,v s. 1.

Wm...” I. n
5
.fl
..

r .l
3.... ... - Eh
93.11..” {MW}, p W

3.5351! n. 1
Z... . .9. .i... i. .
.r; 4.34:5!h» :n 17 fl
.0. . . 111v .. s
. 3 - .. . Jaflwrrr.
.4»- .
.t‘ Ll
. .snso.;.v.wa..
1. tun,
i ‘
1

{at
.

.. 7. .1!

I.

}lv« bqvtil
‘Ijklfrui .d.¢ I

‘-A
1...

rm... :rf
llb. I-

_ Hid.“ .runbv .
‘ c .. .1

. . . , . 1 . . ‘ . . 3| ‘ ‘
.1! f? . {12-35. . V a ., : , . ‘ . ‘ . , ‘ ‘ , . ‘ 3......kvv

my: an

.ll...|.« JN-m—m‘pufivflfimgwtfl...‘

'l' ‘7 It

 

NW] iiiiiiiiil‘iiiiiiiil

93 01594 4774

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

REFUSAL STRATEGIES IN SAUDI AND
AMERICAN CULTURES

presented by

Hamdan Al-Shalawi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Linguistics

 

 

 

Major professor

Date 47"”? 97

0.7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from your mood.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or More dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-—J
TI l l

MSU Is An Affirmative Adlai/EM Oppoflunlty Inflation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m1

REFUSAL STRATEGIES IN SAUDI AND AMERICAN CULTURES

By

Hamdan Ghareeb Al-Shalawi

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Linguistics & Languages

1997

ABSTRACT

REFUSAL STRATEGIES IN SAUDI AND AMERICAN CULTURES

BY

Hamdan Ghareeb Al-Shalawi

The study investigates the semantic formulas used by Saudi and
American male undergraduate students in the speech act of refusal. The
data were collected through a DCT questionnaire and were analyzed as
consisting of semantic formulas following Beebe and Cummings (1985).

The results of this research revealed that Saudis and Americans
used similar semantic formulas in refusing requests, invitations, offers,
and suggestions and there were no significant differences between them
eiccept in the employment of direct ‘no.’ They, however, differed in the
number of semantic formulas used in each situation and in the content
of their explanations which reflected some values of Saudi and American
cultures. The choices of semantic formulas reflected the different
characteristics of each culture. Saudi refusals reflected collectivistic
culture, while American refusals reflected individualistic culture.
Americans were more straightforward and concerned about the clarity of

their explanations than Saudis.

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my wife, my sons, Abdulrahman and Abdullah, and my

daughters, Khawlah, Arwa, and Asma

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Dennis Preston, the
chairperson of my committee, for his wise advice, understanding, and kind support
throughout my study in the department of Linguistics and Languages at Michigan State
University. I am also grateful to the other members of my committee, professor Grover
Hudson and Dr. Malik Balla for their encouragement, kindness, and valuable comments
and suggestions.

My appreciation also goes to Imam Mohammed Bin Saud Islamic University in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia which granted me a scholarship to pursue my graduate study in the
USA. I owe special thanks to Dr. Subhi Al—Harithy for his encouragement, concern and
help.

I would like to express my thanks to other individuals who contributed, in some
way, to the completion of this research. I thank my colleagues Ahmad Al-Hajaj, Ali al—
duharni and also Dr. Nafa for their help in the statistical work. Thanks also go to Dr.
Abdulrahman Al-Jamhoor for his encouragement and concern, and to Dr. Ahmad Al-
Banyan for his many helpful discussion in the field of sociolinguistics. I also wish to
thank all the students who participated in this study. My thanks also go to Laurie Church,
the department secretary for her kindness, concern, and help.

Finally, My thanks and deep appreciation go to my family members in Saudi

Arabia, my brothers and sisters for their continuos encouragement and love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Statement of the problem ............................................................................ 1
The Significance of the Study .................................................................... 5
Questions of the Study ............................................................................... 6
Hypotheses of the Study ............................................................................ 7
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study .......................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 9
Introduction .............................................................................................. 9
Brown & Levinson Politeness Theory ................................................ .10
Individualism versus Collectivisim ......................................................... 13
High and Low-Context Cultures ............................................................. 18
Studies on Refusals ................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................... 25
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 25
Development of the Questionnaire ......................................................... 25
Pilot Study ............................................................................................. 26
The Final Draft ...................................................................................... 27
Description of the Questionnaire ........................................................... 27
Subjects ................................................................................................. 29
Questionnaire Administration .............................................................. 30
Data Analysis Procedures ...................................................................... 30
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................ 33

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................. 33

Situation 1 ............................................................................................... 35
Situation 2 ............................................................................................... 36
Situation 3 ............................................................................................... 38
Situation 4 ............................................................................................... 39
Situation 5 ................................................................................................ 4O
Situation 6 ................................................................................................ 42
Situation 7 ................................................................................................ 43
Situation 8 ................................................................................................ 45
Situation 9 ................................................................................................ 46
Situation 10 .............................................................................................. 47
Situation 11 .............................................................................................. 49
Situation l2 .............................................................................................. 50
Situation 13 .............................................................................................. 51
Situation l4 .............................................................................................. 53
Analysis of semantic formulas found in this study ................................. 54
Explanation ................................................................................ 55
Regret ......................................................................................... 58
Alternative ................................................................................. 59
Avoidance ................................................................................... 60
Wish ........................................................................................... 61
Gratitude ..................................................................................... 62
Direct 0’ .................................................................................. 63
Philosophy and Principle ........................................................... 64
Positive feeling, empathy building, sarcasm, future acceptance,
and negative ability ...................................................................... 65
Brown & Levinson Positive and negative politeness .................. 65
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................... 70
SUMMARY, APPLICATION, AND FUTURE RESEARCH ....... 70
Summary of the Study .............................................................................. 70
Applications of the Study ......................................................................... 71
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................. 73
APPENDICES
Appendix A: The English version of the questionnaire .................................. 74
Appendix B: The Arabic version of the questionnaire ................................... 79
Appendix C: Classification of Refusals (Beebe and Cummings, 1985) .......... 84
Appendix D: Examples of semantic formulas quoted from the quest ........... 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 90

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Classification of DCT ........................................................................... 29
Table 2. Average number of semantic formulas per response ............................ 33
Table 3. Frequencies and percentages of semantic formulas for situation 1
as; a."a;;,';;;;;a;;aa “sagas...“assaaaaa's‘sagaia‘agg'aaaagga """""" 35
as.“ 5 'saasgggag'aa sagas... asaaaaag'aaaa as assays. 5 """"" 36
Tais'i'a' sfagaagagasaaa sagas...assaaaaaz'aaaaasaa'saa'aa'I. """"" 38
sagastsaaaaaaaaaagaagaa‘assassins;anaaaas """"" 39
as;assists.aa'gaggaggs'a;;agsagassassa;';;aaagaa """"" 41
sasia'staaaaagsggassgagaagasa sagas;agaaafsaasaaasas """"" 42
as: '1' assists; sagaaaggs'a' sagas isms “assaaasa's """"" 44
Table 11f 'agaaaaags'aa “sagas; “.s'ssaagag'aaaaa amass: B """"" 45
Table 12f assassins. “sagas... gaggaaaazaaaaas sagas; i6 """ 46
Table 13f 'aaaagga'a'aa sagas“... 'a's'aaaaag'saaai as a; sass: 'i'i """ 48
Table assists; aaa'aagaagasa sagas; sagas; 'sa'.aaaa;;;;"1‘a """ 50
Table assaaaaaaa;gaggaagaasaaa.aaaaasasaaaaas """ 50
Table 1staaagaagsaaa'saggaggsaggaaga;ssanasaasaaaggaa """ 52
.................................................................................................................. 53

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Possible Strategies of Politeness ................................................... 12

viii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the problem

Cross-cultural communication has received great attention
recently due to global migration and the increasingly cross-cultural
interactions in economic, political and personal relationships all over the
world (Klopf and Park, 1982). Cross-cultural communication without an
understanding of different sociolinguistic rules and principles of face-to-
face interaction among cultures leads to cross-cultural
misunderstanding and might lead to serious consequences. One good
example of this kind of cross-cultural misunderstanding is reported by
Takahashi and Beebe (1987). In the summit meeting between president
Nixon and the prime minister Sato of Japan, Nixon asked Sato to reduce
Japan’s fabric export to the United States. Sato replied ‘zinsho shimaso,’
which was literally translated into English as ‘I will take care of it.’
Hearing this response, Nixon thought he had received an approval and a
commitment and became very angry when Sato failed to fulfill his
promise and take any effective action. In fact, Sato did not make any
commitment, since this kind of statement in Japanese culture is a polite

and an indirect way of refusing.

The need for cross-cultural communication research has been
recognized in the field of linguistics, anthropology, sociolog, and
communication not only for the purpose of language teaching or
illustration of cultures, behaviors and communication systems, but also
for enhancing and raising cross-cultural understanding. Wolfson
(l989:2) has stated that:

“Each culture has its own unique set of conventions, rules

and patterns for the conduct of communication and these

must be understood in the context of the general system that

reflects the values and the structure of the society. No two

societies are quite alike in this respect, and no group has a

monopoly on ‘correct’ sociolinguestic behavior.”

The assumption that the principals underlying face-to-face
interaction are universal was introduced by the work of philosophers of
language such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969, 1979), and Paul Grice
(1975). This assumption, however, is not applicable to all societies.
Many studies have supported Wolfson’s statement and proved that in
different societies and communities, people speak and behave differently
and these differences reflect different cultural values or at least different
hierarchies of values (e.g., Tannen 1981a; Schiffrin 1984; Keenan 1976).
In other words, what counts as polite or impolite may differ from group
to group.

