactions from NNSA group and NSA group were

analyzed according to a classification system of pragmatic strategies which are

employed by all the participants to carry out the relational work when negotiating a

refusal in Arabic during conversations. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were

employed toward analyzing the data. The contrastive analysis of the pragmatic

strategies used by Germans and Egyptians is conducted concerning their frequency,

content, and distribution of strategies across the interaction. For both the analysis of the

pragmatic strategies and the internal modification, the frequency of each strategy, and

the number of participants that employed each strategy in each situation is considered.

40

The role-play data are analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Science (SPSS) to analyze strategy use, levels of directness and indirectness when

negotiating a refusal in formal and informal situations (pragmatic strategies). Finally,

as a mean of triangulation for the gathered interactional data, the retrospective verbal

reports are analyzed. This analysis is made concerning the speaker's cognitive ideas

which attended to a refusal interaction, the perceived directness or indirectness degree

in performing the speech act of refusal, and the participants' perception of politeness

regarding the second attempt from their interlocutors to re-request or re-invite them as

an insistence act, after declining the first attempt of requests or invitation.

In addition, in order to address the second research question, the responses of a

group of three native speakers of German (NSG), as a baseline data in the German

Language which are gathered then analyzed in order to find out if there any relationship

between the degree of pragmatic transfer and the using of specific refusal strategy or

specific linguistic content from German Language. In other words, the responses of the

NSG group are employed as a controlled group by which the existing pragmatic transfer

could be recognized. It is essential to mention that those three participants have played

and responded to the same requests and invitations issued to them in the German

Language. Their responses are compared with the responses issued by their

counterparts from the NNSA group, as they were responding in Arabic to the same

requests, invitations from an Arabic interlocutor, in order to investigate NNSA learners’

ability to negotiate a refusal and whether their ability is influenced by their L1, German.

3.9 refusals strategies

The analysis is carried concerning the preference for pragmatic strategies that

comprise the speech act of refusals, within a different context and the diverse social

41

factors of power, and distance. The classification system of these pragmatic strategies,

used by all the participants within this study, is shown a direct-indirect continuum to

included three categories: direct refusals, indirect refusals, and strategies used as

adjuncts to refusals. Below is a description of the pragmatic strategies used in a refusal

response by participants from Germans and Egyptians within this study; each is

followed by examples taken from the actual data.

3.9.1 Direct refusals

Direct refusals included instances where the speaker expresses his inability to

comply using negative propositions (e.g., ‘no,’ ‘I can’t,’ ‘it’s impossible’). According

to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) the used term is ‘on-record strategy’ (see chapter 2:

literature review). In this study, the directness continuum is comprised of strategies that

convey a clear message of the refusal response. This message is often realized through

a flat ‘no,’ or negation of a proposition. Example (1) illustrates a flat ‘no’ response

which is characterized by the lack of internal modification. Example 2 shows the

‘negation of a proposition’ strategies which contain an element that negates the

proposition used in the invitation and request. Negation can be expressed syntactically

by employing the negative elliptical form ‘I can’t,’ or, in example 3, lexically, by using

any word or morpheme (Difficult) that directly negates a proposition. By using this

strategy, the speaker expresses his inability to accept an invitation, or request.

Example in Arabic

Example in English Transliteration Group

انأ لا يتاKLلم GHكأ GHكأ لا انأوQتاKLلم .

No, I write my ownnotes and do not writeyournotes.

/lā ʔana ʔaktob molaxxaṣāti wa ʔana lā ʔaktob molaxxaṣātak/

NNSA Part # 1

42

ر)قاه $م لا \هلعم Qل YهیدأNo,Icannotgivethemtoyou.Sorry

/laʔ miʃ haʔdar ʔaddihomlak maʕliʃ/

NSA Part # 2

ىقa`ه \هلعم ,عص

Sorry,itwillbedifficult. /maʕliʃ hayibʔa ṣaʕb ʔawi/ NSA Part # 3

3.9.2 Indirect refusals

Indirect refusals included various linguistic strategies by which an invitation or

request is indirectly refused. By using these strategies, speaker resort to hiding her/his

intentions in terms of their needs, and goals in a particular discourse situation. The data

within the current study show an indirect continuum encompassed different strategies

employed to express relational work. These are: General reason, reason with

explanation, invested reason, indefinite reply, regret/apology, alternative: change

option/topic, dissuasion/criticism, statement of principles/philosophy, joking/laughing,

sarcasm, giving advice, postponement: change time, repetition of a portion of the

previous utterance, request for information, set condition for future or past acceptance,

wish, promise to comply, self-defense, and preparator. In addition to these indirect

strategies, the study has tested the mitigated refusal expressions which are used to

modify the head act internally by wreaking or mitigating a refusal response.

3.9.2.1 Mitigated refusal

Mitigated refusal are some pragma-linguistic expressions that mitigate the

negative effect of the refusal response internally. Examples of these internal modifiers

are the using of modal adverbs, degree modifiers, or/and some expressions which

reflect mental state predicates of the speaker. In this study, refusals responses were

often mitigated by the following expressions: mental state predicates (‘I think,’ ‘I

43

believe,’ ‘I feel), modal adverbs (probably,’ ‘unfortunately), degree modifiers (I am

very sorry). Speakers employ these mitigators to minimize the illocutionary force of

what is said and to protect both the speaker’s and hearer’s face in situations. These

strategies enable the speaker to achieve his goal of carrying out the relational work

during social interaction. Examples for these Mitigated refusal expressions are provided

in the table below.

Example in Arabic

Example in English Transliteration Mitigated refusal

ةفیاش انأفينعی ركاذت مزلا نأ

So, I think that you should study, I mean

/fa ʔana ʃayfa ʔinn lāzim tiḏākir yaʕni/

mental state predicates

فسلأل انأ دنا كیو هد تبسلا موی عم يقب هایضقم يقببويتلیع

I, unfortunately, Saturday is a weekend and I spend it with my family.

/ʔana lilʔasaf yōm ʔis-sabt da Weekend wi babʔa miʔaḍḍiyāh baʔa maʕa ʕilti/

modal adverbs

دیرا ينعی انا نكلو كدعاسا نا ادج ةلوغشم

I mean, I want to help you, but I am very busy

/yaʕni ʔorīd ʔan ʔosāʕidoka wa lākin ʔana maʃġōla jiddan/

degree modifiers

3.9.2.2 Examples for the different indirect refusal strategies

The next section is devoted to defining the different indirect refusal strategies

which are employed to express relational work. Each definition is supported with a

mean of examples taken from the actual interactional data.

The strategy of giving reason/explanation

The strategy of giving reason/explanation is used to decline an invitation, or

request by providing general reason/s or reason/s along with an explanation. A general

reason/explanation does not justify why the speaker cannot comply with an invitation,

44

or request, as shown in (example 1). Whereas in the (example 2), the reason is equipped

by justification to weak the negative effect of the speech act of refusal.

No Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration

lلاخ jقو \fghعم 1 ةحاLnلا

Idonothaveanytimeatall,frankly

/maʕandīʃwaʔtxāliṣʔiṣ-ṣarāħa/

يGل`ع عم داع`م fgrع انأ 2 يGمام عم ةwxش gعu ادراهfلا

تاجاح Gy`Hح

Ihaveadatewithmyfamilyafterafewdayswithmymother,sheisgoingtobuystuff.

/ʔanaʕandimaʕādmaʕaʕiltiʔin-nahardabaʕdʃowayyamaʕamamtibitgībħagāt/

gجwی ءا��لا ا�ه يف فسلأل 2 ةلفح ا�ه نلأ اgج Yهم gعwم ا�ه يف اh�أ يمأ gلwم g`ع NNSA 1 عawسلاا

Unfortunately,inthisevening,thereisaveryimportantappointmentthatmymother'sbirthdayisalsointhisweek

/lilʔasaffihāḏaʔal-masāʔyōjadmawʕidmohimjiddanliʔannahāḏaħaflatʕīdmawlidʔommiʔayḍanfihāḏaʔal-ʔosbōʕ/

Invested reason

invested reason: Speakers who use this strategy want to arrive at a mutual

resolution with their interlocutor, as in the next example.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration \�ف ؛اهل� اهاLلKم \م فسلأل انأ ام �G`n كg`فGه

Unfortunately,Ididnotfinishthemall.So,youwillnotbenefitfromthemthatmuch.

/manalilʔasafmiʃmixallaṣāhakollaha,famiʃhatfīdakkitīr/

notdidINo,Umm, تاKLلم GHكأ Yل لا �Yهاwritesummaries

/lālamʔaktobmolaxxaṣāt/

45

Indefinite reply

Indefinite reply by which the message of the speaker remains uncertain, or vague.

Below is an example to show an uncertain response.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration

,knowdon'tImm, ةحاLnلا \فnعم ااامfrankly.

/māmaʕrafʃʔiṣ-ṣarāħa/

didYouknow.don'tIj No.سرد �j`ل jنا فnعأ لا لاnothavestudied.

/lālāʔaʕrifoʔantalaysatdarasto/

Regret/apology

Regret/apology are expressions of regret are committed by the speakers against

the hearer. In the speech act of refusals, employing apologies, and expressions of regret,

are operated to ask for forgiveness as an indirect strategy to reflect the relational work

between interlocutors. These expressions may be interpreted as polite behavior. The

data within this study shows the categories of apology, regret, and asking for

forgiveness. Below are some examples which is taken from the data.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration

sorrymore,anyNot ةفسآ 3/خآ ة/م لا /lāmarrahʔoxraʔāsifa/ م@ی 3أ @ل <=>م ةفسآ انأ ي8ع7 يقD يناتImean,Iamsorry.Itwouldbepossibleifinanyotherday

/yaʕniʔanaʔasfamomkinlawʔayyyōmtānibaʔa/

sorryamIsorry,No, ةفسآ انأ $هلعم لا /laʔmaʕliʃʔanaʔasfa/

Alternatives: Change option

Alternatives: Change option: participants have employed this strategy to offer

some alternatives to reach an agreement with their interlocutor by negotiating face.

Sometimes this indirect strategy is employed to direct the conversation away from the

request, or the invitation itself by proposing alternatives, as shown in the examples

below.

46

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration

اQR ىلع اه>Nقن وأ ه/=D لاJم اهIلHن م@یForexample,wecanmakeittomorroworspreaditoutonseveraldays.

/nixallihamaӨalanbokraʔawniʔassimhaʕalakaḏayōm/

NNSA ؟ةلفUلا م@ی )عD ةلباقم <=>م7

Isitpossible,tohaveameetingafterpartyday?

/momkinʔarbʕamoʔablabaʕdyōmʔil-ħafla/

Dissuasion/criticism

Speakers criticize their interlocutor for announcing their feeling, intention with

no consideration to the face of their interlocutor. Examples of this strategy are shown

below.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration <I][ح /I]I> Q]عاس ي8ع7 @ه

NSA 6

Actually,Imean,twohoursisalittlebittoomuch

/howwayaʕnisaʕtīnkitīrħabbitēn/

INaل انأ نلأا /QJI/ QJI اRه NNSA 7 يع@ج

Thisistootoomuch.Fornow,Iamnothungry

/hāḏakaӨīrkaӨīrʔalʔānʔanalaysatjawʕa/

Statement of principles/philosophy

This strategy is used in this study to mitigate the illocutionary force of the refusal

by explaining to the interlocutor that the speaker’s refusal stems from certain beliefs or

principles, and not because he or she does not want to threaten her/his positive face.

The following examples are found in the data.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration u� ام انأ u�a\ دأr لاfwب �تGعاGل ي�g

NSA 4

But,Idonotlikegivingmyownnotestoanyone

/bassʔanamabaħibbiʃʔaddiʔil-Notesbitaʕtiliħadd/

م@قت Ifل aنأو ا)ج يHdش اRه لا NNSA 7 سر)لا يف ,جا@لا

Thisisverypersonal,andyoudonotdothehomeworkinlessons

/lāhāḏaʃaxṣijiddanwaʔantalaysataqōmbilwājibifi(ʔ)id-darsi/

47

Joking/laughing

This strategy is considered used to distract the interlocutor from pursuing the

request or invitation any further. It is important to notice that this strategy has two sides

of the same coin that it could be interpreted as a positive politeness strategy since it

expresses solidarity with the interlocutor, but it could be understood as a sort of sarcasm

if the situation is urgent. Furthermore, it could reflect a sense of lack of empathy with

the requester. The following examples are found in the data.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration ةزیزع طنط يھ ينعیو اللهو ةفراع انأ انأ شلعم لاعف ةرداق شم انأ سب يوأ ایلع ھھھھھ ينعی ھلك اھلكأ ةلكاو

NSA 1

I know, I swear that I mean Tant is very precious person to me. But really, I can’t sorry. I have eaten all her food, I mean." Laughing"

/ʔana ʕarfa wallāhi we yaʕni hiyya ṭanṭ ʕazīza ʕalayya ʔawi bass ʔana miʃ ʔadra fiʕlan maʕliʃ ʔana wakla ʔaklahā kolloh yaʕni xallaṣtilkom ʔil-ʔakl/

ممما دجوی ينعی انسأر يف اروف انیدل NNSA 5 ھھھھھ رجفنی يغامد

Immediately, we have in our head, I mean, there is [mumbling] my head is exploding [laughing].

/ladayna fawran fi raʔsina yaʕni yōjad dimāġi yanfajir/

Sarcasm

Sarcasm is an ironic or satirical commentary that seems to be praising someone

or something but is taunting or cutting. Irony can be used to hurt or offend or can be

used for comic effect. Some cases are found within the data; below are the examples.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration يfعh كاعم ا�fر

NSA 2

Godwithyou,Imean /rabbinamʕākyaʕni/

hههههه �`��م ا. NNSA 4

Poorman[laughing]. /yamiskīn/

48

Giving advice

By using this strategy, the speaker who utters the refusal provides the other party

a piece of advice about issues which are connected with the proposition. The following

are some examples gathered from the data.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration نا�لع ؛Yهفت لاعف نا�لع يfعn hكا�ت مزلا ةجاح Yهفتاه \م �تfwلا تgخأ wل ىGح

NSA 4

Youshouldstudy,Imean,toreallyunderstand.Becauseevenifyoutookthenotes,youwillnotunderstandanything.

/lāzimtiḏākiryaʕniʕalaʃānfiʕlantifham,ʕalaʃānħatalawʔaxadtʔil-Notesmiʃhatifhamħāga/

awritewillyoutimel NNSA 1 Thisن �GHت jنا ة�nلا ه�هtext.

/hāḏihi(ʔ)il-marraʔantataktobonaṣ/

Postponement: Change Time

Postponing is a refusal strategy by which the speaker tries not to commit so that

she/he puts off an invitation or request. This strategy is employed to negotiate face

across the interaction, to promote the relational work by delaying the speech act of

refusal. In addition, this strategy distracts the interlocutor’s attention away from the

negative effect of the immediate refusal response. Examples of postponement are

illustrating below.

Example in Arabic Example in English Transliteration اIن)لا ادراه8لا ناiلع ينات م@ی يف <=>م ةkN/=م

Maybeinanotherdaybecausethewholethingtodayisreallyhectic.

/momkinfiyōmtāniʕalaʃānʔin-nahardaʔid-dinyamikarbisa/

Df لا <=>م انأU( لاlةعاس <=>م 3ا ButItwillbepossibleformeonthenextSunday

/basʔanamomkinʔil-ħaddʔil-gayymomkinsāʕa/

49

Repetition of a portion of previous utterance

This strategy is used to distract the attention of the interlocutor and to gain some

time to think in an appropriate response while refusing a request, or invitation.

Moreover, this strategy delays the dis-preferred response. For example:

Arabic English Transliteration Group

اناعم grعقت Qل�ف �م ةداnز ةعاس ؟ةداnز ةعاس

Please stay foran extra hourwithus.Employee:Anextrahour?

/minfaḍlikbaʔaPlease,toʕʕodimʕanasāʕaziyāda,Employee:sāʕaziyāda?

NSA Part #

مداقلا ةع�yلا مwی ةع�yلا هأ

The next Friday Okay, Friday

/yawmʔal-jomʕaʔal-qādim/Employee:/ʔāhyōmʔil-gomʕa/

NNSA Part #1

Request for information

by using this strategy, speakers ask for extra details not mentioned previously in

the interlocutor’s request, or invitation. By employing such a strategy, the speaker

promotes relational work. In addition, speakers utilize it to show a great deal of interest

of their interlocutor's proposition, or to have extra information upon which she/he may

be able to develop a good reason with explanation to justify the upcoming refusal, and

to arrive an agreement with the other party of the conversation. Examples of this

strategy are shown below.

Example in Arabic

Example in English

Transliteration

3اlلا N]aلا ؟ل@o ىلع هد

ThisnextSaturdayImmediately?

/ʔis-sabtʔil-gayydaʕalaṭōl/

fت@8لا @ه rیاع aنأ لاو ؟اهلك ؟ي8عI> 7عم ءrج

Allthenotes?Ordoyouwantaspecificpart,Imean?

/howwaʔil-Noteskollahawallaʔintaʕāyizgozʔmoʕayyanyaʕni/

50

Set condition for future or past acceptance

This indirect strategy employed to create a hypothetical condition under which

acceptance would occur in the future or would be accepted in the future. If the condition

refers to the future, the person who refuses may or may not complete the act. In contrast,

if the condition refers to the past, the refuse is not complying with the act. See examples

of this strategy below.

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration Group

ل[ق $Iل]ل@ق ام uت/tح هIل 3ر)ب <م ه)ك

Whyhaveyounottoldmeearlier?

/ħaḍritikmaʔoltīʃʔablkidaminbadrilēh?/

NSA Part # 2

Wish

This strategy communicates the participant’s desire or wish to accept an invitation

or request. In addition, it is employed to mark a polite behavior from the side of the

person who refuses an invitation, or request to show a supportive facework to her/his

interlocutor. Examples of this strategy are as the following:

Example in Arabic

English Transliteration

ينأ ا)ج يNفن ناQ ي8ع7 يجأ ر)قأ انأ

Imean,IwishthatIcouldcome

/yaʕnikānnifsigiddanʔinniʔaʔdarʔāgi/

tolovewouldI ةلفح يلا ,هذأ نأ ,حأgototheparty.

/ʔoħibboʔanʔaḏhabaʔilaħafla/

Promise to comply

By using this strategy, the refuser does not want to make any commitment to

accept an invitation, a request, or a suggestion, although s/he may try to comply at any

point in the future.

51

Example in Arabic

Example in English

Transliteration

Iwilling,God يجأ لواUه الله ءاش نإwilltrytocome

/ʔinʃāʔallāhhaħāwilʔāgi/

<=>م ةل=iم $7)8عم ك)عاسأ

Ihavenoproblem;itispossiblethatIhelpyou.

/maʕandīʃmoʃkilamomkinʔasaʕdak/

Self-defense

This refuser employs this strategy to announce to her/his hearer that she/he is

doing all her/his best, and if the proposition is accepted, she/he will be hurt as a

consequence.

Example in Arabic

Example in English

Transliteration

u� ام انأ u�a\ دأr نا�لع ؛�gل يتعاتب ستونلا يف ا�wحلا`ب ر�w`فوanلا Hتا� ن�w`ب �`م تانا�Gملاا ةجا�لا �فن

Idonotlikegivingmynotestoanyonebecausetheprofessorsnoticewhowritethesamething.

