Chapter 3 Methodology
3.3 Coding categories
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
coder who is familiarized with the coding system. The inter-rater reliability was then evaluated with the Cohen’s kappa value. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient indicates that the inter-rater reliability is very high (k= 0.88).
3.3 Coding categories
The coding categories proposed by Beebe et al. (1990) were adapted for data analysis. Some refusal strategies that never appeared in children’s data were omitted,
and some other strategies were added to better fit the data. The strategies are classified into two categories: direct and indirect. The direct refusal includes simple negation and physical force. The indirect refusal strategies are citing negated ability, giving reasons, offering alternatives, dissuading the interlocutor, making counterclaims, conditional acceptance, verbal avoidance, and nonverbal avoidance. The strategies are defined below:
A. Simple negation
Simple negation means that children use direct denial of compliance without reservation. The most commonly used lexical items are 不要 buyao ‘no’ or 不行 buxing ‘no’.
B. Physical force
Children do not only refuse verbally. They sometimes appeal to physical force such as grabbing or hitting to show noncompliance.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
C. Negated ability
This refers to utterances that show inability to comply with the interlocutor’s
request. Utterances such as 我不會送(餐) wo buhui song(can) ‘I can’t deliver (the meal)’ belong in this category.
D. Reason
This refers to the explanations or justifications given by the speaker for noncompliance. Examples like 這是我的 zhe shi wode ‘This is mine’ or 我不喜歡送 信 wo bu xihuan song xin ‘I don’t like to deliver a mail’ are included in this category.
E. Alternative
Alternative refers to the utterances suggesting a different course of action.
Utterances such as 大家一起(做) dajia yiqi “Let’s do it togother” after the request 你 做軌道 ni zuo guidao ‘you build the track’ are classified as alternatives. The refuser
shows noncompliance by suggesting an alternative related to the request.
F. Counterclaim
A counterclaim happens when the speaker refuses the request by repeating the interlocutor’s plan of action as the speaker’s own plan of action. For example, when a
requester wanted a certain toy and made a request 給我 gei wo “Give it to me,” the refuser used the same utterance 給我 gei wo “Give it to me” as his own request in order to show noncompliance.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
G. Conditional acceptance
This refers to the utterances which indicate that the refusee’s plan of action will be
accepted under certain conditions. For instance, when the child asked for a block, the refuser responded 那你還我一個 na ni huan wo yige “Then you have to give me one back” to indicate that the request would not be accepted until the condition was met.
H. Dissuade interlocutor
This type of refusal attempts to persuade the refusee to give up his or her action plan. Threats or statements of negative consequences, guilt trips (pointing out things the refusee failed to do in the past), criticizing, and asking for rewards are methods the refuser employs to dissuade the interlocutor. For example, when one child said that he wanted to ride the horse, the refuser responded 你騙人 ni pian ren ‘You lied to me’ because the requester had promised that he would not touch the toy horse. The
refuser criticized the requester in hopes of persuading him to give up the request.
I. Avoidance — verbal
This refers to utterances that avoid a direct response to a proposed course of action.
Postponement such as 等一下 dengyixia “wait a minute” and changing the topic are included in this category.
J. Avoidance — nonverbal
The speaker sometimes uses nonverbal avoidance as a way of refusing. For
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
instance, they may remain silent, concentrate on doing something, or walk away from the interlocutor. No verbal response is provided at all.
Figure 1. Framework of refusal analysis Refusal
Direct Simple negation
Physical force
Indirect
Negated ability Reason
Alternative Counterclaim
Conditional Acceptance
Dissuade interlocutor
Verbal avoidance
Nonverbal avoidance
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 4
Data Analysis
4.1 Children’s use of refusal strategies
The data show a total of 222 refusals in 11 hours of observation. The frequency of refusals was 20.2 per hour. In terms of directness, children tended to apply indirect strategies when refusing others. Table 2 illustrates the frequency of the use of direct
and indirect refusals.
Table 2. Frequency of direct and indirect strategies
Direct/ Indirect strategy Number of tokens Percentage (%)
Direct refusal 83 32.55
Indirect refusal 172 67.45
Total 255 100
The frequency of the use of indirect refusal strategies is 67.45%, while the use of
direct refusal is only 32.55%. The result indicates that children attempted to use indirect strategies to mitigate the threat to interlocutor’s face caused by refusals. In
order to understand children’s performance of refusals more thoroughly, the frequency of different refusal strategies was examined, as shown in table 3.
