مي صالح ابراهيم

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research
University of Babylon
College of Education for Human
Sciences
Department of English
IRAQI EFL LEARNERS' MANIPULATION OF

THE SPEECH ACT OF REFUSAL
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF

EDUCATION FOR HUMAN SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF
BABYLON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS
BY
MAY SALIH IBRAHIM
SUPERVISED BY
PROF. RAZZAQ NAYIF MUKHEEF AL-SHAFIE
OCTOBER 2014 A. D. MUHARRAM 1436 A. H.

‫ﱠْ ﱠ‬ ‫ْ‬
‫ْ‬
‫ﺑِﺴﻢِ ﺍﷲِ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦِ ﺍﻟﺮﺣِﻴﻢِ‬
‫ْ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫َ‬
‫ََ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ َ‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫َْ‬
‫۞ ﻳﺮﻓ ِﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣﻨﻮﺍ ﻣِﻨﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺃﻭﺗﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻌِﻠﻢ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕٍ‬
‫َ ﱠ ُ َ ََْ ُ َ َ ٌ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑِﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺧﺒِﲑ ۞‬
‫َ َ َ ُ َْ ﱡ َْ ُْ‬
‫ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠِﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻈِﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺳﻮﺭﺓ ﺃ‪‬ﺎﺩﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻻﻳﻪ )‪(١١‬‬
I certify that the thesis entitled (Iraqi EFL Learners' Manipulation
of the Speech Act of Refusal) written by (May Salih Ibrahim) has been
prepared under my supervision at the College of Education for Human
Sciences, University of Babylon, as a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language and
Linguistics.
Signature:
Supervisor: Prof. Razzaq Naif Mukheef Al-Shafie
Date:
In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for

debate by the Examining Committee.
Signature
Name: Prof. Fareed H. H. Al-Hindawi
Head of the English Department
College of Education for Human Sciences
Date:
ii
We certify that we have read the thesis entitled (Iraqi EFL
Learners' Manipulation of the Speech Act of Refusal) and, as
Examining Committee, examined the student ''May Salih Ibrahim'' in
its content, and that in our opinion it is adequate as a thesis for the degree
of Master of Arts in English Language and Linguistics.
Signature: Signature:
Name: Name:
(Member) (Member)
Signature:
Name:
(Chairman)
Date:
Approved by the Council of the College of Education for Human

Sciences
Signature:
Name: Prof. Dr. Fahim Hussein Al-Turayhi
Deputy Dean of the College of Education for Human Sciences
Date
iii
To
My Beloved Father and Mother
To
My Fiancé,
Ali Al- Hassani
To
My Sisters
iv
Acknowledgements
All words of thanks, praises are due to Allah, The Almighty. Thanks
and respect are to my supervisor Prof. Razzaq Nayif Mukheef Al-Shafie
for his great efforts, his invaluable comments, continual support and
constructive suggestions that helped me to carry out this work.
I am also very much indebted to Prof. Dr. Riyadh Tariq Kadhim Al-
Ameedi for his great efforts and help in facilitating the problems of this
study.
My sincere thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Abbas D. Darweesh, Prof. Dr.
Fareed H. Al-Hindawy and Prof. Dr. Hameed H. Bjaya, Department of
English, College of Education for Human Sciences, University of
Babylon for their valuable support.
I am also thankful to all the jury members for their assistance in

preparing the test of the present study.
Finally, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my family and

my fiancé for their continuous assistance, care, and emotional support.
v
Abstract
This study is concerned with revealing some aspects of Iraqi EFL

learners' manipulation of the speech act of refusal.
The study aims at (1) investigating the most common strategies

adopted by Iraqi EFL learners for performing the speech act of refusal in
certain situations. (2) Identifying the extent to which the mother tongue
interferes with the learner's performance.
These two objectives can be carried out through the following

hypotheses:
1.Iraqi EFL learners more frequently tend to use direct refusal strategies
than the indirect ones.
2. Iraqi EFL learner's inaccurate responses may be attributed to the

interference with their native language while performing the speech act in
the target language (i.e. pragmatic transfer).
In order to achieve the objectives of the study and verify or refute the
hypotheses, the researcher conducted a test in which 100 Iraqi EFL
college students at the fourth year stage, Department of English, College
of Education, University of Babylon are asked to respond to the test of
this study during the academic year (2013-2014). The learners'
performance is compared to the performance of a control group, (10)
native speakers of English. Concerning the second objective of the study
which is to find out if there is any evidence of pragmatic transfer, the test
has been translated into Arabic and (10) native speakers of Arabic are
involved in the test to compare their responses with those of Iraqi EFL
learners.
vi
The analysis of the data has verified the hypotheses of the study and
yielded the following:
1. Iraqi EFL learners show a greater tendency for using direct refusal
strategies, non perforamtive refusal more than other types of
strategies.
2. Iraqi EFL learners tend to transfer norms and rules from their
native language, i.e. Arabic, when they make refusals in the target
language.
The study falls into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the
problem, aims, hypotheses, procedures, limits and value of the study.
Chapter Two is devoted to the theoretical framework of refusal speech
act. Chapter Three is concerned with the data collection of the study
such as objectives of the test, the subjects, characteristics of good test
and administration of the main test. Chapter Four is related to the
analysis of the data of the test. Chapter Five sums up the conclusions
of the study.
vii
Table of Contents
Subject Page
List of Abbreviations xiii
List of Appendices xiv
List of Figures xv
List of Tables xvi
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 The Problem 1
1.2 Aims 1
1.3 Hypotheses 2
1.4 Procedures 2
1.5 Limits 2
1.6 Value 3
Chapter Two
Speech Act of Refusal: Theoretical Background
2.1 Speech Act Theory 4
2.1.1 Classification of Speech Acts 6
viii
2.1.1.1 Austin's Classification 6
2.1.1.2 Searle's Classification 7
2.1.2 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts 9
2.2 Speech Act of Refusal 11
2.2.1 Definition and Characteristics 11
2.2.2 Types of Refusal 14
2.2.2.1 Refusal of Offer 15
2.2.2.2 Refusal of Request 18
2.2.3 Felicity Conditions of Refusal 20
2.2.4 Refusal and Politeness 24
2.2.4.1 Positive Politeness Strategies 24
2.2.4.2 Negative Politeness Strategies / Bald on record 26

strategies
2.2.4.3Off -Record Strategies 27
2.2.5 The Model 32
2.2.6 Refusal Sequences 39
2.2.7 Previous Studies 41
ix
Chapter Three
Data Collection
3.1 Introduction 44
3.2 Objectives of the Test 44
3.3 The Subjects 44
3.4 Test Design 45
3.5 Characteristics of Good Tests 46
3.5.1 Validity 47
3.5.1.1 Content Validity 47
3.5.1.2 Face Validity 48
3.5.2 Reliability 49
3.6 Pilot Test 50
3.7 Test Administration 51
Chapter Four
Data Analysis
4.1 Introduction 52
4.2 Analysis of the Speech Act of Refusal's Strategies 52
4.2.1 The Use of the Strategies of Refusal Speech Act 52
x
according to the Type of Situations
4.2.1.1 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 53

Strategies in Type A Situations

Strategies in Type B Situations

Strategies in Type C Situations

Strategies in Type D Situations

Strategies in Type E Situations

Strategies in Type F Situations
4.3 Analysis of the Pragmatic Transfer of Refusal Speech 84

Act
Chapter Five
Conclusions, Recommendations and Suggestions
5.1 Conclusions 90
5.2 Pedagogical Recommendations 92
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research 93
xi
Bibliography 95
Appendix 1 : Letters to Jury Members and Native English 103

Speakers
Appendix 2 : The Test 106
Appendix 3 : The Jury Members 123
Abstract in Arabic
xii
List of Abbreviations
Symbol Description
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
DCT Discourse Completion Test
EFL English as a Foreign Language
FTA Face Threatening Act
H Hearer
L2 Second Language
NES(s) Native English Speaker(s)
S Speaker
Sit Situation
Str Strategy
xiii
List of Appendices
No. Subject Page
1. Letters to Jury Members and Native English

Speakers 103
2. The Test
106
3. The Jury Members
123
xiv
List of Figures
No. Title Page
1. Directness Level in the Head Act of Refusal 29
2. Internal Modification in the Head Act of 30

Refusal
3. External Modification in Refusal 31
xv
List of Tables
No. Titles Page
1. Felicity Conditions for Refusals of Offers 22
2. Felicity Conditions of Refusing a Request 23
3. A Model of Strategies for Expressing Refusal Speech 33

Act
4. Percentage of Using the Speech Act of Refusal in

Type A Situations Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
55
Inferior with Whom S/he Has a Solidary Power
Relationship

Type B Situations Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
58
Inferior with Whom S/he Has a non - Solidary Power
Relationship

Type C Situations Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
64
Equal with whom S/he Has a Solidary Power
Relationship

Type D Situations Where a Speaker Talks to
72
Unfamiliar Equal with Whom S/he Has a Non-
xvi
Solidary Power Relationship.

Type E Situations Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
78
Superior with Whom S/he Has a Solidary Power
Relationship.

Type F Situations Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar
82
Superior with Whom S/he Has a Non-Solidary
Relationship.
10. Arab Learners' Refusal 85
11. Comparison between Iraqi EFL Learners and Native 88

Speakers of Arabic
xvii
١
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1The Problem
Whenever we make a conversation, we often form a general attitude
towards the interlocutors' personality, style, and viewpoints. This is made
through the use of language. One of the important ways is how to say
‘no’ directly or indirectly when we are unwilling to accept others’ offers,
suggestions, requests, invitations and other speech acts. Martinez – Flor
and Juan (2010: 218) mention that refusal is a problematic issue because
it is a face - threatening act that may offend the relationship between the
addresser and the addressee, since it contradicts the listener's
expectations. Refusal is often realized through indirect strategies and thus
requires a high level of pragmatic competence. That is why refusal
requires face saving devices in order to keep our relations with others on
good terms. As for Iraqi EFL university students, the use of the speech
act of refusal has not, to the best of the researcher's knowledge, been
studied independently and thoroughly. Accordingly, there is a need to
answer the following questions:
1. What type of strategies do the Iraqi EFL learners adopt to realize the
speech act of refusal?
2. Is there any evidence of pragmatic transfer in the refusal strategies
used by Iraqi EFL learners?
1.2 Aims
The present study attempts to reach the following aims:
1. Identifying the strategies that Iraqi EFL university students use to
refuse others.
2. Identifying the extent to which the mother tongue interferes in the
learner's performance.
٢
1.3 Hypotheses
The study hypothesizes that:
1.Iraqi EFL learners tend to use direct refusal strategies more frequently
than the indirect ones.
2. Iraqi EFL learner's inaccurate responses may be attributed to the
interference of their native language while performing the speech act in
the target language (i.e. pragmatic transfer).
1.4 Procedures
To fulfill the aims of the study, the following procedures will be
adopted:
1. Presenting a theoretical background about the speech act of refusal.
2. Conducting a test by means of a written questionnaire to collect data
about the strategies Iraqi EFL university students employ to perform the
speech act of refusal.
3. Using an Arabic version of the test to compare the responses of Iraqi
EFL learners with those of Arab learners to find out if there is any
evidence of pragmatic transfer in the performance of Iraqi EFL learners
to issue the speech act of refusal.
4. Analyzing the findings of the empirical work in the light of the model
of this study.
1.5 Limits
This study will have the following limitations:
1.The sample of the study is limited to university fourth year students at
the Department of English, College of Education for Human Sciences,
University of Babylon during the academic year ( 2013-2014), in addition
to a control group of native speakers of English. Also, a group of ten Iraqi
Arabic native speakers from Department of Arabic, College of Education
for Human Sciences, University of Babylon are used to find out if there is
any evidence of pragmatic transfer made by Iraqi EFL learners.
٣
2. Refusals can be realized by various linguistic and nonlinguistic

strategies. The present study focuses only on the linguistic strategies,
excluding the prosodic features since the test uses a written questionnaire.
3. Refusal speech act is used as a response to suggestions, offers, requests
and invitations speech acts. This study will be limited to refusal of
requests and refusal of offers exclusively.
1.6 Value
It is hoped that the study is of value both theoretically and practically.
Theoretically, it tries to give a general framework of the speech act of
refusal. The practical part may be of importance to EFL teachers, students
as well as syllabus designers as it sheds light on the manners of avoiding
refusing others impolitely. Finally, this study will be of value to those
interested in studying the pragmatic performance of EFL studies.
٤
Chapter Two
The Speech Act of Refusal: Theoretical
Background
2.1 Speech Act Theory
Influenced by ordinary language philosophy, and particularly by
Wittgenstein's theory of meaning as use, Austin (1962) and, later, Searle
(1969) developed a systematic account of what people do when they
speak. For Austin, it is not individual words or sentences that are the
basic elements of human communication, but rather particular speech acts
that are performed in uttering words and sentences, namely illocutionary
acts (illocution) or speech acts in the narrow sense (Bussmann, 1996:
1107).
Austin was the first to draw the attention to utterances by which the
speaker does not only say something but also perform something. He
drew a distinction between constative and performative utterances. In
constatives such as (1), something is stated about reality. In
performatives, such as (2), an act is performed by the utterance itself.
1. It's raining.
2. I promise that I will give you one hundred dollars tomorrow.
Austin was not successful, however, in establishing criteria for
describing the difference between these two concepts. It can, after all, be
argued that an act is being performed in the case of constative utterances
as well; a warning given or a statement being made as in the case of the
sentence "It's raining". This led Austin to the conclusion that all
expressions of language must be viewed as acts (Renkema, 2004:13).
According to Cruse (2006: 167-8) , Austin distinguishes three kinds
of action within each utterance: a locutionary act; an illocutionary act;
and a perlocutionary act. A locutionary act is the production of an
٥
utterance, with a particular intended structure, meaning and reference. An

illocutionary act is the act performed by a speaker in saying something
(with an appropriate intention and in an appropriate context), rather than
by virtue of having produced a particular effect by saying something. For
instance:
3. I order you to leave now.
In this example, the addresser has performed the act of ordering,
simply by virtue of having uttered the words whether or not the addressee
acts in the desired way. A perlocutionary act is a speech act which
depends on the production of a particular effect. In other words, it is the
effect the illocutionary act has on the listener such as persuading ,
convincing and so forth.
In speaking, one has the option of performing one or other of these
acts and usually performs all three simultaneously, but it is useful for
analytic purposes to distinguish them (Coulthard, 1985: 18).
Later, the term speech act has become to be connected with one of its
subcomponents, that of illocutionary act. Van Dijk (1977: 195) states that
"what is usually meant by saying that we do something when we make an
utterance is that we accomplish some social acts. For example; making a
promise; a request; giving advice; etc., are usually called speech acts, or
more specifically, illocutionary acts.
Leech and Short (1981: 290) mention that speech act is an important
concept which relates utterance meaning to the context.
Lyons (1977: 726) believes that the term speech act is an unfortunate
and potentially misleading for two reasons: First of all, it does not refer to
the act of speaking ( i.e. to the production of an actual spoken utterance),
but to something more abstract. Secondly, "speech act", or what may be
called Austinian or ( post- Austinian) sense, is not restricted to
communication by means of spoken language. Indeed, it is arguable that
٦
there are certain non-linguistic communication acts that would also

specify Austin's definition of speech acts.
2.1.1. Classification of Speech Acts
Speech acts can be classified according to how they affect the social
interaction between speakers and hearers. Austin and Searle try to
classify speech acts into classes but Austin was the first who attempts to
do so.
2.1.1.1 Austin's Classification
Austin (1962: 152-160) classifies speech acts into five classes of
utterances according to their Illocutionary force:
1) Verdictives
Verdictives consist in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial,
upon evidence or reasons as to value or fact, so far as these are
distinguishable. A verdictive is a judicial act as distinct from legislative
or executive acts, which are both exercitives.
2) Exercitives
An exercitive is the giving of a decision in favour of or against a
certain course of action, or advocacy of it.
3) Commissives
The whole point about commissives is to commit the speaker to a
certain course of action.
4) Behabitives
Behabitives include the notion of reaction to other people's behaviour
and fortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone
else's past conduct or imminent conduct.
٧
5) Expositives
Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of
views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of
references.
Austin's classification was criticized by Searle as being based on
performative verbs only.
2.1.1.2 Searle's Classification
Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000: 25) think that the most basic and
influential categorization of speech acts was that of Searle(1969). It
consists of five different types of speech acts. They are as follows:-
1) Declratives
Declaratives are also called performatives. They can be defined as
speech acts which "change the world" as a result of having been
performed. An example about declrative speech acts are when the jury
foreman announces:
4. We find the defendant not guilty.
Another example of declaratives is when the justice of the peace says:
5. I now pronounce you man and wife.
2) Representatives
Representatives are speech acts that enable the speaker to express
feelings, beliefs, assertions, illustrations, and the like. An example about
representative speech acts is that of a statement made by a speaker at an
agricultural convention such as:
6. Today, tomatoes can be grown in the desert.
3) Expressives
Expressive speech act is one of the most important ones for learners of
a second or a foreign language. These speech acts express psychological
٨
states of the speaker or the hearer. An example about expressives are

'apologizing', 'complaining', 'complimenting' and 'congratulating'.
4) Directives
Directives are speech acts that enable speakers to impose some action
on the hearers. Through directives, the speaker can express what s/he
wants and then expect the hearer to comply. Inherently, these are face-
threatening acts toward the hearer since they usually impose some on the
hearer. An example about this type is that of commands, orders, and
requests.
5) Commissives
Commissives are "speech acts that enable speakers to commit
themselves to future actions." Promises and refusals are good examples of
commissives. By definition, these are speech acts whereby the speaker
takes on or refuses some responsibility or task and are, therefore, face
threatening to the speaker or imposing on the speaker. The use of
performative verbs makes such speech acts more explicit. In the case of
refusals, the use of the verb" refuse " strengthens the detail of compliance
and can lead to conflict or to a clash between the interlocutors.
Austin's distinction between constative and performative utterances
leads him to propose certain "Felicity conditions" for the performative
utterances to be successful. These conditions can be defined as conditions
under which words can be used properly to perform actions. For him, the
felicity conditions are "that the context and roles of participants must be
recognized by all parties; the action must be carried out completely and
the persons must have the right intentions." Cutting (2002: 18)
These conditions were refined and broadened by John R. Searle. On
Searle's view, to perform a speech act is to obey certain conventional
rules. His felicity conditions are propositional content conditions,
preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, and finally essential
٩
conditions (Searle, 1971: 40). These conditions will be discussed in detail

when talking about the felicity conditions of refusal speech act.
2.1.2. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
Another contribution of Searle is the distinction between direct and
indirect speech acts. Indirect speech acts are "utterances in which one
speech act form is used to realize another, different, speech act." A simple
example of an indirect speech act is the question:
7."Can you close the door?"
It is uttered with the intent to convey a request to close the door (Brown,
1980: 150).
Searle (1975: 60) defines indirect speech acts as "cases in which one
illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another."
The problem of indirect speech acts is that of how it is possible for the
speaker to say one thing and mean that but also to mean something else.
A large part of the problem is that of how it is possible for the hearer to
understand the indirect speech act when the sentence he hears and
understands means something else since meaning consists , in part, in the
intention to produce understanding in the hearer. The problem becomes
more complicated by the fact that some sentences seem almost to be
conventionally used as indirect requests. For the example below, it takes
some ingenuity to imagine a situation in which their utterances would not
be requests.
8.Can you pass the salt?
As a solution for the problem, Searle believes that in indirect speech
acts, the speaker can communicate to the hearer more than he says by
relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic
and non-linguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and
hearers inference (Searle, 1975: 60).
١٠
Yule(1996: 54) points out that a different approach to distinguish types

of speech acts can be made on the basis of sentence structure. In English ,
a simple structural distinction between three general types of speech acts
is provided by the three basic sentence types. There is an easily
recognized relationship between the three structural forms (declarative,
interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative functions
(statement, question, command/ request) as in the examples below:
9) a) You wear a seat belt. (declarative)
b) Do you wear a seat belt? (interrogative)
c) Wear a seat belt. (imperative)
The first illocutionary force is a statement, the second is a question and
the third is a command.
Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a
function, there is a direct speech act, but whenever there is an indirect
relationship between a structure and a function, there is an indirect speech
act. Thus a declarative used to make a statement is a direct speech act, but
a declarative used to make a request is an indirect speech act. As
illustrated in the example below, the utterance in [10 a.] is a declarative ,
when it is used to make a statement, as in [10 b.], it functions as a direct
speech act. When it is used to make a command /request, as in [10 c.] , it
functions as an indirect speech act:
10) a) It's cold outside.
b) I hereby tell you about the weather.
c) I hereby request you that you close the door (Ibid: 55).
١١
2.2 Speech Act of Refusal