/bassʔanamabaħibbiʃʔaddiʔil-Notesbitaʕtiliħadd,ʔil-Professorbiylaħẓofi(ʔ)il-ʔimtaħanātmīnbiykōnkātibnafsʔil-ħāga/

ul مwضwاد ستونلا ع uLnةحا hعfقلق`ب يfي

Look, the notes' issue, frankly, I mean, makes me worry

/boṣmawḍōʕʔil-Notesdabiṣarāħayaʕnibiyiʔliʔni/

Preparator

Preparators help the speaker to prepare her/his interlocutor for the upcoming

refusal utterance by using some ways to announce that she/he will refuse the proposition

of the invitation or the request. In addition, it works as a preparation stage by which the

52

person who refuses would be able to soften the negative consequences of the speech act

of refusal, as seen in the following examples.

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration

Df لا يه<i=ع ةلfgr �ajلا مwی

ButtheproblemisthatIhaveonSaturdayanotherissues

/basshiyyaʔil-moʃkilaʕandiyōmʔis-sabt/

ةل=i>لا ةر�عم ��Yهها Yعن يG`ب يف Hهذا انا ينلا ة�nxم يGخأ نلا اgج

Yes,hmm,excuseme,theproblemisthatIamgoingtomysister'shousebecausesheisverysick

/naʕammaʕḏiratanʔal-moʃkilalaʔanniʔanaʔaḏhabofibaytiliʔannaʔoxtimariḍajiddan/

3.9.3 Adjuncts to refusals

Finally, the strategies, which are employed as adjuncts to refusals comprise seven

strategies that expressed positive, supportive facework and were utilized to preface or

to follow a refusal response. These are positive opinion, expression of gratitude, lack

of empathy, solidarity/ empathy, pause filler, request for understanding, and invoking

the name of God. These adjunct strategies to refusals are functioning as external

modifications to the refusal head act. In addition, these adjunct strategies are open to a

polite interpretation. Definitions and examples of these strategies are provided below.

Positive opinion

During the speech act of refusals for an invitation, or request, the refuser may

provide some positive expressions before or after a refusal head act to mitigate the

53

situation and maintain the positive relationship with his interlocutor. Examples of this

strategy include a positive comment or any other positive remarks, as shown below.

Example in Arabic

Example in English

Transliteration Group

Qل يfعQ hنأ اgج ةg`عس انأ . ةدیجلا ةصnفلا ه�ه

Iamreallyhappythatyouhave,Imean,[silence]thisgoodopportunity

/ʔanasaʕīdajiddanʔannakayaʕnilakahāḏihiʔal-forṣaʔal-jayyida/

NNSA Part # 1

gحاو لوأ jنا نأ فراع jنأ هل حورأ انأ ينأ ضوnف�لا .ةلفح لماع ىقaی ا�ل لاعف

YouknowthatyouarethefirstpersonwhoIshouldgotohimwhenheishavingaparty

/ʔintaʕārifʔinnʔintaʔawwilwāħidʔil-mafrōḍʔinniʔanaʔaroħlohfiʕlanlammayibʔaʕāmilħafla/

NSA Part # 6

Gratitude/appreciation

Expressions of appreciation are used to support the relational work during

interaction with an interlocutor when refusing an invitation, or request. Examples of

this strategy are displayed below.

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration Group

ریتك تاجاح يلتلمع تنأ ھیأ فراع شمو ،ينتقرو ای يوأ ریتك تاجاح ينعی روتكد

Imean,youdidalotformeandpromotedme.

/ʔintaʕamaltiliħagātkitīrwiraʔʔitni,wimiʃʕārifʔēhyaʕniħagātkitīrʔawiyaDoctor/

NSA Part # 5

كتوعدل ةوعدلل اركش اركش ؟ةلفحلا هذھ يتمو

Thanks,thankyoufortheinvitation,forinvitingme.Andwhenisthisparty?

/ʃokranʃokranlid-daʕwalidaʕwatikawamatahāḏihi(ʔ)il-ħafla?/

NNSA Part #5

54

Lack of empathy

This is another strategy which is employed to show that the speaker does not care

about the feeling of her/his interlocutor’s or the proposition. This strategy is considered

as threatens act to the interlocutor’s face. However, it is spotted mostly within the

deference face system in the situation in which the speaker refuses a classmate's request

to borrow his notes.

Example in Arabic

English Transliteration

ناشلع ھھھ شحو كظح لا ابیرقت اھدختھ شم تنأ ينعی

Your luck is Tough [laughing] because, probably, I mean that you will not take them

/laʔ ħaẓẓak wiħiʃ ʕalaʃān ʔinta miʃ hataxodha taʔrīban yaʕni/

يتعاتب ستونلا بحب انأ صلاخ ایل اھب ظفتحب

I love my own notes; thus, I keep them to myself.

/ʔana baħibb ʔil-Notes bitaʕti baħtafiẓ bīha liyya xāliṣ/

Empathy

During the refusal situations, participants who utilized this strategy showed a

degree of involvement and understanding of the feeling, problem of her/his interlocutor.

Below are two examples, for this strategy, in which two German participants used this

strategy to initiate a refusal to the boss’ request to stay at work for extra time.

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration Group

لا اوعاطتسا نكلو اوتفش اوتفش ةفسآ انا نلأا لمعأ نا اوعاطتسا

I saw it I saw it. But I can, I cannot work for now. Sorry

/ʃofto ʃofto walākin ʔistaṭāʕo lā ʔistaṭāʕo ʔan ʔaʕmala ʔalʔān/

NNSA Part # 3

مھفا انأ فرعت تنأ يزیزع ای يدنع معن نكلو ممھھا كتلكشم اضیأ ةصاخ ةصاخ تاجاح

My dear. You know I understand your problem [mumbling] but yes, I have very private issues as well.

/yā ʕazizi ʔanta taʕrif ʔana ʔafhamo moʃkilataka walākin naʕam ʕindi ħagāt xāṣṣa xāṣṣa ʔayḍan/

NNSA Part # 5

55

Paus filler

These filler sounds, or words are employed as discourse markers to reflect a state

of hesitation. Common examples include uh, um, ah, okay, like, right. These fillers are

meaningless sound, word, or phrase used during a speech to fill the silence, but they

have a pragmatic function during the conversations. Below are some examples.

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration

I am [mumbling] ادج فسأ فسأ انأ ممھاsorry, very sorry.

/ʔana ʔāsif ʔāsif giddan/

ام ةحارصب انأ وھ أأأ فوشی دح يلخأ أأأ شبحب يتعاتب ستونلا

[Stumbling] frankly, I do not like [stumbling] to let anyone see my own notes.

/howwa ʔana biṣarāħa mabaħibbiʃ ʔaxalli ħadd yiʃōf ʔil-Notes bitaʕti/

Request for understanding

This adjunct strategy to refusals distracts the interlocutor from the illocutionary

force of the refusal. By using this strategy, the speaker is asking for the interlocutor’s

understanding of his problem if he would accept the proposition of invitation, or

request. Speaker uses this strategy to soften the refusal act by announcing her/his

inability to comply with the request or invitation. Below are some examples

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration

اذھ دیرأ يروسفورب لا لا ادغ بجاولا

No, no, my professor wants this assignment tomorrow.

/lā lā brofisōri ʔorīd hāḏa (ʔ)al-wājib ġadan/

ينعی اھسحب انأ لصأ ينعی ھتقیرطب دحاو لك مھاف

I mean, I feel like I mean, are you understand, everyone has his own manner.

/yaʕni ʔaṣli ʔana baħissaha yaʕni fāhim kol wāħid biṭariʔto kida/

56

Invoking the name of God

In a previous study investigating the speech act of swearing in Arabic, Abdel-

Jawad (2000) found that swearing is used in Arabic to preface almost all types of speech

acts. He found that it is a common strategy used in Arabic to mitigate the illocutionary

force of the speech act of refusal. This strategy is employed as a mean of swearing to

reflect and confirm the truth of the speaker's utterances. Only three participants from

the NNSA group have utilized this strategy (Part # 1,3, and 5), sometimes it comes

directly before the head act of the refusal and in other cases after it.

Example in Arabic Example in English

Transliteration Group

اللهو ينعی انأ وھ ام هأ عفنیھ شم

Ah, well, the issue is, I mean, I swear by God it will not work

/ʔāh ma howwa ʔana yaʕni wallāhi miʃ hayinf

NSA Part # 1

لا اللهو نكلو ادج ذیذل ناك لكأ نأ عیطتسأ

It was very tasty, but I swear by God that I cannot eat

/kān laḏīḏ jiddan walākin wallāhi lā ʔastaṭīʕ ʔan ʔākol/

NNSA Part # 1

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

Within this chapter, the results of the interactional data are provided in detail and

are organized by the type of analysis. First, the quantitative results are presented and

are followed by the qualitative analysis for the retrospective verbal reports. These

reports are analyzed as a complementary data to corroborate the results of the

production data by examining the perceptions of refusals among AFL Germans and

Egyptians, and to have a close look at the participants’ perceptions of politeness during

57

the negotiation of a refusal. The quantitative results are presented concerning the

overall frequency and distribution of the pragmatic linguistic strategies which are

employed to negotiate a refusal (table 1), and the most frequently used strategies by

NNSA group and NSA group to express relational work (table 2). Then, the results are

presented about the issue of individual variability in employing the refusal strategies

across the five situations (tables 3,4). Table (5) represents the results according to the

model of (Scollon & Scollon 2001), to show the realization patterns (e.g., direct,

indirect, or adjunct to refusal) of refusals for both groups for each situation and

according to the three face systems (hierarchical [P+/D+]: two situations; deference [P–

/+D]: one situation; and solidarity [P–/D–]: two situations). Finally, a side by side

comparison for all the three groups, (NNSA; NSG; NSA), is made to highlight the cases

of pragmatic transfer in utilizing specific refusal strategies among the participants

(tables 6,7).

The analysis of the 80 role-play interactions among German NNSA (n = 40), and

the Egyptian group (n = 40) yielded a total of (786) pragmatic strategies, which

functioned as direct, indirect and adjunct to refusals. Of these, (381) strategies were

identified in the data of NNSA group, and (405) in the NSA group's data (Table 1).

Some of these strategies are employed as a head act (e.g., كلذلو تقولا لك امئاد ادج لاوغشم انا

عیطتسأ لا , I am very busy all the time, so I can't), which is preceded or followed by means

of supportive moves (indirect or adjunct to refusal strategies) to modify the refusal

externally. It is essential to be mentioned that there are some mitigated refusal

expressions which are used to modify the head act internally by wreaking or mitigating

a refusal response. Whereas, the seven adjuncts to refusal strategies are used as

supportive movies to modify the head act externally. The interactional data entails three

sorts of mitigated refusals: verbal epistemic modal, e.g., I think, I believe; modal

58

adverbs and degree modifiers. The last part of this section is presented an in-detail

analysis of selected interactions from the two groups (NNSA, NSA), to reach a better

understanding of how the refusal speech act is structured and how refusals are recycled

through turns at the discourse level.

4.2 The overall frequency and distribution of the linguistic pragmatic strategies

First, with respect to the overall frequency and distribution of the linguistic

pragmatic strategies which are employed to negotiate a refusal, table (1) presented the

frequency and distribution of the overall pragmatic strategies that were identified in the

role-play data among German NNSA and NSA group across the five situations to

manifest the relational work. Besides, each strategy is equipped with the percentage

(%), frequency (f), mean (M), and standard deviation (SD), for the groups.

Thirty pragmatic strategies were identified in the role-play data among the

participants of the NNSA group and NSA group across the five situations. Of these,

direct strategies (2 strategies); indirect (21 strategies); and the adjuncts to refusals (7

strategies). All the strategies are employed with different degrees of preference within

each group and between the two groups to show a range of similarity and differences.

59

Table (1). Overall distribution of pragmatic strategies among NNSA German group and Native Egyptian group (786 strategies)

4.2.1 Overall similarities and differences in the realization of the direct refusal

strategies

Table (1) showed that for both groups some of these strategies are employed

similarly in a relatively high proportion, for both groups, during the negotiation of a

refusal. First, about the direct refusals, the direct strategy of flat no was employed

similarly between the two groups (NNSA: 8.7%; NSA:8.6%). Whereas, the direct

strategy of negation of proposition is realized differently between the groups, to show

a frequency gap in favor of the NSA group (NSA:12.1%; NNSA: 6%;)

4.2.2 Overall similarities and differences in the realization of the indirect refusal

strategies

Regarding the using of the indirect refusals strategies, the results show many

cases of similarities and differences in the realization of these indirect strategies

between the two groups. For example, the indirect strategy of giving a general reason

60

is utilized similarly for both groups: (NSA:6.9%; NNSA: 6%), and the frequency of

using the strategy of giving reasons with explanations was (NNSA: 7%; NSA: 5.7%).

In addition, results presented a frequency gap between the two groups concerning

other strategies. For example, the frequency percentage of the Joking/ laughing strategy

was (NNSA: 4 %; NSA:2.5%), the dissuasion/criticism strategy was (NNSA: 6 %;

NSA:3.5%). Further, a similar tendency in employing other indirect strategies is

noticed. For example, the frequency percentage of the strategy of Indefinite

reply/Hedging was (NNSA: 2%; NSA:3.2%), and for Change option, it was (NNSA:

3%; NSA: 3.2%). Regarding the adjunct to refusals strategies, both groups have used

the pause filler strategy in a similar high frequency (NNSA:10%; NSA: 9.4%). Table 1

showed that some strategies are utilized infrequently within each group. For instance,

the frequency percentage of using the strategy of repetition portion of previous

utterance was (NNSA: 2%; NSA:1.7%), for the strategy of Wish it was (NNSA:2%;

NSA: 2%), for the Promise to comply strategy it was (NNSA:1%; NSA:1%), and for

the strategy of giving positive opinion it was (NNSA: 2%; NSA:1.5%).

In addition, the table shows a discrepancy in preference of choosing specific

refusal strategies. For example, the indirect refusal strategy of Apology/Regret:

(NNSA: 12%; NSA:4%), Request for information: (NNSA: 5%; NSA:2.2%), and

Preparator (NNSA: 3%; NSA:5.9%) and Invoking Name of God (NNSA: 1%;

NSA:3.2%). However, (table 1) showed that two strategies had not been used at all

during the refusal scenarios. That is, NNSA group did not use the strategy of set

condition for future or past acceptance; however, the gathered data from the NSG

controlled group from native German showed a case of using this strategy. The

following is an example which is taken from the actual data." (Bookstore, hierarchical

P+, P- / native German group: "Es tut mir Wirklich leid, es wird Wirklich eng bei mir,

61

Vielleicht wenn ich früher gewusst hätte ebenso planen," I'm really sorry. This will be

really tight on time for me. Maybe, if I had known earlier, I would have planned for it.

[Head Act].

Although that NSG controlled group from native Germans have realized the

strategy of set condition for past or previous acceptance as they negotiated refusals in

German, the elicited data in Arabic from the 8 participants of the NNSA group did not

show any incident of using this strategy. This could be explained that the NNSA

participants could not realize this pragmatic usage of this strategy in Arabic. However,

this point will be tackled later within this chapter in the section which is devoted to

answering the second research question about the cases of pragmatic transfer. In

contrast, the NSA group did not employ the strategy of Solidarity/ Empathy at all;

however, the NNSA group has used this strategy with a very low frequency (NNSA:

1%, NSA: 0%). Overall, the numeric results in Table 1 showed how each refusal

strategy was employed frequently or infrequently by each group.

4.3 Most frequently used strategies by German AFL learners and native Egyptians

Table 2 shows the most frequently used strategies by the NNSA group and the

NSA group in descending order.

Table 2 shows the most frequently used refusal strategies by the NNSA from Germans and NSA in descending order

62

The table represents a similar tendency in employing the indirect refusal

strategy of paus-filler and the direct Flat No to came second and third, respectively

(NNSA: 10%, 8.7%; NSA:9.4%, 8.6%). The following are two examples from

comparable scenarios, example (1) is taken from the NNSA group, and the example

(2) is selected from the NSA group.

) # NNSA 4( .ةفسآ فسآ nrخأ ةnم لا لا .1No,notanymore,sorry /lālāmarrahʔoxraʔāsifʔasfa/

)# NSA 6( .لا اهGKgه \م ،lلاخ اهKgت لاو لا لا .1No,No,youwillnevertakethem.Youwillnottakethem,No. /laʔlaʔwalataxodhaxāliṣmiʃhataxodhalaʔ/

Flat no: (Notes: A student refuses a classmate’s request to borrow his private notes, –P, +D)

Besides, the speech act of refusal for both groups is often realized through

providing reasons across the five situations. However, NNSA group utilized this

strategy more along with explanations to be their fourth preferred strategy (NNSA: 7

%). Whereas, NSA group provided more general reasons with no explanation (NSA:

6.9 % General reason).

) NNSA # 1( aقو 3)8ع ام \هلعم ةع�yلا .1Friday,sorry,Idonothavetime. /ʔil-gomʕamaʕliʃmāʕindiwaqt/

general reason: (Farewell: An employee declines a boss’ invitation to attend a farewell party +P, +D)

It is noteworthy that the NNSA group, belonging to western culture, showed more

tendency toward involvement with their interlocutors by providing more specific

reasons/explanations than the native Egyptians, whereas previous findings of a refusal

cross-culture study have revealed that American refusals, as a western society, must be

clearly articulated and reasons do not necessarily be offered, (Kanemoto, (1993) see

)NSA # 2( ةجراخ انأ ضورفملا ،تبسلا موی يدنع ةلكشملا يھ سب أأأ .2[Stumbling] But, the problem is that on Saturday; I am supposed to go out. /bass heyya (ʔi)l-moʃkila ʕandi yōm ʔis-sabt ʔilmafrōḍ ʔana xarga/

63

chapter two). Both are western cultures, but they showed differences regarding their

preferences in using the indirect refusal strategies of reasons/explanations. Thus, it is

found that this variation between two western cultures, American, and German, is

consistent with the criticisms for Brown & Levinson theory in the literature. Brown &

Levinson model of politeness claimed that the three independent and culturally-

sensitive variables (i.e., social distance, relative power, and ranking of imposition) are

present in all cultures, as though all speakers come from one speech community and

share the same cultural values. In contrast, this finding proved that the model of Scollon

and Scollon's (2001) is ideal for investigating the notion of the face within any given

speech act society. Scollon and Scollon's (2001) sheds light on the right and the needs

of the speaker to be considered as a contributing member of the society, by proposing

the terms of involvement, and independence. According to this model, neither of these

terms should be considered as ultimate expressions; but in any interaction, both aspects

of the face must be investigated to show the appropriate degree of involvement or

independence toward the interlocutor. Thus, scollon and scollon's model indicates that

the power and social distance factors should be interpreted as a changing notion by the

context of a specific situation within a particular culture. Below are examples of the

strategy of giving a specific reason with an explanation.

ينعی تبسلا موی يف دعوم يدنع ةحارصب نكلو ادج فسأتم انأ يدیس ای هووا .1 NNSA( ةنسلا يف ةدحاو ةرم سنوت يف انھ ةلئاعلا هذھو نانبل نم ةلئاع عم ءاقل يدنع ممھا

# 5( Oh sir, I am really sorry, but, honestly, I have an appointment on Saturday. I

mean, [mumbling] I have a meeting with a family from Lebanon and this family is here in Tunisia only once a year.

