Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Pragmatic competence
To become effective communicators in today’s connected world, it is necessary for
language learners to gain true communicative competence. Communicative competence,
according to Hymes (1967), includes not only knowledge of linguistic forms but also
knowledge of when, how and for whom it is appropriate to use these forms. Likewise, Ellis
(1994:696) states that communicative competence “entails both linguistic competence and
pragmatic competence”.
Pragmatic competence is defined as ‘the ability to use language effectively in order
to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context’ (Thomas 1983:94).
She also distinguishes between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence.
Pragmalinguistic competence refers to the appropriate language to accomplish a speech
act, whereas sociopragmatic competence refers to the appropriateness of a speech act in a
particular context.
Increasing attention has been paid to pragmatic competence due to the fact that
many learners may have good knowledge of grammar and a wide range of vocabulary but
they may still fail in real interaction with native speakers. Moreover, in accordance with
Thomas (1983), native speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic and lexical errors
made by L2 speakers but usually interpret pragmatic errors negatively as rudeness,
impoliteness or unfriendliness.
Over the past few decades, language teaching in the world and in Vietnam has
witnessed a shift from the focus on the development of learners’ linguistic competence to
the development of learners’ communicative competence. To facilitate this change, there is
a need for more studies on learners’ pragmatic competence, including studies on
interlanguage pragmatics. This study is carried out in an attempt to understand more about
the interlanguage pragmatics of Vietnamese learners of English.
1
1.2. The speech act of refusal to invitation: a face - threatening act
Refusals are considered to be a ‘sticking point’ for many non-native speakers
(Beebe et al. 1987). Refusals to invitations occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says

examining the factors under investigation of the study, i.e. the strategy use in relation to the
interlocutor’s social status. The review helps form the theoretical background for the study.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in the study, including the aims, the
research question of the study, the data collection method, the data collection instrument,
data collecting procedures and the subjects of the study. The coding framework and data
analysis are also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the results of the study with regard to the
strategies used by the two groups of subjects, native speakers of English (NSEs) and
Vietnamese learners of English (VLEs) in relation to the interlocutor’s social status for the
speech act of refusal to invitation.
Chapter 5 summarizes the major findings of the study, gives implications for
language teaching, points out the limitations of the study and suggests areas for further
research.
3
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Research on the speech act of refusal
Although the speech act of refusal is a face-threatening act which causes problems
for not only non-native speakers but also native speakers, fewer studies have investigated
the act than other acts such as request, apology or greeting. However, the studies on the
speech act of refusal vary across the areas of study around the act. Some of them aim to
reveal the speech act in one language or culture, for instance, Chinese (Chen, Ye & Zhang,
1995; Bresnahan, Ohashi, Liu, Nebashi & Liao, 1999), English (Kitao, 1996), Japanese
(Moriyama, 1990; Laohaburakit, 1995), Peruvian Spanish (Garcia, 1992, 1996). Some
have been interested in the cross-cultural perspective of the speech act. They compare the
refusal patterns or strategies used by speakers of a language other than English with those
used by native speakers of English (Shigeta, 1974; Liao & Bresnahan, 1996; Phan, 2001;
Nelson, Carson, Batal & Bakary, 2002; Kwon, 2004; Hsieh, Chia-Ling & Chen, 2005;
Dang, 2006). Others study the refusal strategy use of non-native speakers of English and
native speakers of English or focus on pragmatic transfer (Beebe & Takahashi & Uliss-