2.2.1 Definitions and Characteristics
Refusal is a speech act which occurs when a speaker directly or
indirectly says "no" to a request, invitation, suggestion, or offer ( Al-
Eryani, 2007: 21).
Refusal is a speech act which can be defined as a negative response to
a request, invitation, suggestion or offer . It is a face threatening act to the
listener/ requester, inviter, because it contradicts his or her expectations
and is often realized through indirect strategies (Osborne, 2010: 64).
Refusing means, essentially, saying "no", 'I will not do it' in response
to someone else's utterance, in which he has conveyed to us that he wants
us to do something and that he expects us to do it. This speech act
belongs to a family of verbal responses which includes also verbs such as
decline, agree, disagree, answer and reply (Wierzbicka, 1987: 94).
Searle and Vandervken (1985: 195) define the speech act of refusal in
terms of the negative counterparts to acceptances and consenting. Just as
one can accept offers, applications and invitations, so each of these can be
refused or rejected.
Chen and Zhang ( 1995: 121) define refusal as a speech act by which
a speaker "denies to engage in an action proposed by the interlocutor."
Holmes et al. (2004: 948) define refusal as " the second part of a pair
of adjacent utterances; the core component of a refusal is a denial or an
expression of unwillingness to comply with a previous request, invitation,
or offer."
From a sociolinguistic viewpoint, refusal is important because it is
sensitive to social variables including gender, age, power, level of
education, and social distance.
Refusals have been one of the most studied topics in pragmatics and
are very important in everyday life communication. Generally speaking,
١٢
how one says "no" is more important than the answer itself. That is why
the interlocutors are expected to know the appropriate form, its function
and when to use it (Al-Kahtani, 2005: 36).
It is important to notice that what is considered appropriate refusal
behaviour may vary across cultures and pragmatic transfer is likely to
occur as the refuser may transfer the rules and cultures of his/her source
language to the target one. This transfer may result in pragmatic failure
and impolite responses that may cause breakdown in communication
(Martinez-Flor and Juan, 2010: 218).
Refusal can be defined as an attempt to bring about behavioural
change by encouraging the other to withdraw his/her request and they
identify the core component as an indicating opposition to granting a
request (Kline and Floyed, 1990: 460).
A more comprehensive definition of refusal is offered by Gass and
Houck (1990: 2) as follows:
Refusals are one of a relatively small number of speech acts which can
be characterized as a response to another's act ( e.g. a request, invitation,
offer, suggestion); rather than as an act initiated by the speaker. Because
refusals normally function as second pair part; they preclude extensive
planning on the part of the refuser. And because extensive planning is
limited, and the possibilities for response are broader than for an
initiating act, refusals may reveal greater complexity than many other
speech acts.
Felix- Brasdefer (2008: 42) states that the speech act of refusal
represents one type of disprefered responses. Refusal, according to
Searle's classification, is related to the category of commissives because it
commits the refuser to performing an action.
١٣
Searle's idea is rejected by Ellis (2008: 186). He claims that " the
speech act of refusals does not easily fit into Searle's classification of
speech acts. Speech acts occur in the form of responses to a variety of
illocutionary acts such as invitation, offers, requests, and suggestions. It
might be better to treat refusals as an interactional turn rather than as a
speech act."
Refusals are known as a sticking point in cross cultural communication,
(Kwon, 2004: 340). He makes the point that "refusals can be a tricky
speech act to perform linguistically and psychologically since the
possibility to offending the interlocutor is inherent in the act itself."
Rubin's (1983: 10 cited by King and Silver 1993: 18) comment is to
the point that "one of the most important communicative tasks that
confronts a traveler is the recognition of when a speaker has said "no"."
That is one needs to be able to recognize the fact that a respondent has
refused or denied that which the speaker has demanded, solicited or
offered. Equally, one needs to acquire the appropriate manner in which to
respond in the negative when offered, solicited or demanded something.
Making a refusal in one's native language can be awkward and it is
even more awkward in a second language. EFL learners, in particular, are
likely to encounter problems in performing the speech act of refusal
appropriately in English. Improper performance might lead to serious
consequences, including misunderstanding and making a negative
impression during interaction with English native speakers (Waunaruk,
2008: 319).
Refusals can be characterized as a blunt and even rude act, but it can
also be done politely. The direct confrontation of wills that this act
implies gives it the impression of being discourtesy. The refuser
confronts his interlocutor's expressed will "I want you to do it" with his
own "I don’t want to do it." Moreover, the refuser conveys his intention
١٤
of following his own will without adding anything which would soften
his response (Wierzbicka, 1987: 94).
In contrast to refusal, when declining, the negative response is
softened in a number of ways. For example:
11. I know that you don't assume that I will do it.
In example (13) of declining, there are devices which help to save the
first speaker's face. No such face saving devices are found in the semantic
structure of refusing. It is indeed blunt for two reasons. Firstly, it adds
nothing that might soften the speaker's "no", and secondly it leaves the
interlocutor no room for further maneuver. A person who declines allows
the possibility that he will not do it because he cannot do it or because he
thinks he shouldn't do it. A person who refuses to do something makes it
clear to the addressee that he will not do it because he does not want to
do it. This prevents any further discussion and highlights the direct
opposition of the two parties and the self confidence of the refuser and his
defiant emphasis on being his own master. This self confidence is not
based on the concept of 'rights' but on the conviction that I do not have
to do it if I do not want to do it ( Ibid: 94).
In sum, refusal is a complex speech act that requires not only
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome, but also "face- saving maneuvers"
to accommodate the non compliant nature of the act (Gass and Houck,
1990: 2).
2.2.2 Types of Refusal
Refusals are found in four types of exchanges , namely those
involving invitation - refusal, request - refusal, offer - refusal and
suggestion - refusal. The type of initiate act influences the realization of
both the content and the form of refusal in question. This study
concentrates on refusals of offers and refusals of requests exclusively.
١٥
2.2.2.1 Refusal of Offer

An offer is a speech act that may be followed by one of two possible
second pair parts: an acceptance or a refusal. The acceptance is the
preferred second pair part to an offer so is less complex than a refusal. It
is usually immediate and involves the use of a direct speech act, such as
12."Yes, I'd love to" (Paltridge, 2006: 123).
A refusal, however, is a face - threatening act and is the dispreferred
second part to an offer. It is, thus, usually more complex, often indirect
and less immediate. The refusal is often signaled by the use of delays,
accounts, hedges and prefaces before the speaker gets to the actual refusal
to an offer (Ibid: 124).
Refusals of offers can be defined as attempts made by the speaker to
get the hearer to do something or more accurately "not to do something."
In other words, we are dealing with requests by the speaker for the
hearer not to do a future act which the hearer has offered to do. As such,
refusal of offers can be categorized according to Searle's category as
directive speech acts ( Barron, 2003: 127).
According to Edmondson and House (1981: 108), refusal of offers can
be described as an attitudinal illocution and as requests for non verbal
goods appearing as contras. Since they occupy as a contra slot in the
interactional structure of a conversation, serve as an attempt to persuade
the interlocutor of withdrawing his/her initiate move, realized in this case
by an offer. They increase the complexity of exchanges and are more
difficult than initiate moves such as requests or offers.
Refusals of offers can be classified as face - threatening acts which
threaten the hearer's negative face wants Brown and Levinson (1987: 65).
As such, they threaten the hearer's need to be independent, to have
freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. By requesting the
hearer to refrain from doing a future act, the speaker is, essentially,
١٦
impinging on the hearer's freedom to do as he/ she wishes. In this regard,

refusals of offers are not as face - threatening as refusals of request since
offers, in contrast to request, are conditional on the hearer declaring him/
herself willing and able to engage in the proposal act. Refusals of offers,
by expressing a desire for the offerer not to engage in a particular action,
threaten the hearer's positive face more so than with refusals of requests,
given the greater speaker orientation of offers Barron(2003: 128).
Refusals of offers, in some communities, have two types, namely
initial refusals and subsequent refusals. Initial refusals realize a first
contra in an offer – refusal of offer exchange while subsequent refusals
realize a third or subsequent contra. Initial refusals can be divided into
two types. The first one is " ritual refusals" which can be defined as
"polite act (s) to indicate the speaker's consideration of the hearer." The
second type is called " substantive refusals" or " genuine refusals". Ritual
refusals are always followed by either a subsequent refusal or indeed an
acceptance in a later move. Subsequent refusals usually take the form of a
substantive refusal, depending on the particular culture in question, they
may also take the form of a further ritual refusal, which is at a later stage
followed by either acceptance or a subsequent refusal realized by a
substantive refusal. On the other hand, some speech communities do not
have ritual refusals at all, they have only substantive refusals (Chen and
Zhang, 1995: 152).
The contrast between these two types of refusing offers lies in Searle's
sincerity condition for refusals , i.e. "S wants H not to do X." In contrast
to genuine / substantive refusals, this condition is not satisfied in ritual
refusals since the speaker merely pretends to refuse the offer in question
in the interest of the norms of politeness. In reality, the speaker expects a
second offer or reoffer, and then he can accept or refuse, as s/he wishes.
١٧
In other words, the sincerity condition is not satisfied in the ritual refusal
(Barron, 2003: 129).
The manner in which ritual refusals function can be best understood in
terms of Leech's politeness maxims. The hearer – oriented nature of
offers means that the benefit to the recipient of an offer has been
maximized ( Tact maxim ) and the cost to the offerer also maximized
(Generosity maxim). If the recipient of the offer is to observe the
principle of politeness s/he will wish to simultaneously minimize any cost
to offerer (Tact maxim ) and also minimize benefit to self ( Generosity
maxim ). The result in this case is a ritual refusal. The offerer, on the
other hand, not wishing to appear mean or ungenerous, will reoffer,
realizing that the recipient may have been merely acting out of politeness.
So s/he will, once again, attempt to maximize benefit to the hearer (Tact
maxim ) and maximize cost to self ( Generosity maxim). In such cases,
the recipient of the offer may either accept, refuse, or if necessary
depending on the cultural setting realize a further ritual refusal before
accepting or refusing. Ritual refusals and ritual reoffers play an important
role in what constitute polite behaviour in many speech communities,
although they are not present in all cultures (Barron, 2003: 129).
Chen and Zhang (1995: 151) state that ritual refusals, in Chinese,
represent a standard way of reacting into any given offer. Also, Rubin
(1983: 14) explains that up to two ritual refusals are expected in relation
to offers of food in the Arab world. Brown and Levinson ( 1987: 233)
report of lengthy offer sequences in Tenejapa, a North American Indian
ethnic group concentrated in the central highlands of the state of Chiopas
in Mexico. And finally only on the third offer is it possible to accept food
in some parts of India and Taiwan and therefore also, that only the third
refusal counts a substantive refusal.
١٨
2.2.2.2 Refusal of Request

Requests are considered as " an illocutionary act whereby a speaker
(requester ) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that s/he wants the requestee
to perform an act which is for the benefit of the speaker." (Trosborg,
1995: 187).
The speaker's role is to perform a request which s/he would like to
compiled in his/ her benefit, while the hearer's response would be that of
refusing such a request. Consequently, to perform refusal in an
appropriate way requires a good level of pragmatic competence in order
not to offend the speaker's request (Martinez – Flor and Juan, 2011: 58).
When refusing a request, refusal realization strategies ( or refusal
strategies) consist of (a) semantic formulas such as a statement of
alternative, avoidance, and the like. All employed to turn down someone's
request and ;(b) delaying responses by using strategies such as request for
information (Taguchi, 2009: 201).
From the perspective of pragmatics and / or discourse analysis,
requests and refusals can be considered as automatic sequences in the
structure of the conversation which is called "adjacency pairs". This term
is used for certain consecutive speech turns that are closely related with
each others (Thi Minh, 2006: 12).
Adjacency pairs can be described as automatic sequences, consisting
of a first part and a second part produced by two successive speakers such
that the second utterance is identified as related to the first as an expected
follow – up. When uttering the first part, the speaker immediately expects
his/ her conversational partner to produce a second part of the same pair.
Since refusals are inter – related with requests, they are speech acts
aimed at escaping from performing a request action. However, because
requests are made with the expectation that the addressee will not
perform otherwise, refusals to requests threaten the requester's " negative
١٩
face". In order to reduce threatening, people usually use appropriate

semantic formulas when refusing others. These semantic formulas vary
within and across- cultures ( Website recourse, 1).
Refusing a request is universally a highly face - threatening act and
thus is a useful phenomenon for examining Brown and Levinson's
politeness model. Turnbull ( 2003: 182 ) tested the hypothesis that
refusing a request of someone who is of higher status is more face
threatening than refusing the identical request of someone who is of
lower status. Thus, refusals made to a higher status versus lower status
requester should contain more face work.
Tunbull and Saxton(1997: 29) present examples of students refusing
( example 13) or granting ( example 14) a request in a participation of a
psychological experiment:
Example 13:
R: …. Takes place up at the university this Saturday from seven o'clock
in the morning till about ten thirty.
S: uuh … huu until ten thirty ? I have an exam that day.
So… I don't think I should
R: alright then
S: Yep
R: okay
S: thanks
R: thank you bye ( Ibid: 8 )
Example 14:
R: …. Takes place up at the university this Saturday from
seven o'clock in the morning till about ten thirty.
S: Yeah sure.
The refusal ( example 13) is longer, more round about and hedged,
and contains many more details than the granting ( example 14).The
٢٠
differences between the refusal and the granting reflect a general pattern.
Silence before the turn begins, periods of silence ( unfilled pauses )
within the turn, " uuhs" ( filled pauses ), the presence of excuses and
apologies, the use of hedges ( I don't think ) and the tendency to push the
critical action ( in this case, refusal) back later into the turn are present
when refusing a request, turns down an invitation, disagrees with the
prior speaker, rejects advice, admits blame and fails to answer a question
as expected.
These details are usually absent when speakers grant a request, accept
an invitation, take advice, deny blame, and answer a question as
expected. In response to a request, someone could and on occasion people
do , say clearly and without hesitation " No "; that is a refusal can have
the structure of a typical granting. That is refusals do not have this
structure while granting do suggests that these details are important and
that they fulfill some functions (Tunbull and Saxton, 1997: 29).
2.2.3 Felicity Conditions of Refusal
Austin's distinction between constative utterances and performatives
leads him to propose certain felicity conditions for the performative
utterances in order to be successful. These conditions are as follows:
A1) There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a
certain conventional effect to include the uttering of certain words by
certain persons in certain circumstances.
A2) The particular persons and circumstances must be appropriate
in the procedure invoked.
B) The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and
completely.
C) The procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts
or feelings.
٢١
D) If the consequent conduct is specified, the relevant parties must do so.

Austin ( 1962: 14 - 15).
If there is any violation in these conditions, the performative utterances
will be unhappy.
Searle ( 1971: 40) develops Austin's felicity conditions and reclassifies
them into four kinds, propositional; preparatory content; sincerity; and
essential conditions. These conditions differ from one speech act to
another.
As far as refusal of offer speech act is concerned (Searle 1969: 66
cited by Barron 2003: 128) mentions that to make refusal act felicitous,
they should meet the following conditions which can be illustrated in the
following table:
٢٢
Table 1 . Felicity Conditions for Refusals of Offers

(Searle 1969: 66 cited by Barron 2003: 128)
The Formulation of the

Types of Conditions
Condition in the Case of
Refusing an Offer
Propositional Condition S predicates a future act X of H.
Preparatory Content Condition a) H is able to (not) perform X. S

believes H is able (not) to perform
X.
b) It is not obvious that H would
(not) do X without being asked.
Sincerity Condition S wants H ( not ) to do X.
Essential Condition Counts as an attempt by S to get H

( not ) to do X.
٢٣
As for refusal of request speech acts, Wierzbicka (1987: 94) presents

the following conditions with some modification by the researcher:
Table 2 . Felicity Conditions of Refusing a Request
Wierzbicka (1987: 94)
The Formulation of the

Types of Conditions
Condition in the Case of
Refusing a Request
Propositional Condition S wants H to do X

S believes that H will do X
H does not want to do it
H assumes that he does not have to
do it because he does not want to
H says this because H wants S to
know it.
Preparatory Content Condition S believes that H will do X

H does not want to do X
Sincerity Condition H really does not want to do X
Essential Condition X will not happen because H does

not want to do it
٢٤
2.2.4 Refusal and Politeness

Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) claim that all members of society
have what is called " face " which can be defined as " the public self
image that every member wants to claim for himself." They argue that
everyone in the society has two kinds of face wants: negative face and
positive face. Negative face shows the need to be independent, to have
freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. Positive face
shows the need to be accepted, even liked by others, to be treated as a
member of the same group and to know that his or her wants are shared
by others. Brown and Levinson introduced five super - strategies for
politeness in relation to FTAs: bald on - record, positive politeness,
negative politeness, off record and don't do the FTAs.
Refusal is a face threatening act because of its non compliant nature.
In a refusal to a directive ( e.g. request, suggestion), the speaker averts a
threat to her negative face, while a refusal to a commissive ( e.g. offer,
invitation) involves the speaker declining support of her positive face
(Marti - Arnandiz and Salazar – Campillo, 2013: 101).
Therefore, it is important to put politeness strategies in order to
mitigate the threats on the hearer. Peng - Liang and Min
( 2013: 921) present politeness strategies in refusal based on Brown and
Levinson's theoretical framework. These strategies are as follows:
2.2.4.1 Positive Politeness Strategies
As Brown and Levinson ( 1987: 15) put it, positive politeness is
characterized by the expression of approval and appreciation of the
addressee's personality by making him feel part of a group. Such
characteristics can be found in the following strategies:
Strategy 1: Claim common ground, solidarity
In this strategy, the speaker seeks agreement from the hearer. The
tendency is to use positive politeness forms, emphasizing closeness
٢٥
between speaker and hearer, can be seen as a solidarity strategy. This

strategy will be marked via inclusive terms such as "we" and "let's".
31. A: How about going to the pub tonight?
B: You / we got a work tomorrow! Have a good sleep at home (Peng-
Liang and Min, 2013: 921).
Strategy 2 : Offer of repair / new solution
An offer of repair / new solution is appropriate to mitigate the impact
between speakers and hearers when the actual face threatening action has
occurred by refusal speech acts.
32. A: Could you drive me to work tomorrow because something has
gone wrong with my car?
B: Um, I am afraid I can't give a hand as I need to meet someone at
the airport. Let me think, I can ask my sister and see if she is free
tomorrow.
Strategy 3 : Use excuses
In this strategy, the excuse removes the implication that one wants to
refuse by providing an alternative explanation for one's potentially face
threatening behaviour. By using this strategy, there is an implication that
one is unwilling to do or accept something.
33. A: ( In a shopping center ) Excuse me sir, would you like to have a
look at our new products?
B: Oh, sorry, I am hurrying for a meeting/ work.
Strategy 4: Promise
The speaker can stress his / her cooperation with the hearer by giving
him/her a promise to avoid the potential threat of some FTAs. Promise
can be regarded as a way to demonstrate the speaker's good intention in
satisfying the hearer's requests or face wants. This promise may be true or
false but even if it is false, it still functions the same as the real one does.
34. A: So you won't join us for a dinner this weekend, will you?
٢٦
B: No, sorry about that, but I promise I will go next time (Ibid: 921 -
922).
Strategy 5 : Show sympathy and consideration first
One of the mitigating devices in a refusal is showing sympathy and
consideration at first as in the following example:
35. A: Might I ask you if you happen to have some extra money to lend
me?
B: Um, I understand your current financial situation, but I am very
sorry I just bought a car the other day.
2.2.4.2 Negative Politeness Strategies / Bald on record
strategies
Negative politeness concentrates on the aspects of the addressee's face
wants, which are concerned with the desire not to be imposed upon and is
characterized by self effacement and formality. Bald on record refers to
that one which directly addresses the other as a means of expressing one's
needs usually by using imperative forms. Negative politeness enjoins
both on record delivery and redress of an FTA. As for bald on record
strategy, the simplest way is to convey refusal directly (Brown and
Levinson, 1987: 15).
Strategy 1: Explicit and direct expression of refusal
In this strategy, the speaker chooses explicit expressions to
acknowledge that he/she is unwilling to accept the hearer's request. This
is coercive to the hearer to some extent and is a FTA. Linguistic markers
like "sorry", "afraid", etc. are often employed as an alternative getter and
not to address a "real" offence (Reiter and Dale, 2000: 49).
36. A: Can you help me clean the room?
B: Sorry, I am afraid I can't.
٢٧
Strategy 2: Expression of refusal in a less coercive way to

minimize the impingement on the hearer.
Politeness embraces a strategy for making the addressee feel good of
being kind and friendly to minimize conflicts. The use of subjunctive
mood softens the strength of FTA of a refusal and lessens the
impingement on the hearer.
37. A: Could you put these stuffs on the shelf for me?
B: I am very sorry, I might not do this now (Peng- Liang and Min,
2013: 922).
2.2.4.3 Off -Record Strategies
The off record strategy, also called hints or non conventional
indirectness addressed to others. However, off record may or may not get
the response from the addressee or achieve an expected result as the
hearer can act as if the statements have not even been heard.
Strategy 1: Give hints
38. A: ( At late night, a friend keeps talking with you over the
telephone), you may say:
39. I am too sleepy to open my eyes. (means "shall we stop now?")
(Ibid: 923).
Strategy 2: Be ambiguous or vague
By using what is technically indirectness (ambiguity),the speaker will
have given a bow to the hearer's face and therefore minimized the threats
of the FTA. Every off record strategy essentially exploits ambiguity in a
sense between the literal meaning of an utterance and any of its possible
implications.
40. A: How do you plan to solve this problem?
B: It's really a tough one. I need to think about it. ( means" I don't
think I can fix it.")
٢٨
Strategy 3: Be evasive, transfer to another topic