Sociolinguistic and second language teaching research helped us

understand that learners of languages must acquire not only syntax,

phonology, and lexicon, but must also acquire the language’s rules of use
(Gumperz 1966; Hymes 1971; Widdowson 1978; Canale and Swam1980).
Hymes (1964) introduced the notion of ‘communicative competence’ to
cover both the speaker’s knowledge of linguistic rules, as well as the
sociocultural rules of speaking. Preston (1989: 10) stated that: “What
must be said, to whom, with what tone of voice and how the talk (or
silence) of others is to be taken are some of the ‘communicative
competence’ aspects of language ability.” A lack of knowledge about
different norms and value systems of each culture is one reason for
cross-cultural misunderstanding and misconception. Thomas (1983,
1984) stressed the importance of sociolinguistic rules of speaking and
pointed out the seriousness of the violation of these rules. He (1983)
introduced the notion of “cross-cultural pragmatic failure” which he
defines as the inability to understand ‘what is meant by what is said‘ and
argued that, in different cultures, different pragmatic rules may be
found. He noted that pragmatic failure is more serious than linguistic
error and continued to argue that pragmatic failure may affect the
speaker as a person, while linguistic error shows only that the speaker is
not proficient in the language. Thus, those who want to be fluent in a
language must posses the linguistic competence as well as

communicative competence. In other words, to interact effectively with

speakers from other cultures, one must learn the norms and principles
of speaking as well as the rules of grammar specific to that language

There has been widespread interest in studying how different
speech acts are performed across languages to understand the difi'erent
norms and values of societies: refusals (Takahashi and Beebe, 1987;
Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford,
1991; Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992b), requests (Blum-Kulka, 1982,
1983, 1987; Blum-Kulka and House, 1989), apologies (Olshtain, 1989;
Cohen and Oleshtain, 1981; Barnlund and Yoshioka, 1990; Wolfson,
Marmor, and Jones, 1989), thanks (Eisenstein and Bodman, 1986),
complaints (House and Kasper, 1981; DeCapue, 1989), compliments
(Wolfson, 1981 ; Barnlund and Araki, 1985), suggestions (Bardovi-Harlig
and Hartford, 1990), openings (Omar, 1992), and closings (Hartford and
Bardovi-Harlig, 1992a).

In spite of the importance of cross-cultural communication to
linguists and second language educators, there is no single empirical
study that has compared the specific speech act of refusal of Saudis
(native speakers of Arabic) and Americans (native speakers of English).
The only study that the researcher came across which had used Arabic
native speakers as subjects to test native and normative rejections
collected from academic advising sessions was conducted by Bardovi-

Harlig and Hartford (1991). In their study, the normative speakers were

from several countries. The native languages of these nonnative
speakers were: Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Malay, Spanish, Thai,
Bengali, Chicchewa, and Yoruba. The present study, however, is an
attempt to bridge the gap in this area of cross-cultural pragrnatics and to
investigate the strategies used by both cultures (Saudi and American)
when performing the speech act of refusals. The differences and / or
similarities were investigated in terms of two different variables-~social
status (high-equal-low), and social distance (distant-close). Four
different types of speech acts (request, invitation, offer, and suggestion)

were used to elicit refusals from both groups.

The significance of the study

As with other speech acts, ‘refusals’ may serve as an illuminating
source of information on the socio-cultural values of a speech community
and provide important insights into the social norms that are embedded
in cultures. The analysis and description of refusals strategies may
provide us with “new information on how native speakers really use
language, rather than how we think they perform such acts” (Hatch,
1982).

Although the speech act of refusal is universal across cultures, its
occurrence, the situational and social contexts in which it is found, and

the linguistic forms used are culture-specific. Gass and Selinker

(1994:183) have stated that: “All languages have a means of performing
speech acts and presumably speech acts themselves are universal, yet
the ‘form’ used in specific speech acts varies from culture to culture.

It is also important to study how the realizations of refusals vary
cross-culturally, since refusals are major cross-cultural “sticking points”
for many nonnative speakers (Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz, 1990),
and for that reason they are important for second language educators
and others involved in cross-cultural communication. Moreover, the
speech act of refusal employs many face-saving strategies which are
interesting aspects of language usage from a sociolinguistics perspective
(Brown and Levinson, 1987 :60). They also vary in form and content
according to the eliciting speech act (e.g., invitation, request, offer, or
suggestion), and they are affected by other sociolinguistic variables.

Therefore, this study may help both learners of Arabic and English
to gain communicative competence in the target language and predict the
difficulties of learners in expressing themselves spontaneously in the

situations where they are expected to refuse.

Questions of thefitucll

The purpose of this study can be reformulated in terms of the

following questions:

1. What are the major semantic formulas used by both groups--Saudis
and American-- in the speech act of refusal ?

2. How do Saudis and Americans differ in the choice of semantic
formulas?

3. How do the socio-pragmatic features (i.e. social status and social
distance) influence the speech act of refusal ?

4. Do Saudis and Americans have different cultures?

5. Does this study confirm the findings of other work in this area or not?

Hypotheses of the Study

Although it is unlikely that no differences exist, the null
hypotheses for this study are:

1) There is no significant difference between Saudis and
Americans in the employment and the content of semantic formulas used
in refusing.

2) There is no significant effect of socio-pragrnatic features (i.e.
social distance and social status) on the choice of semantic formulas in
either Saudi or American groups.

3) There is no significant difference in the number of semantic
formulas used in refusing.

4) There is no difference between Saudi and American cultures.

Limitations of the studv

This study was limited to male undergraduate university students.
This restriction was made due to the difiiculties that the researcher faced
in finding Saudi female university students who are willing to participate
in this study. Also, in order to interpret the results of the study
accurately, naturalistic data is needed to complement the written data.
Finally, this study only used two variables ( social status and social

distance) to investigate the speech act of refusal.

Organigtion of the thesis

In chapter I, the statement of the problem, significance of the
study, research questions, hypotheses, limitations, and organization of
the thesis were specified. Chapter 11 reviews Brown and Levinson’s
politeness theory and previous studies of refusals. Relevant literature on
culture types, mainly collectivism versus individualism and high-context
versus low-context cultures are discussed. In chapter 111, methodology
and data collection are discussed. In chapter IV, the findings and
discussion are presented. Finally, a summary, applications and

suggestions for further research are made in chapter V.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

After an exhausting and long journey of investigation in Saudi,
Egyptian and US libraries and academic institutions, the researcher
found no single study that compared the speech act of refusal among
Saudis and American cultures. Thus, the researcher tried his best to
review some studies that relate, directly or indirectly, to the scope of his
study.

Politeness theory was developed from the speech act theory of
philosophers of language such as Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) and
form the basis for the types of studies on refusals done in linguistics.
This chapter reviews Brown and Levinson’s ‘Politeness Theory’ in some
detail and previous studies of refusals. Relevant literature on culture
types, mainly the idea of collectivism versus individualism and high-
context versus low-context cultures, that might help us understand the
different norms and values of societies is also reviewed. This study,
however, is not designed to test any of these theories.

The notion of “politeness” in communication has been previously
dealt with in a variety of disciplines, e.g., linguistics, psychology, social

interaction, and anthropology, because politeness is basic to the

10

production of social order. The politeness theories developed under the
influence of speech act theory are those of R. Lakoff (1973), Leech (1983),
and Brown and Levinson (1978). My concern in this study is Brown and

Levinson’s politeness theory (1978, 1987).

Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theog

1 . Face: Brown and Levinson assumed that every competent

speaker of a language has a public self-image called ‘face’ that he/ she
wants to preserve. The notion of face was based on Goffman’s (1967)
concepts of face and face-saving. This face consists of negative and
positive aspects:

A) negative face: the desire of the individual not to be
imposed on.

b) positive face: the desire of the individual to be
approved of or liked by others.

2. Face-threatening acts (henceforth FTA): are the

actions that threaten these desires or ‘face wants.’ Each person assumes
that others share these basic ‘face wants,’ and when involved in social
interactions, they are expected to save both the positive and negative face
of other people, since threatening other’s face may result in threat in

return. There are, however, many speech acts which are inherently face-

ll

threatening to the face wants of speakers and/or hearers (e.g., orders,

requests, apologies, offers, promises, refusals, etc.).
3. Strategies: Speakers therefore employ politeness

strategies to mitigate FI‘As. The strategies used for saving negative face
are negative politeness strategies, and the strategies used for saving

positive face are positive politeness strategies.
3) negative politeness strategies: are (1) be conventionally

indirect, (2) question, hedge, (3) be pessimistic, (4) minimize the
imposition, Rx (5) give deference, (6) apologize, (7) irnpersonalize S and
H, (8) state the FTA as a general rule, (9) nominalize, (10) go on record

as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H.
b) positive politeness strategies: are (1) notice, attend to

a H (his/ her interests, wants, needs, goods), (2) exaggerate (interest,
approval, sympathy with a H), (3) intensify interest to a H, (4) use in-
group identity markers, (5) seek agreement, (6) avoid disagreement, (7)
presuppose/raise/ assert common ground, (8) joke, (9) assert or
presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants, (10) offer,
promise, (11) be optimistic, (12) include both S and H in the activity,
(13) give ( or ask for) reasons, (14) assume or assert reciprocity, (15)
give gifts to hearer (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation).
Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed 5 strategies of politeness,

from the least redressive to most redressive: (1) do the FTA without

12

redressive action, baldly on-record, (2) use positive politeness, (3) use

negative politeness, (4) do the FTA off-record, (5) don’t do the FI‘A.

‘ 1. without redressive action, baldly
on record; . . 2. positive politeness
’ {With redressive action":
Do the PTA . I: 3. negative politeness

. 4- 0ff-Record
Figure 1. Possible Strategies of Politeness

They claimed that when the relative face-threat increases, a S will
select a more redressive strategy. Therefore, a S is likely to select
negative politeness strategies over positive politeness when the relative
face-threat is high since negative politeness strategies are more

redressive than positive politeness strategies.

P, D, and R

Brown and Levinson (1987:243-249) argue that their politeness
theory can explain cross-cultural differences in politeness. They
proposed that the amount of face-threat carried by a particular speech

act in a particular situation (Wx) is determined by the sum of the power

13

(P) the H has over the S, the social distance (D) between the S and the H,
and the absolute imposition (R) inherent to the speech act. Wx is a
numerical value representing the estimated degree of threat posed to
both the S and H by an FTA. It is composed of the values assigned to D,

P, and R:

Wx= D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx

Since different cultures have different values attached to P, D, and
Rx, each culture has a different assessment of the seriousness of the
FTA. even in the same speech act. ’Ihese weightings allow more specific
identification of ‘ethos’ or “the effective quality of interaction
characteristic of members of a society” (1987:243). Members of different
cultures, therefore, tend to employ different kinds of politeness strategies

which suit their cultural values.

Individualism versus Collectivism in cultures

According to Triandis, Brislin, and Hui 1988, Collectivism is a
more common cultural pattern in Asia, Africa, South America, and the
Pacific. It is “characterized by the individuals subordinating their
personal goals to the goals of some collectives. The collective is often the

extended family, although it can also be a work group (e.g., Japan).”

14

(P269). Individualism, on the other hand is a more common cultural
pattern in Western Europe and the US. It is “characterized by the
subordination of a group’s goals to a person’s own goals” (p. 269). In
individualistic cultures, the self is separate from the group, while in
collectivistic cultures, the self is part of the group.