Nelson et al. (2002) investigate similarities and differences between Egyptian
Arabic and American English refusals. They used a modified version of the DCT
developed by Beebe et al. (1990) as their data collection instrument for 30 American
interviews and 25 Egyptian interviews. They gained 289 American English refusals
and 250 Egyptian refusals. Each refusal was divided into its component strategies and
the data were analysed to compare the average frequencies of direct and indirect
strategies, the average frequencies of specific indirect strategies. Results indicate that
both groups use similar strategies with similar frequency in making refusals. This
finding is contrary to Kwon’s (2004).
Research investigating the refusal strategies in Vietnamese and English includes
Phan (2001) which was restricted to refusals to requests between Vietnamese speakers and
English speakers and Dang (2006) which focused on hedging in invitation declining in
5
American English and Vietnamese. Both of the studies used DCT questionnaires to
collect data.
Phan (2001) found out that both Vietnamese and native informants tended to
use more indirect refusals than direct ones. In both Anglophone and Vietnamese
cultures, city dwellers were more direct than rural people and the informants who
did not know any foreign languages are more indirect than those with knowledge of
some foreign languages. However, she also pointed out some difference between the
two groups of informants. All the Anglophone informants were more direct than the
Vietnamese.
Dang (2006) found seven main hedging strategies utilized by the two groups of
informants, Vietnamese and NSs of English, including delaying, showing regret,
giving excuses, showing appreciation, blaming the partner, giving an alternative and
mixing different ways. Among these, mixing different ways was the favourite strategy
of both groups, whereas blaming the partner is the least favoured tactic. The
frequency of each strategy used by both parties varies according to age, gender,
power, distance of the speakers and the hearers and to the formality of the
invitations.

regret, common in American speakers’ refusals was not generally produced by the
Chinese learners, which could lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an
American context.
Widjaja (1997) investigated date refusals between Taiwanese females versus
American females. In the study, 10 Taiwanese and 10 American female college
students performed three different dating role plays (classmate, stranger and
boyfriend contexts) in English as a second language versus native language with
retrospective interviews to get at thought processes and negative and positive
politeness strategy formulation. Negative politeness strategies included a direct
refusal, a refusal, an indirect refusal, an expression of regret, an excuse, an objection,
and a hedge. Positive politeness strategies included offering an alternative, a vague
future acceptance, a future acceptance, a postponement, solidarity, a positive remark,
7
a positive opinion and thanking. Results showed that both groups preferred negative
politeness strategies but the Taiwanese preferred higher directness in refusing dates.
Sadler and Eroz (2001) used the written refusal DCT developed by Beebe et al.
(1990) as the data collection instrument in an examination of English refusals by NSEs,
Laotian and Turkish. Thirty participants filled in their refusal DCT in English – 10
Americans, 10 Laotians, and 10 Turkish. The data were also analysed in terms of
semantic formulas and categorized according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al.
(1990). It was found that the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic
formulas utilized in the refusals of all the three groups were different. Although all
the respondents tended to use excuses, explanations or reasons with a statement of
regret preceding or following the reasons or excuses, the Turkish subjects refused a
bit less than the others. The Turkish and American subjects used pause fillers and
then statements of gratitude and appreciation, while the Laotian respondents used
more statements of regret followed by adjuncts.
Tanck (2002) compared refusals by NNSs of English speaking different L1
(Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai) and
those by NSEs. She found that NSEs and NNSs used the components of a refusal

and the transfer was evidenced in the frequency, order and content of the semantic
formulas they used. Beebe et al. (1987) also found that pragmatic transfer was
pervasive, not limited to any specific level of foreign or second language learning.
However, more advanced learners tended to make more transfer because their high
level of proficiency helped them express themselves more easily in their native ways
while speaking English.
Also being interested in Japanese ESL learners’ refusals, Yamagashira (2001)
compared the language patterns used to make refusals by both Japanese learners of English
and American English NSs in different situations. Additionally, pragmatic transfer was
considered. Such factors as learners’ English proficiency, the time spent in the States, and
explicit instructions on pragmatic knowledge were also examined. The DCT questionnaire
developed by Beebe et al. (1990) was used to collect data. The data were also analysed
and categorised according to the refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990). The results
showed that pragmatic transfer did occur in the learners’ refusals. The time spent in the
9
States, the L2 proficiency of the Japanese speakers, and explicit instructions on pragmatic
knowledge were shown to affect pragmatic transfer. If a subject was immersed in English,
his/ her response was more similar to that of NSs. Moreover, the lower L2 proficiency
subjects used their L1 refusal style, whereas the highest L2 proficiency subjects used only
American English refusal strategies. The subject who had received explicit instructions on
pragmatics responded to the refusal situations appropriately in English.
Lauper (1997) investigated whether or not the learners’ native language and their
reason for refusing would have an effect on their refusal strategies. The subjects were 60
NSs of English, 60 NSs of Spanish and 60 Spanish learners of English. A DCT
questionnaire was used to elicit refusals for 20 situations. The data also concerned the
subjects’ age, gender, level of education. Analysis of the responses resulted in a taxonomy
of 43 refusal strategies. Results indicated that the three groups had different refusal
patterns. In some cases, the Spanish learners of English refused similarly to NSs of Spanish
and differently from NSs of English, suggesting pragmatic transfer in this group. However,
in some cases, refusal strategies of the learners approximated those of NSs of English, and

