Keywords
refusals
English
Korean
Norwegian
multilinguals
How to Cite
Number of views: 898
Number of downloads: 750
Abstract
The present paper describes a contrastive study of interlanguage refusal strategies employed by Korean and Norwegian learners of English as an additional language. The data were collected from multilingual first-year students at an American university in South Korea and in an English-medium program at a Norwegian university by means of an online open discourse completion task and analyzed using the coding categories based on Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Welts (1990), and Salazar Campillo, Safont-Jordà, and Codina Espurz (2009). The data were analyzed to compare the average frequencies of refusal strategies used by the two groups, and the types of direct, indirect, and adjunct strategies that they employed. Independent samples t-tests revealed significant differences in the use of direct and indirect strategies with small effect sizes. The differences in the use of adjunct strategies were not statistically significant, and the effect sizes were negligible. Descriptive statistics of the differences in the types of direct, indirect, and adjunct strategies also revealed interesting patterns. The findings suggest that multilinguals’ pragmatic performance is a complex phenomenon that cannot be explained by the differences in cultural and pragmatic norms of their first language alone.
References
Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Awedyk, W. (2003). Request strategies in Norwegian and English. Folia Scandinavica, 7, 287-300.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brubæk, S. (2012). Pragmatic competence in English at the VG1 level: To what extent are Norwegian EFL students able to adapt to contextual demands when making requests in English? Acta Didactica Norge, 6(1), Art. 20.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Cenoz, J. (2007). The acquisition of pragmatic competence and multilingualism in foreign language contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 123-140). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2014). Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 239-254). New York, NY: Springer.
Cenoz, J., & Hoffmann, C. (2003). Acquiring a third language: What role does bilingualism play? International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 1-5.
Chaudron, C. (2003). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 762-828). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cook, V. (2009). Multilingual Universal Grammar as the norm. In Y. I. Leung (Ed.), Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (pp. 55-70). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dittrich, W. H., Johansen, T., & Kulinskaya, E. (2011). Norms and situational rules of address in English and Norwegian speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3807-3821.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gong, W., Lee, Z., & Stump, R. (2007). Global internet and access: Cultural considerations. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing, 19(1), 57-74.
Holden, N. (2004). Why marketers need a new concept of culture for the global knowledge economy. International Marketing Review, 21(6), 563-572.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine, explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.
Johansen, S. H. (2008). A comparative study of gratitude expressions in Norwegian and English from an interlanguage pragmatic and second language acquisition research perspective (MA thesis). University of Oslo, Norway. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25531/masteroppgavexstinexhxjohansen.pdf?sequence=2
Johnson, D. I., Roloff, M. I., & Riffee, M. A. (2009). Politeness theory and refusals of requests: Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles. Communication Studies, 55(2), 227-238.
Jones, M. L. (2007, June). Hofstede – Culturally questionable? Paper presented at the Oxford Business & Economics Conference, Oxford, UK.
Jucker, A. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1611-1635.
Jung, E. H., & Kim, Y. J. (2008). First language transfer in pragmatic use by second language speakers. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 33, 517-543.
Kecskés, I. (2006). Multilingualism: Pragmatic aspects. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 371-375). Oxford: Elsevier.
Kecskés, I. (2015). How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals? International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(4), 419-434.
Krulatz, A. (2016). Competent non-native users of English? Requestive behavior of Norwegian EFL teachers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(4), 24-44.
Krulatz, A., & Dixon, T. (2016). Fostering pragmatic competence: Focus on refusals. In J. Dobson & M. Savage (Eds.), Tri-TESOL 2015 – Transcending Boundaries and Interweaving Perspectives: Conference Proceedings (pp. 47-58). Spokane, WA: WAESOL. http://waesol.org/2015-tri-tesol-conference-proceedings/
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339-364.
Kwon, J. (2014). The role of proficiency in pragmatic transfer: A study of refusals by beginning, intermediate and advanced Korean EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 16(4), 6-56.
Lee, H. (2013). The influence of social situations on fluency difficulty in Korean EFL learners’ oral refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 168-186.
Lyuh, I. (1994). A comparison of American and Korean refusals. English Teaching, 49, 221-252.
McSweeney, B. (2002). The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55(11), 1363-1372.
Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics. 23, 163-189.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878-912.
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rygg, K. (2012). (In)directness – distance or proximity. SYNAPS – A Journal of Professional Communication, 27, 54-55.
Safont-Jordà, P. M. (2005). Third language learners. Pragmatic production and awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Safont-Jordà, P. M. (2013). Early stages of trilingual pragmatic development. A longitudinal study of requests in Catalan, Spanish, and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 68-80.
Salazar Campillo, P., Safont-Jordà, P. M., & Codina Espurz, V. (2009). Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 8, 139-150.
Savić, M. (2015). “Can I very please borrow it?”: Request development in young Norwegian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(4), 443-480.
Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 253-264.
Stavans, A., & Hoffmann, C. (2015). Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stavans, A., & Webman Shafran, R. (2018). The pragmatics of requests and refusals in multilingual settings. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(2), 149-168.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
White, B. A. (1979). A study of the use of politeness stereotypes in modern spoken Norwegian. Norskrift: Arbeidsskrift for nordisk språk og literatur, 1979, 37-45.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Xiao, F. (2015). Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 557-581.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.