RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
THE USE OF SEMANTIC FORMULA
The refusal data elicited from Chinese learners speaking English exhibit ample interlanguage features. The first section in Chapter 4 will delve into these interlanguage refusals in terms of the quantity, the order, and the length aspects of semantic formulas produced by Chinese students. Considering how students incorporate these formulas and other pragmatic indicators in the act of refusing, the second section in Chapter 4 will investigate the use of modification and of modal devices. In order to comprehensively present the refusal data, the original transcription of the solicited production will be included in the following discussions as given examples without any correction of grammar or spelling.
The Quantity Aspect
The Chinese participants speaking English as a foreign language provided a total of 266 responses, in which 768 semantic formulas were found. Table 1 shows the raw frequencies and percentage of each type of formula in learners’ data.
As Table 1 indicates, of the total 768 formula produced by learners, learners adopted Excuse formula (F1) most often, which makes up 43.4% of the total semantic formulas (333 out of 768). Moreover, Regret (F2), Adjunct (F3), and Conventional nonperformative (henceforth called Nonperformative) (F4) formulas comprise respectively 18.6% (143 out of 768), 14.2% (109 out of 768), and 13.3% (102 out of 768) of all the formulaic use by Chinese students in performing English refusal. It should be noted that the Adjunct formula (F3) attaining such a high rank (14.2%) is
due to its multiple subcategories (i.e., Appreciation, Statement of positive opinion, Pause filler, Repetition, and Emotional expressions), which will be introduced in detail in the following.
Table 1: Occurring frequency and percentage semantic formula used by Chinese students
No. Semantic Formula Frequency Percentage
F1 Excuse 333 43.4%
F2 Regret 143 18.6%
F3 Adjunts 109 14.2%
F4 Conventional nonperformative 102 13.3%
F5 Proposals of alternative 31 4.0%
F6 Direct “No” 25 3.3%
F7 Avoidance 8 1.0%
F8 Performative 7 0.9%
F9 Attempt to dissuade interlocutor 6 0.8%
F10 Future acceptance 4 0.5%
Totals 768 100%
Note. F=Semantic Formula; each number was rounded to one decimal.
The semantic formula will be expounded following the quantitative sequence listed in Table 1 in terms of its pragmatic function. Sample responses produced by learners will also be provided for demonstration.
Excuse (F1): Excuses are situational-oriented in the sense that the type of reasons learners bring up varies with the nature of the requested events devised in this
study. For those in response to the event of editing introduction for English websites, reasons normally pertain to the speaker’s internal impeding factors which encompass such personal traits as ability, intelligence, physical strength, and psychological conditions of the refuser. Hence, by pointing out the impediment of internal factors, refusers refer their declination to absence of certain necessary characteristics in association with themselves to justify their denial. An indication of this is presented in (1), (2), and (3). In order to be specific, some learners even point out their incompetence either in language or in computer skills.
(1) Maybe I don’t think I have ability to take this job, You can find other people to take.
(2) Sorry, I’m not really good at designing the website, maybe you can find another person.
(3) Sorry, my English is not good enough to do it.
On the other hand, impeding factors external to the speaker mostly correlate to the request of cleaning public areas. They refer to those reasons for rejection that arise from considerations for factors out of the range of capacities refusers are equipped with. Reasons of this type occur more often in situations where refusers respond to requests to participate in the cleaning job than in those where they reply to the writing task. A principal cause is that cleaning classrooms requires job-takers no particular capabilities as what are expected in the case of writing introductions to English websites. Almost every university student with normal physical conditions as well as available working hours is able to carry out the duty of cleaning. Along such line of reasoning, external impeding factors can satisfy the validity of their declination. This
can be seen from (4) to (7), where the latter two give specific reasons as to what and when the impeding events happen.
(4) Sorry, I don’t have time on Saturday and Sunday to do the work. Maybe I can find someone else to do that.
(5) I have no time. Sorry!
(6) I’m sorry. I can’t take this job. Because I have to go home almost every week.
(7) I’m sorry that I can’t. I still have another job on Sunday so that I’m afraid I can’t apply for it.