The speaker may use off record strategy with an FTA of refusal by
being evasive about the hearer's utterance/ request. The best way to do
this is when the speaker stops the hearer's current topic and starts another
one. In this way, the speaker seemingly prevents a FTA to the hearer
rather than explicit refusal.
41. A: Can we discuss the details of the contact?
B: I suggest we'd better not talk about this today. Let's talk about the
new project.
Strategy 4: Use body language
Sometimes it is not easy to refuse someone when you are face to face.
Under these conditions, the body language can be employed as a strategy.
Generally, shaking head means negation, a sudden stop of smiling during
the conversation sometimes suggests that you do not agree or refuse.
There are other body languages such as frowning, shrugging, vacillating
expressions in the eyes, frequently looking at watch or absence of mind,
etc.
Xiaoning (2004: 7) states that in previous studies on refusals,
researchers have developed a coding schema and classification of
strategies in analyzing refusals. Their classification of strategies often
approached refusals from three dimensions, i.e., directness level of the
head act, internal modification and external modification. Head act is the
minimal unit which serves to realize a refusal independent of other
elements. Internal modification or external modification modifies the
head act internally or externally by mitigating the face threatening force
of refusal. This kind of classification is different from Brown and
Levinson's model of politeness. First, directness means the degree to
which the speaker's illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution.
٢٩
Refusals could be either direct or indirect . It could be termed as on

record or off record correspondingly. As in Figure (1) below:
No, I refuse/ No, I can't (bald on

record)
Direct refusal I'm afraid I can't ( on record)
Indirect refusal : I have something urgent to do. (off record)
Figure 1: Directness Level of the Head Act of Refusal
Secondly, internal modification can be realized syntactically and

lexically to mitigate the force of a certain act. Most of them act as
softening mechanisms that " give the addressee an out,… permitting him
to feel that his response is not coerced." Brown and Levinson( 1987: 70)
and therefore are negative oriented Xiaoning ( 2004: 9) .Internal
modification in the head acts of refusals could be shown in (Figure 2)
below:
٣٠
Past tense : I couldn't stay here.

Embedding : I'm afraid I can't.
Syntactic down graders Modals: No, I can't

Negation: So,I can't
help you.
Hesitator Er…, sorry

Lexical down graders
Down toner Can't lend it to you.
Interpersonal markers
But you know, …..
Up graders Adverbial intensifier

I'm really sorry
Figure 2: Internal Modification of the Head Act of Refusal
The third dimension is external modifications which are usually in the

form of supportive moves. They are either positive - oriented to
emphasize commonality with the hearer or negative oriented to show
deference to the hearer. External modification are shown in (Figure 3)
below:
٣١
Reason I have something urgent to do.
Consideration of interlocutor’s feelings Thank you for
your invitation.
(positive)
Suggestion of willingness I’d love to.
Suggestion of alternatives May I do it tomorrow?
Criticizing: I tell you that you should keep good notes.
( negative )
Request: May I ask for a leave?
Statement of regret I’m sorry.
Figure 3. External Modification of Refusal

٣٢
2.2.5 The model

In a series of investigations, there were many attempts to classify the
refusal strategies of different languages. One of them was done by Ueda
( 1972: 185). He listed sixteen ways to avoid saying "no" in Japanese
(vague no; silence; delaying answers; …). Some years later, Rubin (1983:
10) claimed that there were nine ways of refusing a cross a number of
cultures.
These ways are as follows:
1) Be silent, hesitate, show lack of enthusiasm.
2) Offer an alternative.
3) Postponement.
4) Put the blame on a third party or something over which you have no
control.
5) Avoidance.
6) General acceptance of an offer but giving no details.
7) Divert and distract the addressee.
8) General acceptance with excuses.
9) Say what is offered is inappropriate.
Rubin indicated that in order for a non native speaker to send or
receive a message of "no" to a native speaker, three levels of knowledge
are required:
1) form - function relation;
2) social parameter of saying "no" and;
3) underlying values.
After some attempts to find the best taxonomy for refusal strategies,
the most commonly known and used semantic formulas in coding refusals
by Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss – Weltz (1990) appeared. In this study,
this model of refusal realizations will be adopted. It combines the
different strategies as well as sub strategies used for expressing the
٣٣
speech act of refusal. In addition, it is versatile enough to collect the data

of this study. It can be shown in the following table:
Table (3)
A Model of Strategies for Expressing Refusal Speech
Act
(Beebe et al. (1990: 55- 73))
Type Strategies Semantic Formulas
Direct Performative " I refuse "
Non performative
a. "No"
b. Negative willingness /ability "I can't", "I don’t think so"
1. Statement of regret "I’m sorry …","I feel terrible …"

Indirect
2. Wish "I wish I could help you …"
3. Excuse, reason, explanation "My children will be home that night";
"I have a headache"
4. Statement of alternative
a. I can do X instead of Y "I’d rather …", "I’d prefer
b. Why don’t you do X instead of Y "Why don’t you ask someone else?
٣٤
5. Set conditions for future or past If you had asked me "earlier, I would
acceptance have …"
6. Promise of future acceptance "I’ll do it next time", "I promise I’ll
…", or
"Next time I’ll …" - using "will" or
promise
7. Statement of principle "I never do business with friends".
8. Statement of philosophy "One can’t be too careful"
9. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor "I won’t be any fun tonight" to refuse
a. Threat or statement of negative an invitation
consequences to the requester.
b. Guilt trip For instance: waitress to customers
who want to sit a while: "I can’t make
a living off people who just order
coffee…"
c. Criticize the request/requester, Who do you think you are?" "That’s a
etc. terrible idea"
(statement of negative feeling or
opinion); insult/attack
٣٥
d. Request for help, empathy, and
assistance by dropping or holding
the request.
e. Let interlocutor off the hook "Don’t worry about it", "That’s
okay…"
"You don’t have to…"
f. Self-defense "I’m trying my best", "I’m doing all I
can do"
10. Acceptance that functions as a
refusal
a. Unspecific or indefinite reply
b. Lack of enthusiasm
11. Avoidance
1. Nonverbal
a. Silence
b. Hesitation
c. Do nothing
d. Physical departure
٣٦
2. Verbal
a. Topic switch
b. Joke.
c. Repetition of part of request, etc
"Monday?"
d. Postponement
"I’ll think about it"
e. Hedging
Gee, I don’t know", "I’m not sure"
Palanques ( 2011: 73) comments on this table saying that Beebe et al.
taxonomy classifies refusal responses into semantic formulas and
adjuncts. The semantic formulas are considered the different strategies
that can be used when performing a refusal in which that taxonomy
includes two different categories of strategies: direct and indirect. On the
one hand, direct strategies refer to two main semantic formulas: the first
is performative ( e.g. I refuse ) and the second is non performative
statements. Performatives can be defined as “self-naming utterances, in
which the performative verb usually refers to the act in which the speaker
is involved at the moment of speech” (Leech, 1996: 215). For example:
15. I refuse to go to the party.
Non performative statements could be either "No" or a sign of negative
willingness or ability ( e.g. I won't). The first strategy, i.e. "No", refusal is
performed by a flat “no” with no internal modification. The word “No” is
a direct way of refusing. Saying “No” to someone is a FTA that is why it
٣٧
is usually followed by language softeners, except in a few cases, when

people are extremely direct. For example:
16. No, I don’t want to (Pung, 2006:34).
In the second strategy, the refuser uses some expressions which contain
negations. This can be expressed by the negative particle “Not”, or by
using any word that semantically negates a proposition.
17. I can’t lend you my car (Ibid: 35).
Indirect strategies are divided into eleven semantic formulas or subtypes
namely :
1) Statement of regret
In this strategy, the refuser uses words such as "sorry" about not doing
the request as in:
18. I am sorry that I cannot help you doing your project.
2) Wish
In this strategy, the speaker indirectly refuses a request by expressing
his wish as in the following example:
19. I wish I can help you.
3) Excuse, reason and explanation
The speaker, in this strategy, refuses indirectly by giving some reasons,
excuses and explanations about the reason behind refusing a request as in
this example:
20. I have to pick up a friend to the airport.
4) Statement of alternative
The speaker refuses indirectly by suggesting an alternative in which
the request could be done.
21. Why don't you ask anyone else to help you?
٣٨
5) Set condition for future or past acceptance

By using a hypothetical condition as a reason for refusing, the speaker
aims to direct his refusal to a situation when it is better if the requester
has asked before this time:
22. I would be happy to change it for you, if I were not too busy this
weekend ( Phung, 2006:36).
6) Promise of future acceptance
The refuser is going to give a promise to the hearer that his request is
going to be fulfilled at later time.
23.I am going to buy you anything that you want in your birthday.
7) Statement of principle
The refuser presents a principle that he follows in his life and that he
refuses because the hearer's request is going to violate this principle.
24. You know my opinion about lending money to others.
8) Statement of philosophy
In this strategy, the refuser is going to present a philosophy to the
hearer.
25. One can’t be too careful.
9) Attempt to dissuade interlocutors
The respondent tries to dissuade the interlocutor by threatening him
which may have a negative impact on the speaker if the respondent agrees
to perform the task.
26. If you don’t see me then, you will miss out (Ibid).
10) Acceptance that functions as a refusal
This strategy presents an acceptance that functions as a refusal or
giving the hearer unspecific or indefinite reply.
٣٩
11) Avoidance
It could be either non verbal using body language or verbal by using
strategies such as topic switch, postponement and others.
In addition, the classification provides the disjuncts to refusal which
are linguistic strategies and might accompany the main refusal but they
do not convey refusal alone. They are as follows:
1. Statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement: e.g. It is good but
… I would like to go but…
2. State of empathy or understanding: e.g. I realize that you are in a
difficult situation.
3. Pause fillers: e.g. Uhh. Well,
4. Gratitude or appreciation: e.g. Thanks. I appreciate the offer…
This taxonomy has been used in order to account for the different types
of refusals and includes the semantic formulas which might be used,
providing a refusal to other speech acts such as requests, invitations,
suggestions and offers. In this particular study, attention to the refusal
strategies given to particular speech acts that of requests and offers
(Palanques, 2011: 73).
2.2.6 Refusal Sequences
Beebe et al. (1990: 55- 73) state that refusals can be seen as a series of
the following sequences:
1) Pre - refusal strategies
These strategies prepare the addressee for an upcoming refusal.
2) Main refusal ( Head refusal )
This strategy expresses the main refusal.
3) Post refusal strategies
These strategies follow the head act and tend to emphasize, justify,
mitigate, or conclude the refusal responses.
٤٠
The discourse pattern sequence of the three components of the strategy

of refusal can be seen as in the following example of the speech act
performed by an employee in responding to a boss's request for him to
stay at work two extra hours:
27. Boss: I was wondering if you might be able to stay a bit late this
evening, say, until about 9:00 pm or so.
Response Refusal sequence Strategy
Uh, I'd really like to [Pre - refusal] Willingness
But I can't [ Head act ] Direct refusal
I'm sorry [Post refusal ] Apology/ regret
I have plans [ Post refusal ] Reason/ explanation
I really can't stay [ Post refusal ] Direct refusal
Another example of refusal sequence is that of someone to his friends'

request for going to movies together would be:
Uhm, I'd really like to ( pre - refusal )
but I can't ( main refusal ). I'm sorry.
I have a difficult exam tomorrow. ( post - refusal )
The number of moves in a refusal depends on the type of refusal ( that
is, whether it is direct or indirect). For example:
28. A1: May I go out now?
B1: No, you may not
A2: Have another cookie?
B2: Thanks. Everything was so tasty, I couldn't eat another bite.
There is only one move in the first example of refusal. On the contrary,
the person uses more than one move in indirect refusals. Therefore,
٤١
indirect refusals have more moves to make a refusal Mohammad et al.

(2013: 53).
2.2.7 Previous Studies
Although investigations into the speech act of refusal have been
limited, some significant studies have been conducted. One of the most
influential studies was carried by Beebe, Takahashi and Ullis-Weltz
(1990). They made their study on three groups of people, Japanese
learners of English, native speakers of Japanese and American native
speakers of English by using a DCT. It included four categories: refusals
to requests, invitations, suggestions and offers. The aim of the study was
to discover whether the refusals given by the Japanese learners of English
corresponded more closely with those used by the native speakers of
Japanese or with the native speakers of American English. The situations
of the test varied according to the learner's status in relation to the
speaker. They found that Americans employed indirect strategies of
refusals but Japanese employed indirect strategies when refusing a person
of higher status and direct ones when refusing a person of lower status.
In (1993) King and Silver analyzed the refusal strategies of six
participants in intermediate level, three women and three men. The
refusal strategies of intermediate level second language learners and the
potential for developing sociolinguistic competence through instruction
was the aim of the study. A lecture was organized for a control group on
how to make small talk with the Americans and a treatment group was
tutored on variables important in refusing in American English. The
results from the questionnaire indicate little or no effect of instruction on
refusals.
Stevens (1993) studied refusals in English and Arabic by using a DCT.
His findings were that L2 learners used inappropriate strategies and both
cultures used the same strategies, but he did not refer to status.
٤٢
Hussein (1995) discussed making refusals in Arabic using naturalistic

data and found that indirect refusals are used with acquaintance of equal
status, and with other close friends of unequal status.
Al-Shawali (1997) investigated the semantic formulas used by Saudi
and American male undergraduate students performing refusals. The
results indicated that Saudis and Americans used similar strategies in
refusing request, invitation, offer, and suggestion. The study also revealed
that there were no significant differences between them except in the
employment of the direct "no".
Al Issa (2003), in a DCT found that Jordanians used indirect strategies
more than Americans and both used reasons more than any other strategy.
There is also evidence of pragmatic transfer by EFL group.
Yamagashira (2001), in a DCT investigated the pragmatic transfer in
Japanese ESL refusals. The aims of this study were to compare the
language patterns used to make refusals by Japanese and Americans in
different situations. It aims at finding whether there was a pragmatic
transfer or not. It also examined whether or not the L2 proficiency, the
time spent in the states, and explicit instruction on pragmatic knowledge
affect the Japanese speakers. The results of this study show that
pragmatic transfer does occur.
Al–Eryani (2007) presented a pragmalinguistic investigation into the
speech act of refusing as made by Yemeni learners of English as a foreign
language. For this study, 20 Yemeni learners of English were asked to
respond in English to six different situations in which they carry out the
speech act of refusal. Their English performances were compared to those
of Yemeni Arabic native speakers and American English native speakers
in order to find out whether the refusal given by the group in question,
i.e., Yemeni learners of English, correspond more closely with those of
the Yemeni Arabic native speakers or with speakers of the target
٤٣
language, the American English native speakers. The results showed that
Yemeni Arabic native speakers tended to be less direct in their refusals by
offering preceding “reasons” or “explanations” (in the first position of the
semantic formula order) other than their own desire in refusing. American
English native speakers, on the other hand, used different semantic order
by preceding “regret” in the first position giving more direct refusals. Due
to their high proficiency in English, Yemeni learners of English showed
evidence of pragmatic competence of the target language in constructing
their refusal styles in three areas: the order, frequency and the content of
semantic formulas. However, they at times displayed some of their native
speech community norms, falling back on their cultural background when
formulating refusals.
٤٤
Chapter Three
Data Collection
3.1 Introduction
This chapter is devoted to the description of the test of this study. It
deals with the points relevant to the test starting with the main objectives
of the test, the subjects and the test design. It also includes the
characteristics of good tests such as validity and reliability. This chapter
ends with the description of the pilot test and the administration of the
main test of this thesis.
3.2 Objectives of the Test

The present test has been constructed to investigate the strategies that
Iraqi EFL learners use for the speech act of refusal when refusing
someone of higher, lower or equal status. Their responses are going to be
analysed in relation to what native English speakers respond in given
situations. This test also aims at identifying the extent to which the
mother tongue interferes in the learners' performance. In this regard, their
responses are also going to be assessed in relation to the responses of
native speakers of Arabic to find out the interference of the first language
in the performance of Iraqi EFL learners.
3.3 The Subjects

The subjects chosen to participate in this study involve one hundred
EFL undergraduate students chosen randomly from the fourth stage from
University of Babylon during the academic year (2013-2014). The
subjects are asked to provide certain information such as age, gender,
native language and nationality. Their native language is Arabic and they
have similar EFL background. Their ages range between (22-24) years
٤٥
old. The reason behind choosing fourth year students to be the sample of
the study is that they are supposed to be the most advanced learners of
English.
In addition to the subjects mentioned above, a control group represented by
ten native English speakers has been subjected to the same test. The subjects
of this group are employees in a company called "Shell Oil Company" in
Basra and range in age between (22-28). They all have B.A. degrees in
different specializations. One of them is a teacher of English and the others
are engineers. They speak BBC accent.
Concerning question number two of the test which aims at identifying the
extent to which the mother tongue interferes with the learners' performance,
the main test has been translated into Arabic and ten students chosen from the
fourth stage from the Department of Arabic, College of Education for Human
Sciences, University of Babylon during the academic year (2013-2014) are
subjected to the Arabic test. Their responses are going to be compared with
those of Iraqi EFL learners' to find out if there is any evidence of pragmatic
transfer from their first language. Their ages range between (22-24) years old
and all of them have the same native language.
3.4 Test Design
In order to achieve the main aims of the study, a test of thirty situations
(see appendix 2) has been designed to investigate the speech act of refusal of
offer and request as realized by Iraqi EFL university learners of English. The
test is to be submitted to a sample of fourth-year learners as well as ten native
speakers as a control group.
The test is intended to elicit information about the students' abilities to issue
the speech act of refusal according to certain contextual factors such as status,
i.e., superiority, equality and inferiority of position, social distance, i.e.,
٤٦
familiarity and unfamiliarity, and whether the power relationship is solidary

or non- solidary . This test also aims at finding the interference of the mother
tongue when performing the speech act of refusal. For this purpose, the main
test has been translated into Arabic and submitted to a sample of fourth year
learners from the Department of Arabic, College of Education for Human
Sciences, University of Babylon during the academic year (2013-2014).
The situations of the test are adopted from various sources including
books, theses, papers and websites mentioned in Chapter two. Before starting
responding to the test, the testees have been asked to give information about
their gender, age, nationality and native language.
The test requires certain essential characteristics such as validity and

reliability .In the following section, these characteristics will be discussed in
detail.
3.5 Characteristics of Good Tests
Brown (2004: 3) defines a test as " a method of measuring a person's ability,

knowledge, or performance in a given domain."
Every test has a number of specific qualities that determine the overall test
usefulness. These qualities are reliability, validity, interactiveness, practicality
and impact. Practicality is concerned with cost, time, administration and scoring
/evaluation. This means that a test is practical if it:
• is not excessively expensive;
• stays within appropriate time constraints;
• is relatively easy to administer; and
• has a scoring / evaluation procedure that is specific and time - efficient.

(Ibid: 19)
٤٧
3.5.1 Validity
The most important quality of a test interpretation or use is validity.