In individualistic cultures, people join or leave the group on the
basis of costs and benefits of membership in the group. Individualists
start conversations very easily even with strangers and like to make
many relationships with many people. They don’t, however, get into
intimate relationships, and they tend to form short-term relationships.
In contrast, collectivists are attached to fewer groups which give them
their identity. They are group-dependent, so they hardly ever switch in-
groups. Any change in in-groups causes major changes in attitudes and
behaviors. They are poor joiners of new groups and do very badly when
they meet people for the first time. Once they get to know the other
person, however, the coldness is replaced by more intense interaction.
Collectivists prefer long-term relationships, and they value in-group
harmony. This is why they avoid confrontation. Individualists, on the
other hand, do not avoid confrontation, since they prefer the clarity of
situations over harmony (Lyuh, unpublished dissertation, 1992:30).

Hofstede (1984) points out some of the differences between high

and low individualism cultures. He showed that while nuclear family,

15

self-orientation, individual identity, and universalism (same value
standards for all) are characteristics of individualistic culture, the
extended family, collectivity-orientation, social identity, and
particularism (different value standards for ingroups and outgroups) are
characteristic of collectivistic cultures. His research showed that the
United States, Australia, and England were the highest on individualism.
In addition, he found strong correlation (.82) between individualism and
high economic achievement.

Hui and Triandis (1986) surveyed a sample of 49 psychologists and
anthropologists from all parts of the world to identify how individualist
and collectivist persons act in different situations. Their findings
indicated that the main differences between the two were as follows: The
collectivist persons were viewed as more likely to be subjected to their in-
group influence, to have more consideration for in-group members’
opinion when making major personal decisions, and to have more
tendency for sharing material resources than individualist persons.

Triandis (1988) points out to the link between collectivism and
ethnocentrism. He defines collectivism as: great emphasis on: (a) the
views, needs, and goals of the in-group rather than of oneself, (b) social
norms and duty defined by the rather behavior to get pleasure, (c)
beliefs shared with in-group, and (d) great readiness to cooperate with

in-group members. (p.74).

l6

Triandis points out that individuals in collectivistic cultures are
seen as representative of the in—group rather than as persons. Unlike in
individualistic cultures, the in—groups are “defined through traditions”
(p.75) in collectivistic cultures. This means that only one or two in-
groups usually become dominant in collectivistic cultures (e. g. , the
family, and the nationality).

Triandis et. al. (1988) maintain that in a complex society where the
number of the possible in-groups is unlimited, individualism is more
likely to increase because interdependence among the individuals
becomes less important since the existence of many in-groups provides
each individual with more alternative for social support. This, in turn,
leads to the individual being less inclined to be totally attached to any
particular in-group.

Triandis et. a1. point out that there are several stable
characterstics or qualities a long which individualistic and collectivistic
cultures can be differentiated along. One of these differences is self-
reliance which means freedom to do whatever one chooses. Another
difference is related to competition with others which characterizes
people in individualistic culture. In collectivistic cultures, however, the
group has to take care of its members and compete as a group rather

than as separate individuals either with in-group or out-group members.

17

Another difference is related to the idea of achievement. Individual
achievement is more emphasized in individualistic cultures than in
collectivistic cultures where achievement is a duty of the whole group,
and the individual is only a representative of the group.

Finally, the quality of interdependence which is a very positive
thing in collectivistic cultures, is seen as mutual interest necessity or
“social exchange” in individualistic cultures.

People in collectivist cultures have positive attitudes toward
vertical relationships and accept differences in power. People in
individualistic cultures have positive attitudes toward horizontal
relationships and are uneasy about people in authority (Lyuh, 1992:3 1).

Ting-Toomey (1988:224) maintained that “individualistic cultures
are concerned with the authenticity of self-presentation style, while
collectivistic are concerned with the adaptability of self-presentation
image”. But individualist behavior is motivated by guilt rather than
shame and is answerable to the self (conscience) or some superordinate
entities (government and God), while collectivists are more conscious of
others’ approval and feel shameful if they fail to obtain it (Hui and
Triandis, 1986). Triandis (1988), however, report that both guilt and
shame may exist in some collectivistic cultures as it is the case in India.

As a result, “While individualistic cultures are concerned with self-face

l8

maintenance, collectivistic cultures are concerned with both self-face and
other-face maintenance (Ting-Toomey, l988:224).”

Cross-cultural research findings point to the strong relationship
between high authoritarianism of and loyalty to the in-groups, especially
the family, and collectivism (Triandis, 1988). This may be a true
characteristic of the family in Saudi culture. Some researchers have
found that loyalty and duty to the family are greater than other social or
business related responsibility in Saudi culture because “status of the
individual in Saudi Arabia is derived from his membership in the group
family, village and tribe, and is not determined by his individual
capacity” (Abdrabboh, 1984, p. 37); and that the entire family feels
ashamed and equally responsible when one member is engaged in a

dishonorable act (Al-Juwayer, 1984).

High and Low-Context Cultures

According to Hall (1976) and Ting-Toomey (1985), low-context cultures
are the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and other
countries of northern Europe, and high—context cultures are Korea,
Japan, China, Vietnam, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean. Hall
(1976) classified cultures according to communication styles. He stated

that:

19

A high (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the
information is already in the person, while very little is in the
coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low context (LC)
communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of the
information is vested in the explicit code (p.79).
All the cultures that he grouped as low context (America) are
individualistic, and all the cultures which he grouped as high context
(Saudi Arabia) are collectivistic.

Brown and Levinson predicted that the distribution of politeness
strategies in the culture is determined by the relative weights of P and D
operating in the social dyad of a culture. They distinguished between
positive politeness cultures and negative politeness cultures. They
claimed that “in negative politeness cultures, the general level of Wx
tends to be high, irnpositions are considered to be large, and the values
for social distance and relative power are high” (1978:250). A culture like
that of America, therefore, is categorized as a positive politeness culture
in which people are more likely to employ positive politeness strategies
whereas a culture like that of Saudi Arabia is categorized as a negative
politeness culture in which people are more likely to use negative
politeness strategies.

Data collected for this study might help explain, though not

directly, the relationship between cultures and politeness, since these

20

data were collected from both groups in exactly the same face-

threatening refusal situations.

Studies on refusals

Several studies have been conducted on the speech act of
refusals. For example, Beebe and Cummings, 1985; Takahashi and
Beebe, 1987; Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Bardovi—Harlig
and Hartford, 1990, 1991, 1992; Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992a,
1992b. In spite of the fact that some of these studies were mainly
concerned with methodology (e.g., Beebe and Cummings, 1985; Bardovi-
Harlig and Hartford, 1992a), they presented a good picture of refusals of
native and nonnative speakers. Also, two unpublished dissertations,
1992, by Deephuengton, and Lyuh, discussed strategies of refusals.

Takahashi and Beebe, (1987) and Beebe et al., (1990) found great
differences between Japanese and Americans in the order, frequency,
and content of semantic formulas in refusals. In the study of the
developmental pragmatic competence of Japanese learners of English as
a second language as compared with native Americans in the speech acts
of refusals, Beebe et al., (1990) found that Japanese refuse differently
based on the social status of interlocutors, while Americans are more
influenced by the degree of familiarity or the social distance from the

interlocutors. Japanese showed different frequencies of semantic

21

formulas between higher and lower status requesters, while Americans
did not. Japanese did not apologize or express regret when they refuse a
lower status interlocutor. Americans, on the other hand, pay attention to
social distance. Brief refusals to both higher and lower status unequals
and more detailed responses to peers were given by Americans.
Japanese also tended to give vague and unspecified excuses, whereas
Americans gave specific ones.

In their study on the comparison of data collection methods -
natural speech versus written - Beebe and Cummings (1985) found
similar results to what Beebe et al. observed among American refusals.
They found that speech patterns used with intimates are similar to those
used with status unequal and strangers and differ from those used with
acquaintances. Beebe and Cummings claimed that the Discourse
Completion Test method can draw an accurate picture of stereotypical
refusals.

Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1991, 1992) and Hartford and
Bardovi-Harlig (1992b) in their study of native and normative rejections
collected from academic advising sessions found that ‘explanation’ was
used most commonly by both native and nonnative students. The
nonnative speakers were from different countries and spoke different
languages: Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Malay, Spanish, Thai,

Bengali, Chicchewa, and Yoruba. Native students employed more

22

‘alternatives’ than did nonnative speakers. They also used a smaller
number of semantic formulas than did nonnative students. Normative
speakers, on the other hand, employed an ‘avoidance’ strategy such as
questions, postponement, and requests for additional information. Four
items were used to test ‘illegal’ explanations: ‘too difficult,’ ‘you don’t like
the instructor,’ ‘too easy,’ ‘lack of interest in the advisor’s course.’
Another three items were selected to test ‘legal’ explanations: ‘you prefer
not to take summer,‘ you have a schedule conflict,’ and ‘you have already
taken a course.’ ‘Legal’ excuses were used successfully by both native
and normative students while ‘illegal’ explanations were used only by
nonnative students. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1992) described legal
explanations as:
“those used by native (also nonnative) speakers which the
advisers readily accept. They include time conflicts,
repetition of course content in the same course, and
scheduling of rare or unusual courses as alternatives.
Advisers are also sympathetic to explanations concerning
deadlines and financial burdens. Illegal explanations are
those which the advisors rarely accept, explanations such
as a course is too difiicult or too easy or a student is not
interested in courses in his or her field (PP. 3-4).”
On the basis of this study, the researchers developed a

classification of refusals which is slightly different from that of Beebe and

Cummings.

23

In his dissertation, Lyuh (1992) found that Americans and Koreans
differ not only in the employment of semantic formulas but also in the
content of refusal. Koreans used greater number of semantic formulas
than did Americans. They also gave excuses that are more vague than
those given by Americans. Korean refusals tended to be less direct. The
study also showed that Korean refusals reflected the characteristics of
collectivistic high-context culture, while American refusals reflected the
characteristics of individualistic low-context culture.

Deephuengton (1992) in his dissertation about how the notion of
“politeness” and the concept of “face-preservation” play a crucial role in
Thai found out that three kinds of politeness (avoidance of face loss) are
indicated by indirect use of language employed in speech acts of both
refusing and disagreeing; these are positive politeness, negative
politeness, and indirect politeness or off-record “face-threatening” acts
(FTAs). He indicated that Thai society is hierarchical in the sense that
social status differences play a crucial role. Age, power and religious or
governmental positions are all sources of status differences. Thais
believe social harmony is best maintained by avoiding unnecessary
friction with others.