‧
Table 3. Frequency of refusal strategies
Strategy Number of tokens Percentage (%)
Simple negation 81 31.76
Conditional acceptance 2 0.78
Negated ability 2 0.78
Counterclaim 2 0.78
Physical force 2 0.78
Total 255 100
Table 3 presents the frequency of refusal strategies children employed when refusing their peers’ plans of action. The total number of tokens is 255 because there
were 32 refusals containing more than one strategy. The results indicate that children can apply a variety of strategies to refuse others. Ten types of strategies were found to be used by children. The two most dominant strategies were Simple negation and Reason, which combined accounted for more than half of all refusal strategies used by the children. Other strategies such as Verbal and Nonverbal avoidance, Alternatives, Dissuasion, Conditional acceptance, Negated ability, Counterclaim, and Physical force were also used. The qualitative analysis of these refusal strategies is provided in the following sections.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4.1.1 Simple negation
Among the strategies, Simple negation (31.76%) was the most frequently used.
The commonly used linguistic forms are buxing and buyao. The following example illustrates how a child uses a direct refusal with his peer:
Example 1: JUN and CAI are playing with blocks.
1. JUN: 借我一個就好了.
‘Just lend me one [block].’
2. CAI: 不行.
‘No.’
In example 1, JUN asked CAI to lend him one block, and CAI refused him with a Simple negation: 不行 buxing ‘No’. Simple negation is the most explicit strategy, and thus can be very effective in conveying noncompliance. However, Simple negation is considered impolite since the speaker does nothing to minimize the threat
to the face of the hearer. Using this kind of direct refusal suggests that the child is focusing on his or her own unwillingness and does not take the hearer’s face into
account.
4.1.2 Reason
Aside from Simple negation, the children also refused by giving reasons fairly often (26.67%). Some studies in adults’ interactions suggested that the only way in which a request may be refused with reasonable politeness is to give an account (Goffman, 1976). From the reasons provided by children, we found that some are
‧
self-oriented while some are nonself-oriented. Self-oriented reasons refer to reasons which mainly demonstrate the speaker’s own needs, feelings, or desires. Example 2
demonstrates how the child used a self-oriented reason to refuse the listener’s request.
In example 2, LIN asked NIN to build a house with her. However, NIN refused her with a self-oriented reason that he wanted to build something else — a triangle. In terms of perspective-taking ability, the child seemed to concentrate on his own desire and therefore revealed that although he understood the hearer’s need for a reason for the refusal, he still cared more about his own desire and thought from his own
‘I want to build a triangle.’
By contrast, nonself-oriented reasons refer to social rules, regulations, or others’
feelings. Consider example 3.
Example 3
1. JUN: 我也要玩.
‘I want to play, too.’
2. LIN: 這邊只能兩個人玩.
‘Only two people can play here.’
Instead of stating her own needs or feelings, LIN rationalized her refusal by citing a regulation that only two people were allowed to play in that classroom.
Because a regulation is beyond one’s control, providing such a reason implies that the
‧
causing the hearer to lose face.The results showed that children assumed others have reasons for saying what they say. Therefore, one cannot just say no. A simple no was not accepted by most children as sufficient. The refuser is expected to give an explanation for noncompliance. The reason for failing to comply would be queried if not provided by the refuser, as shown in example 4. DOR wanted to watch TV, however, SAL refused her request with a direct refusal without giving any reason. DOR did not accept her refusal and queried about her reasons for noncompliance. After SAL supplied her with a reason for refusing, DOR finally accepted it.
Example 4
‘Because this [toy remote control] is mine.’
4.1.3 Nonverbal avoidance
Children sometimes use nonverbal avoidance such as remaining silent when refusing. Nonverbal avoidance (13.33%) was commonly used as refusal by children.
However, few studies have paid attention to this strategy. The reason lies in the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
different methods of data collection. Previous studies used experiments or questionnaires such as Discourse Completion Test to elicit children’s refusal. Such important strategies never appear under those methods and are thus neglected.
Therefore, it is proved that naturally obtained data provide us with a better way to understand children’s authentic refusal performance.
In our data, children sometimes ignored the request and kept doing what they are doing or even walked away from the requester without giving any response. Example 5 illustrates how children used nonverbal avoidance to refuse a request.
Example 5
1. ZHI: 那個拿過來.
‘Bring that to me.’