Alderson et al. (1995:170) define validity as " the appropriateness of a given
test or any of its component parts as a measure of what it is purported to
measure." In other words, a test is valid if it measures what it is supposed to
measure or can be used for the purposes for which it is intended.
The relationship between validity and reliability is rather complex. If an

item is unreliable, then it must also lack validity, but a reliable item is not
necessarily also valid. It could produce the same or similar responses on all
occasions but do not measure what it is supposed to measure. Measuring the
extent of validity can become extremely involved and there are many variations
and subdivisions (Bell, 2005: 118).
There are many different kinds of validity, but only two are important for this
study: content validity and face validity.
3.5.1.1 Content Validity
A test is said to have content validity if its content constitutes a

representative sample of the language skills, structure, etc. with which it is
concerned (Hughes, 2003: 26).
Mousavi (2012: 157) defines content validity as " a form of validity which
is based on the degree to which a test adequately and sufficiently measures
the particular skills or behaviour it sets out to measure." For example, a test of
pronunciation skills in a language has low content validity if it tests only
some of the skills which are required for accurate pronunciation , such a test
which assessed the ability to pronounce isolated sounds, but not stress,
intonation, etc. .
٤٨
Since the researcher’s main concern in this study is to measure the

students’ ability concerning the speech act of refusal at the production
level, the test items have been carefully constructed so as not to give a
space to measure speech acts other than refusal. This is done by paying
special attention to the design of the test in the sense that all the items
included in the test cover, as far as possible, the widest range of situations
that may occur with the speech act of refusal only and not other speech
acts. It is also ensured that the subjects of this study are familiar with the
speech act of refusal. Their familiarity came from their pre-university
stages (preparatory stage), where they learn to use different
communicative functions. The subjects received further training in this
respect in their sixth year of secondary school where they are introduced
to certain functions of language such as, warning, request, certainty,
permission, refusal, suggestion , etc. with various strategies for each
function.
3.5.1.2 Face Validity
Heaton (1990: 159) mentions that if a test item looks right to other testers,
teachers, moderators and testees, it can be described as having face validity.
Face validity is concerned with what teachers and students think of the
test and whether it seems a reasonable way of assessing the students and
whether it appears trivial, too difficult or unrealistic. The only way to find out
face validity is to ask the teachers and students concerned about their opinion,
either formally by means of a questionnaire or informally by discussion in
class or staff room (Harrison, 1983: 11).
In this regard, the test was submitted to a jury of experts (See

Appendix 3). Every member of the jury was handed a copy of the test
with a letter, requesting them to give their opinions of the suitability of
the items of the test and requesting them to suggest any changes or
٤٩
modifications. The items used in the test are all approved by the jury
members and their recommendations have been taken into consideration.
The final version of the test was also shown to a number of native
English speakers who expressed their approval of all the parts of the test.
As a result, the test was given to the sample of the pilot study.
3.5.2 Reliability
Mousavi (2012: 621) defines reliability as "a quality of test scores which
refers to the consistency of measures across different times, test forms, raters,
and other characteristics of the measurement context." In other words,
reliability is an essential quality of any measurement process because unless
test scores are relatively consistent, they cannot provide us with any
information about the ability we want to measure.
Reliability, according to Bachman ( 1990: 24), is a quality of test scores,

and a perfectly reliable score or measure is the one which is free of errors of
measurement.
Bell (2005: 117) states that there are many devices for checking reliability
in scales and tests, such as 'test - retest' ( administrating the same test some
time after the first ), the 'alternate forms method' ( where equivalent versions
of the same items are given and results correlated) or the 'split - half method'
( where the items in the test are split into two matched halves and scores then
correlated).
In addition to these methods, there is another method which is called

Kuder - Richardson method ( Give test once. Score total test and apply Kuder
- Richardson formula) (Mousavi , 2012: 625).
To ensure the reliability of the test of this study, the test has been given
to a sample of subjects twice within two weeks. This sample consisted of
ten fourth-year students chosen randomly from Department of English,
٥٠
College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Babylon in

(2013-2014). The results have been counted according to Kurder -
Richardson's method:
R = N/N-1 ( 1- (m(N-m) / NX²)) where:
R : represents " reliability".
N : represents " the number of the items in the test".
M: represents "the mean of the test scores".
X : represents "the standard deviation of the test scores."
When calculating the reliability of the test according to this formula, it
has been found that it amounts to 78% which is acceptable.
3.6 Pilot Test
Before applying the main test on the final sample, a pilot test was applied
to a sample of ten EFL undergraduate students chosen randomly from the
fourth year students, Department of English, College of Education for Human
Sciences, Babylon University in 17/ April/2014 . The aims behind conducting
this pilot test are that it indicates the necessary time to be provided for the
main test. It also aims at checking the items' effectiveness and evaluation in
terms of reliability, difficulty and clarity of the items (whether there are any
ambiguities in understanding the items so as to make changes and
modifications on the test as a whole before applying the main test).
The students' responses at the pilot test have shown that the time limit of
one hour is sufficient to allow all students to finish their test. It has also been
assured that there were no difficulty and ambiguity in understanding and
responding to the test items. Accordingly, this pilot test has gained its final
format and has been applied as a main test.
٥١
3.7 Test Administration
After ensuing test validity, reliability as well as checking the items of

the test in terms of difficulty, the test has become ready to be used in its final
version. The main test has been carried out in 23/ April/ 2014. The time limit
for answering the test was one hour. The test has been submitted to a sample
of one hundred fourth year students at the Department of English, College of
Education for Human Sciences, Babylon University as well as ten British
native speakers of English and ten native speakers of Arabic.
The test has been given to the students under the same circumstances. In
order not to waste time and effort, the testees were asked to answer on the
same test sheet and to avoid any embarrassment; they were asked not to
mention their names on the test sheet.
Before the learners start answering, they were asked to give some
information about their ages, gender, nationality and native language. When
the subjects sat for the test, they were given certain instructions of how to
answer the questions . Additionally, they were assured that the aim behind the
test is for research purposes and have nothing to do with their marks. The
testees were asked to write their comments and remarks on the back of the test
sheet. The test was supervised by the researcher herself in addition to the help
of one of the staff members.
٥٢
Chapter Four
Data Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is devoted to the analysis of the test results of this
study. It deals with the general results obtained from the main test which
investigates Iraqi EFL learners' use of the speech act of refusal to find out
the strategies that are used by the subjects. It also aims at finding out
whether there is a transfer from the first language in the performance of
the second language. Therefore, the students’ performance is going to be
analysed and discussed in an attempt to come out with reasonable
conclusions and findings related to the aims and hypotheses of this study.
4.2 Analysis of the Speech Act of Refusal's Strategies
Concerning the first aim of the study which finds out the strategies
that are used by Iraqi EFL learners when issuing the speech act of refusal
, the subjects' performance is going to be compared with the performance
of the control group after rendering the results into percentages. All the
types of analyses are carried out in terms of three factors: status, social
distance and solidarity of power.
The model of the speech act of refusal's strategies in "Chapter Two"
(see 2.2.4) is used for analysing the type of strategies adopted by the
subjects and native English speakers.
4.2.1 The Use of the Strategies of Refusal Speech Act
In terms of certain contextual factors such as solidarity, status and
distance, the situations that require the subjects to present refusal speech
act can be classified into six types .They are as follows:
٥٣
A. A speaker talks to someone who is a familiar inferior and has a

solidarity relationship with him.
B. A speaker talks to someone who is a familiar inferior and has a
non-solidarity relationship with him.
C. A speaker talks to someone who is a familiar equal and has a
D. A speaker talks to someone who is unfamiliar equal and has a
non- solidarity relationship with him.
E. A speaker talks to someone who is a familiar superior and has a
F. A speaker talks to someone who is a familiar superior and has a
non-solidarity relationship with him.
4.2.1.1 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's
Strategies in Type 'A' Situations
The situations categorized within this type are represented by situations
(1 and 11) in the test. The situations can be described as follows:
Sit.1: A mother refuses her little son's request to buy an expensive play
for him.
Sit.11: A brother refuses his younger brother's request to help him doing
his homework.
Table (4) below describes the subjects' performance of the speech act
of refusal in terms of strategies which are presented in percentages. The
analysis shows that NESs tend to use three different kinds of strategies:
promise strategy, excuse/reason/explanation strategy and set conditions
for future or past acceptance strategy. However, they prefer to use the
promise strategy more than the other two strategies to issue the speech act
of refusal. For example:
Sit. 1 - NESs
1. Not just now, you can wait till its your birthday or Christmas.
٥٤
2. Sorry, you have to help around the house if you do you will get
rewards.
3. I would love to but Mum has not got enough money.
As for Iraqi learners, the analysis reveals that they tend to use three
different kinds of strategies: promise strategy, excuse/reason/explanation
strategy and non - performative strategy to issue the speech act of
refusal. They tend to use the excuse/reason/explanation strategy more
than the other two strategies. The first two strategies, i.e. excuse/reason/
explanation strategy and promise strategy are the same which are used by
NESs while the third strategy is different from that used by NESs.
Sit. 1- Iraqi learners
4. Oh! my son. I will buy you another one next month.
5. Oh darling it is too expensive and I do not have enough money.
6. I cannot buy it for you.
The use of promise strategy and excuse/reason/explanation strategy
by Iraqi learners signal an aspect of appropriateness when it is compared
by NESs.
As for situation (11), the percentages of the strategies used by NESs
are equally distributed over two strategies: excuse/ reason/ explanation
strategy and statement of alternative strategy in order to issue the speech
act of refusal. Examples are as follows:
Sit. 11 - NESs
7. I'm too busy.
8. Why don't you start, do your best and we will review together
tonight or tomorrow morning.
The percentages of strategies used by Iraqi learners show that they
employ two kinds of strategies: non - performative strategy and
excuse/reason/explanation strategy. However, they tend to use non -
٥٥
performative strategy more than the other strategy. Examples are as

follows:
Sit. 11- Iraqi learners
9. I have many things to do.
10.I cannot.
This shows that the use of non - performative strategy by Iraqi learners
is inappropriate since it is not used by NESs.
Table (4 )
Percentage of Using the Speech Act of Refusal in Type A Situations
Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar Inferior with Whom s/he has a
Solidary Power Relationship
Direct Indirect Refusal Strategies

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason
Set Conditions for Future or Past

Alternative
Attempt to dissuade interlocutor

Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance
Acceptance that functions as a
Statement of philosophy
Statement of Principle
Acceptance
Sit.
refusal
Group
No.
performative
Non_
Iraqi
10 _ _ 60 _ _ 30 _ _ _ _ _
1. EFLs
NESs _ _ _ 20 _ 20 60 _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
90 _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11. EFLs
NESs _ _ _ 50 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
٥٦

Strategies in Type 'B' Situations
This type of situations includes (6, 9, 15 and 17) situations of the test.
The situations can be described as follows:
Sit.6: A manager refuses his assistant's offer to go instead of him to the
meeting abroad.
Sit.9: An owner of a supermarket refuses the waiter's request to take an
off in a busy day.
Sit.15: A manager refuses his employee's request to postpone an
appointment to another day.
Sit.17: An owner of a supermarket refuses his worker's request to
increase his pay.
The strategies used by the control group and Iraqi learners are
presented in Table (5) below which describes them in terms of
percentages. In situation (6) the analysis reveals that NESs show
preference to two different kinds of strategies: excuse/ reason/explanation
strategy and avoidance strategy. However, they prefer to use the first one
more than the second to issue the speech act of refusal. Examples are as
follows:
Sit. 6 – NESs
11.Unfortunately, the meeting is for certain representatives and I
need you to be here to complete.
12. Let me consider it.
Contrarily, Iraqi learners analysis shows that they tend to use non -
performative strategy, by using flat (No) with some expressions of
appreciation or regret, and excuse/reason/explanation strategy to issue the
speech act of refusal. However, they tend to use non - performative
strategy more than the other one.
٥٧
Sit. 6 – Iraqi learners

13. No. Thank you. That is very kind of you.
14. I appreciate your offer but you don't have enough experience.
This shows that the use of non - performative strategy by Iraqi learners
is inappropriate since it is not appealed to by NESs.
In responding to Situation (9), NESs show full agreement on the
choice of "set conditions for future or past acceptance" strategy to issue
the speech act of refusal.
Sit. 9 – NESs
15. Why did you not ask earlier, I will check the bookings and see
if can get someone to cover if I am unable, you will have to
work.
16. Sorry. If you had told me earlier, we could have made
arrangements to cover your absence.
By contrast, Iraqi learners tend to use three different kinds of
strategies: non - performative strategy, by expressing negative
willingness/ ability, excuse/reason/explanation strategy, and avoidance
strategy. However, they tend to use the non - performative strategy more
than the other two strategies.
17. I cannot give you tomorrow off.
18. No chance, it is a busy day tomorrow.
19. I will think about it.
The comparison above shows that Iraqi learners' performance does not
match the performance of NESs and this is an indication of a lack of
awareness of what is appropriate in such a type of situation.
٥٨
Table (5 )
Percentage of Using the Speech Act of Refusal in Type B Situations
Where a Speaker Talks to a Familiar Inferior with Whom s/he has a
non - Solidary Power Relationship

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason
Alternative

Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance

Acceptance
Sit.
refusal
Group
No.
performative
Non_
Iraqi
90 _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6. EFLs
NESs _ _ _ 80 _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _
Iraqi
60 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _
9. EFLs
NESs _ _ _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
15. EFLs 80 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _
_ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
17. Iraqi 30 40 _ 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EFLs
NESs _ _ _ 40 _ _ 60 _ _ _ _ _
The results in Table (5) show full agreement to the use of excuse/
reason/ explanation strategy by the control group in situation (15). For
example:
٥٩
Sit. 15 – NESs
20. You know my diary is full. I want to see you is there no way
we can maintain this appointment?
21. That is the only time I am available for the next week, is it
important or can it wait until next week.
By contrast, Iraqi learners tend to use two different kinds of strategies:
non - performative strategy, by the use of negative willingness or ability
and flat "no", and avoidance strategy. However, they tend to use non -
performative strategy more than the avoidance strategy.
22. No, I cannot.
23. I am not sure I can.
The comparison above shows that Iraqi learners' performance is
inappropriate since it does not resemble that of the control group.
In situation (17), the performance of NESs is toward the use of two
strategies: promise strategy and excuse/reason/explanation strategy.
Sit. 17 – NESs
24. Let's plan an appointment where we can discuss the issue of
pay and in the meantime I can review your rewards.
25. Sorry, but due to the lack of customer's and cost of running
the shop I don't have enough profits.
As for Iraqi learners, they tend to use three strategies: regret strategy,
non performative strategy by the use of negative willingness/ability, and
excuse/reason/explanation strategy. Their use of excuse/reason/
explanation strategy is similar to that of the control group which means
that their performance in this type of strategy is appropriate while the
other two strategies are inappropriate since it does not match that of the
NESs.
٦٠

26. I am sorry. It is not possible.
27. I do appreciate it, but I cannot.
28. You know we don't have enough money.
Strategies in Type 'C' Situations
The situations which are involved in this type are (2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 16,
21, 22, 25 and 28) of the test. The situations can be described as follows:
Sit.2: A friend refuses his close friend's request to borrow his notes
before the day of exam.
Sit.4: Someone refuses his friend's offer to take another piece of cake.
Sit.10: Someone refuses his friend's offer to go to the cafeteria to have
lunch with him.
Sit.12: A person refuses his close friend's offer to pay for the broken
vase.
Sit.13: Someone refuses his friend's request to borrow 50 dollars from
him to pay for the rent.
Sit.16: Someone refuses his friend's request to use his car to go for a
journey.
Sit.21: A friend refuses his friend's offer to have some ice cream.
Sit.22: Someone refuses his friend's offer who wants to lend him money
to buy a vase.
Sit.25: Someone refuses his cousin's offer to help him painting the house.
Sit.28: Someone refuses his close friend's offer to give him money to get
ride of his financial difficulties.
analysis shows that in situation (2), NESs show full agreement on the
٦١
choice of excuse/reason/explanation strategy to issue the speech act of

refusal.
Sit. 2 – NESs
29. Sorry as I will need them to revise tonight.
By contrast, Iraqi EFL learners tend to use two different types of
strategies: non - performative strategy and avoidance strategy to issue the
speech act of refusal. However, their use of non - performative strategy is
more than that of avoidance strategy. For example:
30. No. I cannot give you my notes.
31. Borrow my notes?
The comparison above shows that Iraqi learners' performance does not
match the performance of the natives and this is an indication of the
inappropriate responses made by Iraqi learners to issue the speech act of
refusal in this type of situations.
In situation (4), the analysis shows that NESs show full agreement on
the use of non - performative strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
Sit. 4 – NESs
32. No thanks.
33. I'd love to but I cannot.
As for Iraqi learners, the analysis shows that they tend to use two kinds
of strategies: non - performative strategy and excuse/reason/explanation
strategy to issue the speech act of refusal. However, they tend to use the
second strategy more than the first.
34. Thank you but I cannot eat any more.
35. That is very kind of you but I am on a diet.
٦٢
The comparison shows that the use of excuse/reason/explanation

strategy made by Iraqi learners is inappropriate since it does not match
that of the NESs.
In responding to situation (10), NESs manifest full agreement on the
use of excuse/reason/explanation strategy to issue the speech act of
refusal.
Sit. 10 – NESs
36. I would love to but I have to collect my friends, another day
definitely.
37. sorry, I'm in a hurry to meet my friend at the airport.
Iraqi EFL learners' behaviour in this situation illustrates that they tend
to use two strategies: non - performative strategy and excuse/reason
/explanation strategy for issuing the speech act of refusal.
38. No I cannot.
39. It is a good idea but I have a meeting.
From this comparison, it is clear that the use of excuse/reason/
explanation strategy used by Iraqi learners is appropriate since it matches
that of the control group.
The analysis of the responses to Situation (12) manifests that NESs
allow for both attempts to dissuade interlocutor and excuse/ reason/
explanation strategies to appear in their performance for issuing the
speech act of refusal.
Sit. 12 – NESs
40. No problem. Relax. Don't worry about it. I never really
liked it.
41. "What?" how did that happen, the vase is irreplaceable as it
has sentimental value.
٦٣
By contrast, Iraqi learners show full agreement on the use of non -

performative strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
42. No. It's OK.
From this comparison, one can conclude that Iraqi learners' responses
are inappropriate since they do not match the performance of the NESs.
In situation (13), the control group shows full agreement on the use of
excuse/ reason/explanation strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
Sit. 13 – NESs
43. No, I don't have any money as I am still waiting for the last so
you borrowed.
44. Normally I would but I like you as a friend and do not want
money to spoil the relationship.
As far as Iraqi learners' performance in this situation is concerned,
they prefer to use two strategies: non - performative strategy and excuse/
reason/explanation strategy to issue the speech act of refusal. Examples
are as follows:
45. No, I could not lend you money.
46. I need the money to buy a gift to my mother. Sorry.
This comparison shows that the non - performative strategy used by
Iraqi learners is inappropriate since it does not match the performance of
the control group.
٦٤
Table (6 )
Percentage of Using the Speech Act of Refusal in Type C
Situations Where a Speaker Talks to a familiar equal with whom
s/he has a solidary power relationship

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason
Alternative
Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance
Acceptance that functions as a refusal

Acceptance
Sit.
Group
No.
performative
Non_
Iraqi
90 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 _
2. EFLs
NESs _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
40 _ _ 60 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. EFLs
NESs 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
10. EFLs 30 _ _ 70 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
12. EFLs 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 70
NESs
Iraqi 60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EFLs
٦٥
13. _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
Iraqi 40 _ _ 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ 30 _
EFLs
16. _ 20 _ 60 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20
NESs
Iraqi
EFLs 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21.
NESs
60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
70 _ _ _ _ _ _ 30 _ _ _ _
EFLs
22.
NESs _ _ _ 90 _ _ _ 10 _ _ _ _
Iraqi 70 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30
EFLs
25. 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50
NESs
Iraqi 80 _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ _
28. EFLs
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
100
From Table (6), one can conclude that NESs tend to use three
different kinds of strategies to issue the speech act of refusal. These
strategies are: excuse/reason/explanation strategy, regret strategy and
finally attempt to dissuade the interlocutor strategy.
Sit. 16 – NESs
47. I would but it is not driving well. If it broke down I would
never forgive myself.
48. I'm sorry but I need it.
49. I'd rather lend it to a blind man than you.
٦٦
Concerning the performance of Iraqi learners, they tend to use three

different kinds of strategies: non - performative strategy, excuse reason
explanation strategy and avoidance strategy to issue the speech act of
refusal.
50. No, I cannot.
51. I want to take my children to the cinema. Sorry.
52. Gee, I don't know. I'm not sure.
This indicates that only excuse/reason/ explanation strategy used by
Iraqi learners is appropriate since it matches the performance of the
control group while the other two strategies are inappropriate since they
are not used by the NESs.
The analysis also reveals that NESs as well as Iraqi learners show full
preference for non - performative strategy and excuse/reason/ explanation
strategy in response to Situation (21) to issue the speech act of refusal.
Sit. 21– NESs
53. Thanks, but I'm not feeling well.
54. No. Thanks.
55. I cannot.
56. I'd really like to eat some but I have flu.
Thus it is valid to say that Iraqi learners have enough awareness to the
use of the appropriate strategy for expressing the speech act of refusal in
this type of situation.
As for Situation (22), the control group shows agreement on the use of
both excuse/reason/explanation strategy and statement of principle
strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
٦٧
Sit. 22– NESs