In this chapter, Brown and Levinson’s theory (1978, 1987) and
previous studies of refusals were briefly reviewed. Relevant ideas of

Collectivism versus Individualism and low-context versus high-context

24

were also reviewed. Beebe and Cummings’ (1985) classification was then
used as a basis to classify the speech act of refusals by Saudis and

Americans.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research design and methodological
steps and procedures used in carrying out this study which was
conducted to investigate semantic formulas used by both Saudis and
Americans in the speech act of refusal. This chapter includes the
following sections:

0 Development of the Questionnaire.
0 Description of the Questionnaire.
0 Subjects of the Study.

0 Questionnaire Administration.

0 Data Analysis Procedures.

Development of the Questionnaire

The development of the questionnaire involved several steps:

First, a comprehensive critical review of related literature was
undertaken to acquire a sound background and knowledge in the
construction of a questionnaire relevant to the study. Second, the
discourse completion test questionnaire was then designed. In designing

the questionnaire, the researcher relied, to a great extent, on previously

25

26

designed questionnaires (e.g., Beebe et al., 1990, and Lyuh, 1., 1992).
Third, the researcher consulted with linguists to receive their comments,
suggestions and feedback. Fourth, the English draft of the questionnaire
was translated into Arabic. Fifth, the researcher tested the clarity of the
questionnaire by administering it to ten male students, five Saudis and
five Americans. This pilot study was also intended to examine the face

validity of the questionnaire.

Pilot study

Before administering the questionnaire to the selected subjects, a
pilot study with the questionnaire was completed in order to determine
subject reaction and participation, the time needed to complete the
questionnaire and whether there would be any problems or confusion
regarding the clarity of the items and language of the questionnaire. Ten
students, five Saudis and five Americans, were chosen as a sample for
this experiment. This pilot study proved to be beneficial and provided
ideas and information not apparent before the study. Moreover, direct
feedback was received from these ten students in the pilot study that led
to important improvements and indicated the need for some
modifications in the early version of the questionnaire. For example,
some students reported that that the questionnaire (consisting of 24

items in the first draft) was long and that some of its items were not

27

clear. This helped the researcher to make some changes and to reduce
the number to 14 items only. Some respondents requested more
explanations for some situations and this was done in the final version.
The time needed to complete the questionnaire ranged from 20 to 40
minutes. In general, this pilot study gave the researcher a good insight

and good training on how to administer the questionnaire.

The final draft:

Based on the pilot study and the researcher’s close observation,
both the English and Arabic versions of the questionnaire were

remodeled.

Description of the questionnaire

The elicitation method used for data collection was two
questionnaires in the form of open-ended discourse completion tests
(DCT) (see Appendices A and B). The DCT is a standard form in which a
situation is presented, followed by a brief dialogue. The subjects were
asked to complete the conversation. The DCT was originally developed
by Blum-Kulka (1982) and has been widely used for the collection of data
on speech acts realization both within and across language groups.

In each questionnaire, there were 14 open-ended different

situations in which subjects were asked to refuse. The 14 DCT

28

four requests, four invitations, three offers, and three suggestions. Each
group of situations consisted of three different social status relationships
(high, equal, low). These three variables have been found to be important
factors that have resulted in linguistic variation in other studies (e.g.,
Brown and Levinson, 1978; Wolfson, Marmor, and Jones, 1989; Blum-
Kulka and house, 1989).

In situations 1, 2, 3, and 4, the requesters were of higher status
than the subjects; in situations 5, 6, 7, and 8, the requesters were of
equal status. In situations 9, 10, 1 l, and 12, the requesters were of
lower status. In situations 5, and 7, the requesters were socially close
with the subjects, and in situations 13, and 14, the requesters were
socially distant. In situation 1, 5, 9 and 13, the subjects were to refuse
requests, and in situation 2, 6, and 10, they were to refuse invitations.
In situation 3, 7, 1 l, and 14, the subjects were to refuse offers, and in
situation 4, 8, and 12, they were to refuse suggestions. Characters used
for high status were advisor, professor, and boss, for low status a
freshman, housemaid, and tutored student, for equal status a friend and
a classmate, and for close and distant characters a stranger,
acquaintance, and a friend. The following table shows the classification

of Discourse Completion Task (DCT):

29

Table 1: Classification of DCT

Stimulus Refuser status DCT item
Lower #1
#5
Hi #9
Distant #13
Invitation Lower #2
lose #6

Hi
Lower #3
lose #7

Distant
Lower

 

Subjects

The subjects used in this study were 100 male undergraduate
university students - 50 Saudi students from Imam Mohammed Bin
Saud Islamic University (I.M.S.I.U.) and an equal number of American
Students from Michigan State University (MSU). Their age is between
19-26. The subjects were not asked to identify themselves and were from
majors other than English and linguistics. They were asked to give only
their age. They were informed that they were participating in a
contrastive socio-linguistic study, but they were not told the details lest
this should affect the spontaneity of their responses. Respondents were
also told that participation was entirely voluntary and that they could

withdraw at any time.

30

Questionnaire Administration

50 Saudi students from Imam University (I.M.I.U.) and an equal
number of American students from Michigan State University (MSU)
participated in this study. The tests for Saudi subjects were
administered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in July 1996, and the tests for
American students were done in East Lansing, Michigan, USA in August
and September 1996. All subjects were asked to fill out an open-ended
discourse completion task questionnaire (DCT) in their native languages
(Arabic and English). The questionnaires were distributed by the
researcher himself and some friends who helped also in collecting the
answers to the questionnaires. Respondents were urged to indicate what
they would actually do in the situations rather than what they thought

they should do.

Data analysis Procedures

The main purpose of the study is to identify the significant
semantic formulas used by both Saudis and Americans in performing the
speech act of refusal. To achieve that goal the speech act of refusal were
analyzed as consisting of a sequence of semantic formulas using Beebe
and Cummings (1985) as the basis for this study (see Appendix C for a
complete list). Semantic formulas represent the means by which a

particular speech act is accomplished, in terms of the primary content of

31

an utterance, such as a reason, an explanation, or an alternative (
Bardovi-Harlig , 1991). For example, if a respondent refused a request
for help by saying “I am sorry, I am late for an appointment, why don’t
you ask someone else?” this was analyzed as expression of regret,
excuse, and offer of alternative. Another example, a refusal like “No, I
can’t attend your party this weekend, I wish I can” is analyzed as no,
negative ability, wish according to Beebe and Cummings (1985).

In fact, the researcher did not follow exactly the order of Beebe and
Cummings (1985) classification. Instead, he used it as the bases for his
analysis. Different orders and numbers were given to show the semantic
formulas employed in this study. Moreover, a new category, sarcasm,
was added on the basis of the data collected for this study.

Data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. First, the
researcher obtained the total number of semantic formulas of any kind
used for each situation for both groups (Saudis and Americans). Then,
the percentage of each semantic formula was calculated by dividing the
total number of one type of formula in one situation by the total number
of semantic formulas of that situation. For example, if ‘regret’ were
employed 35 times by Saudis in situation 1, then the percentage of that
semantic formula is (25.0%) (35, the total number of ‘regret’ divided by
140, the total number of semantic formulas in situationl). At a second

stage of analysis, a ttest was conducted to determine if there was any

32

significant difi'erences in the number of semantic formulas used by both
Saudis and Americans. Additionally, a Mann-Whitney Confidence
Interval and Test was used to show if there is any significant differences
in the choice of semantic formulas by both groups.

Each one of the 14 situations of the questionnaire was analyzed in
terms of two variables; social status (high, equal, low) and social distance
(distant, close). Results were compared and contrasted to shed light on

the refusal strategies used by both groups.

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will present quantitatively and analyze qualitatively
the data collected from the discourse completion test questionnaires
administered to 50 Saudis Arabic native speakers and 50 American
English speakers. The results of this study demonstrated some
differences between Saudis and Americans not only in the number of
semantic formulas but also in the content of refusals. The study
revealed that Americans used fewer semantic formulas than did Saudis.
The average number of semantic formulas used by each group is shown

in Table 2.

Table 2: Average number of Semantic Formulas per Response

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stimulus type Refuser status Situation Saudis American

T. # A.# T.# A.#
Request Lower l 140 2.80 104 2.08
invitation Lower 2 l3 1 2.62 1 14 2.28
Offer Lower 3 86 1.72 79 l .58
Suggestion Lower 4 105 2.1 78 1 .56
Request Equal 5 87 1.74 81 1.62
Invitation Equal/close 6 146 2.92 127 2.54
Offer Equal/close 7 106 2. 12 85 1 .70
Suggestion Equal 8 80 1.60 77 1.54
Request Higher 9 101 2.02 90 1.80
Invitation Higher 10 128 2.56 1 14 2.28
Offer Higher 1 1 102 2.04 90 1.80
Suggestion Higher 12 l 17 2.34 87 1.74
Request Distant 13 109 2. 1 8 96 l .92
Offer Distant 14 78 l .56 90 l .8

 

 

 

33

34

As seen in Table 2, the average number of semantic formulas in
American responses was fewer than the Saudi responses in 13 situations
out of 14. Americans, like Saudis, however, used more semantic
formulas when refusing a person of higher status (situation 1, 2, 3, and
4). A t test was conducted to determine if there is any significant
differences in the number of semantic formulas used by both Saudis and
Americans. Additionally, a Marm—Whitney Confidence Interval and Test
was used to show if there is any significant difference in the rank order of
semantic formulas used by both groups.

The results of the Two sample T—test and the non parametric
Mann-Whitney test showed that there is no significant difference in the
number and the rank order of semantic formulas used by Saudis and
Americans. The two sample T-Test is significant at p—value 0.053 and
Mann-Whitney test at 0.0.0769.

Both Saudis and Americans used fewer semantic formulas when
refusing suggestions as compared to requests, invitations, or offers. The
significant factor that influenced the choice of semantic formulas
employed by both groups was not social status but rather the type of
speech act used to elicit a response; that is, either request, invitation,
offer, or suggestion. The semantic formulas of each situation will be

presented in the following sections.

35

Situation 1

In situation 1, both Saudi and American respondents employed
similar semantic formulas in refusing a higher status person, advisor,
except in the employment of direct ‘no.’ Saudis did not use direct ‘no’ at
all in refusing the request. The frequencies and percentages of semantic

formulas used in situation 1 are given in the following table:

Table 3: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 1

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
4.29
25.0
Wish 15.0
35 .71
Alternative 5.0
Future 4.29
2. 14
Positive ' 7. l4
Pause Fillers 1.43
Total 100

F
l
8
22
7
50

iflo—NN

_

 

In this situation, Saudis refused by saying “I’m very sorry, I have to
go home”, or “I promised to take my family out,” whereas Americans
tended to say “I’m sorry, I’m too busy in my part time job” or “I have a
group study after 15 minutes.” Saudis used ‘regret’ and ‘wish’ formulas
more than Americans did. This reflects some characteristics of high-
context culture. Saudis consider preserving harmony of utmost

importance in human relationships, whereas Americans put sincerity

36

and accuracy before harmony. Refusing a request without feeling sorry
or showing the desire that you are really willing to comply to the request

is considered impolite way in Saudi culture.