2. JUN: 0 [% 繼續玩玩具].
0 [% keeps playing with the toy]
In example 5, ZHI asked JUN to bring her the block. ZHI’s request was clear and loud;
however, JUN ignored her request. He simply remained silent and kept playing with his toy, hoping that ZHI will give up her request.
Remaining silent is considered impolite because it shows no respect to the hearer.
It makes the hearer feel that his or her request is not only being refused but even worse, neglected. However, children applied this strategy when they could not think of a better way to refuse the interlocutor. From the data collected, we discovered that this strategy is often used when the request was repeated even though the child had
‧
Children sometimes suggested an alternative proposal to distract the hearer from continuing to pursue his or her original intent (10.98%). According to Chen et al.
(1995), alternatives provide a way to avoid a direct confrontation. They also pointed out that providing an alternative can preserve the hearer’s face by showing the speaker’s concern for the hearer’s need. And therefore, alternatives in refusal reflect
the notion of respectfulness and modesty in the Chinese conception of politeness.
Example 6 shows how an alternative was used as a refusal.
Example 6
In example 6 JUN wanted to have the two blocks in NIN’s hand. JUN not only used an imperative request but also provided the reason that he found the blocks first.
NIN then refused to give back the blocks but tried to negotiate with JUN. NIN proposed an alternative that each of them could have one of the blocks. This example reveals that NIN had the ability of taking another’s needs into consideration. He
‧
offered an alternative that could satisfy both speakers; they could each get one block.The refusal then was carried out successfully.
4.1.5 Verbal avoidance
Children sometimes used verbal avoidance (9.41%) to show refusal. According to Chen et al. (1995), any act occurring immediately after an initiating act is taken as a meaningful responding act; therefore, avoiding a direct positive response indicates refusal. Although verbal avoidance is an indirect strategy, it can still be perceived as being impolite. The most commonly used method is postponement. Children often used 等一下 deng yixia ‘wait a minute’ to avoid confrontation. Other linguistic forms such as “I have to think about it” were also used by children to postpone
compliance, as shown in example 7.
Example 7
1. LIN: 你當我哥 # 然後我當你的姐.
‘You’ll be my brother, and I’ll be your sister.’
2. LIN: 這樣可以嗎?
‘Is this OK?’
3. JUN: 我要考慮.
‘I’ll have to think about it.’
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In example 7, LIN asked JUN to pretend to be her brother. Instead of refusing LIN directly, JUN used the postponement “I’ll have to think about it” to avoid direct
confrontation. From the results, we discovered that sometimes when children said
“wait a minute,” they really meant it; they did fulfill the request afterward. However,
most of time, they just used postponement as a way of letting the hearer give up his or her desire.
Children also used topic switching to refuse the hearer. Example 8 demonstrates how the child tried to change the topic in response to the request.
Example 8
1. CAI: 我們玩這個.
‘Let’s play with this.’
2. NIN: /ei/你看 [% 把玩具丟出去].
‘Look!’ [% throwing another toy]
When CAI asked NIN to play with a certain toy together, NIN threw another toy out to distract CAI. In this interaction NIN avoided refusing directly and successfully distracted the hearer from his own request. CAI forgot his request, and they played with the toy that NIN threw.
4.1.6 Dissuade interlocutor
There are many ways to dissuade the interlocutor, such as mentioning negative consequences, asking for a reward, or criticizing. Take example 9 for instance. SHI asked SAL to play the game of rolling together. SAL first refused the request directly
‧
by saying buyao. Then she tried to dissuade SHI by telling him that playing that game is not beneficial to him since the game is not fun. SAL was trying to let SHI know that she refused because she thought that it would be better for SHI to give up on the
original plan. Using such a strategy shows that the speaker not only tried to mitigate the threat to the hearer’s face but also expressed consideration for the hearer’s benefit.
The speaker shifted the focus of the refusing act from the refuser to the hearer. If SHI didn’t want to play a boring game, he would have to play something else.
Example 9
1. SHI: 我們來玩 # 滾滾遊戲.
‘Let’s play the rolling game.’
2. SAL: 不要啦. other ways to dissuade the interlocutor, such as criticizing the request or the requester.
Consider example 10.
Example 10
1. NIN: 我需要電話 [% 拿走地上的玩具電話].
‘I need the phone.’ [% takes away the toy phone that was on the floor]
2. NIN: 我需要.
‘I need [it].’
‧
In example 10, LIN found a toy phone and put it on the floor. NIN asked for the
toy phone and before LIN responded to his request, NIN had already taken away the phone. LIN became angry and criticized NIN’s action by saying, “what’s wrong with you.” Unlike the use of dissuasion in example 9, here the criticism was very impolite.