ʔōh ya sīdi ʔana motaʔassif giddan walākin biṣarāħa ʕindi mawʕid fi yawm ʔas-sabt yaʕni ʕandi liqāʔ maʕa ʕāʔila min lobnān wa hāḏihi (ʔ)il-ʕāʔila hona min tōnis marra wāħida fi (ʔ)is-sana/

64

تیبلا عجرأ مزلاو ،نابعت ةحارصب ياباب انأ سب ،يجأ لواحھ الله ءاش نإ .2 )NSA # 4( ينعی يتمام دعاسا

God willing, I will try to come. But my father, honestly, is ill, So, I have to go back home to help my mother, I mean.

/ʔin ʃāʔallāh haħāwil ʔāgi, bass ʔana babāya biṣarāħa ta3bān, wilāzim ʔargaʕ ʔil-bēt ʔasāʕid mamti yaʕni/

(Farewell: An employee declines a boss’ invitation to attend a farewell party +P, +D)

Table 2 showed that the NNSA group have employed the indirect strategy of

Apology/Regret strategy extremely (12%) to be their first most used indirect strategy

whereas the NSA group has employed the regret/apologizing strategy only with a

percentage of 4% of their total refusal’s utterances. The excessive usage of

apology/regret strategy on the part of NNSA group (12%), asking the other party of the

conversation for forgiveness, could be interpreted as a polite behavior in a relation of

relational work framework. The classification model in this study has understood both

categories of regretting and apologizing as one indirect refusal strategy. The high

percentage of using apology/ regret strategy within the NNSA group's data is agreed

with the findings from other previous refusal studies which have compared the refusals

of learners to native speakers (Felix-Brasdefer, 2002; Morkus, N., 2009). Expressing

regret or sorrow is a different form of the mitigated epistemic modality expressions of

modal adverbs. ), e.g., unfortunately). However, the data of the NNSA group have

entailed this form of mitigated modal adverb " فسلأل " to express sorrow and regret only

one time" ادج مھم دعوم دجوی ءاسملا اذھ يف فسلأل ." The participants of the NNSA group have

employed some other forms of regretting, such as the form of " ادج فسأتم انأ ," and

sometimes in the form of" ادج فسأ انأ " to mitigate the indirect refusal strategy by using

the degree modifier " very." Below are examples of this strategy.

65

)NNSA # 3( لمع يدنع لمع يدنع ھفسأ انأ مممھا .1[Mumbling] I am sorry, I have work. I have work. /ʔana ʔāsifa ʕindi ʕamal ʕindi ʕamal/

اعبط سانلا لك فوشأو ،يجا ينأ يسفن ناك ادج فسأ انأ فسأ انأ شھلعم .2)NSA # 8(

[Mumbling] I am sorry, I am very sorry I wanted to come and see everyone of course.

/maʕliʃ ʔana ʔāsif ʔana ʔāsif giddan kān nifsi ʔāgi wa (ʔ)aʃōf kolli (ʔ)in-nās ṭabʕan/

Apology/Regret:(Birthday: A student refuses a friend’s invitation to attend a birthday party –P, –D)

NSA has depended heavily on the direct strategy of negation of proposition to be

their first most frequently used strategy (12.1% or f= 49), but almost all of them have

mitigated this direct refusal using some mitigators, such as the discourse marker "

شھلعم ." In the following are some examples of using this discourse marker along with

the direct refusal strategy of negation of the proposition to modify a direct refusal

response externally and to soften the negative effects of this direct refusal.

) # NNSA 5( امئاد كدعاسأ نأ عیطتسأ لا ادج لوغشم انأ .1I am very busy. I cannot help you always. /ʔana maʃġōl jiddan lā ʔastaṭīʕ ʔan ʔosāʕidoka dāʔiman/

)# NSA 2( شھلعم كل مھیدأ ردقھ شم لا .2No, I will not be able to give them to you, Sorry. /laʔ miʃ haʔdar ʔaddihomlak maʕliʃ/

Negation of proposition: (Notes: A student refuses a classmate’s request to borrow his private notes, –P, +D)

Some participants from NSA group resorted to modifying the direct refusal

strategy of negation the proposition by utilizing another adjunct to refusal strategy of

invoking the Name of God, for example: “ عفنیھ شم اللهو ."

)# NSA 3 ( يتقولد ایاعم شم انأ ناشلع سب عفنیھ شم اللهو .1I swear by God it will not work not because I do not have them now /wallāhi miʃ hayinfaʕ bass ʕalaʃān ʔana miʃ maʕāya dilwaʔti/

Among the German NNSA group, the indirect refusal strategy of dissuasion

/criticism, and requests for information came in the fifth and seventh order respectively

(NNSA: 6%,5%;). Regarding the strategy of dissuasion /criticism the responses of NSA

66

showed a lower frequency than the NNSA group (NSA: 3.5%; NNSA: 6%). The

following are two examples from comparable scenarios, example (1) is taken from the

NNSA group, and the example (2) is selected from the NSA group.

انأو مویلا لماك مویلا لك تلغتشا مممھا ةحارصب نكلو تحمس ول فسأ انأ لا .1 ) NNSA #5( يتیب يف اضیأ ةلئاع ھھھھھ يدلو ةحارتسلا جاتحا

No, sorry, pardon me but frankly, [mumbling] I have worked all day the whole day and I need to have rest. Also, [laughing] I have family also at my home.

/lā ʔana ʔāsif law samaħt walākin biṣarāħa ʔiʃtaġalt kolla (ʔ)al-yawm kolla yawm kāmil ʔal-yawm wa ʔana ʔaħtāj li ʔistrāħa wa ladayya ʕāʔila ʔayḍan fi bayti/

dissuasion/criticism: (Bookstore: An employee refuses a boss’ request to work an extra time. +P,

Results revealed cross-cultural differences in using specific indirect strategies.

For example, the strategy of request for additional information (NNSA:5%,

NSA:2.2%). This strategy is often used to avoid the using of a direct refusal strategy

and to by delay the negative refusal response across the interactions. Furthermore, this

could be interpreted as a mean of verbal avoidance by distracting the interlocutor’s

attention away from his request, or invitation. The following are two examples from

comparable scenarios.

)NNSA # 6( ؟موی يأ يف .1On which day? /fi ʔayy yawm? /

)NSA # 8( ؟لوط ىلع يد ھیاج يللا يد ةعمجلا .2This next Friday Immediately? /ʔil-gomʕa di ʔil-gayya di ʕala ṭōl/

requests for information:(Birthday: A student refuses a friend’s invitation to attend a D)–P, –birthday party

ھضرب انأ ينأ ببسب ةرم اذك انلجأ انحأ ينعی انأ تناك يھ انأ صلاخ عفنیھ شم .2 )NSA # 1( .ةرم اذك ةعماجلا يف ھضرب لغش يدنع ناكو ةرم انھ تنك

It does not work at all, I mean, we delayed several times because I was here once and I also had to work in the university, several times.

/miʃ hayinfaʕ xāliṣ ʔana hiyya kānit ʔana yaʕni ʔiħna ʔaggilna kaḏa marra bisabab ʔinni ʔana barḍo kont hina marra wi kān ʕandi ʃoġl barḍo fi (ʔ)il-gamʕa kaḏa marra/

67

Dissuasion/criticism strategy was employed mainly in the deference situation

(notes P-, D+). Most of the participants of the NNSA group have harshly criticized their

interlocutor for not attending the classes and implied that it is not fair that they give

their effort to someone else. The native Egyptian participants did not concern a lot with

the notion of fairness, but they put their main effort to minimize the using of face

threating acts while they were refusing. The examples below represented responses

from both groups in a comparable situation.

) NNSA # 7( ؟ةرضاحملا ىلإ بھذت لا اذامل Why you don't go to the lecture? /limāḏa la taḏhab ʔila (ʔ)al-moħāḍara?\

) NNSA # 5( كحضم تنأ 22كحضم تنأ ةخسن ىلإ جاتحت تنأYou need a copy you are funny you are funny /ʔanta taħtāj ʔila nosxa. ʔanta moḍħik. ʔanta moḍħik./

Strategy of Dissuasion/criticism (Notes: deference P-/D+)

Native Egyptian participants resorted to express refusals by employing

postponement strategy more than NNSA group (NSA:2%, NNSA:2.5%,), and by using

the preparatory strategy (NSA:5.9%, NNSA:3%,). The postponement strategy is

employed to negotiate face across the discourse of interaction, to express relational

work, and to delay the speech act of refusal. Furthermore, this strategy can be seen as

a verbal avoidance because postponing a refusal distracts the interlocutor’s attention

away from the upcoming refusal response, in some cases, it would be a sign, according

to a given situation, that the person has no intention to accept the request or the

invitation. Below are two example.

) NNSA # 8( ادغ نكمم ادغ ادغ ادغ ففا ممھھا .1Mumbling] tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow maybe tomorrow /ġadan ġadan ġadan momkin ġadan/

68

يتقولد ةمحزلا يف قنزتا ردقاھ شم سب ؛يردب حبصلا هركب يجأ نكمم لا .2)NSA # 4(

No, I can come tomorrow early but I cannot deal with the traffic now. /laʔ momkin ʔāgi bokra (ʔi)ṣ-ṣobħ badri, bass miʃ haʔdar ʔatziniʔ fi (ʔ)iz-

zaħma dilwaʔti/ Strategy of postponements

The indirect strategy of preparator was often employed to provide the hearer with

some knowledge before the execution of the speech act of refusal. It is crucial here to

mention that the preparatory condition is the second element of the set of felicity

conditions which are proposed by Searle (Fotion,2014). The four felicity conditions are

propositional, preparatory, sincerity, essential conditions (see chapter 2: literature

review). Using the strategy of preparators was utilized to satisfy the preparatory

condition by implying that the speaker really intends to help her/his hearer.

(NNSA # 5) دعوم يدنع ةحارصب نكلو ادج فسأتم انأ يدیس ای هووا .1Oh sir, I am really sorry, but honestly, I have an appointment. /ʔōh ya sīdi ʔana motaʔasif jiddan walākin biṣarāħa ʕindi mawʕid/

تلاصاوم نیتعاس عاتب انیب ام انحا لا ينعی ،فراع تنا ةلكشملا سب هأ : .2)NSA # 2(

Yes, but the problem you know; I mean, no, it is like a two-hour ride between us using public transportation.

/ʔāh bass ʔil-moʃkila ʔinta ʕārif, yaʕni laʔ ʔiħna ma bina bitāʕ saʕtīn mowāṣalāt/

Strategy of preparators

The strategy of change option was utilized moderately with a slight difference

between the two groups (NNSA:3%, NSA:3.2%). This strategy offered alternatives to

give options to the interlocutors by offering a compromise solution for the situation.

Also, the using of such a strategy could be interpreted as a polite expression which

reflects concern for save the interlocutors’ face. Besides, the participants of the NSA

group have utilized the strategy of set conditions for future or past acceptance

moderately; conversely, this strategy was absent in the responses of the NNSA's group

(NSA:3% or f=12; NNSA:0%,).

69

Example in Arabic

English Transliteration Group

ناك ينات دنا كیو يأ ناك ول يجا نكمم

If it were another weekend, it would have been possible for me to come

/law kān ʔayy Weekend tāni kān momkin ʔāgi/

NSA Part # 1

ةبسنلاب صلاخ قیض تقولا يباسح ةلماع شتنكام ایل ةفسآ انأ شھلعم

I am on a very tight schedule. I was not expecting this. Sorry, I am sorry.

/ʔil-waʔt ḍayyaʔ xāliṣ binnisba liyya makontiʃ ʕamla ħisābi maʕliʃ ʔana ʔasfa/

NSA Part # 2

Strategy of set conditions for future or past acceptance

In addition, NNSA expressed the strategy of solidarity/empathy by frequency of

1% during the five situations, in contrast, NSA group has not used this strategy at all

(NNSA:1%, NSA:0%). Solidarity/showing empathy strategy was employed to show a

degree of involvement with a degree of sympathy for interlocutor’s feelings according

to the situation and the context.

)NNSA #3( ءاسم اذھ يف لمعأ لا ھییییا نكلو ةمھم ةدعق مویلا ةقیقدلا يف ةلكشم اذھ لا1. At the moment, this is a problem. Staying today is important but [mumbling]

I am not working in this evening. /lā hāḏa moʃkila fi (ʔ)id-daqiqa ʔal-yawm qaʕda mohimma wa lākin lā

ʔaʕomal fi hāḏa masāʔ/ Strategy of empathy

4.4 Individual variability

Regarding the individual variability, the analysis of the data showed an individual

variation within each group. Figure 1, and 2 showed the preference for strategy use

(direct and indirect refusals, adjuncts to refusals) for each of the 8 participants of NNSA

group, and NSA (NSA: 405 strategies; NNSA: 381 strategies). Tables three, and four

are represented this individual variation in numbers for both groups.

70

Figure (1). the preference for strategy use (direct and indirect refusals, adjuncts to refusals) for each of the 8 German NNSA group (Total: 381 strategies)

Table (3). Individual variation in the preference for pragmatic strategies during the negotiation of a refusal among the NNSA participants (Total: 381 strategies)

For instance, in every situation among the German NNSA group (Figure 1, table

3), the utterances of participant #5 has registered the highest number of indirect refusals

within his group (f = 50), participant # 4 has produced the highest number of direct

refusals than his group members (f = 11), and participant # 3 produced the highest

frequency of adjuncts to refusals utterances (f = 19).

71

Figure (2). Individual variation in the preference for pragmatic strategies during the negotiation of a refusal among the Native Egyptian participants (Total: 405 strategies)

Table (4). Individual variation in the preference for pragmatic strategies during the negotiation of a

refusal among the Native Egyptian participants (Total: 405 strategies)

Among the NSA group (Figure 2, Table 4), participant # 4 has produced the

highest number of indirect refusals (f = 38), participant # 2 the highest number of direct

refusals (f = 13), and participant # 5 has produced the highest number of adjuncts to

refusals (f = 25).

Overall, these results illustrated that the production of the speech act of refusal

was not uniform among the people belonging to the same communities/cultures, but

rather, their performance showed differences concerning the degree of directness and

indirectness. In the case of the NSA group, this variation may be attributed to individual

physiological factors (e.g., introversion or extroversion), or the ability to manage

different situations according to the perception of the social factors of power and

distance by employing some conversational skills. In the case of the group of NNSA,

72

we could explain this variation by adding, to the previously mentioned reasons in the

case of the native Egyptian group, the proficiency level factor, and the linguistic

competence limitation. The linguistic proficiency level limitation has stood as a barrier

which hindered some of the members of this group from expressing their actual

intention as they were responding. A prove for this explanation is that the most indirect

refusal strategies were utilized, among the NNSA group, by the participants # 5 (f =

50) who are the most advanced learner of Arabic as a foreign Language among the

members of the NNSA group. In cross-linguistic research, statistical analyses are

necessary to determine whether the data are indeed comparable. As can be observed

from Figure 1 and 2, the realization of relational work (the negotiation of the face in

formal and informal situations) is subject to individual variation. Therefore, one finding

of this study that the production of the speech act of refusal is not uniform is agreed

with the findings of (Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., 2008) in the study of politeness in Mexico

and the United States: A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals.

Furthermore, results have revealed that the most advanced learners, (AFL #5,1),

were able to produce more indirect refusal strategies than their counterparts from

NNSA within the same group while they were negotiating the speech act of refusals

(Figure 1). This finding is reported in the finding of (Morkus, N., 2009) in his study

entitled "the realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American

learners of Arabic as a foreign language." Morkus stated, as a finding, that " The

Intermediate learners were, however, different from their Advanced counterparts in that

they used a markedly lower percentage of Indirect strategies than the Advanced

students." Moreover, he has pointed out in his finding that the Intermediate students

were found to be more slant toward employing direct strategies than the Advanced

Learners.

73

4.5 Directness & Indirectness situational variation according to face systems

The next section is devoted representing the most frequent pragmatic strategies

(direct and indirect refusals, adjuncts to refusals) utilized in this study to negotiate face

when refusing requests, and invitations. The analysis is done according to three face

systems (hierarchical, deference, and solidarity [Scollon & Scollon's 2001]) across the

five situations. As mentioned before (see Chapter 2: the literature review), the face

systems model of Scollon and Scollon (2001) proposes three systems of communication

according to the status of the interlocutors while negotiating face based on the

pragmatic intention of the speakers: hierarchical face (+P), deference face (+D), and

solidarity face (–D).

Table (5). Distribution of pragmatic strategies according to face system (Hierarchical [+P, +D], Deference [–P, +D], Solidarity [–P, –D]) and by situation among the NNSA group and the Native Egyptian group (Total: 901 strategies)

Table 5 showed the percentage of the pragmatic strategies (direct and indirect

refusals, adjuncts to refusals). The table represented the distribution of the pragmatic

strategies which are utilized to carry out relational work by groups in refusing a

requests, and invitations from an interlocutor of equal or higher status across the five

situations and in three face systems: Hierarchical (+P, +D: Bookstore, Farewell),

deference (+D: Notes), and solidarity (–D: Birthday, Food). For both of hierarchical,

and solidarity face systems the study investigated refusals to request, and invitation.

74

For the deference face system, the study choose the request' stimuli to investigate

refusals because requests put more pressure on the interviewee which requires the using

of more refusal strategy to mitigate or to weaken the request. The researcher has

considered the food situation as a request stimulus, but not an invitation or an offer

because the situation is not existing in the western culture but only is existing in Arab

culture. In western societies, this term is the action of adjuring. In the dictionary of

Merriam Webster, the definition of adjuring is "adjure /əˈdʒʊə,əˈdʒɔː/ verb formal past

tense: adjured; past participle: adjured" is to urge or request (someone) solemnly or

earnestly to do something." The definition of adjuring as a transitive verb is to

command solemnly or to urge or advise earnestly.

Figure (3) Distribution of pragmatic strategies according to face system (Hierarchical [+P, +D], Deference [–P, +D], Solidarity [–P, –D]) and by situation among the NNSA group and the Native Egyptian group (Total: 786 strategies)

Figure # 3 showed the distribution of pragmatic strategies according to face

system graphically. As observed in table 5 and figure 3, the negotiation of face varied

for each situation and each face system for both groups.

75

4.5.1 Directness & Indirectness Hierarchical face system [+P, +D]

In the hierarchical face system, request situation, AFL group showed higher

levels of indirectness, and respect when refusing a person of higher status through the

use of regret/apology, giving reasons, and reasons with justifications.

In contrast, the native Egyptians expressed their feelings through direct refusals,

general reasons when interacting with a boss in the Bookstore situation. In both

situations of the hierarchical face system, the results showed that AFL Germans have

more tendency toward giving reasons along with an explanation. Egyptians tended to

give more general reasons. However, the content of explanations for both groups often

was related to friends and family matters. These results come inconsistently with the

notion that Egyptians participants, as members of a non-western culture, are expected

to be more oriented towards involvement as the notion of being a member in a group

such as a family, friends, or a work-group.