Situatiomg

In this situation, again both groups used similar semantic
formulas except in the employment of direct ‘no’. Saudis avoid saying
‘no’ in their interactions because they consider harmony as the most
important element in human relationships. Saying ‘no’ to someone’s face
is interpreted as an insult to the other person and that would cause the
breakdown of human relationships. The frequencies and percentages of
semantic formulas used in situation 2 are presented in the following

table:

Table 4: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 2

Semantic Formula Saudi American

% %

3.05

15.27
14.5

38. 17
8 4

2.29
0.76
3.82
Positive 4.58
Pause Fillers 0.76
Gratitude 8.4
Total 100

 

§3~o-—~g~5mw~n

37

In this situation, Saudis used far more ‘wish’ (14.5%), ‘regret’ (15.27%),
and ‘future acceptance’ (38.17%) formulas than the Americans did
(1.85%), (1 1.1 1%), and (1.85%). Saudis tend to seek the satisfaction and
the approval of the other person, so they try to show their respect,
consideration, and willingness to comply to the request if they could by
giving more regrets, wishes and future acceptance. This is a collectivistic
quality. Americans, on the other hand, used more ‘explanation’ (46.30%)
than the Saudis did (38.17%). This might be explained by the different
characteristics of high and low—context cultures. A high-context
communication depends on the context, so very little information is
explicitly presented in the message. A low-context communication, on
the contrary, does not depend on the context, so all the necessary
information is presented explicitly in the message (Ting-Toomey,
1988:225; Park, 1990:92). Americans, therefore, make themselves
understood by talking and giving more explicit information in their
communication. On the contrary, Saudis as part of high-context culture
tend to give less information and provide vague expressions. Also, they
do not give many details in their explanations. Americans also used
more ‘gratitude’ (17.59%) formulas than the Saudis (8.40%). This shows

that Americans are more courteous than Saudis.

38

Situation 3

Once again, both respondents used similar semantic formulas
except in the employment of direct ‘no.’ ‘Explanation,’ the most common
formula, showed high percentages (Saudis 48.84% and Americans
53.16%). ‘Regret’ were used far more by Saudis (15.12%) compared to
Americans (10.13%). This shows that Saudis used more negative
politeness strategy than Americans. Also, ‘negative ability’ was used by
Saudis (13.95%) more than Americans (3.8%). This shows that Saudis
try to avoid direct ‘no’ which they consider as impolite and improper way
of refusing by using ‘negative ability.’ Americans, on the other hand, are
more straightforward and direct in their refusal. ‘Explanation,’ again
stresses the fact that Americans are more self-expression than Saudis.

The list of semantic formulas in situation 3 is given below:

Table 5: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 3

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
2.53
3.8
10. l 3

53.16

2.53

1.27

Positive 5.06
Gratitude 21.52
Total 100

 

39

Situation 4

In this situation, where an academic advisor recommends certain
courses to take, Saudis again used different semantic formulas compared
to the Americans. They employed ‘wish,’ ‘future acceptance,’
‘philosophy,’ ‘repeat,’ and ‘postpone‘ formulas, while the American did
not. Other formulas, except in the use of direct ‘no,’ were used by both
groups. ‘Explanations’ (61.54%) was used more by Americans. This
shows that American again are more explicit in their refusal than Saudis.
They give more information and details in their refusal. Saudis, on the
other hand, try to escape this by giving less information or resort to other
formulas in their refusal. The percentages of semantic formulas

employed in situation 4 are listed in the following table:

Table 6: Frequencies and percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 4

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
2.56
1 .28
l .28
Wish -
61 .54
Alternative 15.38
Future

Positive
Pause Fillers
Gratitude
Total

1
6
2
3
7
9
1
2
09

H

 

40

Both groups employed a low percentage of ‘regret’ (0.92% in Saudi
responses and 1.28% in American responses) and ‘gratitude’ (1.83% in
Saudi responses and 3.85% in American responses). Saudis used more
semantic formulas overall (109) in this situation than the Americans did
(78) which means that Saudis are less straightforward than Americans in
their refusals. They both refused a suggestion on the basis of the
difficulty of a course or their own lack of interest. They also asked for
other options to avoid the suggested course. ‘Alternative,’ once again,
was used by Saudis (17.43%) more than Americans did (15.38%). Here,
we might say that with higher status, Saudis tend to use ‘alternative’,
‘explanation’ and ‘future acceptance’ to refuse a suggestion. They feel
that this is the only way to protect their self-image and the other

persons’. Saudis care about the in-group harmony and consistency.

fltuation 5

In this situation, where a student asks a classmate to fill out a
questionnaire for his research, Saudis used ‘regret’ (22.99%) more than
Americans (18.52%). This can be explained by the differences between
individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Saudis used more regret
because they feel ashamed and embarrassed for not responding to the
request. They try to soften their self-image and the other person’s image

by resorting to two semantic formulas, ‘regret’ and sometimes to ‘wish’ or

41

both. This is a quality of collectivistic culture where persons feel guilt
and shame or both when they refuse a request.

On the other hand, Americans employed more ’explanations’
(55.56%) than Saudis (48.28%) to refuse this request. Americans again
prove that they are more self-expression than Saudis. In fact, both
groups used similar semantic formulas except in the use of direct ‘no’
and ‘postpone’ formulas. Saudis a gain did not use the direct ‘no,’ and
American did not use the ‘postpone’ formula in this situation. The
frequencies and percentages of semantic formulas used in situation 5 are

demonstrated in the following table:

Table 7: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 5

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %

4.6

Alternative
Future

Positive
Pause Fillers
Total

 

Saudis were likely to say “I don't think my participation in this
research would benefit you,” or “Why don't you ask someone else,”
whereas Americans were likely to say “I don’t have time to do that,” “I

have an exam and I need to study,” “Can you leave it with me and when I

42

have time I’ll do it,” or “Check with me later I don’t have time to do it

HOW.

Situation 6

Table 8: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 6

Semantic Formula Saudi American

% %
No -

Positive
Pause Fillers
Gratitude
Total

 

In this situation, where someone invites a friend to a party in his
house, both groups used similar strategies except in the employment of
direct ‘no.’ Saudis again did not use direct ‘no’ in refusing a friend’s
invitation. ‘Explanation,’ ’gratitude,’ and ‘regret,’ formulas were used
most by both groups as table 6 shows. ‘Negative ability,’ ‘wish,’ and
‘positive feeling’ formulas come next. Saudis tend to say “I am really
sorry, I can’t come, I have to take my family out” or “I’m sorry, I have
other obligations, and thanks for your invitation”, whereas the Americans

tend to say “ I’m sorry, I have to study, thanks any way” or “I have to

43

submit a paper next week, so I have to work very hard this weekend,
thanks”. Again, Saudis stress the importance of the family in their life
which is one of the qualities of collectivistic cultures, whereas the
Americans resort to their school or homework which is for their own
interest and not others. Regret and wish were used by Saudis more than
Americans did because as I stated before in collectivistic cultures as
Saudis people tend to be ashamed and feel guilt for not complying to the
request or invitation of others. They resort to these two strategies to
soften their refusal and to preserve their image. The above table shows

the percentages of semantic formulas in situation 6.

Situation 7

In situation 7, in which a friend offers a respondent some juice,
both groups used similar semantic formulas except in the use of ‘regret’
which was used only by Saudis (9.43%). Saudis again show a quality of
collectivistic cultures by resorting to regret to reduce the efi'ect of their
responses as explained before. Direct ‘no’ was used more by Americans
(3.53%) than Saudis (0.94%), although the numbers were small, which
means that Americans were more straightforward than Saudis.
‘Explanations’ again were employed more by Americans (56.47%) than
Saudis (44.34%) which again stresses the fact that American were more

self-expression than Saudis. Also, ‘gratitude’ formulas were used more

44

by Americans (32.94%) than Saudis (17.92% which means, again, that
Americans were more courteous than Saudis. On the other hand,
‘positive feeling,’ ‘future acceptance,’ and ‘negative ability’ were used
more by Saudis which can be explained by that Saudis as members of
collectivistic cultures pay great attention to the implications of their
refusals on the other members of their group and are highly concerned
about social approval and strive to gain it. The following-table shows the

frequencies and percentages of semantic formulas for situation 7.

Table 9: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 7

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
3.53
4.7 1

56.47
Future 2.35
Positive 8.24
Gratitude 32.94
Total 100

 

The common responses used by Americans were to say “I just ate
dinner and I’m full,” whereas Saudis would say “I have a troubled
stomach.” Saudis resort to uncontrollable excuses as ‘troubled stomach’
to refuse the offer. They don’t express their real inclination and internal
desires straightforward because they believe that these things are not

good excuses to refuse their friend’s offer. Americans, on the other hand

45

expressed their real inclination straightforward and that they are full and

can eat no more.

Situation 8

Table 10: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 8

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %

l .3
6.49
55.84
1 1.69
2.6
6.49
l .3
Positive 12.99

Pause Fillers . - -
Sarcasm l .3
Total 100

Alternative
Future

F
l
5
43
9
2
5
l

H
O

—s

 

q
\I

In this situation, in which a friend suggests a course, both groups
of respondents employed similar semantic formulas. Saudis used more
‘alternatives’ (20.0%) than did Americans (1 1.69%) as table 10 shows.
Saudis as part of collectivistic cultures tend not to express their real
inclination and feelings about what they exactly want. Instead, they
resort to difi'erent strategies like alternatives to preserve their self-image
and the other party’s face and to avoid direct refusal. They tended to
employ ‘alternatives’ by saying “Instead of this course, why don’t I take
the other course.” Unlike Saudis, Americans tended to express their real

feelings and inclinations straightforward in their refusals as stated in

46

previous situation. On the other hand, Americans used more ‘negative
ability’ (6.49%) than did Saudis (1.25%). They tend to say “I can’t take
this course now because it is very difficult”. The content of ‘explanations’
differed in that the most common American explanations were based on
time conflicts, while none of the Saudi responses included this

explanation.