Regret (F2): The semantic formula constituting the second largest proportion of all learners’ data is to express regret. Chinese students may apologize for the act of rejection as in (9) and (10), or for the reasons stated as hindrance in (8) and (11). In (8) and (9), the apologetic expressions follow or precede the refusal while in (10) and (11) they are embedded within the refusal. By doing this, learners act as if they owe the requester for his/her kind offer, which also helps to save the requester’s face. The apologetic markers help reduce the negative force brought about by refusals and serve a vital function in facework, which just accounts for their frequent occurrences.
(8) Sorry, I don’t have time to take the job.
(9) It is so demanding! I am afraid that I can’t do it well. Sorry.
(10) No, I’m really sorry but I can’t get this job.
(11) I’m sorry that this job is too difficult to me. Maybe you can ask someone who is good at reading and writing.
Adjunt (F3): This semantic formula plays an assistant role in the act of refusing.
It contains five main subcategories: Appreciation (22 out of 768); Statement of positive opinion (henceforth called Positive opinion) (6 out of 768); Pause filler (26 out of 768); Repetition (1 out of 768); Emotional expression (8 out of 768). Distant from the core of declination, the first four types of the Adjunct formula function as a kind of buffer that releases the sense of indirectness in the cases of Appreciation and Positive opinion and enable refusers to strive for more time for refusal construction in the cases of Pause filler and Repetition. Markers of Appreciation indicate learners’ gratitude to the requester’s effort and time spent in explaining the job as in (12) and (13); Positive opinion represents the goodwill and kindness the refuser attempts to convey, as in (14) and (15). Moreover, learners adopt Pause fillers such as umm in (16) and oh, well in (17) as well as repetition of the request in (18) to create a longer process of the request-refusal negotiation. Similar to the function of delaying the outburst of direct denial, the last subtype of Adjunct named Emotional expression does not appear in Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1990) but occurs exclusively in the data elicited in this study. This subtype typically contains expressions implying apparent dislike or impatience, such as What the hell and Are you crazy? in (19) and (20). However these do not seem to be proper in downgrading the impoliteness in the act of refusal. The potential cause of this use by learners will be discussed in Chapter 5.
(12) I’m sorry. I think this job is not suit for me. Thanks for your time.
(13) I’m sorry that maybe I can’t do this job. Because I have something else need to do. Thank you very much for telling me about this job.
(14) I would like to take the job. But actually that I have other work to do in the
same time. So, I’m sorry about that.
(15) I would like to, but I think I am not suitable for the job.
(16) Umm… I think that I can’t get up so early on Saturday and Sunday.
(17) Oh, well…I don’t think I am that good to cover all of this, Plus, I really don’t think that I have much time for it.
(18) You mean I have to go to school every Saturday and Sunday? I’m afraid I couldn’t take this job. My mom and I always go to the church on Saturdays and Sundays.
(19) What the hell. I don’t have enough time to do this job.
(20) Are you crazy? It’s impossible for me to finish this job in one hour!
Conventional nonperformative (F4): Conventional nonperformative use comprises the fourth largest group of semantic formula in learners’ data. The linguistic realizations of this formula involve conventional modal use denoting negative ability or negated willingness. Exemplification of this realization is illustrated in (21) to (23). The Conventional nonperformative, negative ability and negated willingness in this case, may occur with less accompanying formulas due to the sense of politeness conventionally suggested by the modal devices can’t in (21) and I think I won’t in (22). Only few instances include the modal realizations with a pragmatically clear “no” as shown in (23), to lower the unyielding force in the rejection. The detailed exploration of how these modal conventions mitigate the directness of refusal will be offered in later sections.
(21) Sorry, my English and Chinese is poor, so I can’t take this job.
(22) I think I won’t accept it.
(23) No, I think I wouldn’t. I’m afraid that I’m not a qualified assistant.
Proposal of alternative (F5): A fifth semantic formula that appears quite often in learners’ data is the proposal of alternatives. The Alternative formulas here are marked by the refuser’s showing goodwill in giving suggestions or promises to the requester as in (24), (25) and (26), or in proffering others the opportunity to undertake the requested action as in (27).