Regarding the direct refusals, in the bookstore situation P+/D+, instead of

resorting to employing the direct Flat no, both groups resorted to using the internally

modified direct refusal strategy of negation the proposition slightly; however, the native

Egyptians were more able to employ this strategy in a relatively high frequency than

the AFL group. In contrast, within the Farwell/invitation situation in the same face

system, the data of both groups showed a lower percentage of using the direct refusal

strategies than the bookstore/request situation. This is a piece of evidence that the

weight of imposition in the invitation situation is relatively high than the request in both

cultures.

All in all, during the hierarchal face system situation, invitation (Farewell), both

groups have utilized almost the same percentage of direct refusals with a subtle

difference ( NNSA:6.9%; NSA:8%), whereas within the same face system in the

76

bookstore situation, which is stimulated by request, NNSA group has produced a

smaller number of direct refusal strategies than NSA within (NNSA:10.2%;

NSA:19.4% ), but both groups have utilized an equal number of adjunct to refusals

(NSA: 28 %, NNSA: 27.3%). In both of hierarchical situations, NNSA group has used

a higher number of indirect strategy than the Egyptian participants. (NNSA: 62.5%,

70.8; NSA: 52.7 61.3%,). For the adjunct to refusals, native Egyptian participants were

able more to modify their refusals externally by utilizing a higher number of adjuncts

to refusal strategy more than the NNSA group (NSA: 28%, 30.7%, NNSA: 27.3%,

22.2%); however, the difference between the groups within the bookstore situation was

subtle, less than 1%.

4.5.1.1 Forms of address

It is important here to mention that both of German Language and Egyptian

Arabic dialect has two addressing pronominal form for communicating formality or

informality. The Egyptian Arabic dialect has the informal addressing form: تنأ

informal, and the formal form: كترضح . While, the German pronominal system has two

ways of address (German: "Du" is informal second person singular pronoun, and "Sie"

is deferential pronoun to single addressees/ the formal form). These German forms

previously examined in cross-culture studies. For example, the study of (Grieve &

Seebus, "G'day or Guten Tag?: A cross-cultural study of Australian and German

telephone openings", 2008). During this study, the analysis of the German data has

included a category for the use of Sie or du. One finding of this study was that the Use

of Sie (deferential pronoun to single addressees) is more likely in business than in

private calls and the informal du-form being used for all private calls while ninety

percent of business calls involved the use of the formal Sie-form. Native Egyptian

77

participants have moderately employed the formal (‘you- كترضح ') as the code of respect

when speaking to a person of higher status; that is, the native Egyptian recognized the

hierarchical status when communicating with a person of higher rank (e.g., a boss or a

professor). While, the AFL Germans did not recognize the formal code of addressing

people in ECA; thus, they have used only the informal code of " تنأ ." In the Egyptian

culture examined here, in a hierarchical face system, the choice of formal forms and

formulaic expressions seen as an expression of socially appropriate behavior. The

enactments of the informal code comprise the using of second person singular (‘you-

INFORMAL') and various formulaic linguistic expressions (e.g., given names,

nicknames) frequently utilized in colloquial speech among university students. It has

noted that in many languages that formal forms can operate as devices for expressing

linguistic politeness because they mark the speaker's identity and the formality of the

situation (Ide 2005). Although it argued that these forms of address constitute polite

behavior, the data showed that the aim of native Egyptians informants who employed

deferential forms was to acknowledge the social status of the person in higher status,

not necessarily to be polite but because it is the expected norm in the Egyptian culture.

So, these forms represent socially appropriate behavior, and under the proper

circumstances, they may interpret as polite behavior. Furthermore, we cannot explain

the using of the informal second-person singular as impolite, but it may be understood

as inappropriate behavior based on the situation.

4.5.2 Directness & Indirectness Deference face system [–P, +D]

Within the deference face system, the content of refusals differed for each group,

when refusing a person of equal status but the distant relationship (+D), to reflect

different cultural values. The AFL German group has utilized a much higher number

78

of flat no direct refusals than native Egyptians, whereas, native Egyptians group has

employed the direct refusal strategy of the negation of proposition in a slightly higher

number than the AFL group. Besides, the native Egyptians have constantly mitigated

the negation of proposition strategy through discourse markers such as " شم شھلعم

ردقاھ ." It is noted that the head act prefaced/or followed by this discourse marker " شم

" شھلعم عفنیح to mitigate any unwanted adverse effect from using the negation of

proposition and to express involvement with the interlocutor. Since the occasional

interaction between the classmates restricted to the classroom; thus, the relationship is

considered distant. As a result, the burden of imposition in asking for the notes was

relatively high. Therefore, most of the Egyptians resorted to the indirect strategy of

giving invested reasons to avoid any dispute with their classmate.

In contrast, this strategy appeared only one time within the AFL data. It seems

that the AFL Germans were very decisive in refusing their classmate's request.

Therefore, they preferred being direct and straightforward when rejecting a classmate's

request. Most of AFL Germans reported in the retrospective reports that the classmate's

request to borrow the notes bothered them because it inconvenienced them, and it was

unfair, to show that the concept of fairness constitutes a crucial value within the German

culture. It is noteworthy that the straightforward and direct refusal responses of AFL

German learners, regarding fairness values, could be interpreted as rude behavior in

Arabic culture. Thus; the refusal responses cannot be interpreted as being polite or rude,

but rather, the utterances should be seen as manifestations of relational work during the

negotiation of refusal in a given culture. In both groups, participants have utilized the

indirect strategy of Lack of Empathy moderately; however, Egyptians have employed

a lower percentage of this strategy than AFL Germans. It seems that the AFL Germans

have chosen to threaten the face of their interlocutor instead of mitigating the

79

illocutionary of the refusal, by showing that they do not care about the interlocutor's

request/invitation and do not empathize with him. Therefore, Germans' preferences of

refusal strategies within the deference face system reflect and emphasize the speaker's

independence face. In addition, Germans AFL showed a tendency to rebuke/criticize

their interlocutor, this strategy appeared 18 times in the NNSA data, but only three

times in the NSA data. Beebe at al. (1990) taxonomy refers to this strategy under the

broader category of attempts to dissuade the Interlocutor. To sum up, within the

deference face, the chosen preferences of refusals content reflect the values of two

different cultures directly. On the one hand, a tendency towards involvement to show

concern for the others and expresses cooperation with the interlocutor (Egyptians); on

the other, an inclination towards independence, and a focus on the self as an

independent member of society (Germans).

4.5.3 Directness & Indirectness Solidarity face system [–P, –D]

In the solidarity face system, (P-/D-), where the participants know each other (–

D), the responses of both groups showed pragmatic variation in choosing the refusal

strategies. This variation was based on the stimuli of refusal whether it was an invitation

(Birthday situation) or request (Food situation). For both groups, in Birthday situation,

a refusal to the invitation is most likely to be expressed through giving reasons with

explanations, pause filler, wish, and preparator. However, while the Flat No strategy

occurred only two times in the Egyptian data, it happened five times in the AFL German

data. Concerning the Negation of a Proposition strategy, the Egyptian group used a

higher frequency of this strategy (8%) than the AFL Germans. Egyptians have

employed this direct strategy to convey their responses with a close friend (–D) and to

represent involvement with him. This finding is not consistent with Brown and

80

Levinson's (1987) observation which states that an on-record strategy may threaten the

hearer's face. However, the results of this study are consistent with the results of

previous studies of different cultures which have settled that directness realized in

various speech acts does not express impolite behavior, but rather, a direct action (in

situations of equal status) may appear as a way of conveying closeness or affiliation

with an interlocutor. During the food situation, the results came contrary to the birthday

situation within the same face system (solidarity). That is, the Flat No strategy occurred

only nine times in the AFL German data, but it happened 18 times in the Egyptian group

data.

Nevertheless, the AFL participants have used the adjunct to refusal strategy of

gratitude/appreciation strategy in a relatively high frequency than their Egyptian

counterparts. In addition, their refusal in this situation realized by utilizing

regret/apology, but this strategy did not show at all within the Egyptians data. Both

groups have employed the indirect strategy of joking/laughing; however, the Egyptians

produced a higher percentage of this strategy. In contrast, AFL Germans, as being

belonging to a western culture, had to think about how to refuse; therefore, most of

them have found this situation a funny one.

4.6 Discussion of two selected examples from the Interactional data

To compare the realization refusal patterns of NNSA group and NNS group in

refusal interactions which are stimulating by requesting within the three-face system at

the discourse level, below are two examples for the analysis for the sequence of the

refusal interactions. Example (1) is an interaction between NNSA participant and a

native speaker of Egyptian Arabic, followed by another interaction between two native

speakers of Egyptian Arabic example (2), all interactions have utilized the same

81

situation. The refusal head act is marked as Head act [ HA] and is preceded or followed

by supportive moves, and → Arrow is used to signal the beginning of a sequence, and

brackets [ ] are used to indicates an overlap between the utterances of the parties of the

discourse.

4.6.1 Bookstore: Boss issues request/ Employee declines request (NNSA part #5)

The interaction No 1 →لاحلا فیك دارنوك :ریدملا

Manager: How is it going? kayfa (ʔ)al-ħāl?/

2 ؟كلاح فیك تنأو ù دمحلا :فظوملاThanks God, and how is it going with you? /ʔal-ħamdolillāh wa ʔanta kayfa ħāloka?/

دیرنو ةبتكملا تءاج ةریثك بتك ]؟ةلكشم يأ[ ةلكشم يدل نكلو مامت ù دمحلا :ریدملا ؟ةعاس ةدمل يقبت نأ نكمی لھ .ةدعاسم دیرنو اھزیھجتو اھدادعا

3

ThankGod,fine,butIhaveaproblem.[Whatproblem?]Toomanybookscametothelibraryandwetoprepareandsetthemandwewanthelp.Canyoustayforanextrahour?

ʔal-ħamdolillāhwalākinladayyamoʃkila/[/ʔayymoʃkila?/]/kotobkaӨīrajāʔatʔal-maktabawanorīdoʔiʕdādahāwatajhīzahāwanorīdomosāʕada.halyomkinʔantabqālimoddatisāʕa?/

4 ]مw`لا �`Gعاس وأ ةعاس[ ؟ةعاس :ف«�wلاAnhour?[anhourortwotoday]

/sāʕa?/[sāʕaʔawsāʕataynʔal-yawm] م@Iلا لماQ م@Iلا لa Qلغ]شا �>>ها ةحا/Dd <~لو ��jس wل فسأ انأ لا :ف«�wلا

8Rم 3)لو aفش امو ]ف/عأ انأ[ ي]Iب يف ا7tأ ةلئاع ههههه 3)لو ةحا/]سلا جا]حا انأو [HA] ههه <Iم@ی 8Rم ههه

5

No,sorry,ifyouplease,butfrankly,[mumbling]IworkedalldaythewholedayandIneedarest.Also,[laughing]Ihavefamilyatmyhome.[Iknow]Ihavenotseenmyson[laughing]sinceacoupleofdays[laughing].

/lāʔanaʔāsiflawsamaħtwalākinbiṣarāħaʔiʃtaġaltkola(ʔ)al-yawmkolayawmkāmilʔal-yawmwaʔanaʔaħtājoli(ʔ)istirāħawaladayyaʕāʔilaʔayḍanfibaytī/[ʔanaʔaʕrif/]wamāʃoftwaladīmonḏomonḏoyawmayn/

6 → داnن�w اh لعفأ اذام ؟لعفأ اذام ��لو فnعأ انأ :nی�gلا

82

Manager:IknowbutWhatshouldIdo.WhatshouldIdo,Conrad?

ʔanaʔaʕrifwalākinmāḏāʔafʕal?māḏāʔafʕalyāKonrad?/ يف ا8ه صاHشلأا <م /Jكأ جا]Uن ]�nxخأ لا�ع[ nخأ لا�ع gجwی كاfه له :ف«�wلا

ا8ی)ل .مw`لا لما� مwی ل� لغGشا انأ مw`لا لما� مwی ل� لغ�Gت jنأ يfعh .ة[]=>لا يف ة[]=م [HA] ههههه /lف8ی يغامد �>ما )ج@ی ي8ع7 ا8سأر يف ار@ف

7

Employee:Arethereotherworker?[Otherworkers?]Weneedmorepeoplehereinthelibrary.Imean,youandIareworkingtheentiredayeveryday.Immediately,wehaveinourhead,Imean,thereis[mumbling]myheadisexploding[laughing].

/halhonākayōjadʕammālʔāxar?/[ʕammālʔāxarīn?/]-/naħtājʔakӨarminʔal-ʔaʃxāṣhonāfīmaktabafī(ʔa)l-maktaba.yaʕnīʔantataʃtaġalkolayawmkāmilʔal-yawmʔanaʔaʃtaġalkolayawmkāmilʔal-yawm22.ladayynāfawarānfīraʔsināyaʕnīyōjaddimāġīyanfajir/

مw`لا ��لو ا`لaق�Gم ةل���لا ه�ه ل�u مwقن نأ ���h ا�ه ��لو Yعن Yعن Yعن :nی�gلا → ¿عaلا ا�fعg uعا�ن ��Yها ]مw`لا يfعh لعفfس اذام مw`لا[ �GH اfیgل مw`لا

8

Manager:yes,yes,yes,butwecanfixthisprobleminthefuturebuttodaytodaywehavebooks.[today!Whatwearegoingtodotoday?Imean][Mumbling]helpeachother.

/naʕamnaʕamnaʕamwalākinhāḏayomkinʔannaqōmbiħalhāḏihiʔal-moʃkilamostaqbaliyyanwalākinʔal-yawmʔal-yawmladaynākotob/[/ʔal-yawmmāḏasanafʕalyaʕnīʔal-yawm?/]nosāʕidbaʕḍanā(ʔ)al-baʕḍ/

ةصاخ تاجاح 3)8ع Yعن ��لو Yما u]ل=iم �هفا انأ ف/عت aنأ rnr3ع ا7 :ف«�wلا N=I> [HA ]م ا7 فسآ انأ لمأ لا ]لمأ لا [هههه اh�أ ةصاخ

9

Employee:Mydear.YouknowIunderstandyourproblem[mumbling]butyes,Ihaveveryprivateissuesaswell[laughing][Nohope]nohope,Sorry,poorman

/yāʕazīzīʔantataʕrifʔanaʔafhamomoʃkilatokawalākinnaʕamʕindīħagātxāṣaxāṣaʔayḍan/[/lāʔamala?/]/lāʔamalaʔanaʔāsifyāmiskīn/

10 داnن�w اh ك�nشأ :nی�gلاThankyou,Conrad.

The interaction in (1) showed the sequential progressive of a refusal response

across many turns, multiple overlaps ([ ]), and three sequences. The conversation is

realized by means of an opening greeting sequence (lines 1–2), a request-refusal

sequence (lines 3–5), an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 6–7), then second insistence-

refusal sequence (lines 8–9), followed by the boss’ closing uptake (line 10). The first

83

refusal response is made by repetition of a portion of previous utterance (lines 4),

followed by the direct refusal head act of flat no, followed by an apology/regret (‘I’m

sorry’), preparatory (but, honestly), a minimal vocalization (‘um’), followed by request

for understanding and the indirect refusal strategy of dissuasion/criticism (line 5). The

head act is externally modified by two indirect strategies (apology/regret, a

dissuasion/criticism) to mitigate the negative effects of a direct flat no refusal (line 5),

along with one intervention on the part of the interlocutor by using the epistemic verb

phrase " I know" to reflect his mental state predicate to indicate that, although he

already knows what is said from the part of the employee, he is still insisting on his

request (line 5). Thus, the employee has used another indirect strategy of means of

sarcasm to indicate his refusal and to close the refusal sequence (line 5). After the

insistence on the part of the boss (lines 6), the employee’s second refusal response was

realized by means of the indirect refusal strategy of giving advice to his boss that he

should hire more employees, and the discourse marker (‘ ينعی ,’ ‘I mean’) to mitigate the

negative effect of the upcoming indirect refusal strategy of dissuasion/criticism" I

mean, you and I are working the entire day every day ", and another discourse marker

(‘ ينعی ,’ ‘I mean’), followed by a pause filler (the minimal vocalization ‘um’), and the

strategy of joking/laughing " we have in our head, I mean, there is [mumbling] my head

is exploding [laughing] "(line 7). The last sequence was a second insistence-refusal

sequence (line 8-9). The refusal sequence within this round was realized by, an

overlapping utterance of the strategy of repetition of a portion of previous utterance "

today! What are we going to do today? I mean", and the discourse marker (‘ ينعی ,’ ‘here

a pragmatic usage to give the message of "I don’t understand” (lines 8). Then, the

indirect strategy of showing a degree of empathy, a pause filler (the minimal

vocalization ‘um’), a general reason with no explanation, followed by the direct flat no,

84

an indirect strategy of apology/regret. Finally, the indirect strategy of sarcasm" poor

man" (line 9). It seems that either this participant, as being the most advanced

participant within the NNSA group, wanted to show off his ability to make jokes and

to express a degree of sarcasm in Arabic, regardless to the situation itself in reality and

with no intention to the social factors that control such conversation in reality, or his

personality is characterizing by a sense of humor. However, the last head act " لمأ لا "

has mitigated externally employing indirect strategies of apology/regret.

4.6.2 Bookstore: Boss issues request/ Employee declines request (NSA part# 4)

The interaction No xQ → 1زإ ةhدان :nی�gلا

Manager:Nadia,howareyou? 2 [Hi] :ف«�wلا

Employee:[Hi] 3 ؟ة��wx ،؟هhا ةلماع :nی�gلا

Manage:Howareyoudoing?Fine? /Nadia,ʔizzayyikʕamlaʔēh?kowayyisa?/

��g Ã. 4لا هأ :ف«�wلاEmployee:Yes,thankGod. /ʔāhʔilħamdolillāh/

انgعا�g hح يقu �`جا�Gمو ،ةgیgج ة��Gaلا �GH اfل تاج ادراهfلا ةفراع يGنا :nی�gلا → .ةداxز ةعاس اناعم grعقت ؛ يقQ uل�ف �م

5

Manager: You know, today a lot of new books came to thelibrary.So,weneedsomeonetohelpusPleasestayforanextrahourwithus.

/ʔintiʕarfaʔinnahardagātlinakotobʔil-maktabagidīda,wimiħtagīnbaʔaħaddyisaʕidnaminfaḍlikbaʔatoʕʕodimaʕānasāʕazīyada/

ةحاnص أأأ ]يfیgعاس \هلعم �u ؛lلخ كداع`م فراع انأ [؟ةداxز ةعاس :ف«�wلا wrق لÄwx را�wم يماgق ه�لو ،a`jلا يف اهل�عا تاجاح اhارو أأأ ،ادراهfلا gعقأ رgقه wل \فnعم يfعh ةحا�Lnو ،ة�حÅلا يف ÆنÅتا ةزواع \مو يfعh ،ةwxش g`عaف يfعh �`سfgه�لا يف يfعh أأأ [HA] .ةداxز Hلr Äأ ¿فرأ ينأ �Æلا rاعم

6

85

Employee:Anextrahour?[Iknowyourshiftisoverbutpleasehelp me. [Stumbling] Frankly, I do not know if I can stay today.[Stumbling]IhavethingstodoathomeandIhavealongcommuteaheadofme.Imean,[stumbling]inEl-Mohandseen,soitisalittlebitfar,andIdonotwanttodealwiththetrafficjam.Andhonestly,Ihavetherighttorefuseanyextrarequest.