Situation 9

Table 11: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 9

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
5.56
6.67
l 1.1 1
37.78
22.22
3.33
3.33
8.89

1.11

7.92
14.85
31.68
Alternative 23.76

Future 4.95
5.94
Positive 5.94
2.97
Pause Fillers 1.98 -
Sarcasm - l . l 1
Total 99.99 100.1 I

._.. u—oowwgfiSOsLA-n

 

The highest percentage of the employment of ‘alternatives,’ for both
American and Saudi respondents, was found in situation 9, in which a
freshman asks for help. However, Saudis used ‘alternatives (23.76%) more
than Americans (22.22%) as happened in all situations. Also, they used

more ‘regret’ (15.31%) than did Americans (11.11%). On the other hand,

47

Americans used more ‘explanations’ (37.78%) than Saudis (31.68%).
Saudis again did not use direct ‘no’ at all, while Americans did (5.56%).
The above table shows the list of semantic formulas and its percentages
which were employed in situation 9. ‘Hedges’ were used more by Saudis
(5.94%) than Americans (3.33%) in this situation. ‘sarcasm’ formula was
used once by Americans (1.1 1%). ‘Pause fillers’ were used only twice by
Saudis (1.98%) which might mean that Saudis are more embarrassed
and less straightforward than Americans in their refusals. Americans,
on the other hand, show some sense of humor by using sarcasm. Again,
this situation supports what we have already seen in other situations
that Americans are more self—expression than Saudis and that Saudis
show some collectivistic qualities by employing ‘regret,’ ‘wish,’ ‘future

acceptance,’ and ‘positive feeling.‘

Situation 10

In situation 10, in which a freshman invites a teaching assistant
out to a good restaurant, both groups employed similar semantic
formulas except in the use of direct ‘no’ which was not used by Saudis.
Saudis used a greater number of ‘regret' (15.63%), ‘future acceptance
(7.81%), ‘positive feeling’ (9.38%), and ‘wish’ (5.47%) formulas more than
Americans (6.14%, 4.39%, 6.14%, and 1.75%). This supports our

previous explanation that Saudis are more concern about the social

48

approval and strive to gain it which is a characteristic of collectivistic
cultures. Consideration for members of their group is an important
factor in Saudi culture. This can be seen by the continuos employment
of the above formulas which show that Saudis are extremely concerned
about their group member to the extent that they can not refuse without
showing care and concern and promise to comply in future. This also
demonstrates that Saudi culture is a negative politeness culture. The
following table shows the percentages of semantic formulas in situation

10:

Table 12: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 10

Semantic Formula Saudi American
%

%
5.26
6.14
6.14
1.75

41.23
4.39
1.75
6.14

Wish

Future
Hed
Positive
Pause Fillers 0.88
Gratitude 26.32
Total 100

F
6
7
7
2
47
5
2
7
l
30

 

In refusing this situation, Americans preferred to say “I have to
finish some papers for my students,” “I’m too tired, or “I’m running out of
money these days,” while Saudis preferred “Next time I promise, I’m
sorry” or “I can’t make it tonight, I have to stay home,” or “May Allah

reward you for this, but I can’t make it tonight.” Some religious

49

expressions were used by Saudis such as the one just mentioned above
which is considered a ‘gratitude’ and appreciation to the invitee. This
reveals that Saudis are religious people in general. Almost all Saudi
respondents used religious expressions, particularly when they express
their thanks and gratitude to others which they consider the highest and

the most respectable expressions they may say.

Situation 1

In situation 11, in which a cleaning lady offers to pay for a broken
vase, Saudis employed a greater number of ‘threat’ formulas (38.24%)
than did Americans (12.22%). Both groups used similar semantic
formulas except in the attempt to dissuade the interlocutor by letting her
off the hook by saying ‘Don’t worry about it’ which was used only by
American respondents (18.89%). The employment of ‘no, no problem’
and ‘no, that’s OK (‘M?alesh in Arabic’) was used by both groups, as the
following table shows. Saudis used direct ‘no’ in this situation but
directly followed by another expression to smooth and reduce its reaction
such as ‘M?alesh’ (that’s OK). Saudis used this formula only with lower
class, while American used almost in every situation and with all social
status. Even with lower class, Saudis show concern and sought the
social approval of the other person (the cleaning lady) by employing other

expression that preserve their self-face as well as the other person’s face.

50

Table 13: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Semantic Formula Saudi American
F % F %
Threat 39 38.24 1 l 12.22
No, that’s OK ( M?alesh) 37 36.27 39 43.33
No, no problem 26 25.49 23 25.56
Don’t worry about it - - 17 18.89
Total 102 100 90 100

 

 

 

Situation 12

Table 14: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 12

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
2.3
4.6

Alternative

Criticism
Self Defense
Positive

Pause Fillers
Sarcasm
Total

 

In situation 12, in which a freshman student suggests alternative
exercises instead of the ones in the regular book to a graduate student
tutor, both groups used a high percentage of ‘self defense’ formulas.
Saudis employed more ‘self defense’ formulas (33.33%) than did
Americans (31.03%). On the contrary, Saudis used more ‘criticism

(16.24%) than did Americans (3.45%). ‘Principle’ formulas were used by

 

51

both groups (2.56% in Saudi responses and 1.15% in American
responses). ‘Alternatives’ were employed by both groups (14.94% in
Saudi responses and 8.05% in American responses). In this situation,
only Saudis used the ‘philosophy’ formula (1.71%). Saudis were likely to
say “You should study harder at home if you want to pass this course” or
use a ‘principle’ formula as “I don’t like to give examples outside the
book” or a ‘philosophy’ formula such as “Excuse is worse than a sin”
which means you really did not do your best in understanding this
course. Americans, on the other hand, tended to say “Life is full of
difficult examples,” or “There won’t be easy examples on the exam.” The
percentages of all semantic formulas in situation 12 are listed in the

table above.

Situation 13

In situation 13, in which an acquaintance asks for a favor, both
groups used similar semantic formulas except in the use of direct ‘no’,
‘hedge,’ and ‘empathy building’ formulas as the table below shows. Both
groups employed higher percentages of ‘regret’ (29.36% in Saudi
responses and 28.13% in American responses) compared to other
situations. Saudis once again did not use direct ‘no’. Both used a great
number of ‘explanations’ ( 45.87% for Saudis and 52.08% for Americans)

which is a common semantic formula throughout all situations. The

52

most common explanations given by both groups were “ I’m running out
of money these days, check with me later” or “I’m facing the same
problem, and I’m looking for someone who can lend me money”.
Eventhough the person is not a close friend, both groups showed
concern and provided explanations for not lending him the money. The
following table shows the percentages of all semantic formulas in this

situation:

Table 15: Frequencies and Percentages of Semantic Formulas for Situation 13

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %
- 4.17
2.08

28.13
Wish 2.08

52.08
Alternative 6.25

Positive 4. l7
Pause Fillers 1.04
Total 100

 

In fact ‘explanation’ formula was used in great numbers in all situations
which means that Saudis and Americans are self-expression and that
they regard refusal without providing an explanation is extremely an
impolite way. Both groups try to preserve their face image and convince
the hearer that they are concerned about his situation. This is an

indirect way of refusing or let’s say a polite way of rejecting the bearer.

53

§_ituation 14

In situation 14, in which a stranger offers a ride, both Saudis and
Americans used similar semantic formulas except in the use of direct
‘no.’ Saudis did not use direct ‘no’ but instead they used ‘no thanks’
which is considered by Saudis more polite than saying plain ‘no’. Both
groups gave brief responses by only saying ‘no thanks’ (38.46% in Saudi
responses and 40% in American responses). Most of the responses
included ‘gratitude’ (12.82 for Saudis and 13.33% for Americans) and
‘explanations.’ Common response explanations used by both groups
were “My car is parked in the next block,” “My home is around this
block,” or “I’m almost home’. All the percentages of semantic formulas

are listed in the following table:

Table 16: Frequencies and Percentages for Semantic Formulas for Situation 14

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %

1.28

1.28

44.87

Pause Fillers 1.28
No Thanks 38.46
Gratitude 12.82
Total 99.99

 

54

Analysis of Semantic Formulas found in this Study

Mann-Whitney Test was run to show if there is a significant
difference in the rank order of semantic formulas used by Saudis and
Americans. The overall results show no significant differences in the
rank order of semantic formulas employed by both groups. Null
hypothesis is significant at p=0.5362. All semantic formulas occurred in

more than one situation will be presented in the following sections:

Table 17: The overall Frequencies and percentages of Semantic Formulas used by
both groups in all Situations

Semantic Formula Saudi American
% %

Gratitude 6 64

Alternative 6.64
Threat 2.64
that’s Ok
no
Don’t about it
Criticism
Thanks
Wish

Positive

Future

Pause Fillers

Sarcasm

 

Direct ‘No’

55

The overall percentages show that both groups employed similar
semantic formulas. The three most common semantic formulas used

were ‘explanation,’ ‘regret,’ and ‘gratitude’.

Exam—attic;

The overall percentages of this study show that the major semantic
formula used in refusing any speech act (i.e., request, invitation, offer,
and suggestion) was the ‘explanation’ (36.79% in Saudi responses and
43.67% in American responses). Both American and Saudi respondents
used this formula most commonly, even though the employment of this
semantic formula varied among situations.

The above table presents the overall percentages of all refusal
formulas used by both groups in all 14 situations. Americans used more
explanations than Saudis in all situations except in S#l4 where Saudis
have more percentage 44.87%. Some situations, however, elicited fewer
‘explanation’ strategies than others. The use of ‘explanations’ was
consistent with what Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1991, 1992) found in
their study of native and normative rejections collected from academic
advising sessions. They found that ‘explanation’ was used most
commonly for rejections by both native and normative students. Native

and normative speakers, however, difi'ered in the employment of the

56

‘alternative’ strategy which is the second most common semantic
formulas.

In giving explanations, Americans gave specific details in their
explanations, e. g., “I cannot stay because I have an appointment with the
dentist after half an hour” or “I have a group study in the library within
15 minutes” ( responding to the professor’s request to stay by the phone).
Saudis, in the other hand, did not give specific times or places in most of
their explanations. Common explanations given by Saudis were, “I have
something to do,” or “I have an important appointment” (responding to
the professor’s request to stay by the phone). This might be explained by
different characteristics of high and low-context cultures. In low-context
cultures such as America most of the necessary information is
mentioned explicitly. A high-context culture as Saudi Arabia, on the
other hand, tends to give little information and vague expression because
they believe that the details of their refusals are personal thing and they
need not to tell others about it. This also shows that Saudis are less self-
expression than Americans. Americans tended to be more direct in their
explanations and gave their own inclinations as reasons for their refusal,
while Saudis tended to be less direct and resort to explanations other
than their own inclinations in refusing. For example, Saudis used family
circumstances very commonly in their explanations such as, “I have a

problem in my family,” “My family needs me to stay home,” or “I have to

57

take my family out” (responding to the professor’s invitation to the party),
while Americans gave explanations that express their own inclinations
such as “I have to study” or “I am not in the mood” (responding to the
same situation). This kind of explanation can be explained by cultural
differences. Saudi culture is considered a collectivistic culture in which
in-group interest is more important than individual interest and the
harmony among group members has the utmost importance. In
contrast, American culture is considered an individualistic culture, in
which individual interest is more important than group interest. As a
result of this cultural differences, Saudis used uncontrollable excuses
(e.g., their family, health) as reasons for their explanations. For example,
they used family circumstances which they consider beyond their control
as an explanation. Americans also used family-related explanations, but
less often than Saudis. Saudi responses included a higher percentage of
family explanations in most of the situations. In situation one, in which
a professor asks a student to stay by the phone, 25 out of 50 (50%) of the
Saudi responses contained family-related explanations such as, “I have
to take my kids to school after 15 minutes,” “I promised my family to be
home immediately after the lecture.” Only 2 out of 50 (4.0%) American
responses contained family-related explanations. In situation 2, in
which a professor invites one of his students to a party, 38 out of 50

(76%) of the Saudi responses contained family explanations, while only

58

17 out of 50 (34%) of the American responses did so. In situation 6, in
which a friend invites the respondent to a small party in his house, 32
out of 50 (64%) Saudi responses included family-related explanations,
whereas only 1 out of 50 (2.0%) of the American responses did so. The
same thing happened in situation 10, in which a student invites a
teaching assistant to a good restaurant. This inclination to use family-
related explanations might be due to different cultural differences.
Another interesting difference between Saudis and Americans was
seen in explanations that mention their financial situations. Saudis were
more private about their financial situations, and they tended not to say
that they did not have money. On the other hand, Americans stated that
they were running out of money. Also, religious expressions Were found
in Saudi explanations such as “inshaa? Allah, I will do it” which reflect
how much Saudis are connected to their religion. In contrast, American
responses did not contain any religious expressions. Both groups

preferred three semantic formulas, ‘explanation,’ ‘regret,’ and ‘gratitude.’