present study. First of all, the direct refusal ‘No’ is not a common strategy for any of
the language groups (Chen, 1996). Moreover, although they use similar range of
refusal strategies, the frequency, order and content of the semantic formulas utilized
by learners of English and NSEs are different (Chen, 1996; Beebe et al., 1987, 1990;
Yamagashira, 2001; Nguyen; 2006; Al-Eryani, 2007). Additionally, the learners’
refusal strategies in English are affected by their native language (Beebe et al. 1987,
1990; Yagamashira, 2001; Al-Issa, 2003). However, Beebe et al. (1987, 1990) and
Yagamashira (2001) had contrary results. In Beebe et al. (1987), more advanced
learners are more affected by the refusal strategies of their native language, whereas
the native language of the learners in Yagamashira’s study had more influence on the
lower proficiency learners. In terms of data collection and analysis, the DCT
questionnaire developed by Beebe et al. (1987) and the refusal taxonomy constructed
by Beebe et al. (1990) were widely used in research on the speech act of refusal (Beebe
et al., 1990; Yamagashira, 2001, Nguyen, 2006). Finally, in Lauper (1997), the native
language of the learners sometimes affects their refusal strategies in English,
sometimes their strategies are similar to the NSs of English and sometimes their
strategies are different from both groups of NSs.
11
2.4. Interlocutor’s status and the choice of refusal strategy
One of the contextual variables which many of the studies considered when
examining the use of refusal strategies employed by NNSs or learners of English and NSs
of English is the interlocutor’s status. The reason is that this factor is closely related to the
choice of refusal strategy.
Findings from previous studies show that people from different cultures do not
perceive the status of the interlocutor in the same way and therefore they do not always
choose the same strategies for the same speech act in general and the speech act of refusal
in particular (Kwon, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002; Beebe et al., 1990; Phuong, 2006). For
example, Nguyen (2006) found out that Australian NSEs did not care much of the social
status of the interlocutor when they said ‘No’, whereas VLEs experienced differences
when they refused people of different status. The VLEs were more sensitive to the social

strategies of refusal to invitations which are employed by the VLEs and NSEs.
Specifically, the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic formulas utilized to
refuse by the VLEs are compared with those by NSEs as the base line in relation to the
interlocutor’s social status.
3.1.2. Research question
13
The study aims to answer the following question:
How do Vietnamese learners of English (VLEs) differ from native speakers of English
(NSEs) in their strategies of refusal to invitations in terms of frequency, order and
content of semantic formulas in relation to the interlocutor’s status?
3.2. Data collection
In this part, the issues relating to the data collection will be discussed. Section 3.2.1
discusses the data collection method. Section 3.2.2 gives details of the data collection
instrument. Section 3.2.3 describes the data collection procedures and the subjects of the
study.
3.2.1. Data collection method
As shown in section 3.1.1, the aim of this study is to investigate the refusal strategy
used by VLEs and NSEs in relation to a contextual variable, the interlocutor’s social status.
This aim is pursued by comparing the frequency, order and content of semantic formulas
used by VLEs with those by NSEs. The instrument to collect data for this comparison is
the DCT.
DCTs are ‘written questionnaires including a number of brief situational
descriptions, followed by a short dialogue with an empty slot for the speech act under
study’ (Kasper and Dahl, 1991: 221). The dialogue usually starts with an ‘opener’ followed
by a blank for the respondents to write their responses to complete the dialogue.
A DCT is used to collect data in the present study for the following reasons. Firstly,
the DCT has been proved to be an effective means of gathering a large amount of data in a
relatively short period of time (Wolfson, 1989; Beebe et al., 1990; Beebe and Cumming,
1996). Due to the time constraint of the present study, the DCT is a proper solution.
Moreover, it is a useful method to elicit data for cross-cultural comparability (Blum-Kulka,