/sāʕazīyada?/[/ʔanaʕārifmiʕādikxiliṣ,bassmaʕliʃsaʕdīni/]/ṣarāħamaʕrafʃlawhaʔdarʔacodʔinnahardawarāyaħagātʔaʔmilhafi(ʔ)il-bēt,wilissaʔoddāmimiʃwārṭawīlʔawiyaʕnifi(ʔ)il-mohandisīnyaʕnifabiʕīdʃowayya,yaʕniwimiʃʕawzaʔatziniʔfi(ʔ)iz-zaħma,wibṣarāħayaʕnimaʕāyaħaʔʔinniʔarfoḍʔayyṭalabzīyada/

ةعا�لا ،عفg`ه Qلاu يلخ هد �یgع�و ،فراع اعÄa ،ةhدان اh فراع انأ فراع انأ :nی�gلا → .\هلعم هu�n اه`لجأ هقu �`سfgه�لاو ،عفGgه rد

7

Manager:Iknow,IknowNadia.Ofcourse,Iknow.Afterall,foryour information, this hour will be paid, and postpone El-Mohandseenappointmenttilltomorrow.Sorry.

/ʔanaʕārifʔanaʕārifyaNadia,ṭabʔanʕārif,wibaʕdēndaxallibālikhayidifiʕ,ʔis-sāʕadihatitdifiʕ,wi(ʔ)il-mohandisīnbaʔaʔaggilīhabokramaʕliʃ/

.يGقwلد ة�حÅلا يف ÆنÅتا رgقه \م �u ؛rرgب حLaلا هu�n يجأ ���م لا :ف«�wلا[HA]

8

Employee:No,Icancometomorrowearlyinthemorning,butIcannotdealwiththetrafficnow.

/laʔmomkinʔāgibokra(ʔ)iṣ-ṣobħbadribassmiʃhaʔdarʔatziniʔfi(ʔ)iz-zaħmadilwaʔti/

9 → ؟���م \م ادراهfلا :nی�gلاManager:todayisnotpossible? /ʔinnahardamiʃmomkin?/

10 [HA] .لا :ف«�wلاEmployee:No. /laʔ/

11 .ةhدان اh ا�nش ي�وأ :nی�gلا Manager:Okay,Nadia,thankyou.

/Okay,ʃokranyaNadia/

The interaction in (2) is realized by means of an opening greeting sequence (lines

1–4), a request-refusal sequence (lines 5–6), an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 7–8),

then second insistence-refusal sequence (lines 9–10), followed by the boss’ closing

86

uptake (line 11). The refusal response is made using a series of direct and indirect

refusals across various sequences: the first refusal is realized utilizing two turns, a

repetition to delay the refusal" An extra hour?" (line 6), which was followed by

intervention on the part of the boss using the epistemic verb phrase " I know" to reflect

his mental state predicate along with the using of the discourse marker " شھلعم ," and a

requesting for help. The response of the employee has made by means of minimal

vocalization )‘aa’) to reflect a state of hesitation towards the request, and preparatory

(honestly), indefinite reply, a minimal vocalization, )‘ aa’), a general reason with no

explanation, request for understanding, minimal vocalization )‘ aa’), and two discourse

markers (‘ ينعی ,’ ‘I mean’) which delays the refusal and shows hesitance, request for

understanding which is modified by the discourse markers (‘ ينعی ,’ ‘I mean’),

preparatory (honestly) to prepare the interlocutor to receive the upcoming firm refusal

by utilizing the indirect strategy of expression of statement of principle as the head act

(line 6). The insistence-refusal sequence (lines 7–8) was realized by means of flat no, a

degree modifier " نكمم " which is cooccurred in the same refusal response of using the

postponement strategy (change the time of the proposition), the discourse marker " سب ",

followed by the strategy of self-defense by showing her inability to be stuck during the

rush hour. In doing so, she did not negate the proposition itself (e.g., I can't stay for

longer) rather she has negated her own ability to be stuck during the rush hour as the

head act " I cannot deal with the traffic now " (lines 8). The final insistence-refusal

sequence was realized just using direct flat no to indicate her firm refusal decision; the

employee has chosen to utilize direct refusal instead of using the negation of the

proposition strategy (lines 10).

87

4.7 Perceptions of refusals at the discourse level

4.7.1 Introduction

This section examined the perception among the NNSA and NSA (8 participants

per group) of being direct and indirect as they have declined requests or invitations of

a person in symmetric and asymmetric situations and relation to the social factors of

social power (P) and distance(D) according to the face systems model of (scollon and

Scollon, 2001). Besides, this section has investigated the perception of the insistence

phase after refusing in each culture. This perception would reflect how the participants,

as members belong to two different cultures, understand and perceive the notion of

politeness as a concept in everyday interaction. According to the framework of

relational work (Watts, 2005), relational work has three cases: positively marked

behavior, being polite; unmarked behavior, non-polite; and negatively marked

behavior, which has two categories: being impolite/rudeness and over-polite behavior.

The study has utilized the using of retrospective verbal reports, which is used in

psychology research (Cohen,1998) to allow such examination. Then, the study has

utilized the obtained perception information, from both groups, as a mean of

triangulation to validate the above results of the interactional data which are gathered

through the five scenarios. Every participant was asked by the researcher to answer

some questions. These questions are adopted from the previous study of "Politeness in

Mexico and the United States" (Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., 2008). The first question was

about the participants' cognitive ideas attended to the participants as they were refusing

within the five situations. The second question was about their degree of directness or

indirectness during the role-plays. Finally, the last question was to inform about the

participants' perception regarding the insistence act from their interlocutor.

88

4.7.2 Perception of refusal as a manifestation of politeness during the

interactions

For the question of “What were you paying attention to when you refused in this

situation?” “What came to your mind during the interaction?”, The analysis of the

responses showed that the German NNSA and the NSA participants had many pre-

cognitive ideas when committing a speech act of refusal concerning the status of the

interlocutor. Both groups were conscious of the different factors of power and distance

when refusing; thus, most of them have indicated that they tried to express a refusal

politely as they can, but their answers for the retrospective reports showed a degree of

variation in the perception of the notion of politeness. The following tables represented

the comments of the NSA group, and the NNSA group respectively:

Part #

Comments of the NSA group (In Arabic)

Comments of the NSA group (English)

NSA1 ةیفلخلا ىلع ةزكرم تنك انأ ضفرب امل تنك انأ يعاتب رذعلا زھجا ردقأ ناشلع يتعاتب

When I was refusing, I was focusing on my background to prepare my excuse.

NSA2 بسح ىلع ينأ ةزیاع تنك ينأ ایل ةبسنلاب ةجاح مھأ ةیوش ةنینح ةقیرطب ضفرأ ةزیاعو صخشلا عم يتقلاع شم ىنأ مھل نیبأ انأ تقولا سفن يف شب شوحرجم ناشلع .لاثم يجأ عفنیھ

The most important thing to me is that I wanted to do it based on my relationship with the person and I wanted to refuse in a delict way so I would not hurt them. But at the same time, I wanted to make it clear that I cannot come.

NSA3 ينإ يف ركفب تنك ؛فقوملا يف ضفرب تنك امل وھ ينأ عنقم ببس يف ركفأ لواحب ينإ ينعی ينأ بنذلاب ةساح انا ام ھضرب ناشلع لمعا شردقم وأ ،ادك وأ تنفلاا شحورم انأ يدر يف ينعی ،بدلأا ةلیلق ينأ شنبأ

When I refused in the situation, I was thinking that I was feeling guilty. I mean, I was thinking of a convincing reason not to go to the event or whatever, or I cannot do the thing so I will not look rude in my reply.

NSA4 ام دق يلع ةنیمأ نوكأو ،ةرشابمو ،ةبدؤم نوكأ ينأ ةیلع ةزكرم تنك انا يللا اد سبو ينعی ردق

I wanted to be polite, direct and as honest as I can be. That was all I was focusing on.

NSA5 لمعب تنك امل اھیف تزكر ةجاح لوأ ينأ تیسح شم وأ ،هد صخشلا حرجب نوكأ زیاع شم ينعی ينأ ضفر ام ناشلع هاعم ضفرلاف هدك وأ ،قوذلا لیلق لاثم نوكأ زیاع .بواجب انأو ایل ةبسنلاب ةمھم ةجاح رتكأ تناك يد ،شقیاضی

I felt like the first thing I was focusing on when I was refusing was that I did not want to hurt this person or be rude and such when refusing so they would not be upset. That was the most important thing to me when I was replying.

NSA6 يللا نأ ،يوق رذع ىقلاأ تنك ينأ يدنع ةجاح مھأ رذع راتخا ينأ مزلا ناكف ؛ھمواقی وأ ھضفری شردقی ام يمادق رذعلا فعضیف ؛در ایلع دری ھنأ لباق ھنأ شنوكیم يمادق يللا .يعاتب

The most important thing to me was finding a good excuse that the person in front of me cannot refuse or resist. I wanted it to be something personal that can affect me negatively. So, I had to choose an excuse that the person in front of me would not be able to reply to and weaken my excuse.

89

NSA7 وھ يللا شم يئاقلت ضفرلا نأو يعیبط يقبأ ينأ درلا يف عیرسو عنقم يقبأ ،بدكیب وھ يللا ةركف شم ،ططخم .سب عنقم يقبأ ةعرسب درلل لصوأ ينأ ةركف وھف

I wanted to be normal and to make the refusal natural and not planned. It is not about lying. I wanted to be convincing and fast in my reply. It was about replying quickly to be convincing.

NSA8 يللا صخشلا رعاشم نم يلاب دخاو تنك اعبط لواحأو ،ةیمسر ریغ وأ ةیمسر ناك يأ ناك ول ىتح ،يمادق ةقلاعلا ىلع ظفاحأ ينأ

Of course, I was careful not to hurt the feelings of the person in front of me, whoever they are and whether our relationship is formal or not and try to keep the relationship remain standing.

The NSA group have reported differently, which could explain the Individual

variation in the preference for pragmatic strategies during the negotiation of refusal

among this group (Figure:2). For example, the participant # 1, 3, 6, and seven have

reported that they have concentrated on finding an appropriate and powerful reason

depending upon which they could convince their interlocutors and in the same time

keep their positive face intact. However, participant # 3 added that she felt guilty and

she was eager to save the image of her face as a polite person. Within the same group,

participants # 2, 4, five have reported that they have tried to refuse politely as they can.

However, the answer of the participants # 2 showed more perception of the status of

her interlocutor, she has added that she has chosen her refusal response based on her

relationship with her interlocutor, but at the same time, she wanted to keep her private

space by making it clear that she cannot accept the proposition. It seems that this

participant is conscious of the different factors of power and distance more than the

others. Participant # 8 has reported that he was careful not to hurt the feelings of the

person in front of him, whoever they are and whether the relationship is formal or not.

90

Part #

Comments of the NNSA group (In German)

Comments of the NNSA German group (English)

NNSA1 Ich habe darauf geachtet, nett zu sein, aber ich wollte das Sie verstehen, dass ich kann nicht

I have always been careful to be nice, but I wanted you to understand that I can not

NNSA2 Ich habe darauf geachtet, dass ich die Person nicht verletzt, Dass ich mein Bedürfendes durchhalten oder einem Kompromisse find

I have been careful to not hurt the person, while keeping up my own needs or find a compromise

NNSA3 Auf die Macht-Beziehungen und auf den Kontext (Arbeit, Familien, Freunden). Bei der Arbeit habe ich versucht, eine passende Lösung zu finden (einen Freund als Vertreter zu suchen)

Im Fall von Familie und Freunden war ich mehr entschlossen, die Einladung abzulehnen.

With regard to the power relations and with regard to the contexts (work, families, friends).

At work I have tried to find a solution (to look for a friend as a representative)

In the case of family and friends, I was more determined to refuse the invitation.

NNSA4 Ich habe darauf geachtet, die Situation angemessen zu verweigern, also wer genau mein Gesprächspartner ist und wie ich mich demjenigen gegenüber ausdrücken sollte.

I have been careful to refuse the situation appropriately, so who exactly is my interlocutor, and how should I express myself to him.

NNSA5 Ich habe versucht darauf zu achten, dass ich den Szenario 1 und 2 so höflich zu reden

I have tried to make sure that I talk so politely in Scenarios 1 and 2

NNSA6 Ich habe versucht im Rahmen der sprachlichen Möglichkeiten sowohl bestimmt abzulehnen, ohne aber unhöflich zu erscheinen.

I have tried within the scope of the linguistic possibilities to refuse without appearing rude.

NNSA7 Ich habe darauf geachtet, mich zu entschuldigen und eine nachvollziehbare Ausrede anzuführen. Auch habe ich habe darauf geachtet, meinem Gegenüber eine Alternativlösung anzubieten. Zum Beispiel habe ich versucht, andere für mich mögliche Termine vorzuschlagen.

I've been careful to apologize and to give a plausible excuse. Also, I was careful to offer an alternative solution to my interlocutor. For example, I tried to suggest other possible dates that suit me.

NNSA8 Ich habe darauf geachtet, dass ich höflich bin. Aber eine gute Erklärung für eine Absage zu finden, war schwer, da ich noch nicht viel Arabisch kann.

I was careful to be polite. But finding a good explanation for a refusal was difficult because I don't know much Arabic yet.

The comments of the NNSA group showed a degree of variation. For instance,

participants # 8, and 6 reported that they had put their main effort into being polite.

Nevertheless, participants # 8 has added that he has tried to find good reasons to justify

his refusal. Both participants # 8, and six have admitted that it was difficult for them to

refuse because of their Arabic proficiency level. Especially, Participant # 8 has reported

that it was difficult for him to find an excellent explanation to mitigate his refusal in

Arabic. Participant # 5,4,3 have reported that they have considered the status of their

interlocutor before deciding on choosing their preference for refusal strategy. However,

91

Participants # 5 has reported that he has focused on refusing more politely in the

hierarchical situations where the social factor of power was P+ was existed, in scenarios

1 and 2. Participant # 1, two have reported that they wanted to refuse politely regardless

of the status of their interlocutor, but it was vital for them to keep their own needs or to

find a compromise. To sum up, the retrospective reports have affirmed the results of

the interaction data that the perception of the speech act of refusal is not uniform.

4.7.3 Perception of directness or indirectness

The answers of the retrospective report question of “To what extent was it

important for you to be direct or indirect when you refused in these situations?” have

shown that NSA participants # 1 has preferred to be indirect. However, participant # 2,

5, and 7 have reported that their choice of being direct or indirect is based upon the

relation between them and the other party of the interaction; Thus, they have resorted

to be direct if the relationship is equal, whereas, in both deference and hierarchical

relations they have preferred to be indirect. The participant # 3, and four have stated

that they have resorted to be more direct regardless of the status of the person in front

of them. Participant # 4 has stated that "I also see that a direct reply is better because

people understand the message and that is it, and they will not be able to argue

anymore." Participant # 8 has reported that It was important to him to insist on refusal;

even if his interlocutor insists on the proposition, but in the same time he has tried not

to hurt his interlocutor's feelings.

92

Part # Comments of the NSA group (In Arabic)

Comments of the NSA group (English)

NSA1 ةرشابم ریغ نوكأ ردقأ ام دأ ىلع ىقبأ لواحب ينإ ھلوقأ لواحب انأ يللا وأ يمادق يللا شحرجم ناشلع ھبلط ضفرأ

I try to indirect as much as possible to avoid hurting the person in front of me or the one I am whose request I am trying to refuse.

NSA2 انحأ ول ،ةیواستم ةقلاعلا ول يباحصأ ول امیاد انأ سب ،هدك لوط ،اعبط لا لوقأ ىنأ يوا لھس ىقبی ضعب يز شم ينأ عنقم ببس يوأ لواحب ؛لغشلا يف ينم ربكأ دح ول لا لوقأ تقولا سفن يف ،مھرعاشم شحرجم ناشلع ةرداق نكمم تاعاسو لوط لع ھقب شخب يباحصأ ول سب يتعاتب .ةنینح ىقبأ ردقأ ام دق ىلع امیاد لواحب سب ببس شیدم

If they are my friends; if the relationship is equal; if we are similar then it is very easy to say no, of course, directly. But if it is someone above me at work, I try really hard to find a convincing reason that I cannot do this thing so I would not hurt their feelings. At the same time, I say no. but if they are my friend, I go straight to the topic and sometimes I do not give a reason, but I always try to be gentle as much as I can.

NSA3 يف ضفرب انأو ةحضاو نوكأ مھم ينأ سحبو يف عفنیھ شم يقیقح سب ،ةمتھم ينأ مھل نیبا ناشلع فقوملا .ھنیزیاع امھ يللا لمعأ ينأ هد فقوملا

I feel it is important to be clear when I am refusing in a situation to clarify that I am interested but I cannot really do what they want me to do in this situation.

NSA4 سانلا رشابم نوكیب دحاولا امل ناشلع ةرشابم تنك نابی شمو نارودو فل ریغ نم ينعی لوط ىلع ةلاسرلا مھفتب نلا نسحأ رشابملا درلا نإ فوشبو بذكتب كنأكو شوشم كنإ نم رتكا اوحواقی اوردقیح شم صلاخو ةلاسرلا اومھفیب سانلا .ينعی ادك

I was direct because when someone is direct, people understand the message at once. I mean, there is no dancing around it, and it will not be clear that you were lying. I also see that a direct reply is better because people understand the message and that is it and they will not be able to argue anymore.

NSA5 ول ؛هاعم ملكب تنك يللا صخشلا بسح تناك ينعی ،يوأ سیوك ھفراع شم لاثم دح ھیف ول لاثم دحاو ھیف ناك ةرشابم شم نوكت نكمم ةباجلإا تناك

I mean, it depends on the person I am talking to. For example, if there is someone I do not know well, the answer would have been indirect.

NSA6 يوق نوكیھ شم رشابم ریغ ول نلأ رشابم ىقبأ لا ملاكلا لوقی دعقیو ،ركفی دعقی وھ ھنأ ھغامد يف ناكم بیسھ شنوكت ام نكمم ھغامد يف راكفأ يجیف اذك لوقی نوكی نكمم

،هدك لكلا فقوم يز ينبجاع شم ينأ ،ھباح شم ينأ حص سفن يفو ھجرحی شنوكیم وھ ھنأ ثیحب يوق رذع مزلا سب .ھلبقتی تقولا

I prefer being direct because if I am not direct, I will leave room for doubting if they thought about it and they will say ‘what if’ and they will start getting some thoughts that may not be true. So, I do not like to be in a situation like this, so there must be a good excuse that will not embarrass them and in the same time they will accept it.

NSA7 دحاو ول وھ يللا امومع فقوملا بسح يلع امأ تاجاح ایارو يداع رشابم صلاخ ينعی يوأ يبحاص .ةیوش هاعم فلأ نكمم رشابم ریغ

It depends on the situation in general. I mean, if it is a close friend then it is okay, I can say that I have somethings to do. But if I am being indirect, I can dance around it a little.