(24) I’m sorry. I can’t accept this job. I got to do a lot of homework and other things. Maybe you can ask somebody else to do this.
(25) No, thanks. I think I’m not that hard-working person. Maybe there is someone who can do this better than me.
(26) Well, I’ve already had part-time job every Saturday and Sunday. I’m sorry.
Maybe I can ask my friends if they want to take the job.
(27) Ohh…I think the workload is too heavy for me, and it’s really harmful to my eyes. I would like to give this chance to somebody else.
By replacing a rejection with an offer of a suggestion or help, the refuser may impress the interlocutor as being kind and sincere. This friendly and helpful attitude directed toward the refuser may project a favorable image of the refuser to make up for the impoliteness following from the noncompliance.
Direct “No” (F6): This is the bald “no” without any other linguistic support.
Negators such as not or never are not regarded as this formula since they can’t be syntactically singled out as a complete formula in our data but are always embedded within various types of semantic formulas. Examples containing the use of bald “no”
are listed as follows:
(28) No, thanks. I don’t think I am available for this job.
(29) No, thanks. I want to relax on weekends.
Avoidance (F7): This semantic formula embraces two subtypes: Topic switch (8 out of 768) and Postponement (6 out of 768) where their ultimate purpose is to avoid directly pinpointing the intention to refuse. Refusers switch topics in order to divert the listener’s attention from the ongoing topic of conversation to another, which is however related to the original topic to the extent that the listener may well figure it out. As illustrated by (30) and (31), the speaker manifests an inclination toward another job or time without commenting on the one under discussion. This is indicative of a rejection, but in a less face-damaging manner since being refused is a conclusion derived by the requester and facework is then done. Similar in creating the avoidance effect, refusers may postpone giving an explicit answer as to what he thinks about the requested job. Rather, they indicate uncertainty by suggesting that for the time being he cannot make the decision, which is neither an acceptance nor a rejection.
As the requester can tell from (32) and (33), the postponement can be a denial since it is against reason to keep a positive answer back. The most probable motive for giving such an equivocal response is that the speaker is reluctant to grant the request on one hand, and reluctant to disappoint the listener on the other hand. As a consequence, though these speakers did promise to reply later, they never answered the notifier’s phone call again. This silent response also implies a noncompliance response.
(30) Sorry, I think maybe this is not the job. I’ve been searching for. I’ll be glad
that if you get me another one more academic field.
(31) I’m sorry but I already have part-time job on the weekend. The ideal time for me is on the week day, so do you have any job on the particular time? If so, would you please inform me or I’ll call back sooner or later. Thank you for your great help.
(32) Hum, well, I didn’t realize the workload is much heavy and the working time is in the weekend morning. I think I’ll think about it twice and I’ll give you a call after full thought, OK? Thank you very much! Bye!
(33) Thank you for your telling me this. I would like to think about it twice before I make a decision. If I would like to take this job, I will call you later.
Performative (F8), Attempt to dissuade interlocutor (F9), and Future acceptance (F10): A rather small number of types of semantic formulas can be seen in these semantic formulas. Expressions of Performative (F8) (0.9%) (7 out of 768) allow the speaker to perform the illocutionary act of refusing by uttering a performative verb with the identical meaning of refusing. Examples of such are revealed in (34) and (35) where the rejection is carried out by the verbal use of refuse and give up. Another minor use of formulas is the speaker’s Attempt to dissuade interlocutor (F9) (0.8%) (6 out of 768). In doing this, the speaker explains the potential negative consequences if they are responsible for the requested job. The most salient feature in this formula is that learners mention the poor quality of their working performance, which can be found in (36) and (37).
(34) I’m sorry. I’ve got another work opportunity. So I’m going to refuse this job.
(35) Well, I am sorry but I won’t be at school then. So I have to give up.
(36) I think the quantity is too heavy for me. In this way, my work’s quality may decrease.