This kind of usage often occurred when the requester did something which irritated the requestee, such as taking away something without permission or breaking one’s
promise.
4.1.7 Conditional acceptance
Only two examples were found in the data that included conditional acceptance (0.78%). This strategy shows that the request could be accepted only under a certain condition. Example 11 shows how the child used conditional acceptance to refuse the hearer.
In example 11, the children were building cars. JUN asked CAI to give him one block. However, CAI said that only if JUN gave him one block back, he would accept the request. Using conditional acceptance reveals that the speaker understands the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
requester’s need, however, the request is not accepted under the current circumstances.
Conditional acceptance also leaves the door open for future compliance.
4.1.8 Negated ability
Children expressed that they were not able to accomplish the request as a refusal strategy (0.78%). Take Example 12, for instance. The children pretended that they
were working in a restaurant. DOR asked SAL to deliver meals to the customer. SAL refused to do it by saying that she didn’t know how to deliver the meals.
Example 12
1. DOR: 你來送餐.
‘You deliver the meals.’
2. SAL: 啊我不會送.
‘Oh, I don’t know how to deliver [the meals].’
Negating one’s ability to comply with the request indicates that the speaker did
not refuse deliberately. The speaker has to refuse because he or she is unable to accomplish the request, even if willing. This kind of strategy expresses the speaker’s concern about the requester’s need and also indicates the speaker’s willingness to help meet the requester’s desire. Negating one’s ability also negates the presupposition
underlying the request that the speaker believes the hearer is able to do something.
Therefore, applying this strategy can successfully make the requester give up the request.
‧
When children use counterclaim as a refusal strategy, they not only express their noncompliance but also propose their own request at the same time. Consider
In example 13 LIN and JUN both want to take the toy digger. Therefore, when LIN requested it, JUN refused her request by proposing the same request immediately.
When children are eager to obtain the same thing as the requester, they may not care about the hearer’s needs or make any effort to diminish the threat to the hearer’s face.
This is considered an impolite strategy, and only a few examples (0.78%) were found in our data.
4.1.10 Physical force
The results showed that children not only relied on verbal refusals, they sometimes used more aggressive ways to show noncompliance. Physical force (0.78%) was observed when the child who made the request had already taken the object he requested before getting permission, as shown in example 14. The refuser then used physical force — in this case, grabbing to take back the object.
‧
However, there were only two refusals in our data in which physical force was used. Children at this age are already capable of using language most of the time to show refusal.
4.1.11 Combination of refusal strategies
As discovered in the existing literature of adults’ refusals, refusal strategies often
occur in combination. Children also occasionally combine several refusal strategies when refusing. Table 4 displays the frequency of the number of refusal strategies
children used in one refusal.
Table 4. Frequency of the number of refusal strategies in one response
Number of refusal strategies Tokens Percentage (%)
One 190 86
Two 31 13.5
Three 1 0.5
Total 222 100
As table 4 shows, children’s refusals tend to be simple and short, which accords with the previous studies (Wu, 2010; Yang, 2003). In our data, children usually applied only one strategy for refusing (86%). However, they sometimes used two (13.5%) or three strategies (0.5%) in one refusal. They combined different kinds of
‧
frequency of the combination of strategies children applied in our data.Table 5. Frequency of the different combination of strategies
Combination of strategies Tokens Percentage (%)
Simple negation + Reason 16 50.1
Simple negation + Alternative 5 15.6
Simple negation + Dissuasion 1 3.1
Simple negation + Counterclaim 1 3.1
Counterclaim + Reason 1 3.1
Postponement + Reason 3 9.4
Reason + Alternative 3 9.4
Alternative + Dissuade interlocutor 1 3.1
Simple negation + Reason + Alternative 1 3.1
Total 32 100
From table 5, we discover that children liked to combine direct with indirect strategies, such as Simple negation with a Reason, an Alternative, or Dissuasion interlocutor. These combinations showed that after children stated their noncompliance clearly by using direct refusal, they also provided other indirect strategies to diminish the force brought by direct refusal. Among these combinations,
From table 5, we discover that children liked to combine direct with indirect strategies, such as Simple negation with a Reason, an Alternative, or Dissuasion interlocutor. These combinations showed that after children stated their noncompliance clearly by using direct refusal, they also provided other indirect strategies to diminish the force brought by direct refusal. Among these combinations,