NSA8 ؛ضفرلا ىلع رصم ول لاعف ينأ ایل ةبسنلاب مھم ناك يللا لمعا وھ ول ىتح ،ضفرلا ىلع رصم لضفأ ينعی ينأ هدك نم مغرلاب سب ،هد ينم ھبلطی زیاع وھ للا يلع رصأ وھ .ةقیرط يأب ھیلع شیجم ينأو هرعاشم شحرجم ينا

It was important to me if I am set on refusing that I insist on refusal; even if they insist in what they want me to do. And yet, I do not want to hurt their feelings and not be unfair in any way.

Perception of directness or indirectness (NSA group)

93

Perception of directness or indirectness (NNSA group)

For the NNSA group, only participant # 7 has reported that she has chosen her

refusal response according to the situation itself, and her relationship with their

interlocutors. Thus, concerning the hierarchical and solidarity situations, she has tried

to refuse indirectly, but about the deference relation, a classmate from the university,

she has reported that she has allowed herself to be direct. This could be a piece of

evidence that this participant perceives the direct speech act of refusal negatively.

Participant # 2 has reported something about being indirect in the first refusal-sequence,

but after the insistence act from his interlocutor, he did not care much for the issue of

94

directness and indirectness. It seems that this participant was very upset from the

insistent action. Participant # 6 has reported that his level in Arabic was a barrier which

has prohibited him from using more indirect refusal strategies; this means that he would

have preferred if he could respond more indirectly. Participant # 8 has reported that he

did not pay attention to being direct or indirect because he was more concerned with

finding vocabulary in Arabic. Participant # 4 has reported that he preferred to refuse

directly to avoid misunderstandings. Although that participant # 5 is the most advanced

learner within the AFL group, he reported that he could not pay attention to being direct

or indirect because of his limited language competence. Both of the participants # 1,

and three have reported that they tried to refuse indirectly.

4.7.4 Perception regarding an insistence of requesting or invitation

To investigate the perception in regard with the insisting act after the first stage

of refusal, the researcher has asked the question of " After declining the invitation from

a boss or a friend, did you expect an insistence from him? Do you consider persistence

to be rude or acceptable for your culture? " Both groups reported different perception

towards the insistence act after their first stage of refusal. Participant # 5 has reported

that he has expected more insistence because of his familiarity with the Arab culture,

and he has experienced that a "no" is rarely accepted in Arab culture. Participants # 3,

seven have reported that they have expected an insistence act only in the case of friends

or family since the relationship was an intimate one, but they didn’t expect it in a

hierarchical relation.

Regarding the second part of the question about whether they are considering

insistence to be rude or acceptable in their culture, participants # 1, 2, 5, eight from the

NNSA group have reported that they found insistence unpleasant, rude, and impolite.

95

However, two participants (# 3, 7) have reported that they have perceived the insistence

act is acceptable only in the circle of friends or family, solidarity relation, but not in

hierarchical or deference relations. Although that participant # 6 did not expect

insistence because it is, for him, something is quite unusual; he has mentioned that It

seems to be both. On the one hand, it is a bit impolite because you bring the person

answering the question in an unpleasant position. On the other hand, it shows

appreciation for the counterpart person that you want to have him or her with you.

Furthermore, participant # 4 has reported that she did not expect insistence, but she felt

flattered when the interlocutor has insisted on having her with him.

Part #

Comments of NNSA group (In German)

Comments of NNSA group (English)

NNSA1 Wenn Beharrlichkeit aufkam, fand ich das sehr unangenehm

ich finde es unangenehm und für meine Kultur auch unangenehm

When insistence came up, I found that unpleasant. I found it unpleasant and for my culture it is also unpleasant

NNSA2 Nein, habe ich nicht erwartet, ich habe mich bisschen hilflos gefühlt

Eher unhöflich

No, I did not expect, I felt a bit helpless

A bit rude NNSA3 Eine Beharrlichkeit habe ich nur in

Fall von Freunden oder Familie erwartet, da die Vertrauensbeziehung höher war. Ich fühlte mich in allen Fällen aber „schuld“ und es hat mir leidgetan. ich würde die Beharrlichkeit bei solchen Situationen als (gar) nicht unhöflich finden.

I have expected an insistence only in the case of friends or family, since the relationship of trust was higher. But in all cases I felt "guilty" and I was sorry. I find the insistence in such situations not rude at all.

NNSA4 Nein, ich habe keine Beharrlichkeit erwartet. Ich habe mich geschmeichelt gefühlt, wenn er darauf bestand.

Ich halte eine Beharrlichkeit für akzeptabel in meiner Kultur.

No, I did not expect insistence. I felt flattered when he insisted.

I think that persistence is acceptable in my culture.

NNSA5 Ich habe mehr Beharrlichkeit erwartet, da ich mit die Arabisch Kultur vertraut bin, und ich die Erfahrung habe, dass ein Nein selten akzeptiert wird

Eher unhöflich

I have expected more insistence because I am familiar with the Arab culture, and I have the experience that a "no" is rarely accepted.

A bit rude NNSA6 Ich habe nicht mit Beharrlichkeit

gerechnet, da es in einem echten Gespräch eigentlich recht unüblich ist, dass darauf bestanden wird an etwas teilzunehmen, obwohl man einen triftigen Grund genannt hat, aus dem man nicht erscheinen kann. Was durchaus zu einem schlechten Gewissen führen kann.

Es scheint mir beides zu sein. Auf der einen Seite ist es ein wenig Unhöflich da man dem Gefragten/die Gefragte in eine unangenehme Lage bringt. Andererseits zeugt es auch von Wertschätzung für das gegenüber, dass man ihn oder sie sehr gerne dabeihaben möchte.

I did not expect insistence because, in a real conversation, insisting on taking part on something is quite unusual, although one has mentioned a convincing reason, which could lead to a guilty conscience.

It seems to be both. On the one

hand, it is a bit impolite because you bring the person answering the question in an unpleasant position. On the other hand, it also shows appreciation for the counterpart person that you want to have him or her with you.

96

NNSA7 Beim Chef habe ich keine Beharrlichkeit erwartet. Deswegen war es mir unangenehm, als er darauf bestand. Beim Freund war Beharrlichkeit zu erwarten.

Beharrlichkeit im Freundes- bzw. Familienkreis ist für mich gewöhnlich. Im Berufsleben oder im Studium kann es in manchen Fällen- insbesondere, wenn man sein Gegenüber nicht gut kennt- zu einer unangenehmen Situation führen.

I did not expect insistence from the boss. That's why it made me uncomfortable when he insisted. insistence was to be expected from friends.

Insistence in the circle of friends

or family is usual for me. At professional life or study, in some cases, it can lead to an unpleasant situation, especially if one doesn't know his counterpart well

NNSA8 Nein. Ich mag es nicht, wenn Leute versuchen, mich umzustimmen. Meine Entscheidung ist gefallen – da will ich keine Argumente hören.

Nicht so gut. Ich mag es nicht, wenn mich Leute umstimmen wollen. Ich habe mich entschieden und gesagt, wieso ich nicht komme. Wenn Leute meine Entscheidung nicht akzeptieren und mich überzeugen wollen, bin ich genervt.

Ich persönlich finde es unhöflich. Ich denke trotzdem, dass in Deutschland Beharrlichkeit recht weit verbreitet ist.

No. I do not like when people are trying to change my mind.

My decision has been made, then I do not want to hear any arguments.

Not so good. I do not like it when people want to change my mind. I have decided and said why I will not come.

I am getting annoyed when people do not accept my decision and want to convince me

Personally, I find it rude. Nevertheless, I think that insistence is quite widespread in Germany.

Perception regarding an insistence of requesting or invitation (NNSA group)

In contrast, the native Egyptian group reported that they perceive the act of

insistence based on the situation and the relationship between them and their

interlocutor.

Part #

Comments of the NSA group (In Arabic)

Comments of the NSA group (English)

NSA1 ھیف نلا رارصلإا يوق ھنم ةعقوتم شتنكم ریدملا ھمرتحی وھ مزلا ةینھم

ةجاح هد رارصلإا ةیرصملا ةفاقثلا يف نأ دقتعأو لكلاا يف ول ھیلع رصت مزلا كلھأ نم دح ول ىتح لمعتت مزلا هدك وأ

لولأا يف لا لوقی نكمی اد رارصلاا عوضوم مزلا.هأ لوقی مزلا ىقبی ةرم ينات سب ةجاح كنم بلطی دح نأ يوق بسانم شم اھسحبةجاح دح نم بلطی ول رصیو وأ لغشلا يف دح ول سب يشام هدك وأ اباب لاثم ول ام انحاو لا ينعی لا تلق انأ رصی ضورفملا شم ىقبی هدكيوق يد ةقلاعلا شاندنع

The manager, I did not expect him to be very insistent because there is a professionalism that he must respect.

I think that in the Egyptian

culture, insistence is a must. If it is one of you of family members, you have to insist when it comes to food and such.

When it comes to insistent, you can say no at first but the second time you have to say yes.

I feel like it is not proper that someone asks something from you and insists on it.

For example, if it is my father or something then it is okay, but if it is someone from work or something then they are not supposed to insist, I said no, and we do not have this kind of strong relationship.

97

NSA2 انتقلاع نا امب ينعی هأ رارصإ ةیوش عقوتأ تنك تعقوتف ةدوجوم ىقبأ نوكأ ينإ ھسفن لاثم يقبی وھف ،ةبیرقرارصإ

يازا ينإ رتكأ تفسكتا وھ يللا انا ىنأ تیسحو ةیوش بنذلاب تیسحو ةرداق شم

انأ ول لاثم ينعی ،صخشلا عم يتقلاع بسح ىلعانتقلاع ببسب رارصإ عقوتأ ىقبی هد صخشلا نم ةبیرق لا زیاع ناك وھ يللا يز لاثم شوفرعم دح ول سب اد لا رصی املف ،سلاكلا عاتب ةجاحلاو ستونلا زیاع يللانامك رتكأ ضفرأو رتكأ قیاضأ ينیلخیب

.يتقلاع بسح ىلعف

I was expecting a little insistence. I mean, we have a close relationship, so they want me to be there, so I expected insistence.

I was embarrassed more that I was not able and felt a little guilty.

Depends on my relationship with the person. For example, if I am close to this person, I expect insistence because of our relationship

But if it is someone that I do not know, like the person who wanted the notes and the class stuff, when he insists, no he bother me more and make me refuse more.

So, it depends on my relationship. NSA3 هد وھ ناشلع رصم ىقبی ھنأ ةعقوتم تنك انأ

ریتك يرصت يلضفت مزلا لا كلوقیو دح يمزعت كنأ يعیبطلا.ينعی هدك سب يمزعتب كنأ شنبی ام ناشلع هدكو

ضفرأ ھلامع اناو يوأ بنذلاب ةساح ىقبب تنكو ىقبأ ينزیاع لاعف يمادق يللا ناسنلإا نأ ةساح ىقبب ناشلعةدوجوم

يف لوبقم سكعلاب قوذ ةلق رارصلإا نا سحب شم انحا نا امیاد اننا نییرصمك سحنب انحا ناشلع انتعاتب ةفاقثلانأ يد ةیبكارم ةموزع يف يقبت سب ناشلع مھمزعتب تنأ نأ سحتب سانلا انأف يوق بلقب مزعنب انحا انل ةبسنلاب انحا سب ؛هدكو بدؤمایل ةبسنلاب ةبیرغ ةجاح شم ةلوبقم ةجاح يد يل ةبسنلاب

I was expecting that he would insist because it is normal to invite someone and when they refuse, you have to insist so much so it would not look like you are not being sincere.

I used to feel very guilty when

refusing because I felt like the person in front of me really wanted me there.

I do not think it is rude to insist.

On the contrary, insisting is acceptable in our culture because we feel, as Egyptians, that the invitation is not sincere.

People feel like you are inviting them only to be polite and nothing more. However, we give invitations very sincerely and it is acceptable for us and not something out of the ordinary.

NSA4 يف تیسح لولأا يف ریدملا نم رارصلإا تعقوت تیقب انا ریتك رصی لضف صخشلا ول نكل لوبقم ھنا لولاا ةطوسبم شمو ةحاترم شم

دنع نكل يوق قوذ ةلق رارصلإا نا دقتعأ لا انا

شم وھ .ينعی لا تلق انأ صلاخ طغض ھنا سحب ةنیعم ةطقن ةقلاعلا بسح يلعو ةحاترم ریغ ينیلخیب نكل قوذ ةلق

I expected insistence from the boss at first. At first, I felt it was acceptable but if the person insisted too much, I become uncomfortable and unhappy.

I do not think insistence is rude

but at some point, I feel like it is a pressure for the sake of pressure. I mean, I said no. it is not rude, but it makes me uncomfortable. And it depends on the relationship.

NSA5 تیسح ناك ول ينعی صخشلا نم ادج ھضرب قرفت رصیح ناك اعبط ادج ينم بیرق دحاو ھنا

دلایم دیع ىلع ينمزاع ناك بیرق دحاو ول لاثم شیجم ينأ لبقیھ شم اعبط

ةیوش يمسر ةجاح ىقبیف هدك وأ ریدم يقب ول نكل رصیح شمف تناك يد ھتلفح رضحا ينإ رصیب ناك ول اعبط نكل

يدتب اعبط لیاحتاو لامروف دح ناك ول ينعی ينحرفت ةجاحادج كب متھم هد صخشلا نأ وأ ينعی ةحرفلاب ساسحا

It differs from someone to another. I mean, if I felt that it was someone close to me, of course they would insist.

For example, if someone close to me invited me to a birthday, they will not accept that I cannot come.

But if it were a manager or

something, it is more formal, they would not insist.

But of course, if they insisted that I attend their party that would have pleased me. I mean, if it were someone with whom I have a formal relationship and begged me, it gives me a feeling ofhappiness that the person cares so much about you.

98

NSA6 رصیب نیعم فقوم ھیف نوكیب امل دح يأ امومع ؛ةیعیبط ةجاح يد ھعاتب بلطلا ىلع رصیب ينعی ھیلع

اھلوقتھ يللا ةجحلا نأ كباسح لمعت كنأ مزلا تنأف.دقتنی ھنأ لباق شنوكی ام كعاتب ببسلا وأ وأ نیمی ھنأ لوقت شردقت ام بسح ىلع رارصلإا

اھاعم لماعتتب يللا اھسفن ةیصخشلا بسح ىلعف لامش

امیاد اوبحیب مھنا نییرصملا يف امیادف هدك امومع.اورصی

In general, when someone has a situation they have to insist in; I mean, it is normal to insist on their request.

So, you have to take into account

that the excuse you are going to say, or your reason cannot be objected.

Insistence depends on whether or

not you can say left or right. It depends on the personality you are dealing with.

in general, Egyptians always love

to insist NSA7 نم لقا رارصا ةیوش عقوتاح لاثم ریدم ول دیكأ وھ

لعفلاب ةیمسر ةقلاعلا يھ صلاخ ریدم ول ةنلا قیدصلا حلی لضفیھ قیدص ول سب

ریدم لا نم ول رارصلإا وھ ول ةوعدلا ةلاح يف ءارطلإا نم عون ىقبی

.رداق شم صلاخ ةیوش ةمخر ىقبت نكمم قیدصك

قوذ ةلق شم رارصلاا لا

Of course, if it is a manager for example, I will expect less insistence than the friend because if it is a manager then the relationship is already formal

But in case of friend, he will keep

insisting In case of an invitation, if the

insistence comes from a manager it would be a little flattering;

if it is a friend, it could be a little

annoying. That’s enough, I cannot go. No, insistence is not rude

NSA8 ناشلع وھ ھنأ رارصإ عقوتم قیدصلا نم اعبط ةیوش برقا نكمی ةقلاعلا نامك اقبط هدك يز ةجاح وأ يعاتب سیئرلا عم امنارارصلإا عقوتم شنك ام نكمی ةیمسرلا انتقلاع ةعیبطل

انأ ھیل حرشأ مزلا ينسسح رارصلإا نیتلاحلا يف ،هد ينم ھبلاط وھ يللا لمعاھ شم

نكمم مخر رارصإ ،يازا ةقیرطب رارصلإا بسح قوذ ةلق ينعی نایحلأا ضعب يف نوكی ةجاح وھ ھنأ فیاش شم لا ةماع ةفصب رارصلإا انتفاقث يف تاذلاب ينعی ،ةشحو

Of course, from a friend, I would expect insistence because our relationship is closer.

But when it comes to my boss or

something like that, according to our formal relationship, maybe I do not expect insistence.

in both cases the insistence made me feel like a have to explain why I will not do what they are asking of me

It depends on the way of insisting.

If it is an annoying insistence, it can be rude sometimes.

insistence in general, no I do not think of as a bad thing, especially in our culture.

As observed from the above responses, both of the Egyptian participants # 1,5,7,8

have reported that they did not expect insistence act within the hierarchical relation.

Participant # 4 has indicated that she does not think that insistence is rude, but, at some

point, it makes her just uncomfortable, and this feeling is depending on the social

relationship with her interlocutor. For the NSA group, seven Participants out of eight

have indicated that insistence is acceptable to the extent that it is considered the norm

99

in the Egyptian sociocultural setting, and it reflects a polite act within the contexts of

solidarity face system situations ( Food: P -/D -, and Birthday P-/D-), and the farewell

situation within the hierarchical face system (P +/D+). Moreover, not insisting within

these social relations might make the invitation or the act of adjuring, in Food situation,

or invitation, in birthday situation, sound insincere to the extent by which a guest might

feel unwanted.

4.8 Pragmatic transfer

Since the purpose of the study was to investigate any incidents of pragmatic

transfer from the L1, the analysis entailed a comparison between the refusal responses

of the NNSA group and the responses of a German-controlled group NSG, as a baseline

for the most refusal strategies used by German speakers as they negotiate the same

situations among them in German Language. The comparison is made according to the

responses within the pre-mentioned five refusal situations (Bookstore, farewell, Notes,

Birthday, and Food) to represent the three face systems of hierarchical, deference, and

solidarity. In doing so, the frequency, and the content for all the refusal strategies is

compared per participant. It is essential to be mentioned that the NNSA group has

consisted of 8 participants whom proficiency level in the Arabic Language is varying

(A2, B1, B2) according to the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages, CEFR); thus, the level of participants within the NNSA group might affect

their own choice of specific refusal pragmatic strategy. Therefore, the researcher has

chosen to compare the average production of the NNSA participants with the output

from their counterparts native Germans. This decision was made for two reasons: First,

to exclude the linguistic competence limitation factor and to concentrate only on the

most pragmatic features that distinguish the refusal speech act within the German

100

culture. Second, to overcome the issue of having different numbers of the participants

within each group (NNSA group: 8; NSG: 3; NSA: 8 Participants). Therefore, the

analysis is done quantitively by counting the frequency of every single used strategy

for every participant in the three groups; then the average is summed as the total for

every single used strategy for each group. Finally, the percentage for this total, per

strategy, is counted (table 6) to be compared between the three groups. For each group,

the percentage for every strategy is arranged in descending order. Then a comparison

is held as follows: First by noticing the heights rank for every strategy for the NNSA

group and the German group, then this rank is compared with its rank within the native

Egyptian group. Table (6) below showed the individual variation in the preference of

pragmatic strategies during the negotiation of the speech act of refusal among the

NNSA group, NSG group, and the NSA group.