57. Thanks but I want to check I have enough in bank to cover it
before buying.
58. I hate being in debt.
By contrast, Iraqi learners tend to use two different kinds of strategies:
non - performative strategy and statement of principle strategy to issue
the speech act of refusal.
58. No, thanks.
59. I hate borrowing money from anyone. Thanks for offering.
From this analysis, one can conclude that non - performative strategy
used by Iraqi learners is inappropriate since it does not match that of the
NESs.
Table (6) shows that both Iraqi learners and NESs tend to use two
strategies to issue the speech act of refusal. These strategies are: non -
performative strategy and attempt to dissuade the interlocutor strategy.
Sit. 25– NESs
60. Don't worry. I'll do it tomorrow.
61. No. let's rest it will still be there tomorrow.
62. No. I can do it.
63. Don't bother yourself. I will take a rest then continue painting.
Consequently, the learners' performance is characterized by
appropriateness since it is the same of the performance of the control
group.
Situation (28) shows that NESs tend to use only one strategy to issue
the speech act of refusal which is excuse/ reason/ explanation strategy.
٦٨
Sit. 28– NESs

64. That's very kind of you but my mother has promised to lend
me some.
65. Thanks for the offer but $20 doesn't get much today. Keep it
and get yourself a good hair cut.
As for Iraqi learners, they tend to use the non - performative strategy
and statement of principle strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
However, the use of non - performative strategy is more than the
statement of principle strategy.
66. Thanks for offering but I can't accept this money.
67. You know my opinion about this .
From this analysis, one can conclude that Iraqi learners' performance
is inappropriate since it does not match the performance of that of the
NESs.
From this table, one can conclude that in Type C situations, learners
show a greater tendency for using direct refusal strategies, non -
perforamtive refusal more than other types of strategies and this validates
the first hypothesis mentioned in chapter one of this study.
٦٩

Strategies in Type 'D' Situations
The situations categorized within this type are represented by situations
(5, 8, 19, 24, 26, 29 and 30) in the test. The situations can be described as
follows:
Sit.5: The speaker refuses a man's request which is to fill a questionnaire
for him.
Sit.8: The speaker refuses a stranger's offer to help him carrying heavy
bags.
Sit.19:A receptionist refuses a guest's request to smoke in a non smoking
area.
Sit.24: The speaker refuses a lady's request to change her seat in the
plane.
Sit.26:The speaker refuses a young guy's offer to give him a ride since it
was raining.
Sit.29: the speaker refuses a student's request whom he does not know
before to interview him for 20 minutes.
Sit.30: The speaker refuses a secretary's offer in a big company to get a
job which is not interested for him.
Table (7) describes the subjects' performance of the speech act of
refusal in terms of strategies which are presented in percentages. The
analysis shows that in situation (5), NESs tend to use one strategy to issue
the speech act of refusal. This strategy is excuse/reason/ explanation
strategy.
Sit. 5– NESs
68. Unfortunately, my bus will arrive soon and I am unable to
commit the time.
69. Sorry, but I do not have time as my bus is due.
٧٠
Iraqi learners tend to use two different strategies to issue the speech
act of refusal. These strategies are: non - performative strategy and
statement of alternative strategy. For example:
70. No, I cannot.
71. I will find somebody to help you carrying your things.
This can be taken as an indicator that Iraqi learners' use of these two
strategies is inappropriate since it does not match the performance of the
control group.
The analysis in situation (8) reveals that NESs use non performative
strategy and attempt to dissuade interlocutor to issue the speech act of
refusal.
Sit. 8– NESs
72. No. Thank you. I can manage.
73. Don't worry. Thanks. I can manage.
Iraqi EFL learners' behaviour in the same situation reveals that they
appeal only to the non - performative strategy to issue the speech act of
refusal.
74. No, I'm fine, thank you.
75. No, it is not heavy.
The comparison above indicates that Iraqi learners' performance
approximates that of NESs in one of its aspects which is the use of non -
performative strategy. However, they do not seem to be aware that other
strategy which is attempt to dissuade interlocutor, can also be used in this
type of situation.
In situation (19), the analysis reveals that NESs allow for excuse/
reason / explanation strategy and attempt to dissuade interlocutor strategy
to appear in their performance when expressing the speech act of refusal.
٧١
Sit. 19– NESs

76. I'm sorry smoking is not allowed here.
77. That is against company policy and you will be charged for
the cleaning of the area but there is a smoking area outside to
the right of the hotel.
As for Iraqi learners' performance in this situation is concerned, the
analysis of the data reveals that they tend to use a variety of strategies
such as: excuse/ reason/explanation strategy, non - performative strategy
and statement of alternative strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
Consider the following examples:
78. It is not allowed here.
79. No. You cannot.
80. Why don't you go to another place.
This comparison shows that only excuse/reason/explanation strategy
used by Iraqi learners is appropriate since it matches the performance of
that of the control group while the other two strategies are not appropriate
since they are not used by the NESs.
٧٢
Table (7)
Percentage of Using the Speech Act of Refusal in Type D
Situations Where Speaker Talks to Unfamiliar Equal with Whom
S/he has a Non- Solidary Power Relationship.

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason
Alternative

Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance

Acceptance
Sit.
refusal
Group
No.
performative
Non_
Iraqi
50 _ _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. EFLs
NESs _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
8. EFLs 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs 80 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20
Iraqi _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
60 20
19. EFLs 20
NESs _ _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
50
Iraqi _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24. EFLs 100
80 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
Iraqi _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EFLs 40 60
26. _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
٧٣
Iraqi
EFLs _ _ _ 80 _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _
29. _ _ _ 50 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
Iraqi
EFLs _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
30. NESs 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The results in Table (7) above reveal that NESs tend to use two
strategies. These strategies are: non - performative strategy and excuse/
reason/explanation strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
Sit. 24– NESs
81. Sorry, I don't want to move.
82. Sorry but I chose this seat as it is next to the window.
By contrast, Iraqi learners show full preference to the use of only one
strategy which is non - performative strategy. Consider the following
examples:
83. No, I cannot.
84. No.
This comparison shows that Iraqi learners use of non - performative
strategy is appropriate since it is used by the NESs . However, they are
not aware that excuse/reason/ explanation strategy which is used by the
control group can also be used in this type of situations.
The analysis also reveals that NESs show full preference to an
excuse/reason explanation strategy to issue the speech act of refusal in
situation (26).
Sit. 26– NESs
85. Thanks, I don't want to get your seats wet. I will walk.
86. Thank you, some rain will refresh me, my skin is waterproof !
٧٤
As far as Iraqi learners' performance is concerned, they show

agreement on the use of two strategies: excuse/reason/explanation
strategy and non - performative strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
However, they prefer to use the first strategy more than the second. For
example:
87. Thanks for your offer but I am about to reach my house.
88. No. Thanks.
The comparison above indicates that Iraqi learners' use of the excuse/
reason/explanation strategy is appropriate since it is used by the control
group while the non - performative strategy is inappropriate since it is not
used by the NESs.
As for situation (29), the analysis reveals that the control group tend to
use two different strategies to issue the speech act of refusal. The
strategies are excuse/reason/explanation strategy and statement of
alternative strategy.
Sit. 29– NESs
89. I'm sorry, I've got to be back in the office in five minutes.
90. Can we do it tomorrow as I need to run for an appointment?
As for Iraqi learners, they tend to use two strategies to issue the
speech act of refusal. The strategies are: set conditions for future or past
acceptance and excuse/reason/explanation strategy. Consider the
following examples:
91. Oh! I am in a hurry.
92. If you had asked me earlier, I would have helped you.
This indicates that Iraqi learners' use of excuse/ reason/ explanation
strategy is appropriate since it is used by the NESs while the other
strategy is inappropriate since it is not used by the NESs.
٧٥
As for situation (30), the analysis reveals that NESs show agreement
on the use of two strategies: non - performative strategy and excuse/
reason/explanation strategy to issue the speech act of refusal. For
example:
93. Hum. To be honest I don't think it's the job for me.
94. Thanks for the offer but I'm afraid I'll have to decline on this
occasion.
As far as Iraqi learners' performance in this situation is concerned,
they show full preference on the use of excuse/reason/explanation
strategy to issue the speech act of refusal. Consider the following
examples:
95. It is not suitable for me.
96. I found more suitable job than this one, sorry.
This indicates that Iraqi learners' performance is appropriate since it
matches the performance of the control group. However, they are not
aware that in this type of situations, one can also use non - performative
strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
Strategies in Type 'E' Situations
The situations which are involved in this type are (14, 18, 20 and 23)
of the test. The situations can be described as follows:
Sit.14: A brother refuses his eldest brother's offer to have a free ticket
and go to a movie.
Sit.18: Someone refuses his eldest brother's offer to type the report for
him.
Sit.20: A pupil refuses his mother's request to turn off the TV and do the
homework.
٧٦
Sit.23: Someone refuses his father's offer to take him to the hospital
because he was sick.
analysis shows that both Iraqi learners and NESs tend to use the same
strategies to issue the speech act of refusal in situation (14). These
strategies are: non - performative strategy and excuse/reason/explanation
strategy. For example:
Sit. 14– NESs
97. No thanks.
98. Don't have time ask someone else.
99. No, I cannot.
100. Thanks, I'm too busy to go anywhere.
Thus it is valid to say that Iraqi EFL learners have enough awareness
to the use of the appropriate strategy for expressing the speech act of
refusal in this type of situation.
The analysis also reveals that NESs allow two strategies to issue the
speech act of refusal in situation (18). The strategies are non performative
strategy and excuse/ reason/explanation strategy.
Sit. 18– NESs
101. No, I'll do it myself.
102. When I type I check at the same time. Thanks.
Concerning Iraqi learners, they show preference to the use of two
strategies to issue the speech act of refusal. These strategies are non
performative strategy and statement of principle strategy. Consider the
following examples:
103. I usually prefer to do things by myself.
٧٧
104. No, thanks I can do it.

Consequently, it is valid to say that the non - performative strategy
used by Iraqi learners is appropriate since it matches the performance of
the control group while the use of statement of principle strategy is
inappropriate since it is not used by the NESs.
In situation (20), the analysis reveals that NESs as well as Iraqi
learners show full preference to the use of promise strategy and
excuse/reason/ explanation strategy to issue the speech act of refusal.
Consider the following examples:
Sit. 20– NESs
105. Oh mum! I want to watch TV. .
106. Five minutes then it will be finished and I'll do homework
then.
107.Well, mum I want to watch my favourate programme.
108. I will when my favourate TV. sshow ends.
From this analysis, one can conclude that Iraqi EFL learners are aware
of the appropriate strategies used in this type of situations.
٧٨
Table (8 )
Percentage of Using the Speech Act of Refusal in Type E Situations
Where The Speaker Talks to a Familiar Superior with Whom S/he
has a Solidary Power Relationship

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason
Alternative

Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance

Acceptance
Sit.
refusal
Group
No.
performative
Non_
Iraqi
60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14. EFLs
NESs 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
60 _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 _ _ _ _
18. EFLs
NESs 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi
20. EFLs _ _ _ 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _
NESs
Iraqi 50 _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
23. EFLs
_ _ _ 80 _ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _
NESs
Table (8) shows that NESs tend to use excuse/reason/explanation

strategy as well as statement of philosophy strategy to issue the speech
act of refusal in situation (23).
٧٩
Sit. 23– NESs

109. Thanks but I prefer to stay at home.
110. Thank you, resting is preferred at the moment.
As for Iraqi learners in this situation, they tend to use two strategies to
issue the speech act of refusal in this situation. These strategies are: non -
performative strategy and excuse/reason/explanation strategy.
111. No, thank you.
112. I prefer to stay at home to rest.
From this analysis, One can conclude that the excuse/reason/
explanation strategy used by Iraqi EFL learners is appropriate since it is
the same used by the control group whereas the use of the non -
performative strategy is inappropriate since it is not used by the control
group.
The results in Table (8) reveals that in Type E situations, the learners
show a greater tendency for using direct refusal strategies, non -
Strategies in Type 'F' Situations
This type of situations includes (3, 7 and 27) situations of the test.
The situations can be described as follows:
Sit.3: Someone refuses his boss's offer to take a new position but to move
far away.
Sit.7: A secretary refuses her boss's request to stay an extra hour to finish
their work.
Sit.27: Someone refuses his professor's request to plan class party.

٨٠
analysis shows that NESs tend to use two strategies to issue the speech
act of refusal in situation (3). The strategies are
excuse/reason/explanation strategy and promise strategy.
Sit. 3– NESs
113. I will get back to you after I consult my family.
114. Thank you, I really appreciate it but my family is here and I
don't want to leave them.
Iraqi learners tend to use the excuse/reason/explanation strategy and
the non - performative strategy to issue the speech act of refusal in this
situation. For example:

115. Thanks for your offer but this place is more comfortable to
me.
116. I really appreciate your offer but I cannot move to another
city.
This can be taken as an indicator that the use of excuse/reason/
explanation strategy by Iraqi EFL learners is appropriate since it matches
the performance of the control group while the use of the non -
performative strategy is inappropriate since it is not used by the NESs.
The analysis also shows that NESs tend to use excuse/reason/

explanation strategy and set conditions for future or past acceptance
strategy to present the speech act of refusal in situation (7).
Sit. 7– NESs
117. Sorry I already have plans if you had asked earlier I might
Have been able to change them but it is too late now.
٨١
118. I'm sorry boss but I've got to go and pick up my children from
school.
Concerning Iraqi learners, they tend to use two strategies to issue the
speech act of refusal. The strategies are: excuse/reason/explanation
strategy and non performative strategy.

119. I'd love to but I have another appointment.
120. No, I cannot stay anywhere.
From this analysis, one can conclude that excuse/reason/explanation
strategy used by Iraqi EFL learners is appropriate since it matches the
performance of the control group whereas the use of non - performative
strategy is inappropriate since it is not used by the control group.
In situation (27), NESs tend to use two strategies to issue the speech
act of refusal. The strategies are excuse/reason/explanation strategy and
set conditions for future or past acceptance strategy.
Sit. 27– NESs

121. I don't have a lot of time this week but if you ask later I will
see if I can make time.
122. Normally I would love to, but with my busy schedule this
week I would hate to commit to something I cannot fulfill.
Contrarily, Iraqi learners show preference to the use of non -

performative strategy and excuse/reason/explanation strategy to issue the
speech act of refusal. However, they tend to use the first strategy more
than the second.

123. No, I cannot help.
٨٢
124. I'd like to but I'm busy this week.

Thus it is valid to conclude that excuse/reason/explanation strategy
used by Iraqi EFL learners is appropriate since it is used by the control
group while the other strategy is inappropriate since it is not used by the
control group.
From Table (9) below, one can conclude that in Type F situations,
the learners show a greater tendency for using direct refusal strategies,
non perforamtive refusal more than other types of strategies and this
varies the first hypothesis mentioned in chapter one of this study.
Table (9)
Percentage of Using The Speech Act of Refusal in Type F
Situations Where Speaker Talks to a Familiar Superior with
Whom S/he has a Non-Solidary Relationship.

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason
Alternative

Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance

Acceptance
Sit.
refusal
Group
No.
performative
Non_
Iraqi
90 _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EFLs
3.
NESs _ _ _ 80 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _
٨٣
Iraqi
EFLs 60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7.
NESs _ _ _ 80 _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _
Iraqi _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
20
27. EFLs 80
_ _ _ 70 _ 30 _ _ _ _ _ _
NESs
The results in Table (9) reveals that in Type F situations, the learners
show a greater tendency for using direct refusal strategies, non
٨٤
4.3 Analysis of the Pragmatic Transfer of Refusal Speech act

This section represents the role of the participants' first language
(Arabic) in making the speech act of refusal. In other words, it aims at
finding out whether or not Iraqi EFL learners tend to use similar
strategies to Arabic learners to issue the speech act of refusal i.e.
pragmatic transfer.
Pragmatic transfer could be defined as the " influence of the learners'
pragmatic knowledge of language and culture other than L2 on their
comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information."
(Kasper, 1984: 207). In other words, pragmatic transfer occurs when
speakers use rules from their native language and apply them to the target
language and culture.
It should be noted that the aims behind collecting data of refusals made
by Arab learners is to investigate whether or not Iraqi EFL learners tend
to transfer rules from their first language to the target language. This is
done through comparing the most preferred strategies used by both
groups. It does not try to find out if the Arab learners change their
refusals according to the three variables such as status, i.e., superiority,
equality and inferiority of position, social distance, i.e., familiarity and
unfamiliarity, and whether the power relationship is solidary or non-
solidary .
For this study, ten native speakers of Arabic are used to compare
their responses with the responses of Iraqi EFL learners to find out if
there is any evidence of pragmatic transfer from the learners' first
language to issue the speech act of refusal in the target language.
Table (10) below represents the strategies in percentages that are used
by Arab learners to issue the speech act of refusal.
٨٥
Table (10): Arab Learners' Refusals

Performative
Explanation
Excuse/ Reason

Set Conditions for Future or Past Acceptance
Alternative
Regret
Wish
Promise
Avoidance
Acceptance that functions as a refusal
Sit
No
Non_ performative
1. _ _ _ 60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _
2. 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. 30 _ 70 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. _ 10 _ 90 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6. 70 _ _ 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. 50 _ _ _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ _
8. _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9. 80 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10 40 _ _ 30 _ _ 30 _ _ _ _ _
11 40 _ 7 30 23 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13 _ _ 10 80 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14 80 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
٨٦
15 _ _ _ 70 _ 30 _ _ _ _ _ _
16 40 _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _
17 50 10 _ 20 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _
18 _ _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19 80 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
20 _ _ 10 _ _ 90 _ _ _ _ _
_
21 60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
22 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
23 60 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
25 80 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20
26 40 _ _ 60 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
27 80 _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
28 70 _ _ 10 _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ _
29 10 _ _ 10 80 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
30 _ _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
٨٧
Knowing how Arabs refuse in Arabic and the strategies that are
preferred by them to issue the speech act of refusal can help us to
understand whether or not Iraqi EFL learners transfer Arabic patterns
when presenting refusals in English. Table (10) shows the following facts
about refusal speech acts by Arab learners:
1. The most common refusal strategies are the non - performative strategy
and it represents 65 % . However, they tended to avoid the use of "no"
alone. Instead they prefers to use the non - performative strategy that of
negative willingness/ability with expressions of regret, adjuncts of
gratitude or appreciation, or statement of empathy or understanding.
2. They avoid the use of performative strategy i.e. I refuse. This
avoidance of the performative strategy was also noted in refusals made by
English learners. This indicates that Arab learners of English are
influenced by their Arabic culture norms.
3. The second most common strategy that is used by Arab learners is the
use of excuse/reason/explanation strategy and it represents 49 %.
4. What characterize the use of excuse/reason/explanation strategy is the
use of a series of excuses, i.e. the use of more than one excuse in each
refusal.
In Table (11), a comparison is made between the strategies of refusals
used by Iraqi EFL learners and native speakers of Arabic.
٨٨
Table (11) Comparison Between Iraqi EFL Learners and Native

Speakers of Arabic
Str. No. Refusal Strategies Refusals by English Refusals by Arab

Learners Learners
1. Non Performative 63.33 64.76
2. Excuse/reason/ 44.5 50
explanation
3. Promise 40 46
4. Alternative 35 33.25
5. Attempt to dissuade 30 20
interlocutor
6. Statement of 30 20
Principle
7. Set Conditions for 20 30