present study because the DCT of Beebe et al. (1990) had been developed and piloted with
status embedded in the situations. It is, therefore, convenient to collect data for the
consideration of the interlocutor’s status. Moreover, it can be seen in Chapter 2 that many
15
of the studies on the speech act of refusal have utilized the DCT by Beebe et al. (1990),
which shows the high reliability of this DCT questionnaire.
The questionnaire consists of two parts. In the first part, the respondents are asked
to supply background information such as their nationality and their gender. Part two
comprises three situations in which the respondents are required to refuse the invitations of
three people. These people are at different social status in comparison with the
respondents. One is a higher-status person (a professor who invites the respondent, a
student, to have dinner in the canteen while finishing the student’s project). One is of
equal-status with the respondent (a friend invites the respondent to dinner). In the last
situation, a lower-status person, a salesman invites the respondent who is the director of a
printing company to a luxurious restaurant to firm up a contract.
For a full version of the DCT questionnaire, see the Appendix.
3.2.3. Data collection procedures and subjects of the study
3.2.3.1. Data collection procedures
After the DCT questionnaires were produced, they were delivered to two groups of
participants: Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English. For the
Vietnamese group, we contacted most of the Vietnamese participants in person and some
via e-mail to ask them to fill in the questionnaires. The VLEs were asked to refuse the
invitations in English. This was conducted in Hanoi. For the NSEs, due to time and contact
condition constraints, I could meet only five of the subjects who were tourists in Vietnam.
After they completed the questionnaires, I had small talks with them about their responses
to the situations in the questionnaire. Some of the questionnaires for this group were
delivered to the NSEs by two of my friends who were in Australia. Still others were
administered through e-mail. No time limits were imposed on completing the DCT.
3.2.3.2. Subjects of the study
The two groups of subjects who provided the refusal data for the study were

E. Set condition for future or past acceptance
17
F. Promise of future acceptance
G. Statement of principle
H. Statement of philosophy
I. Attempt to dissuade the interlocutor
1. Threat/ statement of negative consequences to the requester
2. Guilt trip
3. Criticize the request/ requester, etc.
4. Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding the
request
5. Let interlocutor off the hook
6. Self defence
J. Acceptance that functions as a refusal
1. Unspecific or indefinite reply
2. Lack of enthusiasm
K. Avoidance
1. Non-verbal
a. Silence
b. Hesitation
c. Do nothing
d. Physical departure
2. Verbal
a. Topic switch
b. Joke
c. Repetition of part of request, etc.
d. Postponement
e. Hedging
f. Ellipsis
g. Hint