(37) I’m sorry. The workload is too much. I cannot finish it so soon, unless you want a poor output.
The last marginal use of semantic formula in learners’ data, Future acceptance (F10) (0.5%) (4 out of 768), relates to the future away from the present time when the request is made. The use of Future acceptance is characterized by a future grant of the requests in the linguistic realization containing subjunctive mood. As demonstrated in (38) to (40), the speaker conveys his/her consideration of taking the job on the basis of certain conditions, such as the reduction of working hours or personal available time. However, known by both of the interlocutors, the hypothetic acceptance will hardly come true in a predictable future. The temporal shift away from the deictic moment creates a time framework outside of the reality of the present refusal, making the response more indirect and polite.
(38) I am sorry that I can’t afford this job because it is too tired to me. But if you can reduce some works, I’ll think of it.
(39) If I had lot of time, I would do it.
(40) I wish I could, but I didn’t have much time. So I am not sure if I could well-done it.
In sum, we have uncovered the features of a variety of semantic formulas that are noticeably attested in learners’ refusal behavior. In substance, the expedition in this section has revealed the pragmatic messages that learners attempt to deliver in order
to reach the illocutionary act of refusing and to protect the face want of both sides.
Although the emotional use in the cases of (19) and (20) is not properly aligned with the face-saving end, they yet remain a distinctive interlanguage feature and will receive further discussion of its occurrence in Chapter 5.
The Order Aspect
If the Adjunct formula (F3) is excluded considering its complex and multiple subcategories mentioned in the first section in Chapter 4, the three most frequently selected formulaic strategies for refusal are Excuse (F1), Regret (F2) and Nonperformative (F4) formulas. In Table 2, all consecutive occurrences of the three formulas are calculated. It should be noted that independent formulas belonging to one formulaic category are coded once. Of the total 266 responses, those sequences where the Regret formula serves as the initiative (see O1 to O4 in Table 2) occur most frequently, with the percentage of 36.8% (98 out of 266). With relatively fewer instances, the linear structures beginning with Excuse (O5 to O8) or Nonperformative (O9 to O12) formulas respectively account for 8.3% (22 out of 266) and 8.0% (21 out of 266) of the total responses.
Table 2 : Occurring Frequency of formulaic orders used by Chinese students
No. Formulaic Order Frequency Percentage
O1 Regret – Excuse 57 21.4%
O2 Regret - Conventional nonperformative 7 2.6%
O3 Regret - Excuse - Conventional nonperformative 8 3.0%
O4 Regret - Conventional nonperformative - Excuse 26 9.8%
O5 Excuse – Regret 4 1.5%
O6 Excuse – Conventional nonperformative 13 4.9%
O7 Excuse – Regret - Conventional nonperformative 3 1.1%
O8 Excuse – Conventional nonperformative - Regret 2 0.8%
O9 Conventional nonperformative – Regret 1 0.4%
O10 Conventional nonperformative – Excuse 16 6.0%
O11 Conventional nonperformative – Regret - Excuse 1 0.4%
O12 Conventional nonperformative – Excuse - Regret 3 1.1%
Note. O=Formulaic Order; each number was rounded to one decimal.
Examples of each occurring sequence listed in Table 2 are presented as follows.
Index for every occurrence of the semantic formula is marked within the parentheses for the convenience of referring back to Table 1.
(41) [F2 Sorry,] [F1 I have many assignments to do.]
(Regret – Excuse)
(42) [F2 Sorry!] [F4 Actually I don’t want to take this job whether you introduce it to me.]
(Regret - Conventional nonperformative)
(43) [F2Sorry,] [F1 I have to go home on weekends] so that [F4 I cannot take the job.]
(Regret - Excuse - Conventional nonperformative)
(44) [F2 I ‘m sorry] that [F4 I can not do the job] [F1 because I have to go home on holidays.]
(Regret - Conventional nonperformative– Excuse)
(45) Well, [F1 usually I have some certain important routines on weekends,] [F2 so I’m sincerely sorry.]
(Excuse - Regret)
(46) [F1 I just have some plans on Saturday and Sunday.] [F4 So I can’t take this job.]