Future or Past
Acceptance
8. Avoidance 16.66 20
9. Regret 10 10
10. Wish 0 9
11. Statement of 0 0
philosophy
٨٩
After displaying the type of strategies that are used by Iraqi EFL
learners and native speakers of Arabic, one can detect whether Iraqi EFL
learners refuse requests and offers similar to the refusal of Arab learners
or approximated to them. Refusals made by Iraqi EFL learners are very
similar to their first language refusal norms. The most common strategies
that are used by both groups are non - performative strategy and excuse /
reason/explanation strategy. Iraqi EFL learners used non - performative
strategy 63.33% whereas native speakers of Arabic used it 64.76%. As
for the use of excuse/reason/explanation strategy, Iraqi EFL learners tend
to use it 44.5% while native speakers of Arabic tend to use it 50%.
In this analysis, one can conclude that both groups employed
relatively the same refusal strategies with similar percentages. This means
that Iraqi EFL learners are affected by their first language in making
refusals in English. This means that Iraqi EFL learners' inappropriate
responses are attributed to the pragmatic transfer from their first language
i.e. Arabic.
This analysis validates the second hypothesis which states that Iraqi
EFL learner's inaccurate responses may be attributed to the interference
of their native language while performing the speech act in the target
language (i.e. pragmatic transfer).
٩٠
Chapter Five
5.1 Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are related to the strategies that
Iraqi EFL learners use to issue the speech act of refusal in accordance to
the performance of the control group. In addition to that, Iraqi EFL
learners' performance concerning the pragmatic transfer are going to be
summarized in this chapter. These conclusions are as follows:
1. Learners show greater preference for using direct refusal
strategies than the other types of strategies in most of the
situations. They employ this strategy in (27 ) situations while
the native English speakers tend to use it only in (8 ) situations.
2. Iraqi EFL learners have many problems in their attempts to
match their performance with that of the natives' choice of the
appropriate strategy. They either show less preference for the
strategies used by the latter or employ strategies that are not
preferred by them. For this reason, their performance can be
described as being inappropriate.
3. The contextual factors have no significant role on the learners'
choice of strategies.
4. In type A situations, learners prefer to use the direct refusal
strategies to issue the speech act of refusal while the natives
vary their use of the strategies according to the type of
situations such as using excuse / reason / explanation strategy,
set conditions for future or past acceptance strategy, promise
strategy, and alternative strategy.
5. Iraqi learners, in type B situations, show partial agreement with
native English speakers by using excuse/reason/explanation
٩١
strategy and avoidance strategy. However, they tend to use

direct refusal strategies and regret strategy which are not
preferred by the NESs. For this reason, their performance can
be described as being inappropriate.
6. In type C situations, Iraqi EFL learners show full agreement
with the NESs by using the same type of strategies in situation
(21) and (25). In other situations, their performance can be
described as being inappropriate since it does not match the
performance of the NESs.
7. In type D situations, Iraqi EFL learners and NESs tend to use
direct refusal strategies, excuse/reason/explanation strategy and
alternative strategy to issue the speech act of refusal. However,
they tend to use different strategies which are not preferred by
the NESs.
8. According to type E situations NESs and Iraqi EFL learners
show full preference by using the same type of strategies in
situation (14) and situation (20).
9. Native English speakers allow for using promise strategy and
set conditions for future or past acceptance strategy in type F
situations while Iraqi EFL learners do not show any tendency
to use these strategies.
10. Sometimes Iraqi EFL learners tend to use adjuncts of refusal
such as gratitude/appreciation, statement of positive
feeling/agreement with direct and indirect refusal speech acts
as a means of mitigating the threatening of the speech act of
refusal.
11. Concerning the second aim of the study which is to find out if
pragmatic transfer exists or not, it is found that Iraqi EFL
learners' performances was very similar to the performance of
٩٢
Arab learners. That is to say Iraqi EFL learners resort to their

native language (Arabic) by transferring the refusal norms from
Arabic and applying them to the target language, English.
12. Arab learners avoid the use of flat "no" and performative
strategy as a means of mitigating the effect of the threatening of
refusal speech act.
13.The most common strategies that are used by native speakers of
Arabic was non - performative strategy such as negative
willingness/ability 64.76% while Iraqi EFL learners used it
63.33%.
14.Another strategy used by Arab learners and native speakers of
English is that of excuse/ reason/ explanation. It represents
5o% by native speakers of Arabic and 44.5% by Iraqi EFL
learners. This similarity between the performance of both
groups is evidence that pragmatic transfer occurs in the
performance of Iraqi EFL learners.
5.2 Pedagogical Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. Iraqi EFL learners, at university levels, have to know how to
produce and interpret various speech acts appropriately in real life
interactions. Otherwise, they will be described as being rude, not
cooperative and even impolite. They should be taught how to
refuse, apologize, request, etc.
2. English textbooks should provide learners with the most
important characteristics of refusal speech act. This will provide
them with the opportunity to produce the appropriate strategies
of refusal speech act without being impolite.
3.Iraqi EFL learners may know the extra linguistic and cultural
٩٣
values and constraints that would affect the production of refusal

speech act. In other words, they must be familiar with the social
variables such as social class, age, social distance, gender, and
other factors that are important when producing the speech acts in
general and refusal speech act in particular.
4. Teachers and syllabus designers can include material that
describe how native speakers of English recognize and produce
the speech act of refusal. This will provide Iraqi EFL learners
with the opportunity of how to refuse appropriately in real life
situations.
5. Since pragmatic transfer may affect the learners' competence in
the target language, more comparative studies should be carried
out investigating this phenomenon in the context of foreign
language.
6. Iraqi EFL learners should be given enough opportunity to
practice the various constructions of sentences that express
different speech acts in general and the speech act of refusal in
particular especially in conversation.
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research
1. A contrastive study between English and Arabic can be carried
out to show the similarities and differences between the two
languages as far as the speech act of refusal is concerned.
2. A future study can be carried out investigating other social factors
which this study has over looked such as age, gender, level of
proficiency, etc., that may affect the choice of strategies.
3. A study can be done by investigating the use of the speech act of
refusal in a complete literary work such as a play or a novel.
4. This study is concerned with refusal of offer and refusal of request.
Other studies can be carried out concerning refusal of other speech
٩٤
acts such as refusal of suggestion and refusal of invitation.

Chapter Two
The Speech Act of Refusal: Theoretical
Background
2.1 Speech Act Theory
Influenced by ordinary language philosophy, and particularly by
Wittgenstein's theory of meaning as use, Austin (1962) and, later, Searle
(1969) developed a systematic account of what people do when they
speak. For Austin, it is not individual words or sentences that are the
basic elements of human communication, but rather particular speech acts
that are performed in uttering words and sentences, namely illocutionary
acts (illocution) or speech acts in the narrow sense (Bussmann, 1996:
1107).
Austin was the first to draw the attention to utterances by which the
speaker does not only say something but also perform something. He
drew a distinction between constative and performative utterances. In
constatives such as (1), something is stated about reality. In
performatives, such as (2), an act is performed by the utterance itself.
1. It's raining.
2. I promise that I will give you one hundred dollars tomorrow.
Austin was not successful, however, in establishing criteria for
describing the difference between these two concepts. It can, after all, be
argued that an act is being performed in the case of constative utterances
as well; a warning given or a statement being made as in the case of the
sentence "It's raining". This led Austin to the conclusion that all
expressions of language must be viewed as acts (Renkema, 2004:13).
According to Cruse (2006: 167-8) , Austin distinguishes three kinds
of action within each utterance: a locutionary act; an illocutionary act;
and a perlocutionary act. A locutionary act is the production of an
٤
Chapter Three
Data Collection
3.1 Introduction
This chapter is devoted to the description of the test of this study. It
deals with the points relevant to the test starting with the main objectives
of the test, the subjects and the test design. It also includes the
characteristics of good tests such as validity and reliability. This chapter
ends with the description of the pilot test and the administration of the
main test of this thesis.
3.2 Objectives of the Test

The present test has been constructed to investigate the strategies that
Iraqi EFL learners use for the speech act of refusal when refusing
someone of higher, lower or equal status. Their responses are going to be
analysed in relation to what native English speakers respond in given
situations. This test also aims at identifying the extent to which the
mother tongue interferes in the learners' performance. In this regard, their
responses are also going to be assessed in relation to the responses of
native speakers of Arabic to find out the interference of the first language
in the performance of Iraqi EFL learners.
3.3 The Subjects

The subjects chosen to participate in this study involve one hundred
EFL undergraduate students chosen randomly from the fourth stage from
University of Babylon during the academic year (2013-2014). The
subjects are asked to provide certain information such as age, gender,
native language and nationality. Their native language is Arabic and they
have similar EFL background. Their ages range between (22-24) years
٤٤
Chapter Four
Data Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is devoted to the analysis of the test results of this
study. It deals with the general results obtained from the main test which
investigates Iraqi EFL learners' use of the speech act of refusal to find out
the strategies that are used by the subjects. It also aims at finding out
whether there is a transfer from the first language in the performance of
the second language. Therefore, the students’ performance is going to be
analysed and discussed in an attempt to come out with reasonable
conclusions and findings related to the aims and hypotheses of this study.
4.2 Analysis of the Speech Act of Refusal's Strategies
Concerning the first aim of the study which finds out the strategies
that are used by Iraqi EFL learners when issuing the speech act of refusal
, the subjects' performance is going to be compared with the performance
of the control group after rendering the results into percentages. All the
types of analyses are carried out in terms of three factors: status, social
distance and solidarity of power.
The model of the speech act of refusal's strategies in "Chapter Two"
(see 2.2.4) is used for analysing the type of strategies adopted by the
subjects and native English speakers.
4.2.1 The Use of the Strategies of Refusal Speech Act
In terms of certain contextual factors such as solidarity, status and
distance, the situations that require the subjects to present refusal speech
act can be classified into six types. They are as follows:
٥٢
Chapter Five
5.1 Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are related to the strategies that
Iraqi EFL learners use to issue the speech act of refusal in accordance
with the performance of the control group. In addition to that, Iraqi EFL
learners' performance concerning the pragmatic transfer are going to be
summarized in this chapter. These conclusions are as follows:
1. Learners show greater preference for using direct refusal
strategies than the other types of strategies in most of the
situations. They employ this strategy in (27 ) situations while
the native English speakers tend to use it only in (8 ) situations.
2. Iraqi EFL learners have many problems in their attempts to
match their performance with that of the natives' choice of the
appropriate strategy. They either show less preference for the
strategies used by the latter or employ strategies that are not
preferred by them. For this reason, their performance can be
described as being inappropriate.
3. The contextual factors have no significant role on the learners'
choice of strategies.
4. In type A situations, learners prefer to use the direct refusal
strategies to issue the speech act of refusal while the natives
vary their use of the strategies according to the type of
situations such as using excuse / reason / explanation strategy,
set conditions for future or past acceptance strategy, promise
strategy, and alternative strategy.
5. Iraqi learners, in type B situations, show partial agreement with
native English speakers by using excuse/reason/explanation
٩٠
٩٥
Bibliography
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. and Wall, D. (1995). Language Test
Construction and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford : Oxford
University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language
Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How
to Do Things With Words. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Beebe, L. M.; Takahashi, T. and Uliss – Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic Transfer
in ESL Refusals. In R. Scarcella; E. Andersen and S.D. Krashen (eds.).
Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language.
NewYork: Plenum Press.
Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project. 4th ed. London: Open University
Press.
Brown, G. P. (1980). Characterizing Indirect Speech Acts. American Journal
of Computational Linguistics, Vol. 6, No. 3_ 4, July- December 1980,
Cambridge: Massachusetts.
٩٦
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom
Practices. London: Longman Group LTD.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bussmann, H. (1996). Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.
London: Routledge.
Celce_ Murcia, M. and Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and Context
in Language Teaching: A Guide for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Y., and Zhang, Y. (1995). Refusing in Chinese. In Kasper, G. (Ed.),
Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language. (pp. 119-163).
Manoa: University of Hawaii.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London:

Longman Group Ltd.
Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford:

Blackwell.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for
Students. London: Routledge.
Daly, N.; Holmes, J.; Newton, J.; and Stubbe, M. (2003). Expletives As
٩٧
Solidarity Signals in FTAs on the Factory Floor. Journal of
Pragmatics, 36 (2004) 945–964. Retrieved from Internet Website:
www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma.
Edmondson, W. and House, J. (1981). Let Us Talk and Talk about
it: A Pedagogical Interactional Grammar of English. München: Urban
and Schwarzenberg.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Eryani, Al, A. A. (2007). Refusal Strategies by Yemeni EFL Learners. Asian
EFL Journal, Vol. 9, Issue 2, Article 2, June 2007, ISSN: 1738-1460.
Retrieved from Internet Website: http//www.asian-efl-journal.com/
june07aaae.php.
Felix – Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States .
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gass, S. M. and Houck, N. (1990). Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross- Cultural
Study of Japanese English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Harrison, A. (1983). A Language Testing Handbook. London:
Macmillian Press.
Heaton, J. B. (1990). Writing English Language Tests. New York: Longman.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. 2nd ed. Cambridge:

٩٨
Cambridge University Press.
Hurford, J. R.; Heasily, B. and Smith, M. B. (2007) Semantics : A Course Book.
Hussein, A. A. (1995). The Sociolinguistic Patterns of Native Arabic
Speakers: Implications for Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language.
Applied Language Learning, 6, 65-87.
Issa, Al, A. (2003). Sociocultural Transfer in L2 Speech Behaviors:
Evidence and Motivating Factors. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 27, 581–601.
Kahtani, Al, S. (2005). Refusals Realization in Three Different Cultures: A
Speech Act Theoretically-Based Cross Cultural Study. Journal of
King Saud University, 18, 35-57.
Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic comprehension in learner-native speaker

discourse. Language Learning, 34, 1-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467
1770.1984.tb00349.x, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467
King, K. A. and Silver, R. E. (1993). Sticking Points: Effects of Instructions
on NNS Refusal Strategies. Penn Working Papers in Education
Linguistic, 9(1), 42-47.
Kline, S. L. and Floyd, C. H. (1990). On the Art of Saying No: the
Influence of Social Cognitive Development on Messages of

٩٩
Refusal. Western Journal of Speech Communication 54, 454– 472.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American
English. Multilingua, 31, 339–364.
Leech, G.N. (1996). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman
Group Limited.
Leech, G.N. and Short, M.H. (1981). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic
Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin – Arnandiz, O. and Salazar – Campillo, P. (2013) Refusals in

Instructional Contexts and Beyond. New York: Netherlands.
Martinez-Flor, A. and Uso-Juan, E. (2010). Speech Act Performance:
Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (2011). Research Methodologies in
Pagmatics: Eliciting Refusals to Requests. ELIA 11, 2011, pp. 47-87.
Mohammad, G.; Alireza, B. and Shirin, M. (2013). Investigating Cross
Linguistic Differences in Refusal Speech Act Among Native Persian
and English Speakers. International Journal of Research Studies in
Language Learning. Vol. 2, 2013.
Mousavi, S. A. (2012). An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language Testing . 5th
ed. Tehran: Rahnama Press.

١٠٠
Osborne (2010). The Realization of the Speech Acts of Refusals of an
Invitation Among Brazilian Friends. Rev. V. 18. No.2 ,
p.61_ 85, Jun. 2010.
Palanques, V. B. (2011). Analysing Refusals in Films. In Garcia, J. R.; Gill,
M. J. F.; Puyal, M. B.; Garcia, M. J. D.; Martin, S.B.; Mosquera, P.
A.; Riaza, B. G. (Eds.) Current Trends in Anglophone Studies:
Cultural, Linguistic and Literary Research. Ediciones Universidad

Sdamanca.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Peng- Liang, Z. and Min, G. (2013). Politeness Strategies in Refusal. Bohai:

Bohai University Press.
Reiter, E., and Dale, R. (2000). Building Natural Language Generation
Systems ( Studies in Natural Language Processing). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rubin, J. (1983). How to Tell When Someone is Saying "no"?
In Wolfson, N. and Judd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Mass Newbury House.
Searle, J. R. (1971). The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford

١٠١
University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In Cole, P. & J. L.
Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts.
New York: Academic Press, Inc. pp. 59 - 82.
Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic.

Shawali, Al, H. (1997). Refusal Strategies in Saudi and American
Culture. Michigan: Michigan University Press.
Stevens, P. (1993). The Pragmatics of "No!": Some Strategies in English
and Arabic. Ideal, 6, 87-112.
Taguchi, N. (2009). Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
GmbH and Co.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turnbull, W. (2003). Language in Action: Psychological Models of
Conversation. New York: Psychology Press.
Turnbull, W. and Saxton, K. L. (1997). Modal Expressions as Facework in
Refusals to Comply with Requests: I Think I Should Say ‘No’ Right
Now. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 145–181.
Ueda, K. (1972). Sixteen Ways to Avoid Saying "No" in Japan. In

١٠٢
Cnden, J. and S. Mitsuk (eds.) intercultural Encounter with Japan:
Communication, Contact, Conflict. Tokyo: the Simul Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and Context: Explorations in the
Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. New York: Longman
Inc.
Verschueren, J. and Ostman, J. (2009). Key Notions for Pragmatics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals.
Vol 39(3) 318-337. London: Sage Publications.
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic
Dictionary. Sydney, Orlando: Academic Press.
Xiaoning. Z. (2004). Politeness Strategies Used in English Requests and

Refusals by Chinese College EFL Learners. Nanjing: University of
Nanjing.
Yamagashira, H. (2001). Pragmatic Transfer in Japanese ESL Refusals.
Kagoshima 259- 275.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Website resource, 1) /http://akademisi-wordpress-com/ 2008/o9/02/ speech_

act_ of_ Refusal
١٠٣
Appendix 1
This appendix is of two parts. The first one introduces the letter sent to
the jury members in this study whereas the second one represents the letter sent
to the native English speakers.
• The Letter Addressed to the Jury Members
College of Education for
Human Sciences
Department of English
Higher Studies
Dear Sir, Madam
The researcher is conducting an M.A. thesis entitled " Iraqi EFL Learners'
Manipulation of the Speech Act of Refusal" to identify the performance of
students in dealing with this speech act.
This study aims at investigating the most common strategies used by Iraqi
EFL learners in making the speech act of refusing offer and request in different
situations according to certain contextual factors such as the social distance and
familiarity between the two interlocutors. It also aims at finding out the effect
of the interference of the mother tongue in the accuracy of their responses.
To achieve the aims of this study, a test is designed to be submitted to the

fourth - year students at the Department of English, College of Education for
Human Sciences, University of Babylon. The test contains thirty situations
through which the students must imagine themselves and answer accordingly.
١٠٤
When constructing the test, the researcher has taken into consideration all the
socio cultural factors that may affect the choice of the utterance such as
distance, relative power, familiarity and the urgency of the situation.
You are kindly requested to give your opinion of the validity of the test by:
1. Indicating the suitability of each situation; and
2. Suggesting any changes or modifications.
Thank you in advance
May Salih Ibrahim
M.A student in
English language
and linguistics
١٠٥
• The Letter Addressed to Native English Speakers
Higher Studies
College of Education
for Human Sciences
Department of English,
Hilla Governorate,
Iraq.
Dear Sir/ Madam,
The test attached to this letter is a procedure adopted by the researcher to

investigate the way by which Iraqi learners of English as a foreign language
produce and issue the speech act of refusing offer and request (i.e.,
communicative functions) in different situations. Your responses will be taken
as a scale according to which the learners' answers will be analysed. Hence, you
are kindly requested to respond spontaneously to the test taking the situations
involved in it as real life conversational ones.
Thank you very much for your help and co-operation
May S. Ibrahim
M.A. student in
English Language
and Linguistics
١٠٦
Appendix 2
The Test
Please read the following situations and then complete them by
refusing .( Respond as if you were in an actual conversation)
Situation 1: You are a mother of four children. One day you are going
shopping with your little son. He asks if you can buy an expensive toy for
him.
Son: Mother, I like that toy so much. Could you please buy it for me?
You: …………………………………………………………..
Situation 2: You are in the fourth year of college. You attend classes and
you take good notes. Your close classmate often misses classes and asks you
for the lecture notes.
Friend: Oh no! We have an exam tomorrow but I don't have the notes of
the lectures of the last week. I am sorry to ask you this, but could you please
lend me your notes?
You: ……………………………………………………………….
Situation 3: You are working in a big company. Your boss offers a better
position and a raise. But you need to move far away. You do not want to go.
Boss: I'd like to offer you a new position. Of course, you will also get an
increase in salary, but you have to move to another city.
١٠٧
You: ……………………………………………………………..
Situation 4: You are at a friend's house. Your friend offers you eating but you
are on a diet.
Friend: How about another piece of cake?