Table (6) individual variation according to Percentage of the pragmatic strategies used by the NNSA Germans, the guide group of native Germans, and NSA group to show the degree of pragmatic transfer

101

Table (6) presented that among the NSG group, the responses of refusal in the

German Language have registered high frequencies in regard to some specific

strategies, for example, the strategies of Apology/ regret, the negation of the

proposition, and giving a general reason the percentage: 9.4% whereas some other

strategies are utilized moderately within the same group. For example, the percentage

was 5.7% for the indirect strategy of request for information. For both strategies of the

direct flat no, and preparator the percentage was 3.8% of the total strategies utilized by

the NSG group. Other strategies are used infrequently. For both strategies of paus-filler

and the strategy of request for understanding, the percentage was 1.9%. Finally, the

table showed that both strategies of Joking/laughing, and the strategy of Gratitude were

absent from the utterances of the NSG group.

Table (7) below has reviled evidence of areas of positive and negative pragmatic

transfer among German NNSA group participants from their L1, by presenting the most

used refusal strategy among the three groups as they were negotiating the speech act of

refusal.

102

Table (7) the Percentage of the most pragmatic strategies used by the NNSA Germans, the native Germans guide group, and the group of native Egyptians.

By comparing the production of the three groups, (table 7), it was found that the

indirect Regret/apology refusal strategy was the first most frequently used strategy

(11.8%) for the NNSA group, and for the NSG group (9.4% ), but for the native

Egyptian group it was the seventh most frequently used strategy with a percentage of

(4%). This is a good example of negative pragmatic transfer where the NNSA

participants relied heavily on their pragmatic knowledge from L1 in realizing the

speech act of refusal in Arabic. The good point, to be mentioned here, is that this

negative transfer phenomena from learner's L1 is reported for the same strategy in the

previous Arabic refusal study of (Morkus, N., 2009). Another important finding was

about the indirect strategy of Dissuasion/criticism. For both of NNSA and NSG group,

this strategy has utilized in relatively high frequency to register 6%, and 7.5% for the

both groups respectively, but the native Egyptian group has employed this strategy only

with the percentage of 3.5% to be the ninth most frequently used strategy. Therefore,

103

this means that we have another case of negative transfer. Furthermore, the Request for

information indirect strategy has showed up in the NNSA and the NSG groups with a

high frequency of 5.2%, and 5.7% respectively, whereas the NSA group has utilized

this strategy minimally with a frequency of 2.2% and has ranked in the position number

12 for this group. This was the third case of the negative pragmatic transfer of speech

act of refusal within the NNSA group from their first Language, German, to the target

Language, Arabic. Table 7 reveals another two cases of positive transfer. First case was

in relation of both of Reason/explanation indirect strategy and the strategy of giving a

general reason. To illustrate, Reason/explanation strategy used with a high frequency

of 6.6%, and 7.5% for the NNSA, and NSG group respectively, and the native Egyptian

group has employed this strategy with a high percentage of 5.7% of their total used

strategies. Finally, giving a general reason strategy which have registered a high

percentage within the three group (NNSA:5.5%; NSG 9.4; NSA: 6.9%). The

comparison among the three groups yielded to three cases of negative transfer, and two

cases of positive transfer, as shown in table 8.

4.8.1 Discussion of selected example from the German controlled group data

The following section is devoted to analyze a selected conversation between two

native speakers of German in their L1, German, In order to represent the sequence of

the refusal interaction in German Language, and to explain both of the request-refusal

sequence, and the insistence-refusal sequence at the German discourse level. Example

104

(1) showed a German interaction between two German participants, within this

situation, the employee refuses her boss's request to work extra time.

3. Bookstore: Boss issues request/ Employee declines request (two native

speakers of German Language)

1. Hallo, klare, ich habe ein Anliegen an dich ¬

2. Hallo

3. Hmm, genau es ist jetzt so, dass du bis 19 Uhr immer arbeitest. Ja und es

ist jetzt so viel Arbeit vor der Weihnachtszeit noch da. Wie wäre es

vielleicht möglich, dass du die kommenden Tage bis 21 Uhr arbeitest? “

it is exactly the case that you always work until 7 pm. Yes, and there is

still so much work to be done before Christmas. How would it be

possible that you work the next days until 9 pm o'clock? " ¬

4. Die kommenden Tage?, "The following days?"

5. Ja genau, Umm ja genau. Und okay es sind Paar Leute jetzt ausgefallen,

weil auch ja Grippezeit ist. Genau, dass du auch Donnerstag bitte bis 21

Uhr arbeitest, “ Yes exactly, um yes exactly. And okay, couple of people

have fallen out because it is also flu time. Exactly, that you also work

Thursday until 9pm Exactly"

6. Also ich kann leider Donnerstag nicht ich habe drei Tage früher ein

Referat muss vorberieten. Es wird leider nicht gehen, “Unfortunately, I

cannot on Thursday. I have a report that has been due for three days and I

should prepare it. Unfortunately, it will not work" [ HA]

7. Gehst gar nicht? gehst auch nicht ums Geld die Stunde wird ausbezahlt.

Aber, ich habe alle anderen schon gefragt. Es ist bei niemanden anderen

ausgegangen. ich würde dich darum bitten, dass du Donnerstag abreistest,

105

" Is this not possible at all? is it not about the money, the hours will be

paid. But I've already asked everyone else, but this does not work for

anyone else. So, I would like to ask you to work on Thursday" ¬

8. Es tut mir wirklich leid20. es wird wirklich eng bei mir16. Vielleicht

wenn ich früher gewusst hätte ebenso planen. 32. " I'm really sorry.

This will be really tight on time for me. Maybe, if I had known earlier,

I would have planned for it. [HA]

9. Ich habe es auch von meinem Chef erst erfahren, noch zusätzlich

jemanden machen. " Also, I have just learned from my boss that we

need to have someone extra "

10. Also ich kann leider wirklich nicht. Es tut mir wirklich leid,

"unfortunately, I cannot really, I'm really sorry " [HA]

The interaction in (3) is realized by means of an opening greeting sequence (lines

1–2), a request-refusal sequence (lines 3–6), an insistence-refusal sequence (lines 7–8),

then second insistence-refusal sequence (lines 9–10). The refusal response is made by

of a series of indirect refusals across various sequences: the first refusal is realized by

means a Repetition of portion of previous utterance to delay the upcoming refusal

response, and to distract the speaker away from the proposition (line 4). The boss took

his turn to provide more information about his request/proposition with more

explanation as a mean of putting more pressure on the part of her interlocutor. The

second refusal turn was realized by means of the direct strategy of negation the request

" Ich kann leider Donnerstag nicht " / "Unfortunately, I cannot on Thursday", this direct

refusal has mitigated by means of the mitigated modal adverb " Leider"/ "unfortunately

" to soften the negative effect of the direct refusal by reflecting a mental state of being

sorry for refusing the proposition. Followed by giving reason with an explanation to

106

precede the upcoming second direct refusal of negation the proposition. Giving reason

with an explanation has acted as a supportive move to modify the direct refusal

externally (line 6). During the insistence-refusal sequence the refusal response was

realized by means of the indirect strategy of regret/apology " I'm really sorry" which is

mitigated by using the word "Wirklich"/ "really" to assert a state of intensification.

Followed by giving a general reason, finally the strategy of set condition for past or

future acceptance (line 8). It is important her to mention that the refusal responses of

the NNSA group did not show any cases of using the indirect strategy of set condition

for past or future acceptance. The final insistence-refusal sequence was realized by

means of using an internally modified direct strategy of negation the request for the

second time in the same interaction to assert her firm refusal, followed by another

indirect strategy of regret/apology (line10).

107

CHAPTER 5

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion

This study sets out to investigate the similarities and differences in the realization

patterns and perceptions of Arabic refusals by educated undergraduate native speakers

of Egyptians and AFL's Germans in formal and informal situations. The majority of the

cross-cultural refusal research is conducted in a few languages, with a comparative

language often being English to date no study has conducted cross-culturally to

investigate the realization and the perceptions of refusals among Germans and native

speakers of Arabic (Egyptians) at the discourse level. Therefore, the topic is scarce in

the TAFL field. Besides, the majority of studies have examined written or non-

interactional data to analyze the linguistic strategies for expressing refusals in isolated

contexts, except a few studies that utilized interactional data.

The interactional data analyzed based on two perspectives. First, the pragmatic

strategies that manifest the speech-act set of refusals examined as direct, indirect, and

adjuncts to refusals. Second, to investigate differences in formal and informal situations

cross-culturally, the data were analyzed based on the three systems of the face:

hierarchical (+P), deference (+D), and solidarity (–D), according to the model of

Scollon & Scollon's (2001). The results show that while linguistic expressions are often

utilized to perform relational work when negotiating a refusal, these locutions may be

subject to a polite interpretation if these used in excess in socially appropriate contexts.

In particular, the investigation of the data allowed for an examination of how AFL

Germans and native Egyptians perceive linguistic politeness in symmetric and

asymmetric relationships and how they perceive politeness. The data show that

108

pragmatic variation is the norm in the production of the speech act of refusal within

each group and between the groups. In addition, the results show that the pragmatic

system of native speakers who belong to the same community of practice is not

uniform. Instead, as observed by Eelen (2001), variability in social interaction is

systematic. In the hierarchical face system, request situation, both the AFL Germans

and the native Egyptians recognized the power difference (+P) between the

interlocutors. However, the AFL group showed higher levels of indirectness, and

respect when refusing a person of higher status through the use of regret/apology,

giving reasons, and reasons with justifications. In contrast, the native Egyptians

expressed their feelings through direct refusals, general reasons when interacting with

a boss in the Bookstore situation. In both situations of the hierarchical face system, the

results showed that AFL Germans have more tendency toward giving reasons along

with an explanation. In contrary, Egyptians tended to give more general reasons.

However, the content of explanations for both groups often was related to friends and

family matters. Regarding the direct refusals, in the bookstore situation P+/D+, both

groups resorted to using the internally modified direct refusal strategy of negation the

proposition; however, the native Egyptians were more able to employ this strategy in a

relatively high frequency than the AFL group. In contrast, within the Farwell/invitation

situation in the same face system, the data of both groups showed a lower percentage

of using the direct refusal strategies than the bookstore/request situation, which is a

piece of evidence that the weight of imposition in the invitation situation is relatively

high than the request in both cultures. Within the deference face system, most of the

Egyptians gave false reasons by using the indirect strategy of invested reasons to avoid

any dispute with their classmate. Whereas, AFL German learners preferred being direct

and straightforward when rejecting a classmate's request. Further, most of AFL

109

Germans reported in the retrospective reports that the classmate's request to borrow the

notes bothered them because it inconvenienced them, and it was unfair, to show that

the concept of fairness constitutes a fundamental value within the German culture.

Therefore, Germans' preferences of refusal strategies within the deference face system

reflect and emphasize the speaker's independence face. In addition, Germans AFL

showed a tendency to rebuke/criticize their interlocutor. Beebe at al. (1990) taxonomy

refers to this strategy under the broader category of attempts to dissuade the

Interlocutor. To conclude, within the deference face, the chosen preferences of refusals

content reflect the values of two different cultures. On the one hand, a tendency towards

involvement to show concern for the others and expresses cooperation with the

interlocutor (Egyptians); on the other, an inclination towards independence, and a focus

on the self as an independent member of society (Germans). In the solidarity face

system, (P-/D-), where the participants know each other (–D), the responses of both

groups showed pragmatic variation in choosing the refusal strategies. For both groups,

in Birthday situation, a refusal to the invitation is most likely to be expressed through

giving reasons with explanations. Egyptians have employed the direct strategy of

negation of a proposition, more than AFL, to convey their responses with a close friend

(–D) and to represent involvement with him. This finding is not consistent with Brown

and Levinson's (1987) observation which states that an on-record strategy may threaten

the hearer's face. However, the results of this study are consistent with the results of

previous studies of different cultures which have settled that directness realized in

various speech acts does not express impolite behavior, but rather, a direct action (in

situations of equal status) may appear as a way of conveying closeness or affiliation

with an interlocutor.

110

Although that both of German Language and Egyptian Arabic dialect has two

addressing pronominal form for communicating formality or informality, the AFL

Germans did not recognize the formal code of addressing people in ECA; thus, they

have used only the informal code of " تنأ ." In contrast, the data showed that the native

Egyptians informants employed deferential forms to acknowledge the social status of

the person in higher status, not necessarily to be polite but because it is the expected

norm in the Egyptian culture. So, these forms represent socially appropriate behavior,

and under the proper circumstances, they may interpret as polite behavior. Furthermore,

we cannot explain the using of the informal second-person singular as impolite, but it

may be understood as inappropriate behavior based on the situation. Concerning the

insistence following a refusal to an invitation, cross-cultural differences observed

between the Germans and the Egyptians. Among the Egyptians, insistence was judged

appropriate for the person making the invitation to insist many times. It appears that an

insistence act may be seen as polite behavior that it reinforces the bonds of solidarity

among the interlocutors. Moreover, not to insist is to fall out of line during social

interaction and may be interpreted as impolite behavior. That is, the Egyptians

participants reported that in these situations an insistence (direct or indirect) did not

bother them; in fact, is expected as a means of expressing affiliation. In contrast, among

the Germans, an insistence after an invitation is not the expected norm of behavior and

leads to a violation of the others independence face. Overall, the retrospective verbal

reports provided additional insight into the cross-cultural differences between the

groups concerning a persistence following a refusal to an invitation. Among the

Egyptians, an insistence was perceived as a cultural expectation and an expression of

politeness for some participants, while most Germans reported that insistence in their

community did not expect because it interferes with the interlocutor's personal needs.

111

By comparing the production of the three groups, evidence of cases of positive and

negative pragmatic transfer from L1 was found in the AFL group of German learners.

The study spotted three cases of negative pragmatic transfer: The indirect strategy of

Regret/apology, the indirect strategy of Dissuasion/criticism, and the indirect strategy

of the request for information. It is essential to mention that this finding is reported in

other refusal studies (Felix-Brasdefer, 2002; Morkus, N., 2009). The analysis reveals

that other strategies also provide evidence of positive pragmatic transfer from German.

These are the indirect strategy of giving reason/explanation and the indirect strategy of

giving a general reason.

The study concluded that both aspects of face are present during social interaction

in every culture. The retrospective data verified the results collected of the role-play

data and provided further insights into the values of each culture and into the notion of

politeness1 as perceived in everyday interaction in Germany and Egypt. For AFL

learners, performing refusals require a higher level of pragmatic competence than other

target language speech acts. Thus, there is a need for pragmatic instruction to help

learners interpret and realize this speech act successfully. Therefore, the study suggests

that teaching refusals are important to be considered, inside the classrooms, by teachers

to help AFL students in developing pragmatic competence to use language for

communicating effectively. Finally, the study proposes the adopting of an educational

approach that includes awareness-raising activities at the cognitive level, and

production activities for the speech act of refusals. For example, activities that immerse

learners in translation activities, data collection, data analysis, and role-playing

activities.

112

5.2 Limitations

Some previous speech act studies with a focus on Arabic have found gender

differences in the realization of the speech act of refusal among participants (Al-

Shalawi, 1997), and (Al-Issa, 1998). Besides, in a previous cross-culture study about

the realization of the speech act of apology among Arabic-Speaking Jordanians and

English-speaking American, gender-based differences are found in the data (Sugimoto,

1997). For example, the researcher has found that Jordanian males used more

statements of regret while Jordanian females tended to assign blame to themselves more

than others. American females, on the other hand, favored apologizing using statements

of remorse more than their American male counterparts. Therefore, the first limitation

of this study is that it did not have control over the gender variable of the participants.

Since the guidelines for designing role plays proposed by Hudson, Detmer, and

Brown (1995, p. 59-60) state that a person in addition to the researcher should be used

to avoid the overlap of researcher and role play roles. Given the fact that the researcher,

within this study, has conducted the role-plays scenarios himself; therefore, this is

another limitation for this current study. However, the study of the realization of

refusals in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a foreign language did

not follow this guideline as well (Morkus, N. 2009). The researcher has justified his

participation by stating that it was vital for him to sustain a great deal of consistency in

the way the interaction conducted and to keep a moderate pace of the communication.

Thus, he has achieved this consistency by involving himself in this interaction to

maintain a high level of consistency in launching the requests or offers, reaction to

participant's refusals, and the level of persistence in the interaction.

Regarding the role-play scenarios, one other limitation in this study is that this

study tests only refusals to both requests and invitations. Whereas, previous speech act

113

studies have investigated refusals to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions.

However, some of these studies have employed the native speaker data as the baseline

for analyzing learner speech act behavior; for example, the cross-cultural Interlanguage

studies of refusals to invitations, requests, offers among native Americans and Arabic

learners of English as L2 (Stevens 1993; Al-Issa 1998). Whereas, some other previous

studies have investigated all the four stimuli of the speech act of refusal but did not

consider the production of the native speakers as a baseline for their analysis, for

example, (Al-Shalawi 1997) has contrasted the realization refusals patterns of English

with those of different variety of Arabic. All the previously mentioned studies have

utilized DCT as an instrument for gathering the data. The study of Nelson et al. 2002,

US English Egyptian Arabic, has employed a modified role play (closed roleplay), but

it does not use the native speaker data as a baseline for analyzing learner speech act

behavior Cross-culturally.

Furthermore, in this study, the examination of the refusal interactions didn't

include an analysis of the speaker's utterances but only considers the addressee's speech

act production of refusals. Thus, the present study focuses on the addressee's use of the

speech act of refusals at the discourse level by utilizing refusal strategies at the

discourse level, which controlled for speech act type (refusals to requests, and

invitations) and social distance (P-/+ power, and D-/+ social distance).

When conducting a study, it is vital to have a sufficient sample size to achieve a

valid research result. The larger the sample, the more accurate results will be. If your

sample size is too small, it will be challenging to identify significant relationships

from the data. Thus, the size of the sample is another notable limitation. For example,

the NSG group has consisted only from three native speakers of German who have

acted the five role-plays situations among them. Thus, the study has gathered only

114

five scenarios which have employed as a native German speaker baseline data to

compare and analyze the Arabic speech act of refusal, collected from their

counterpart's German learner of Arabic participants within the NNSA group.

Concerning the authenticity of the role-play situations, most of the participant of the

NNSA group said that they had not experienced the insistence act, especially in food

situations.

5.3 Pedagogical Implications

The study of Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar

as a Communicative Resource (Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D., 2012), points

out that pragmatics can be taught from beginning levels of language instruction in the

FL classroom. In addition, the authors state that the teacher (NS or NNS) needs to be

familiar with general concepts that facilitate the instruction of pragmatics, such as the

distinction between pragma-linguistic and socio-pragmatic knowledge, pragmatic

variation, pragmatic input (oral and in textbooks), and ways of directing learners'

attention to the practical functions of grammar for communicative purposes.

Furthermore, they have developed an online website upon which teachers could provide

the learners with a wide range of communicative activities for improving pragmatic

competence. The website shows an overview of the speech act of refusals, strategies

commonly used to express refusal, role-play dialogues, and online activities to be

practiced directly in the classroom.

The study proposes a model aims at providing teachers and learners with a four-

step approach to the teaching of refusals for intermediate-level learners. The following

are the four activities which can be implemented in the classroom during a 40-minute

class period.