(Excuse - Conventional nonperformative)
(47) [F1 It’s too heavy for me to take this job.] [F2 Sorry] [F4 I am afraid I can’t do it.]
(Excuse - Regret - Conventional nonperformative)
(48) Thanking for the hire me to do that job. [F1 Because I have to take class in the everyday morning.] [F4 I can’t do the job.] [F2 Sorry.]
(Excuse - Conventional nonperformative - Regret) (49) [F4 I wouldn’t take it] because…[F2 I’m terribly sorry.]
(Conventional nonperformative – Regret)
(50) No, [F4 I can’t] [F1 because I’m mot good at dealing with such things.]
(Conventional nonperformative – Excuse)
(51) [F4 I’m afraid not.] [F2 I’m sorry] [F1 because I think this job is not suitable for me.] Thank you for calling me.
(Conventional nonperformative - Regret – Excuse)
(52) [F4 I don’t think so.] [F1 It seems to be too difficult for me.] [F2 Sorry,] but thanks for your calling.
(Conventional nonperformative - Excuse – Regret)
In generalizing the typical order of the semantic formulas by learners, only the most two salient sequences are discussed here. First, the sequence of Regret – Excuse (O1) gains 21.4% (57 out of 266), illustration of which can be seen in (53) and (54):
(53) [F2 I’m sorry about] [F1 that I’m not familiar with internet-working.]
(Regret - Excuse)
(54) [F2 I’m very so sorry.] [F1 I don’t have any time at my after school.] And [F1 I have a lot of homework and part-time job need to do.] So could you find another to help you the mission?
(Regret - Excuse)
Learners may embed their excuse in the apologetic expression as in (53), or may single the impeding reasons out of the preceding apology as in (54). In (54) the learner seems to be uncertain about whether the reason she offered is justifiable enough or not, so she follows her first burst of excuse with a more specific one regarding what events block her in order to make her intention clear to the interlocutor.
Moreover, an expansion of the sequence, Regret – Conventional nonperformative – Excuse (O4), also constitutes 9.8% (26 out of 266) in learners’ data.
The addition of a conventional indirect denial is typically manifested in the modal form denoting negated ability (i.e., the use of can’t), as shown in (55) and (56).
Once again, such conventional indirect expressions can be embraced within the apologetic starter, or exist as another single complete sentence (cf. (55) and (56)).
However learners seem to worry about the force of politeness, so an explanatory statement usually follows for the sake of facework enhancement.
(55) [F2 I am so sorry] [F4 that I can’t take this job for cleaning the classroom at Saturday and Sunday morning] [F1 because I have no free time at that time.]
(Regret – Conventional nonperformative - Excuse)
(56) [F2 Sorry], [F4 I can’t take this job.] [F1 Because I have courses in my weekend.]
(Regret – Conventional nonperformative - Excuse)
In summary, the way learners prefer to start with regrets and to complete the response with defensible excuses contributes to the much more prominent sequential evidence in interlanguage data. Such regular occurrence of regrets and excuses at both ends of the refusal response displays the sequential uniqueness of Chinese students’
interlanguage.
The Length Aspect
Another interlanguage characteristic concerns the length of learners’ response. In their utterances, a tendency of lengthy or verbose elicitation is proportionally discovered. This is mainly caused by the use of Excuse formula (F1) on one hand, and by the diverse combination of multiple semantic formulas on the other hand.
As the most favored semantic formula by Chinese students, the Excuse formula (F1) normally associates with the potential impediments pertaining to the related time, places, events, self-ability, and logical inference due to its explanatory nature. It is reasonable that these explanatory elements make the overall response longer, let alone learners may provide further explanation for the given impeding reason. Examples of
As the most favored semantic formula by Chinese students, the Excuse formula (F1) normally associates with the potential impediments pertaining to the related time, places, events, self-ability, and logical inference due to its explanatory nature. It is reasonable that these explanatory elements make the overall response longer, let alone learners may provide further explanation for the given impeding reason. Examples of