You: ………………………………………
Situation 5: You are waiting at the bus stop. A man comes up and asks you to
fill in a questionnaire for him but you don't have enough time to do so.
Man: Hi, I am doing a survey for our new product. Would you mind filling
this questionnaire?
You: ……………………………………………………………………...
Situation 6: You are a manager and have a meeting abroad but you are rather
busy. Your assistant offers to go instead of you but you prefer to do things
yourself..
Your assistant: If you don't have time, I can go instead of you.

You: ………………………………………………………………
Situation 7: You are a secretary. It is getting close to the end of the work
hours and you want to leave. But your boss wants you to stay.
Boss: If you don't mind, I'd like you to spend an extra hour tonight so that we
can finish some necessary work.
١٠٨
You: ………………………………………………………………………
Situation 8: You are shopping at the supermarket and a stranger notices that
you are struggling with heavy bags. He offers to help you carrying the bags but
you can handle them.
Stranger: Let me help you with your bags.

You: ……………………………………………
Situation 9: You are the owner of a restaurant. One of your waiters asks to get
tomorrow off.
Waiter: I know that tomorrow will be a busy day at the restaurant, but it's my
son's birthday and we have planned a party. I'd like to take tomorrow off.
You: ………………………………………………………………………
Situation 10: Your close friend offers you to have lunch together. You
should leave the college early since you have to pick up a friend at the airport.
Colleague: Hey, do you want to go to the cafeteria to have lunch?

You: …………………………………………………………………….
Situation 11: Your youngest brother asks you to help him doing his
homework but you have many things to do.
Youngest Brother: I wonder if you could help me with my homework?

You: ……………………………………………………………
١٠٩
Situation 12: You have a party at home. One of your close friends comes
rushing to speak to you.
Friend: Oh, God, I'm sorry ! I have broken your expensive vase. I feel terrible
about it. I'm ready to pay for it.
You: ……………………………………………………………………..
Situation 13: You have a friend who sometimes borrows money from you but
he doesn't pay back the debt before you ask him to do so .
Friend: Hey, as you know, I have to pay the rent in a week but I don't have
enough money. Could you lend me 50 dollars?
You: ………………………………………………………………………
Situation 14: Your eldest brother has a free ticket to the movies but he is
unable to attend. He offers to give the ticket to you, but you don't have time to
go.
Eldest brother: I have a free ticket to the movies. Would you like to go?
You: ……………………………………………………………………
Situation 15: You are a manager of a company. One of your employees has
made an appointment to see you for a consultation at ten a.m. next
Wednesday. However, he calls to postpone it but you are busy in the next days.
١١٠
Employee: I cannot come at this date. Could you please give me an alternative
one?
You: …………………………………………………………………..
Situation 16: Your friend asks to use your car to go on a journey. You know
that he is a careless and unskillful driver so you don't want to lend him the car.
Friend: Would you mind lending me your car to go on a journey?

You: ……………………………………………………………
Situation 17: You are the owner of a supermarket . One of your workers asks
to speak to you in private but you think you cannot help him.
Worker: As you know, I have been here for more than three years now and
you have been pleased with my work, but to be honest, I really need an increase
in my salary.
You: ………………………………………………………
Situation 18: You have to hand your report tomorrow and you have many
things to do. Your eldest brother offers to type it for you but you usually do
things by yourself.
Eldest brother: Shall I type the report for you?

You: …………………………………….
١١١
Situation 19: You are a receptionist in a four star hotel. A guest asks if he can
smoke in a non- smoking area.
Guest: Can I smoke here?

You: …………………………….
Situation 20: You are a pupil in a primary school. Your mother wants you to
turn off the TV and do your homework but you want to watch your favorite
programme.
Mother: Ann, turn off the TV now and do your homework immediately.
You: …………………………………………………………………….
Situation 21: Your friend offers you some ice-cream but you have flu.
Friend: Have some ice-cream.

You: …………………………..
Situation 22: You are in a supermarket with your friend. You like to buy a
vase but you find out that you don't have enough money. Your friend offers to
lend you some money but you don't like to borrow from anyone.
Friend: Let me lend you some money.

You: …………………………………….
١١٢
Situation 23: You are sick. Your father offers to take you to the hospital but
you prefer to stay at home to rest.
Father: Would you like me to take you to the hospital?

You, ………………………………………………
Situation 24: This is your first time to go abroad and you choose a seat on the
plane by the window. After you are seated, a lady comes over to change her
seat.
Lady: Can I change my seat with yours? Mine is an aisle seat at the back of the
plane.
You: ……………………………………………………………………..
Situation 25: You are painting your house. You feel tired. Your cousin offers
to help you but you think it is not necessary.
Friend: Shall I help you painting this wall?

You: …………………………………………………………..
Situation 26: You are walking down the street and it starts raining heavily. A
young guy stops the car and offers you a ride but you don't trust him.
Young guy: It's raining here, do you need a ride?
You: ……………………………………………….
١١٣
Situation 27: Your professor wants you to help in planning a class party, but
you are very busy this week.
Professor: We need some people to plan the class party. Do you think you can
help?
You: ………………………………………………………………………
Situation 28: You are going through some financial difficulties. One of your
friends offers you some money but you don't want to accept it.
Your friend: I know you are having some financial difficulties these days.
You always help me whenever I need something. I can lend you $20. Would
you accept it?
You:……………………………………………………………………….
Situation 29: During lunch time at the university, a student whom you do not
know before, asks you for a favour, but you are in a hurry.
Student: I am doing a project which requires me to make interviews with

people. Could I interview you for 20 minutes?
You: ………………………………………………………………..
Situation 30: You went to a big company for a job. The secretary asked you
to fill in a form and told you that she would call you later but you find out that it
was not suitable for you.
١١٤
Secretary: We think you are the best for the job. You will work ten hours a
day. It will take you some time but it is a good experience. Are you interested in
taking the job?
You: ……………………………..……………………………………
‫‪١١٥‬‬
‫أﻟﻨﺴﺨﮫ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺒﺎر‬
‫اﻗﺮأ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ أﻟﺘﺎﻟﯿﮫ ﺛﻢ أﻛﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻓﺾ ) اﺟﺐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ اﻧﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﺎدﺛﺔ ﺣﻘﯿﻘﯿﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻷول‪ :‬أﻧﺖ أم ﻷرﺑﻌﺔ أطﻔﺎل‪ .‬ﻓﻲ اﺣﺪ اﻷﯾﺎم ذھﺒﺖ ﻣﻊ اﺑﻨﻚ اﻟﺼﻐﯿﺮ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻮق‪ .‬طﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻚ ﺷﺮاء ﻟﻌﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺛﻤﯿﻨﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫اﻻﺑﻦ‪ :‬ﻟﻘﺪ أﺣﺒﺒﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ أﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ ﻛﺜﯿﺮا‪ .‬ھﻞ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ أن ﺗﺸﺘﺮﯾﮭﺎ ﻟﻲ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪....................................................................................:‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ أﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﮫ اﻟﺮاﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ ‪ .‬أﻧ�ﺖ ﺗﺤﻀ�ﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺿ�ﺮات وﺗ�ﺪون ﻣﻼﺣﻈ�ﺎت ﺟﯿ�ﺪة‪.‬‬
‫زﻣﯿﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻘﺮب ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﯾﺤﻀﺮ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺿﺮات وﻻ ﯾﺪون اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت وﯾﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻚ دﻓﺘﺮ اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼ��ﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬ﻟ��ﺪﯾﻨﺎ اﻣﺘﺤ��ﺎن ﻏ��ﺪا وﻟﻜﻨ��ﻲ ﻟ��ﻢ أدون اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈ��ﺎت ﻣ��ﻦ اﻷﺳ��ﺒﻮع اﻟﻤﺎﺿ��ﻲ ‪ .‬أﻧ��ﺎ آﺳ��ﻒ ﻟﻠﺴ��ﺆال‪ .‬ھ��ﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ أن ﺗﻌﻄﯿﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﻼﺣﻈﺎت رﺟﺎء ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.......................................................................................:‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺒﯿﺮة ‪ .‬ﻋﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ رﺋﯿﺴﻚ ﻣﻨﺼﺒﺎ وزﯾﺎدة ﻓ�ﻲ اﻟﺮاﺗ�ﺐ ‪ .‬ﻟﻜ�ﻦ ﯾﺠ�ﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﻚ اﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎل ﺑﻌﯿﺪا وأﻧﺖ ﻻ ﺗﺮﯾﺪ ذﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺲ‪ :‬أود أن اﻋﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﻣﺮﻛﺰا ﺟﺪﯾﺪا‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﺳﺘﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ زﯾﺎدة ﻓﻲ راﺗﺒﻚ ﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﯾﺠﺐ أن ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺪﯾﻨﺔ أﺧﺮى ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪...................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺰل ﺻﺪﯾﻘﻚ ‪ .‬ﻋﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ أن ﺗﺄﻛﻞ ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ أﻟﺤﻤﯿﮫ ‪.‬‬
‫أﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ رأﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ أﺧﺮى ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﯿﻚ ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.......................................................................................:‬‬
‫‪١١٦‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬وأﻧﺖ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺎص ﺟﺎء رﺟ�ﻞ وطﻠ�ﺐ ﻣﻨ�ﻚ أن ﺗﻤ�ﻼ اﺳ�ﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﻟ�ﮫ ﻟﻜ�ﻦ ﻟ�ﯿﺲ ﻟ�ﺪﯾﻚ‬
‫اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺟﻞ‪ :‬أﻧﺎ أﻗﻮم ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﻋﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺠﻨﺎ اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪ ‪.‬ا ﺗﻤﺎﻧﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻞء ھﺬا اﻻﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪............................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺴﺎدس‪ :‬أﻧﺖ رﺟﻞ أﻋﻤﺎل وﻟﺪﯾﻚ اﺟﺘﻤﺎع ﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺎرج ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻣﺸﻐﻮل ﻗﻠﯿﻼ‪ .‬ﻋ�ﺮض ﻣﺴ�ﺎﻋﺪك اﻟ�ﺬھﺎب‬
‫ﺑﺪﻻ ﻋﻨﻚ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪك‪:‬إذا ﻟﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ ﻟﺪﯾﻚ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ اﺳﺘﻄﯿﻊ أن اذھﺐ ﺑﺪﻻ ﻋﻨﻚ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪........................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺗﻌﻤﻞ أﻧﺖ ﺳﻜﺮﺗﯿﺮ وﻓﻲ ﻧﮭﺎﯾﺔ ﺳﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﻌﻤ�ﻞ اﻟﯿ�ﻮﻣﻲ وﺗﮭ�ﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻐ�ﺎدره طﻠ�ﺐ ﻣﻨ�ﻚ رﺋﯿﺴ�ﻚ أن‬
‫ﺗﺒﻘﻰ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺲ‪ :‬إذا ﻟﻢ ﺗﻤﺎﻧﻊ أود أن ﺗﻘﻀﻲ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ اﺿﺎﻓﯿﺔ ھﺬه أﻟﻠﯿﻠﺔ ﻻﻧﺠﺎز ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻀﺮوري‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪............................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ‪ :‬وأﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﺴﻮق ﻓﻲ اﺣﺪ اﻟﻤﺤﻼت ﻻﺣﻈﻚ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻏﺮﯾﺐ وأﻧﺖ ﺗﺤﺎول ﺟﺎھﺪا ﺣﻤﻞ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﺐ ﺛﻘﯿﻠ�ﺔ‬
‫و ﯾﻌﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ ﺣﻤﻠﮭﺎ ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﯿﻊ ﺗﺪﺑﺮ اﻣﺮھﺎ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺸﺨﺺ اﻟﻐﺮﯾﺐ‪ :‬دﻋﻨﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﻓﻲ ﺣﻤﻞ اﻟﺤﻘﺎﺋﺐ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪................................................................ :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻣﻄﻌﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﯾﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻚ اﺣﺪ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﯿﻦ أن ﯾﺄﺧﺬ أﺟﺎزه ﻟﯿﻮم ﻏﺪ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻨﺎدل‪ :‬اﻋﻠﻢ إن اﻟﻤﻄﻌﻢ ﺳﯿﻜﻮن ﻣﺰدﺣﻤﺎ ﯾﻮم ﻏﺪ وﻟﻜﻦ ﯾﻮم ﻏﺪ ﻟﺪﯾﻨﺎ ﺣﻔﻠﺔ ﻋﯿﺪ ﻣ�ﯿﻼد وﻟ�ﺪي‪ .‬أود أن اطﻠ�ﺐ أﺟ�ﺎزه‬
‫ﻟﯿﻮم ﻏﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪١١٧‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.......................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗ��ﻒ اﻟﻌﺎﺷ��ﺮ‪ :‬ﻋ��ﺮض ﻋﻠﯿ��ﻚ ﺻ��ﺪﯾﻘﻚ اﻟﻌﺰﯾ��ﺰ أن ﺗﺘﻨ��ﺎول اﻟﻐ��ﺪاء ﻣﻌ��ﮫ وﻟﻜ��ﻦ ﻋﻠﯿ��ﻚ ﻣﻐ��ﺎدرة اﻟﻜﻠﯿ��ﮫ ﻣﺒﻜ��ﺮا‬
‫ﻻﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎل اﺣﺪ اﻷﺻﺪﻗﺎء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻄﺎر‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬أﺗﻮد اﻟﺬھﺎب ﻣﻌﻲ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﯿﺘﺮﯾﺎ ﻟﺘﻨﺎول اﻟﻐﺪاء؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.......................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺤﺎدي ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬طﻠﺐ أﺧﻮك اﻷﺻﻐﺮ أن ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪه ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ اﻟﻮاﺟﺐ أﻟﺒﯿﺘﻲ ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻣﺸﻐﻮل ﺑﺄﻣﻮر ﻋﺪﯾﺪة‪.‬‬
‫اﻷخ اﻷﺻﻐﺮ‪ :‬أﺗﺴﺎءل ﻟﻮ اﻧﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﯿﻊ أن ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ اﻟﻮاﺟﺐ أﻟﺒﯿﺘﻲ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.................................................................................. :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬ﻟﺪﯾﻚ ﺣﻔﻠﮫ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺰل ‪ .‬ھﺮع اﺣﺪ أﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻚ ﻧﺤﻮك ﻟﻠﺘﺤﺪث إﻟﯿﻚ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬ﯾﺎ ﻟﻠﮭﻮل ‪ ...‬أﻧﺎ آﺳﻒ ‪ ....‬اﻧﺎ ﻛﺴﺮت ﺗﺤﻔﮫ ﺛﻤﯿﻨﺔ ‪ .....‬اﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺮج اﻟﺸﺪﯾﺪ ﺟﺮاء ذﻟﻚ‪ ....‬أﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪ ﻻن‬
‫ادﻓﻊ ﺛﻤﻨﮭﺎ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪...................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬ﻟﺪﯾﻚ ﺻﺪﯾﻖ ﯾﺴﺘﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﻚ اﻟﻤﺎل دون إرﺟﺎﻋﮫ إﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺘﮫ ﺑﺈﻋﺎدة اﻟﺪﯾﻦ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﯾﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻲ أن ادﻓﻊ اﻹﯾﺠﺎر ﺧﻼل أﺳﺒﻮع ﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﯿﺲ ﻟﺪي اﻟﻤﺎل اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ‪ .‬ھ�ﻞ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧ�ﻚ إﻗﺮاﺿ�ﻲ‬
‫‪ 50‬دوﻻرا؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪........................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬ﻟﺪى أﺧﯿﻚ اﻻﻛﺒﺮ ﺗﺬاﻛﺮ ﻣﺠﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻟﺤﻀﻮر ﻓﻠﻢ ﻟﻜﻨﮫ ﻻ ﯾﺴﺘﻄﯿﻊ ﺣﻀﻮر اﻟﻌﺮض‪ .‬ﻓﯿﻌﺮض‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﻚ اﻟﺬھﺎب ﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﯿﺲ ﻟﺪﯾﻚ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫اﻷخ اﻻﻛﺒﺮ‪ :‬ﻟﺪي ﺗﺬاﻛﺮ ﻣﺠﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻟﺤﻀﻮر ﻓﻠﻢ‪ .‬أﺗﻮد اﻟﺬھﺎب؟‬

‫‪١١٨‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﻣﺪﯾﺮ ﺷﺮﻛﺔ ‪ .‬اﺣﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﯿﻚ ﻗﺪم طﻠﺒﺎ ﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻠﺘﻚ ﯾﻮم اﻷرﺑﻌ�ﺎء اﻟﻤﻘﺒ�ﻞ ﻓ�ﻲ اﻟﺴ�ﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻌﺎﺷﺮة ﺻﺒﺎﺣﺎ ﻟﻐﺮض اﻻﺳﺘﺸﺎرة‪ .‬اﺗﺼﻞ ﻟﻐﺮض اﻟﺘﺄﺟﯿﻞ وﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻣﺸﻐﻮل ﻓﻲ اﻷﯾﺎم اﻟﻘﺎدﻣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪم ‪:‬ﻻ اﺳﺘﻄﯿﻊ اﻟﺤﻀﻮر ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ .‬ھﻞ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﯿﻊ إﻋﻄﺎﺋﻲ ﻣﻮﻋﺪا آﺧﺮ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺴﺎدس ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬طﻠﺐ اﺣﺪ اﻷﺻﺪﻗﺎء اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺳﯿﺎرﺗﻚ ﻟﻠﺬھﺎب ﻓﻲ رﺣﻠﺔ‪ .‬أﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ اﻧﮫ ﺳﺎﺋﻖ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺎھﺮ‬
‫و ﻣﮭﻤﻞ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺗﺮﯾﺪ إﻋﻄﺎءھﺎ ﻟﮫ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬أﺗﻤﺎﻧﻊ إﻋﻄﺎﺋﻲ ﺳﯿﺎرﺗﻚ ﻟﻠﺬھﺎب ﻓﻲ رﺣﻠﺔ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪................................................................................ :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻣﺤﻞ‪ .‬اﺣﺪ ﻋﻤﺎﻟﻚ طﻠﺐ اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﻚ ﺑﻤﻮﺿﻮع ﺧ�ﺎص ﻟﻜﻨ�ﻚ ﺗﻌﺘﻘ�ﺪ أن ﻟ�ﯿﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ أﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻞ‪ :‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ أﻧﺎ اﻋﻤﻞ ھﻨﺎ ﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼث ﺳﻨﯿﻦ وأﻧﺖ راض ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ‪ .‬وﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺼ�ﺮاﺣﺔ أﻧ�ﺎ ﺑﺤﺎﺟ�ﮫ ﻟﺰﯾ�ﺎدة‬
‫ﻓﻲ دﺧﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪......................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ :‬ﯾﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﺗﺴﻠﯿﻢ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺮك ﯾﻮم ﻏﺪ وﻟﺪﯾﻚ اﻟﻌﺪﯾﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻷﻣ�ﻮر اﻷﺧ�ﺮى ﻟﻠﻘﯿ�ﺎم ﺑﮭ�ﺎ‪ .‬ﻋ�ﺮض‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﻚ أﺧﻮك اﻷﻛﺒﺮ طﺒﺎﻋﺘﮫ وﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎدة ﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﺄﻣﻮرك ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻚ‪.‬‬
‫اﻷخ اﻷﻛﺒﺮ‪ :‬ھﻞ ﻟﻲ أن أطﺒﻊ اﻟﺘﻘﺮﯾﺮ ﻟﻚ ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻣوﻗف اﻟﺗﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺷر‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﻼﻣﺎت ﻓﻲ اﺣﺪ ﻓﻨﺎدق اﻷرﺑﻌﺔ ﻧﺠ�ﻮم‪ .‬طﻠ�ﺐ اﺣ�ﺪ اﻟﻨ�ﺰﻻء اﻟﺘ�ﺪﺧﯿﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻻ ﯾﺠﻮز ﻓﯿﮭﺎ اﻟﺘﺪﺧﯿﻦ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻨﺰﯾﻞ‪ :‬ھﻞ ﻟﻲ أن أدﺧﻦ ھﻨﺎ ؟‬