Regret:

The ‘regret’ formula was used by both groups, but Saudi
respondents tended to use it more than the Americans (12.67% in Saudi
responses and 9.02%). This might show that Saudis are more humble

and more down to earth than Americans. They have to show their

59

sorrow for not complying to the desire of the other member of their
group. By doing this, they try to maintain and protect their face and the
hearer’s face too. In 10 out of 14 situations, Saudi responses contained
a higher percentage of regrets, whereas in only 9 out of 14 situations did
American responses included a regret strategy at all. Both Saudis and
American tended to use a higher percentages of regrets when refusing
requests (situation 1, 5, 9, and 13). The next highest percentage
occurred in situations involving invitations and offers ( situations 2, 3, 6,
7, 10, 11, and 14). The lowest percentage involved suggestions
(situations 4 and 12). These results show that the types of speech act
used to elicit responses ( e.g., request, invitation, offer, or suggestion)
were a stronger factor in determining the kind of refusal strategy used by
both groups than the social status and social distance. The highest
percentage (25.0%) of regret employed by Saudi respondents was in

situation 1, in which they refused a professor’s request.

Alternative:

The results of this study show that both American and Saudi
respondents used alternative formulas and that Saudis employed more
alternatives in the overall 6.64% than Americans 5.0%. The use of
‘alternatives’ in situation 4, in which an academic advisor recommends a

course, is not similar to those found by Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford

60

(1991) who found that American students used more alternatives than
did nonnative speakers in rejecting the adviser’s suggestions. This may
be due to the different elicitation method, natural conversations, which
they used in collecting data which is different from my DCT method.
Saudis showed a higher tendency for alternatives more than Americans
in situation 4, which is the most similar to an advising session and other

situations.

Avoidance:

The data showed that Saudi respondents used varieties of
‘avoidance’ formulas more often than did Americans. Repetition of part
of a request, invitation, or suggestion was employed by Saudi (0.47%)
respondents in 3 situations (2, 4, and 6), but by Americans (0.23%) in
only 2 situations (2, and 6). Both groups used the ‘question’ (0.68%) as a
refusal formula to avoid direct refusal in situations (4, and 8), but, within
the situations, Saudi respondents employed more questions than
Americans did. Saudis and Americans asked questions to have more
information in order to delay their refusal. For example, Saudis asked
“Is it required to graduate,” or “Can I take it as an ungraded course”,
while Americans asked “Is it difiicult” in situation 4, in which an adviser
suggests a research method course to help the student in his research.

The use of ‘hedges’ as an avoidance strategy was used by both groups in

61

situations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13). Saudi respondents again
employed more hedges (2.3%) than Americans (1.14%) did in situations
(1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 13). The use of postponement as an avoidance
formula did not show any important differences (0.61% in Saudi

responses and 0.38 in American responses).

1711111;

The use of the ‘wish’ formula was used by both American and
Saudi respondents, but Saudis showed more employment of this formula
(4.4%) than did the Americans (1.44%) in situations (1, 2, 4, 6, 10, and
13). The higher percentages of wishes employed by Saudi respondents
when refusing requests (15.0%) and invitations (14.5%) of higher status
is evident in situations 1 and 2. The use of the ‘wish’ formula is
significant in this data which might mean that in Saudi culture using
wishes in refusing a request or invitation is important and considered a
polite way of refusing. Saudis as other Arabs are requested to comply to
others’ request or invitation, and since they cannot achieve this, they try
to provide less direct expression to seek the approval of the other part.
They are concerned about the in-group harmony and they try hard to
keep their relations with other members of the society. Saudis use this
formula with all members of their in-group regardless their social status.

This also might reflect the inner feeling and the humbleness of Saudis.

62

These characteristics are common in all collectivistic cultures which

provides a good evidence that Saudi culture is a collectivistic culture.

Gratitude:

Gratitude’ was used by both groups. The higher percentages of
‘gratitude’ were found in 6 situations. The first two were found in
refusing higher status offer (13.95% in Saudi responses and 21.52% in
American responses) as in situation 3, in which a boss offers a promotion
to one of his employees, and invitation (8.4% in Saudi responses and
17.59% in American responses) as in situation 2, in which a professor
invites the subject to a party. In situation 6, in which a friend invites the
respondent to a party, the percentages were 15.07% for Saudis and
21.26% for Americans. In situation 7, in which a friend offers a drink.
the percentages were 17.92% and 32.94%. The other two high
percentages occurred in situation 10 and 14. ‘Gratitude’ percentages in
situation 10 in which a freshman student invites a teaching assistant
were 17.19% in Saudi responses and 26.32% in American responses. In
situation 14, in which a stranger offers a ride to the subject, the
percentages were 13.7% for Saudis and 13.33% for Americans. Saudis
used religious expressions in their ‘gratitude’ such as “Jazaka—laahu-xer-
an” which means ‘May Allah (God) reward you for that.’ In contrast,

Americans did not include any religious expressions at all.

63

The percentages show that American use ‘gratitude’ more than
Saudi did when they refuse higher status invitation (S#2) or offers (S#3),
and a friend’s invitation (S#6) or offer (S#7). The overall percentages
(6.64% in Saudi responses and 10.31% in American responses) show

that Americans are more courteous than Saudis.

irect “No”

—¥

The overall results of this study show that Saudi respondents
almost never used direct “no.” (overall 0.2%). Saudi responses contained
direct ‘no’ only in situations 7, 8, and 12. The percentage were 0.94%,
1.25% and 0.85%. Direct ‘no‘ was rarely used by Saudis and only with
equal and lower status interlocutor but never with ones of higher status
or a stranger. In contrast, Americans (2.72%) used direct ‘no’ with all
these different social status groups ( high, equal, and low) and strangers,
but the higher percentages were found in refusing lower status
interlocutor (6.06%). In situation 14, in which a stranger offers a ride,
Saudi respondents used direct ‘no’ but attached ‘thanks,’ which is a very
polite way of refusing in Saudi culture.

This inclination of avoiding direct ‘no’ by Saudis might be due to
the fact that Saudis, like other collectivistic cultures, consider harmony
in human relationships more important than sincerity. They consider

direct ‘no’ as an impolite way of refusing and it might affect the social

relationships between both interlocutors. Moreover, both Saudi and
American respondents did not use performative verbs, such as “I have to

refuse” in this collected data.

Philosghy and Principle:

The data show that both groups stated ‘principle’ (overall 0.2% and
0.08%) in refusing a suggestion as in situation 12, in which a graduate
student tutored a freshman student. However, it was Saudis, not
American who also stated ‘philosophy’ in refusing suggestions in the
same situation. Saudis refused their tutored student by quoting part of
the Holy Qura’n which reflects a philosophy. The meaning of the verse
is “Don’t ask about something if you know it, it would sadden you”. In
other words, don’t ask too much questions. Saudis again used religious
expressions as they did in ‘gratitude’ formula which means that they are
religious persons or at least are influenced to great extent by their
religion, Islam. Also, Saudi refused by saying “I don’t like to give
examples outside the book.” American, on the other hand, refused by

saying “ life is full of difficult examples.”

65

Positive feeling, Empathy building, Sarcasm, Future
acceptance, and Negative abilitv:

The overall results did not show any significant percentages for the
above formulas except the ‘positive feeling’ (6.03% and 5.38%), ‘negative
ability’ (5.89% and 4.7%) and ‘future acceptance’ (4.13% and 1.82%).
‘Empathy building’ (0.47 % and 0.15%) and Sarcasm (0.07 % and

0.15%), on the other hand, have lower percentages in both groups.

Brown and Levinson Positive and negative politeness

Brown and Levinson proposed two sets of strategies: Positive
politeness and negative politeness. The strategies used by both
American and Saudi respondents can be categorized into either of these
two politeness strategies. Semantic formulas of regret, and hedge can be
classified as negative politeness strategies. Semantic formulas of positive
feeling, future acceptance, gratitude, and empathy building can be
classified as positive politeness strategies. The data of semantic
formulas show that Saudis used more negative politeness strategies than
did Americans. Saudis, as stated before, employed a much higher
percentage of regrets than did Americans in 11 out of 14 situations.
Similarly, Saudi responses contained a higher percentage of hedges. On
the other hand, the employment of positive politeness strategies did not

reflect clear and consistent pictures as the negative politeness strategies

66

did. The results also show that Saudis employed positive feeling, future
acceptance, gratitude, and empathy building more than American did.
In fact, the results of this study did not clearly show whether Saudi
Arabia is a negative politeness culture and the United State is a positive
politeness culture, as B&L (1978, 87) claimed, or vice versa. In other
words, Saudis tended to employ both negative and positive politeness
strategies more than Americans did. The use of pause fillers was
employed by both groups in situations (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and
14), but it did not reveal any significant differences.

In general, Saudi society is hierarchical in the sense that social
status differences play a crucial role. Age, wealth, power and religious or
governmental positions are all sources of status differences. Saudis
believe social harmony is best maintained by avoiding unnecessary
friction or turbulence in their contacts with others. In general, people
will do their utmost to avoid personal conflict. This social harmony is
one of the reasons for Saudis to be polite and indirect. Respect for
parents and elders in general are taught at a very early age. Saudis
believe in God (Allah), acknowledges His power and has a religious
affiliation. They believe that humans cannot control all events;
something depend on God (i.e., fate). Also, there should be no separation

between “church and state”.