airport.
2. Statement of wish (IW)
Sometimes to refuse an invitation indirectly, the respondents indicate his/ her wish.
For example: (VLE 18) I wish I could join with you.
19
3. Excuse/ reason/ explanation (IERE)
The respondents sometimes refuse an invitation by giving an excuse, an
explanation or a reason. The explanations and reasons may be general.
For example: (VLE 14) I’m not free tonight
They can also be specific.
For example: (VLE 20) We have had a plan to take our children out.
4. Statement of alternative (IA)
Although the respondents cannot satisfy the inviter’s want, they suggest
alternatives in the hope to reduce the negative impact of their refusal.
For example: (VLE 3) Can we leave it till the beginning of next week?
5. Statement of principle (IPR)
The statements which show that the respondents would violate the principles which
they have followed for a long time if they accept the invitation are categorized as the
statements of principle.
For example: (VLE 5) I’m not used to firming up contracts in restaurants.
6. Statement of philosophy (IPH)
The respondents also at times refuse an invitation by indicating an obvious
sequence of activities in our life.
For example: (NSE 16) We can always have dinner after everything is settled.
7. Let the interlocutor off the hook (IOH)
With this formula, the refusers show that they sympathize with the inviter and it is
not necessary for that person to invite.
For example: (VLE 3) There is no need to do this.
8. Repetition of part of the invitation (IRI)
While the respondents cannot accept the invitation for some reason, they still show

investigated by comparing the frequency, the order and the content of the semantic
formulas of this language group with those of the NSEs in relation to the interlocutor’s
status.
First, to compare the frequency in the use of the semantic formulas of the two
language groups, the total number of each semantic formula used by each group in the
three situations was calculated. Then they were shown a chart. The chart would help
compare the overall frequencies in the use of each of the semantic formulas. The number
of each semantic formula in each situation is also presented in a table to compare the
frequency of the semantic formula while considering the interlocutor’s status.
Second, to compare the order of the semantic formulas of the two language groups,
the total number of each semantic formula in each situation was counted for each of the
language group and listed in order in a table. Then, the similarities and differences of the
order of semantic formulas used by the VLEs and the NSEs were analysed. For example,
E.g. Refuser status: Higher
Group
Order of semantic formulas
1 2 3 4
VLEs Expression of
regret (6)
Excuse(5) Offer of
alternative (7)
NSEs
The example in the table shows that there are 6 statements of regret of the
responses by the VLEs expressed in the first position of the refusals to invitation, 5 excuses
in the second position and 7 offers of alternative in the third position. This order would be
compared with the NSEs’.
Third, with regard to the content of the semantic formulas, the types of reasons and
the mitigating formulas used by the the VLEs and the NSEs were examined. For example,
22
‘I’m busy’ and ‘We’ll visit our parents on Sunday evening.’ are both categorized as

excuse/ reason/ explanation (IERE) and statement of alternative (IA) were the four most
commonly used and in all cases the VLEs used them more frequently than the NSEs. The
only formula which was used equally by both groups was statement of wish (IW).
Regarding the use of Adjuncts to refusals, the two most common were positive opinion/
feeling or agreement (APO) and gratitude/ appreciation (AGA).
A distinguishing feature of the chart is that the formula of excuse/ reason/
explanation (IERE) is most frequently used by both the VLEs and the NSEs. This semantic
formula plays a crucial role in the refusal structures of both groups of participants, though
VLEs employed the formula more frequently (53) than NSEs did (48).
24
Another noticeable feature which can be seen in the chart is that the group of 3
types of semantic formulas, including non-performative (DN), statement of regret (IR), and
statement of alternative (IA) was used at a quite high frequency, ranging from nearly 20 to
30 times. Nevertheless, it is noted that the VLEs used all these categories more frequently.
The last group of semantic formulas includes those which were not used more than
7 times and some formulas were not used by either the VLEs or the NSEs. They are
perfomative (DP), statement of wish (IW), statement of principle (IPR), statement of
philosophy (IPH), let the interlocutor of the hook (IOH), repetition of part of the invitation
(IRI), postponement (IP), elaboration of the reason (IER) and rhetorical question (IRQ).
As for the two adjuncts to refusals which were employed more by both the VLEs
and the NSEs, it is noticeable that the NSEs used the formula of positive opinion/ feeling
or agreement (APO) more frequently than the VLEs, whereas the VLEs utilized the
formula of gratitude/ appreciation (AGA) more often.
4.1.1.2. The frequency of semantic formulas in relation to interlocutor’s status
The results of the data collected on the frequency of the semantic formulas by the
two language groups in relation to the status of the interlocutor are presented in Table 1
below:
25