‫‪١١٩‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.............................................................................. :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﺗﻠﻤﯿﺬة ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪرﺳﮫ اﺑﺘﺪاﺋﯿﺔ‪ .‬طﻠﺒﺖ أﻣﻚ إطﻔﺎء اﻟﺘﻠﻔﺎز واﻟﻘﯿﺎم ﺑﻮاﺟﺒﻚ أﻟﺒﯿﺘﻲ ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﺗﻮدﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎھﺪة ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺠﻚ اﻟﻤﻔﻀﻞ‪.‬‬
‫اﻷم ‪ :‬آن ‪ ,‬أطﻔﺌﻲ اﻟﺘﻠﻔﺎز أﻻن واﻋﻤﻠﻲ واﺟﺒﻚ أﻟﺒﯿﺘﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺎل‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪............................................................................. :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺤﺎدي واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬ﻋﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﺻﺪﯾﻘﻚ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺮطﺒﺎت ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻣﺼﺎب ﺑﺎﻟﺰﻛﺎم‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪:‬أﺗﻮد أﻛﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺮطﺒﺎت؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ اﺣﺪ اﻟﻤﺤﻼت ﻣﻊ ﺻﺪﯾﻘﻚ ﺗﻮد ﺷﺮاء ﺗﺤﻔ�ﺔ واﻛﺘﺸ�ﻔﺖ ان ﻟ�ﯿﺲ ﻟ�ﺪﯾﻚ اﻟﻤ�ﺎل‬
‫اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ ‪ .‬ﯾﻌﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﺻﺪﯾﻘﻚ اﻟﻤﺎل ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻻ ﺗﺤﺐ أن ﺗﻘﺘﺮض ﻣﻦ أي ﺷﺨﺺ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬دﻋﻨﻲ أﻗﺮﺿﻚ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺎل‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪................................................................................. :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﻣﺮﯾﺾ‪.‬ﻋﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ أﺑﯿ�ﻚ أن ﯾﻨﻘﻠ�ﻚ إﻟ�ﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸ�ﻔﻰ ﻟﻜﻨ�ﻚ ﺗﻔﻀ�ﻞ اﻟﺒﻘ�ﺎء ﻓ�ﻲ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﺰل ﻟﺘﺮﺗﺎح‪.‬‬
‫اﻷب‪ :‬ھﻞ ﺗﺮﻏﺐ ﺑﺎن أﺧﺬك إﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻰ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.............................................................................. :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺮاﺑﻊ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬ھ�ﺬه اﻟﻤ�ﺮة اﻷوﻟ�ﻰ ﻟ�ﻚ ﻟﻠﺴ�ﻔﺮ ﺧ�ﺎرج اﻟ�ﺒﻼد وﻗ�ﺪ اﺧﺘ�ﺮت اﻟﻤﻘﻌ�ﺪ اﻟﻘﺮﯾ�ﺐ ﻣ�ﻦ ﻧﺎﻓ�ﺬة‬
‫أﻟﻄﺎﺋﺮه‪ .‬وﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﻠﻮﺳﻚ ﺟﺎءت ﻓﺘﺎة ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺘﺎة‪ :‬ھﻞ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻲ اﺳﺘﺒﺪال ﻣﻘﻌﺪي ؟ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻤﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﮭﺎﯾﺔ اﻟﻄﺎﺋﺮة‪.‬‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪.................................................................................. :‬‬
‫‪١٢٠‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬وأﻧﺖ ﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﻄﻼء ﻣﻨﺰﻟﻚ ﺗﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻌﺐ وﯾﻌﺮض اﺣ�ﺪ اﻷﻗ�ﺎرب أﻟﻤﺴ�ﺎﻋﺪه ﻟﻜﻨ�ﻚ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ إن ذﻟﻚ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺿﺮوري‪.‬‬
‫اﻷﻗﺎرب‪ :‬ھﻞ ﻟﻲ أن أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﺑﻄﻼء ھﺬا اﻟﺤﺎﺋﻂ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪........................................................................................ :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺴﺎدس واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬ﺑﯿﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺗﺘﻤﺸﻰ ﺑﺪأت ﺗﻤﻄﺮ ﺑﻐﺰارة‪.‬اوﻗ�ﻒ ﺷ�ﺎب ﺳ�ﯿﺎرﺗﮫ وﻋ�ﺮض ﺗﻮﺻ�ﯿﻠﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻻ ﺗﺜﻖ ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺸﺎب‪ :‬إﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﻤﻄﺮ ھﻨﺎ‪ .‬ھﻞ ﺗﺤﺘﺎج إﻟﻰ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻠﺔ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪................................................................................ :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬طﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻚ أﺳﺘﺎذك أن ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪه ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺨﻄﯿﻂ ﻟﺤﻔﻠﺔ ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻣﺸﻐﻮل ﺟﺪا ھﺬا اﻷﺳﺒﻮع‪.‬‬
‫اﻷﺳﺘﺎذ‪ :‬ﻧﺤﻦ ﺑﺤﺎﺟﮫ إﻟﻰ أﻧﺎس ﻟﺘﺨﻄﯿﻂ ﺣﻔﻠﺔ‪ .‬ھﻞ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ أن ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪...................................................................................... :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﺗﻤﺮ ﺑﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎت ﻣﺎﻟﯿﺔ ‪ .‬ﻋﺮض ﻋﻠﯿﻚ اﺣﺪ أﺻﺪﻗﺎءك ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﺎل ﻟﻜﻨﻚ ﻻ ﺗﺮﯾ�ﺪ‬
‫أن ﺗﻘﺒﻠﮫ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺪﯾﻖ‪ :‬أﻧﺎ اﻋﻠﻢ أن ﻟﺪﯾﻚ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎت أﻟﻤﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﻔﺘﺮة‪ .‬أﻧﺖ داﺋﻤﺎ ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﻲ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ أﻛﻮن ﺑﺤﺎﺟﺔ إﻟ�ﻰ‬
‫ذﻟﻚ‪ .‬اﺳﺘﻄﯿﻊ إﻗﺮاﺿﻚ ‪ 20‬دوﻻر‪ .‬ھﻞ ﺗﺘﻘﺒﻠﮭﺎ ﻣﻨﻲ؟‬
‫أﻧﺖ‪............................................................................................ :‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ واﻟﻌﺸﺮون‪:‬أﺛﻨﺎء ﻓﺘﺮة اﻟﻐﺪاء ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ طﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻚ ﺗﻠﻤﯿﺬ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﮫ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻌﺮوﻓ�ﺎ ﻟﻜﻨ�ﻚ ﻋﻠ�ﻰ‬
‫ﻋﺠﻞ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻠﻤﯿﺬ‪ :‬أﻧﺎ أﻗﻮم ﺑﻤﺸﺮوع ﯾﺘﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ أﺷﺨﺎص‪ .‬ھﻞ اﺳﺘﻄﯿﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺘﻚ ﻟﻤﺪة ﻋﺸﺮﯾﻦ دﻗﯿﻘﺔ؟‬
١٢١
............................................................................................ :‫أﻧﺖ‬
‫ طﻠﺒ�ﺖ ﻣﻨ�ﻚ اﻟﺴ�ﻜﺮﺗﯿﺮة ﻣ�ﻞء اﺳ�ﺘﻤﺎرة وأﺧﺒﺮﺗ�ﻚ إﻧﮭ�ﺎ‬.‫ذھﺒﺖ ﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﺒﯿ�ﺮة ﻟﻐ�ﺮض اﻟﻌﻤ�ﻞ‬. :‫اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺜﻼﺛﻮن‬
.‫ﺳﺘﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻚ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ ﻟﻜﻨﻚ وﺟﺪت إن ذﻟﻚ ﻻ ﯾﻼﺋﻤﻚ‬
‫ ھ�ﻞ أﻧ�ﺖ‬.‫ﺳﻮف ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﺸﺮة ﺳ�ﺎﻋﺎت ﯾﻮﻣﯿ�ﺎ ﻟﻜﻨﮭ�ﺎ ﺗﺠﺮﺑ�ﺔ ﺟﯿ�ﺪة‬.‫ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ اﻧﻚ اﻷﻧﺴﺐ ﻟﮭﺬا اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬:‫اﻟﺴﻜﺮﺗﯿﺮة‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﮭﺬا اﻟﻌﻤﻞ؟‬
............................................................................................ :‫أﻧﺖ‬
Appendix 3
The Jury Members
The Jury of experts comprises the following members:
1. Prof. Riyadh T. Al-Ameedi (Ph.D. in Linguistics and Translation),
College of Education for Human Sciences/University of Babylon.
2. Prof. Hameed H. Bjaya (Ph.D. in Linguistics and Translation), College

of Education for Human Sciences / University of Babylon.
3. Prof. Abbas D. Darweesh (Ph.D. in Linguistics and Translation), College

of Education for Human Sciences/ University of Babylon.
4. Prof. Riyadh K. Ibrahim (Ph. D. in English Language and Linguistics),

College of Languages/ University of Baghdad.
١٢٢
5. Prof. Asim A. Al-Duleimi ( Ph. D. in Methods of Teaching English as a

Foreign Language), College of Basic Education / University of Babylon.
6. Asst. Prof. Abbas L. Hussain ( Ph. D. in English Language and

Linguistics), College of Ibn Rushd/ University of Baghdad.
7. Asst. Prof. Omran M. Mahood ( Ph. D. in English Language and

8. Asst. Prof Abid El - Kareem F. Jameel ( Ph. D. in English Language and

9. Asst. Prof Wafaa' Mukhlis (ph. D. in Methods of Teaching English as a
Foreign Language), College of Education for Human Sciences/University
of Babylon.
10. Asst. Prof. Hussain M. Kadhim ( Ph. D. in English Language and

Linguistics), College of Basic Education for Human Sciences/
University of Babylon.
١٢٣
‫اﻟﻣﻠﺧص‬
‫ﺗُﻌﻧﻰ ھذه اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﻌﻣﺎل اﻟطﻠﺑﺔ اﻟﻌراﻗﯾﯾن اﻟذﯾن ﯾﺗﻌﻠﻣون اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ ﺑوﺻﻔﮭﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ ﻓﻌل‬
‫اﻟﻛﻼم "اﻟرﻓض"‪.‬‬
‫وﺗﮭدف ھذه اﻟدراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ )‪ (1‬ﺗﺣدﯾد اﻹﺳﺗراﺗﯾﺟﯾﺎت اﻷﻛﺛر اﺳﺗﻌﻣﺎﻻ ﻣن ﻗﺑل أوﻟﺋك اﻟﻣﺗﻌﻠﻣﯾن ﻹﺻدار ﻓﻌل‬
‫اﻟﻛﻼم "اﻟرﻓض" ﻓﻲ ﻣواﻗف ﻣﻌﯾﻧﺔ‪ (2) .‬ﻣﻌرﻓﺔ درﺟﺔ ﺗداﺧل اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷم ﻓﻲ أداء أﻟطﻠﺑﺔ اﻟﻌراﻗﯾﯾن اﻟذﯾن ﯾﺗﻌﻠﻣون‬
‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ ﺑوﺻﻔﮭﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﯾﻣﻛن ﺗﺣﻘﯾﻖ أھداف اﻟﺑﺣث ﺑﺗﺑﻧﻲ اﻟﻔرﺿﯾﺗﯾن اﻵﺗﯾﺗﯾن‪:‬‬
‫‪ .۱‬ﯾﻣﯾل طﻠﺑﺔ اﻟﻛﻠﯾﺔ اﻟﻌراﻗﯾون دارﺳﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ إﻟﻰ اﺳﺗﻌﻣﺎل اﺳﺗراﺗﯾﺟﯾﺎت‬
‫اﻟرﻓض اﻟﻣﺑﺎﺷر أﻛﺛر ﻣن اﻻﺳﺗراﺗﯾﺟﯾﺎت ﻏﯾر أﻟﻣﺑﺎﺷره‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۲‬ﻣن اﻟﻣﺣﺗﻣل أن ﺗﻌزى أﺟوﺑﺔ ھؤﻻء أﻟطﻠﺑﺔ ﻏﯾر اﻟدﻗﯾﻘﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺗداﺧل ﻣﻊ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷم ﻋﻧد أداءھم ﻟﻔﻌل‬
‫اﻟﻛﻼم ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺗﺣﻘﯾﻖ أھداف اﻟدراﺳﺔ وﺑرھﻧﺔ أو دﺣض ﻓرﺿﯾﺎﺗﮭﺎ ‪ ،‬أﻋدت اﻟﺑﺎﺣﺛﺔ اﺧﺗﺑﺎرا طﺑﻘﺗﮫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﯾﻧﺔ ﻣن )‪(100‬‬
‫طﺎﻟب وطﺎﻟﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻛﻠﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﻌراﻗﯾﯾن اﻟدارﺳﯾن ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ ﻣن اﻟﺻف اﻟراﺑﻊ ‪ /‬ﻗﺳم اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫اﻹﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻠﯾﺔ اﻟﺗرﺑﯾﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠوم اﻹﻧﺳﺎﻧﯾﺔ ‪ /‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺑل ﻟﻠﻌﺎم اﻟدراﺳﻲ ) ‪.(۲۰۱٤ -۲۰۱۳‬‬
‫وﺗﺗﺑﻧﻰ ھذه اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﻧﻣﺎذج ﻟﺗﺣﻠﯾل ﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت اﻻﺧﺗﺑﺎر‪ ،‬ﻓﺿﻼ ﻋن ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ أداء اﻟﻣﺗﻌﻠﻣﯾن ﻣﻊ أداء ﻣﺟﻣوﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺿﺎﺑطﺔ ﻣﺗﻛوﻧﺔ ﻣن ﻋﺷرة ﻣن ﻣﺗﺣدﺛﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﯾﯾن‪.‬‬
‫وﻓﯾﻣﺎ ﯾﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﮭدف اﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻠدراﺳﺔ وھو ﻣﻌرﻓﺔ ﻓﯾﻣﺎ ﻟو ﻛﺎن ھﻧﺎﻟك ﺗداﺧل اﻟﻠﻐﺔ أﻻم ‪ ,‬ﻓﻘد ﺗرﺟم اﻻﺧﺗﺑﺎر إﻟﻰ‬
‫اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌرﺑﯾﺔ وﻗورن أداء اﻟﻣﺗﻌﻠﻣﯾن ﻣﻊ أداء ﻋﺷرة طﻼب ﻣن ﻣﺗﺣدﺛﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌرﺑﯾﺔ اﻷﺻﻠﯾﯾن‪.‬‬
‫إذ ﯾؤﻛد ﺗﺣﻠﯾل اﻟﺑﯾﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﺣﻘﻖ ﻓرﺿﯾﺎت اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﻛﻣﺎ أﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﻘﺿﻲ ﻣﺎ ﯾﺄﺗﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .۱‬ﯾﻣﯾل أﻟطﻠﺑﺔ إﻟﻰ اﺳﺗﺧدام اﺳﺗراﺗﯾﺟﯾﺎت اﻟرﻓض أﻟﻣﺑﺎﺷرة أﻛﺛر ﻣن أﯾﺔ اﺳﺗراﺗﯾﺟﯾﺎت أﺧرى‪.‬‬
‫‪ .۲‬ﯾﻣﯾل ھؤﻻء أﻟطﻠﺑﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻧﻘل ﻗواﻋد ﻣن ﻟﻐﺗﮭم اﻷم أي اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌرﺑﯾﺔ ﻋﻧد رﻓﺿﮭم ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﺟﻧﺑﯾﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺗﺄﻟف ھذه اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﻣن ﺧﻣﺳﺔ ﻓﺻول‪ .‬ﯾﻌرض اﻟﻔﺻل اﻷول ﻣﺷﻛﻠﺔ اﻟﺑﺣث و أھداﻓﮫ و ﻓرﺿﯾﺎﺗﮫ و إﺟراءاﺗﮫ‬
‫و ﺣدوده و أھﻣﯾﺗﮫ‪ .‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﻔﺻل اﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﯾﻛرس ﻟﻺطﺎر اﻟﻧظري ﻟﻔﻌل اﻟﻛﻼم اﻟرﻓض‪ .‬أﻣﺎ اﻟﻔﺻل اﻟﺛﺎﻟث ﻓﯾﺗﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺟﻣﻊ اﻟﻣﻌﻠوﻣﺎت ﻣﺛل أھداف اﻻﺧﺗﺑﺎر‪ ،‬اﻟﻣﺧﺗﺑرﯾن ‪ ،‬ﺻﻔﺎت اﻻﺧﺗﺑﺎر اﻟﺟﯾد وأﺧﯾرا ﺗطﺑﯾﻖ اﻻﺧﺗﺑﺎر‪ .‬ﯾﺗﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫اﻟﻔﺻل اﻟراﺑﻊ ﺑﺗﺣﻠﯾل اﺧﺗﺑﺎر ھذه اﻟدراﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﯾﻠﺧص اﻟﻔﺻل اﻟﺧﺎﻣس ﺑﻌض اﻻﺳﺗﻧﺗﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﺗﻲ ﺗوﺻﻠت ﻟﮭﺎ‬
‫اﻟدراﺳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻋرض ﺑﻌض اﻟﺗوﺻﯾﺎت ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻋدد ﻣن اﻟﻣﻘﺗرﺣﺎت ﻹﺟراء اﻟﻣزﯾد ﻣن اﻟدراﺳﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﺑﻠﯾﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪٢‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﮭﻮرﯾﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاق‬
‫وزارة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ واﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم اﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﻜﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬
‫اﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم "اﻟﺮﻓﺾ" ﻟﺪى اﻟﻄﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬

‫اﻻﻧﻜﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ أﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ‬
‫رﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺖ ﺑﮭﺎ‬

‫ﻣﻲ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ إﺑﺮاھﯿﻢ‬
‫إﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم اﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﯿﺔ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫وھﻲ ﺟﺰءا ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت ﻧﯿﻞ درﺟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ آداب‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﻜﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ و ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺷﺮاف‬
‫اﻷﺳﺘﺎذ‬
‫رزاق ﻧﺎﯾﻒ ﻣﺨﯿﻒ اﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺷرﯾن اﻷول ‪ ۲۰۱٤‬م‬ ‫ﻣﺣرم ‪ ۱٤۳٦‬ھ‬

مي صالح ابراهيم

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

مي صالح ابراهيم

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

مي صالح ابراهيم

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

IRAQI EFL LEARNERS' MANIPULATION OF

SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF

MAY SALIH IBRAHIM

OCTOBER 2014 A. D. MUHARRAM 1436 A. H.

In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for

Head of the English Department

College of Education for Human Sciences

Approved by the Council of the College of Education for Human

Name: Prof. Dr. Fahim Hussein Al-Turayhi

Deputy Dean of the College of Education for Human Sciences

I am also thankful to all the jury members for their assistance in

Finally, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my family and

This study is concerned with revealing some aspects of Iraqi EFL

The study aims at (1) investigating the most common strategies

These two objectives can be carried out through the following

2. Iraqi EFL learner's inaccurate responses may be attributed to the

List of Abbreviations xiii

List of Appendices xiv

List of Tables xvi

Speech Act of Refusal: Theoretical Background

2.1 Speech Act Theory 4

2.1.1 Classification of Speech Acts 6

2.1.1.2 Searle's Classification 7

2.1.2 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts 9

2.2 Speech Act of Refusal 11

2.2.1 Definition and Characteristics 11

2.2.2 Types of Refusal 14

2.2.2.1 Refusal of Offer 15

2.2.2.2 Refusal of Request 18

2.2.3 Felicity Conditions of Refusal 20

2.2.4 Refusal and Politeness 24

2.2.4.1 Positive Politeness Strategies 24

2.2.4.2 Negative Politeness Strategies / Bald on record 26

2.2.4.3Off -Record Strategies 27

2.2.5 The Model 32

2.2.6 Refusal Sequences 39

2.2.7 Previous Studies 41

3.2 Objectives of the Test 44

3.3 The Subjects 44

3.4 Test Design 45

3.5 Characteristics of Good Tests 46

3.5.1.1 Content Validity 47

3.5.1.2 Face Validity 48

3.6 Pilot Test 50

3.7 Test Administration 51

4.2 Analysis of the Speech Act of Refusal's Strategies 52

4.2.1 The Use of the Strategies of Refusal Speech Act 52

4.2.1.1 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 53

4.2.1.2 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 56

4.2.1.3 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 60

4.2.1.4 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 69

4.2.1.5 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 75

4.2.1.6 Analysis of the Use of the Speech Act of Refusal's 79

4.3 Analysis of the Pragmatic Transfer of Refusal Speech 84

Conclusions, Recommendations and Suggestions

5.2 Pedagogical Recommendations 92

5.3 Suggestions for Further Research 93

Appendix 1 : Letters to Jury Members and Native English 103