115

1. Raising Awareness

2. Pragmatic Input: Recognizing Refusal strategies

3. Teaching Grammar as a Communicative Resource

4. Producing Refusals in a Foreign Language Context

This study recommends the conducting of more pragmatic studies to investigate

various speech acts (e.g., apologies, congratulations, compliments, complaint, greeting,

etc..) in Arabic by gathering interactional data, as a direction for the future trajectories

of research. The aim of these speech acts studies is to develop an online model for

teaching pragmatics in the FL classroom similar to the pragmatics website which is

developed by Indiana University "https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/teaching/refusals-

english.html."

The recommended website would show an overview of various sorts of speech

act in Arabic, strategies commonly used to express this speech acts, authentic role-play

dialogues (listening, and reading), and online activities to be practiced directly in the

classroom. These activities aim to practice using simulated online activities that

promote speaking and listening at the discourse level.

5.4 Directions for Future Research

Since the present study was the second in using role-play instrument to gather an

interactional speech act data in Arabic, the first study was the study of (Morkus, N.

2014); thus, more cross-culture studies are needed to investigate different speech acts

in Arabic (e.g., apologies, congratulations, compliments, complaint, greeting, etc..) by

utilizing interactional data gathering techniques. Besides, one of the main advantages

for using the procedure of gathering perception data, through retrospective reports, is

116

that we can investigate what participants think of the notion of politeness as it is realized

in every day social interaction within their own culture. (Cohen 1998, 2004). Therefore,

one recommended research trajectory is employing the same technique to investigate

all the possible speech acts in Arabic to have an inventory for a variety of speech acts

in Arabic. The current study made an effort to control several variables including the

use of five similar situations (two refusals to invitations, and three to requests), a

participant category limited to undergraduate university students, and the social factors

of power and distance. Therefore, future research is recommended to exert more efforts

to gather ethnographic refusal data in different settings, different age group, as well as

future research with control for a higher number of variables that are important in

speech act research such as gender. Although that the results of the current study cannot

be generalized to the realization patterns of refusals observed among all AFL's and all

the native speakers of Egyptian Arabic; however, the findings obtained provide us with

insightful information regarding the negotiation of a refusal and the perceptions of

politeness in both cultures.

117

REFERENCES

Assigning CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL _Assessments.pdf

Arnándiz, O. M., & Salazar-Campillo, P. (2013). Refusals in instructional contexts

and beyond. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Arundale, R. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication

framework for re- search on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 193–216.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts).

Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453–1469. Beckers, A. M. (1999). How to say "no": A study of the refusal strategies of

Americans and Germans. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, Mississippi.

Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL

refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds), Developing communicative competence in second language. New York: Newbury House.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A

contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign

Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource. Hispania, 95(4), 650-669. doi:10.1353/hpn.2012.0124

Fotion, N. (2000). Searle's taxonomic theory. In John Searle (pp. 39-56). Acumen Publishing. doi:10.1017/UPO9781844653157.003

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2009). Second language acquisition: An introductory

course. New York: Routledge. Gass, S., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of

Japanese-English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ghazanfari, M., Bonyadi, A., & Malekzadeh, S. (2013). Investigating cross-linguistic

differences in refusal speech act among native Persian and English speakers. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(4). doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2012.214

118

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publish- ing Company.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax

and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Grice, H.P, "Logic and Conversation," in Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3, Speech

Acts, Peter Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1975. Grieve, A., & Seebus, I. (2008). G’day or Guten Tag?: A cross-cultural study of

Australian and German telephone openings. Journal of Pragmatics,40(7), 1323-1343. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.005

Hedayatnejad, F., Maleki, R., & Mehrizi, A. A. (2015). The Effect of Social Status

and Gender on Realization of Refusal of Suggestion among Iranian EFL Intermediate Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(1), 99. doi:10.17507/jltr.0701.11

John Oetzel, Stella Ting-Toomey, Martha Idalia Chew-Sanchez , Richard Harris , Richard Wilcox & Siegfried Stumpf (2003) Face and Facework in Conflicts With Parents and Siblings: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans, Journal of Family Communication.

Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal

of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture,1(1). doi:10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9

Morkus, N. (2009). The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by

American learners of Arabic as a foreign language. Tampa, Fla: University of South Florida.

Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Journal of

Pragmatics, 70, 86-107. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.001 N-tv NACHRICHTEN. (2016, February 04). Experte fordert Arabisch als Pflichtfach.

Retrieved from https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Experte-fordert-Arabisch-als-Pflichtfach-article16923231.html

Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & Bakary W. E. (2002). Cross-cultural

pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 163-189.

Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion

of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309–328.

119

Rahbar, B., Oroji, M. R., & Hedayatnejad, F. (2015). The effect of gender on refusal of suggestion in formal and informal situations among Iranian learners. Global Journal of Sociology.

Schulz, E., & Maisel, S. (2013). Modern standard Arabic: Textbook integrating main

Arabic dialects. Leipzig: Edition Hamouda. Sadler, R. W., & Eröz, B. (2001). “I refuse you!” An examination of English refusals

by native speakers of English, Lao, and Turkish. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT.

Searle, J. R. (1992). (On) Searle on conversation. Searle, J. R. (2011). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:

Cambridge Univ. Press. Searle, John R. "Collective Intentions and Actions". Forthcoming in P. Cohen, J.

Morgan, & M.E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication. Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Searle, John R. "Indirect Speech Acts". In: Expression and Meaning: Studies in the

Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, 1979 Searle, John R., "A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts," in Language, Mind and

Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol.XI, K. Gunderson (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, 1975. Reprinted in Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Watts, R. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic

behavior. Multilingua. Watts, R. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior: Reconsidering

claims for universality. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, R. (2005). Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and Practice (Second edition)

120

APPENDIX

Appendix 1A. Role plays (English)

Instructions

You have been asked to participate in 5 role-playing Scenarios. Try to react in

Arabic as if you were in a real situation. These situations take place in Cairo. If there

is something in the situations that you cannot understand, ask me and I will explain it

to you.

Formal situations: Unequal status

1. Request (+P, +D) – Bookstore

You are working in a part-time job in the University Library since the beginning

of the semester. You are working from 3pm to 7pm. You have a good relationship

with your boss in the library, but you are not friends outside the work. Your boss has

asked you to work for extra hours, but you cannot work. How would you react in this

situation?

2. Invitation (+P, +D) – Farewell

You are working in a company as a sales representative. You have a good

working relationship with your boss, but you are not friends outside the work. Your

boss helped you get promoted. After working with him for three years, he was

recently promoted to Sales Manager. Thus, he should move to another country. There

is a farewell party for that. He invited you to this party. All members of his company

group are also invited to party, but you cannot attend. How would you react in this

situation??

Informal situations: Equal status

3. Request (–P, +D) – Notes

121

You are a student at the university, who is well known that he can write an

excellent summary. The professor said that there will be an exam next week. One of

your colleagues asked you to give him your own summaries. This colleague is not one

of your friends and you just talk to him during the lectures. He is lazy and he always

miss his lectures again and again. You have helped him several times. But this time

you do not want to help him. How would you react in this situation?

4. Invitation (–P, –D) – Birthday

You are walking on the campus and meet a good friend. You are studying

together in the same program at the university. He invited you to his birthday party in

his home. He told you that a group of your mutual friends will also attend. You know

that this is a great opportunity to see everyone again and to celebrate their special

occasion with him. Unfortunately, you cannot go to the party. How would you react in

this situation?

5. Request (–P, –D) – Food

You are visiting a close friend whom you have not seen for more than a year.

Your friend was very happy on your visit. He has prepared a lot of food and sweets.

After eating you feel full and cannot eat anymore. However, he insists on giving you

more sweets, but you cannot eat anymore. How would you react in this situation?

Appendix 1B. Role plays (Arabic)

تامیلعت

ةغللا مادختساب يقیقح عضو يف لعفت امك درلا لواح .راودلأا بعلل فقاوم 5 يف ةكراشملا كنم بولطم

كل حرشأسو ينلأسا ،اھمھفت لا يتلا فقاوملا يف ام ءيش كانھ ناك اذإ .ةرھاقلا يف ثدحت فقاوملا هذھ .ةیبرعلا

.كلذ

122

Formal situations: Unequal status

1. Request D + / P + (bookstore)

ةعاسلا نم لمعت تنأ .يساردلا لصفلا ةیادب ذنم ةعماجلا ةبتكم يف يئزج ماودب ةفیظو يف لمعت تنا

متسل مكنكل ،ةبتكملا ریدم لمعلا يف كسیئر عم ةدیج ةقلاع ىلع تنأ .ءاسم 7:00 ةعاسلا ىلإ ءاسم 3:00

نوكیس اذامف ةیفاضإ ةدم لمعلا كنكمی لا نكلو ،ةیفاضإ تاعاسل لمعلا ریدملا كنم بلط .لمعلا جراخ ءاقدصأ

؟فقوملا اذھ يف كدر

2. Invitation D + / P + (Farewell)

ھعم ىقلاتت لا كنأ نم مغرلا ىلع كسیئر عم ةدیج لمع ةقلاع كیدل .تاعیبم لثممك ةكرش يف لمعت تنأ

،ارخؤم ھتیقرت تمت ،تاونس ثلاث ةدمل ھعم لمعلا دعب .ةثیدح ةیقرتل كیقلت يف كدعاس كسیئر .بتكملا جراخ

ةعومجم يف نیرخآ ءاضعأو تنأ كوعدیو ةلفح میقیس كلذل .رخأ دلبل لقتنی فوسو تاعیبم مسقل اریدم حبصیسو

؟فقوملا اذھ يف كدر نوكیس اذامف روضحلا ىلع رداق ریغ كنكل ،ھعم لافتحلال ھتاعیبم

Informal situations: Equal status

3. Request D + / P - (Personal notes)

ناحتما كانھ نا لاق ذاتسلأا .ةزاتمم تاصخلم بتكت كنأ ةبلطلا نیب فورعم تنأو ةعماجلا يف بلاط تنأ

لخاد طقف ھعم ملكتت تنأو كئاقدصأ نم سیل لیمزلا اذھ .تاصخلملا كنم بلط كئلامز دحأ .مداقلا عوبسلأا

تنأ ةرملا هذھ نكل ،اریثك ھتدعاسمب تمق دقل .امئاد تارضاحملا نع بیغتی وھو لوسك لیمزلا اذھ .تارضاحملا

؟فقوملا اذھ يف كدر نوكیس اذامف ھتدعاسم عیطتست لا

4. Invitation D - / P - (Birthday)

كتوعدب ماق .ةعماجلا يف جمانربلا سفن يف سردت وھو تنأ .ادیج اقیدص لباقتو ةعماجلا يف ریست تنأ

هذھ نأ فرعت تنأ .اضیأ نورضحیس نیكرتشملا ءاقدصلأا نم ةعومجم نأ كربخأو .ھلزنم يف هدلایم دیع لفحل

كنكمی لا ،ظحلا ءوسل .ھعم ةصاخلا ةبسانملا هذھب لافتحلااو ىرخأ ةرم عیمجلا ةیؤرل ةدیج ةصرف نوكتس

؟فقوملا اذھ يف كدر نوكیس اذامف لفحلل باھذلا

123

5. Request D - / P - (Food)

ماقو كترایزب ادج دیعس ناك كقیدص .ةنس نم رثكأ ذنم هارت مل يذلا برقملا كقیدص ةرایزل تبھذ تنأ

يلع ممصم ھنكل دیزملا لكأ عیطتست لاو عبشلاب لكلاا دعب رعشت تنأ .ةریثك يولح فانصأو ادج ریثك لكأ لمعب

؟فقوملا اذھ يف كدر نوكیس اذامف دیزملا لكأ عیطتست لا كنكل ىولحلا نم دیزملا كئاطعا

Appendix 1C. Role plays (German)

Anleitung

Sie werden gebeten, an 5 Rollenspielen teilzunehmen. Versuchen Sie, so zu

reagieren im Arabisch, als ob Sie in einer realen Situation sein würden. Diese

Situationen finden in Kairo statt. Wenn etwas in den Situationen vorliegt, die Sie

nicht verstehen können, dann fragen Sie mich, und ich werde sie Ihnen gerne

erklären.

Formale Situationen: Ungleicher Status

1. Anfrage D + / P + (Buchhandlung)

Du arbeitest seit Beginn des Semesters in einem Teilzeitjob in der

Universitätsbibliothek. Du arbeitest von 15.00 Uhr bis 19.00 Uhr. Du hast eine gute

Beziehung zu deinem Chef in der Bibliothek, aber ihr seid nicht Freunde außerhalb

der Arbeit. Dein Chef hat dich gebeten, zusätzliche Stunden zu arbeiten, aber du

kannst zusätzlich nicht arbeiten. Wie würdest du in dieser Situation reagieren?

2. Einladung D + / P + (Abschiedsfeier)

Du arbeitest in einem Unternehmen als Außendienstmitarbeiter. Du hast eine

gute Arbeitsbeziehung zu deinem Chef, aber ihr seid nicht Freunde außerhalb der

Arbeit. Dein Chef hat dich geholfen, eine aktuelle Forderung zu erhalten. Nachdem

du drei Jahre lang mit ihm gearbeitet hast, wurde er kürzlich befördert, als

Verkaufsleiter. Er soll in ein anderes Land ziehen. Dafür gibt es eine Abschied Party.

124

Er hat dich auf diese Party eingeladen. Alle Mitglieder seiner Betriebsgruppe sind

auch eingeladen, um zu feiern, aber du kannst nicht teilnehmen. Wie würdest du in

dieser Situation reagieren?

Informelle Situationen: Gleicher Status

3. Anfrage D + / P - (Zusammenfassung)

Du bist ein Student an der Universität, der bei Studenten gut bekannt ist, dass er

eine ausgezeichnete Zusammenfassung schreiben kann. Der Professor sagte, dass es

die nächste Woche eine Prüfung geben wird. Einer deiner Kollegen hat dich gebeten

ihm deine eigenen Zusammenfassungen zu geben. Dieser Kollege gehört nicht zu

deinen Freunden und du sprichst nur mit ihm während der Vorlesungen. Er ist faul

und er verspasst immer wieder seine Vorträge. Du hast ihm mehrmals geholfen. Aber

diesmal willst du ihm nicht helfen. Wie würdest du in dieser Situation reagieren?

4. Einladung D + / P - (Geburtstagsparty)

Du läufst auf das Universitätsgelände und triffst einen guten Freund. Ihr studiert

gemeinsam im selben Programm an der Universität. Er hat dich zu seiner

Geburtstagsfeier in seinem zu Hause eingeladen. Er hat dir gesagt, dass auch eine

Gruppe deiner gemeinsamen Freunde teilnehmen wird. Du weißt, dass dies eine gute

Gelegenheit ist, jeden wiederzusehen und mit ihm seinen besonderen Anlass zu

feiern. Leider kannst du nicht zu der Party gehen. Wie würdest du in dieser Situation

reagieren?

5. Anfrage D - / P - (Essen)

Du besuchst einen engen Freund, den du mehr als ein Jahr nicht gesehen hast.

Dein Freund hat sich auf deinem Besuch sehr gefreut. Dafür hat er viel Essen und

Süßigkeiten zubereitet. Nach dem Essen fühlst du dich satt und kannst nicht mehr

125

essen. Jedoch besteht er darauf, dir mehr Süßigkeiten zu geben, aber du kannst nicht

mehr essen. Wie würdest du in dieser Situation reagieren?

Appendix 2A. Retrospective reports (English)

The questions:

What were you paying attention to when you refused in this situation?

To what extent was it important for you to be direct or indirect when you

refused in this situation?

After refusing the request from a boss (Farewell) or a friend (Birthday), did you

expect an insistence from him? If he did insist, how did it make you feel? Do you

consider an insistence rude or acceptable in your culture?

Appendix 2B. Retrospective reports (Arabic)

:ةلئسلأا

؟فقوملا اذھ يف ضفرلاب تمق امدنع امتھم تنك اذامب .١

اذھ يف ضفرلاب تمق امدنع رشابم ریغ وأ ارشابم نوكت نأ كل ةبسنلاب مھملا نم ناك ىدم يأ ىلإ .٢

؟فقوملا

فیك ،رصأ اذإ ؟ھنم ارارصإ تعقوت لھ ،)دلایم دیع( قیدص وأ )عادو( سیئر نم بلطلا ضفر دعب .٣

؟كتفاقث يف لاوبقم وأ احقو رارصلإا ربتعت لھ ؟كروعش ناك

Appendix 2C. Retrospektive Berichte (German)

Die Fragen:

Worauf hast du geachtet, als du diese Situation geweigert hast?

Inwiefern war es dir wichtig, direkt oder indirekt zu sein, wenn du diese

Situation abgelehnt hast?

126

Nachdem du die Anfrage eines Chefs (Abschied) oder eines Freundes

(Geburtstag) abgelehnt hast, hast du eine Beharrlichkeit von ihm erwartet? Wenn er

darauf bestand, wie hast du dich dabei gefühlt? Hältst du eine Beharrlichkeit für

unhöflich oder akzeptabel in deine Kultur?

Appendix 3: Consent for participation in the Research

DocumentationofInformedConsentforParticipationinResearchStudy

ProjectTitle:Howtosaynowithoutsayingno:Across-culturalstudyoftherealizationandperceptionofspeechactofrefusalamongGermanLearnersofArabicasaForeignLanguageAFLandEgyptiannativespeakers

PrincipalInvestigator: SherifEzzatFarawila/E-mail:shfarawila@aucegypt.edu

*Youarebeingaskedtoparticipateinaresearchstudy.Thepurposeoftheresearchisto investigate certain aspects of the oral proficiency of German learners of Arabic as a foreign Language, andthefindingsmaybepublishedandpresented.Theexpecteddurationofyourparticipationisthreehours.Theproceduresoftheresearchwillbeasfollows:Since, this research study aims to investigate certain aspects of the oral proficiency of German learners of Arabic as a foreign Language, participants will be asked to interact with native speakers of Arabic and native speakers of German in role play situations. These situations will represent various social interactions that the participants may be familiar with. *Therewillnotbecertainrisksordiscomfortsassociatedwiththisresearch.*Therewillbebenefitstoyoufromthisresearchasfollows:Participants will have the opportunity to practice speaking Arabic in various situations. In addition, findings from this research will make a contribution to the field to teaching Arabic as a foreign language (TAFL), specifically with regard to teaching the pragmatic aspects of Arabic.*Theinformationyouprovideforpurposesofthisresearchisconfidential.*Participationinthisstudyisvoluntary.Refusaltoparticipatewillinvolvenopenaltyorlossofbenefitstowhichyouareotherwiseentitled.Youmaydiscontinueparticipationatanytimewithoutpenaltyorthelossofbenefitstowhichyouareotherwiseentitled.Signature ________________________________________PrintedName ________________________________________Date ________________________________________

127

Appendix 4: Transliteration Key

Consonants ʔ ء

a ا b ب t ت θ ث

jg, ج

ħ ح

x خ d د ḏ ذ

r ر z ز s س ʃ ش

ṣ ص

ḍ ض

´ ṭ

µ ẓ

ʕ ع

ġ غ

f ف q ق k ك l ل m م n ن h ه w و3 y

Short vowels a i o

128

Long vowels

ā )م فلأĪ 7م ءا( ō )م واو

ē 7ماعلا يف )م ءاIم ةJب لIa ō ةضوأ لJم ةIماعلا يف )م واو

Appendix 5: comparison of the CEFR and ACTFL proficiency levels