67

As a result of this, in all interpersonal communications in Saudi
culture, only superiors (e. g., parents, uncles, aunts, scholars of religion,
bosses, teachers, king, princes, etc.) are expressive, and others just
listen. Saudis are far more sensitive to status differences than are
Americans. A good example of this was seen in situation 12, in which a
tutor was faced with his student’s suggestion. The tutor became
defensive and expressed authority because he thought his rank or

position was being challenged.

Conclusion

The speech act of refusal is a very sensitive issue for Saudis. In
Saudi culture, a person is strongly encouraged to comply with a request
for help; to accept an invitation, or offer, and to provide requested
suggestions. If a person can not comply, then appropriate linguistic
refusal formulas depends on the status and social relationship of the
interlocutors is used (Anwar A. H. 1995).

This study showed that both American and Saudis employed
similar semantic formulas in their refusals except in the employment of
direct ‘no’. They, however, differed in the content of their explanation.
Saudis gave little information and ambiguous explanations, whereas
Americans gave specific details and clear explanations. This means that

Americans were more concerned about the clarity of the message in their

68

refusals than Saudis. The study also showed that Saudis used religious
expressions in their refusals more than Americans which proves that
religion is deep rooted in the Saudi culture. Saudis demonstrated the
characteristics of collectivistic cultures, whereas Americans reflected
individualistic cultures. For example, Saudis showed consideration of
the implications of their refusals for other members of the collective or
in-group. Unlike Americans, Saudis were highly concerned about social
approval and strive to gain it. Shame is what they feel when they fail to
respond to others’ invitation, request, offer, or suggestion. They also
tended to keep their financial situations unknown to others because they
consider this a personal thing and a good man should not tell others
about his income or how much he has. This might be explained in two
ways; the first is that if a person shows that he has no money, other
members of the group will try to help him or give him what we call
charity which a person might consider an insult to receive; the second is
that if he shows that he has money, other members might disturb him
asking for money or somebody might hurt him by jealous. Saudis gave
family- related circumstances the greatest priority and importance in
their explanations which reflect the value of family in Saudi culture.
Loyalty and duty to the family are greater than other social or business
related responsibility in Saudi culture because as abdrabboh (1984:37)

stated “status of the individual in Saudi Arabia is derived from his

69

membership in the group family, village and tribe, and is not determined
by his individual capacity.” Americans, on the other hand, were more
straightforward and used direct communication styles more than Saudis.
They were more concerned about their own individual interests than in-
group. This was clear in the content of their explanation. For example,
they used their homework, studying for exams, visiting the dentist and
group study in the library as excuses for their refusals which all aims at
their own sake and not for the group. Americans also had no problem
telling about their financial situations and expressed it straightforward.
Now the researcher can say with confidence that American culture
is individualistic and Saudi culture is collectivistic. This conclusion is
consistent with the strong agreement among psychologists that American
culture is highly individualistic (Miller, 1984) and with what Lyuh (1992)

found among Americans in his Ph.D. dissertation.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, APPLICATION, AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the semantic
formulas used by Saudi and American male undergraduate students in
the speech act of refusal. The results of this research revealed that
Saudis and Americans used similar formulas in refusing requests,
invitations, offers, and suggestions except in the employment of direct
‘no’. However, they differed in the content of their explanations which
reflected some values of Saudi and American cultures.

The data of this study were collected through a DCT questionnaire
and were analyzed as consisting of semantic formulas following Beebe
and Cummings (1985). Semantic formulas of refusals of both groups
varied according to the types of speech acts used to elicit responses
rather than according to social status or distance. The highest
percentage of semantic formulas was employed by both groups when
refusing requests. The next highest percentage when refusing invitation
or offers, and the lowest percentage occurred when refusing suggestions.

Both Saudis and American differed in the employment of semantic

formulas and in the content of refusals. Saudis used more semantic

70

71

formulas than did Americans in all situations except S# 14. Saudis
employed ‘avoidance’ strategies (e.g., ‘postponement,’ ‘hedge,’ ‘repeat’)
more than did Americans. In general, Saudis used more politeness
strategies (1. e., positive politeness strategies and negative politeness
strategies) than did American respondents. Saudis gave unspecified and
vague explanations. They tended to be less direct in their refusals and
resort to explanations other than their own inclinations and desires in
refusing. Americans, on the other hand, gave clear and detailed
explanations and were more direct in their refusals. They also gave their
own desires and inclinations as reasons for their refusals.

The choices of semantic formulas reflected the different
characteristics of each cultures. Saudi refusals reflected collectivistic
culture, while American refusals reflected individualistic culture. The
study also showed that Saudis were more sensitive to status than were

Americans.

Applications of this research

This study can contribute to and bridge the gap in cross-cultural
pragrnatics especially on the speech acts of refusals by Saudis. Refusals
like other speech acts, however, reflect cultural values and enhance
cross-cultural understanding. Awareness of the differences in speech

acts of refusals between cultures can minimize potential

72

misunderstandings. For example, if Saudis keep asking questions or
repeat the requester’s statement, Americans should be aware that Saudis
are trying to refuse indirectly. When Saudis give unspecified and vague
explanations which are not acceptable to Americans, it is not that Saudis
are indifferent or untruthful. It is simply their way of communication.
Once again, explicit knowledge about other cultures, people are apt to
misinterpret the intentions and behavior of their interlocutors who are
from other cultural backgrounds on the light of their own values and
norms. Knowing about the sociolinguistic differences of other cultures
can prevent serious cross-cultural misunderstanding and can minimize
unnecessary hostility toward other groups.

The current study can also contribute to language learning and
teaching. Learners of language should learn both linguistic knowledge
and pragmatic competence. They should be exposed to both correct
forms and the proper way of speech to master the target language. The
results of this study can help teachers become aware of the differences
and provide information on how to refuse properly in both Arabic and
American English. Language learners should be provided with important
knowledge about the general patterns of refusals of target cultures in
order to interact successfully with people from that culture. Saudis who

are studying in the US are advised to refuse more directly and to give

73

more explicit explanations in their refusals. Americans will have to do

the same when they acquire Arabic.

Suggestions for further research

Throughout the process of conducting and reporting this study,
several thoughts and ideas related to this research have struck the mind
of the researcher to search them. Nevertheless, since this study at hand
has limits in terms of purpose, goal, and aim, the researcher believes
that there is a need for replicating this empirical study using a larger
sample allowing for stricter control of variables. A replica of this study
can also focus on other languages with the purpose of investigating the
sirnflarities and differences between one language and another, and one
culture and another. Similar studies should be undertaken on other
speech acts which have not been dealt with such as promising and

thanking in both Arabic and English.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
The English version of the Questionnaire

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
Consent Form

Dear Participant:

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the cross-cultural
differences in speech behavior. I request your participation in this study.
Participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any
time without penalty. If you agree to participate, you will fill out the
following questionnaire which will take approximately one hour. Your
responses will be completely confidential and accessible only to the
researcher and the advisory committee , so please do not write your
name any where on your responses.

On the following pages you will fill 14 situations in which an
individual is requesting that you do something for or with him. Pretend
that you do not want to comply with his request, invitation, offer, or
suggestion, and provide the suitable response as if you would be in real
situation.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Researcher
HAMDAN G. AL-SHALAWI
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS

I agree to participate in this study:

Major: .........................................

Age: ............................................

Signature: ...................................

74

75

Instructions

Please read the following 14 situations and provide the suitable
response as if you would be in real situation.

1. In a meeting with your advisor in his office, he asks you to stay by the
phone.
Advisor: I’m expecting a very important phone call, but I have an
meeting right now. Would you please stay here and answer the
phone?
You: --------------------------------------- .

2. One of your professors in the university invites you to his house:
Professor: I’m having a small party this weekend at my house.
Will you be able to come?
You: --------------------------------------- .

3. You work in an automobile company. One day the boss calls you to
his ofiice:
Boss: I’d like to offer you a good position in our new office in the
neighboring town with a nice raise too. What do you say?
You: ---------------------------------------- .

4. In a meeting with your professor to plan the next semester’s courses,
the professor suggests a course to be taken:
Professor: It seems to me that you need to take a course in
research methods. So, I would strongly suggest that you take this
course before you start writing your thesis.
You: --------------------------------------- .

76

5. One of your classmate asks you a favor:
Classmate: I’m doing a project this semester that requires me
to distribute questionnaires. Will you be able to help me on this
and fill one of them ?

You: -------------------------------------- .

6. One of your friends invites you to his house:
Friend: I’m having a small party this weekend at my house.
Will you be able to come?
You: -- ---------------------- .

 

7. One evening you visited your friend at his house and he offers you a
juice:
Friend: I just bought this new kind of juice. Would you please try
it and tell me about it?
You: --------------------------------------- .

8. While you are planning your next semester’s courses, you consulted
one of your classmates who is in your department:
Classmate: Well, that course is OK., but if you take this one first,
it would better.
You: --------------------------------------- .

77

9. You are a teaching assistant in the university. A freshman student

approaches you and say:
Freshman: Hi, in fact I’m having a lot of problems in one of

the subjects which I’m taking this semester and I need some
help. Will you be able to explain it to me?

You: --------------------------------------- .

10. You are a teaching assistant in the university. One evening a

freshman student invites you to a very good restaurant:
Freshman: some of our classmates are plarming to have dirmer in

a good restaurant tonight. Would you like to join us?
You: -------------------------

l 1. One day your cleaning lady rushes up to you and say:
Cleaning lady: Oh sir, I’m so sorry! I’m really sorry. While I was
cleaning your office, I hit your valuable vase and it was broken.
I’m so sorry, and I’ll have to pay for it.

You: --------------------------------------- .

12. You are a graduate student tutoring a freshman student.
Freshman student : I feel that this book is very difficult and the
exercises are not well prepared. I think if we stick to the exercises
that you prepared will be easier for us to understand this subject.

You: ....................................... .

78

13. An acquaintance stops by your house and asks you for a favor:
Acquaintance: I’m really in a big trouble. I should pay all my bills
this month or they will be sent to collection agency. Can you lend
some money and I promise I’ll bring it back next month?

You: ........................................

14. While you are walking down the street, a stranger stops and says:
Stranger: Would you like a ride?
You: -----------------------------------------

APPENDIX B
The Arabic version of the Questionnaire

€93le Oak)“ «111 an...)
0141:1111

.00

@1941 9.15.35“ 6.1:. 1351,41 Just

:Cfljmiéjajc
wamwsmlybbilllafiwwfil digital
.Lsijsnmgs “Minsky gunman“; minimum
153 .313, .51 93.3mm slams}. ,aajteg amusing pagan... oi
pungent.mavimefiqyemjnssaggabmm“least,
Jauheshbisyeayofihwmlw amalgam...

.asutsjpeaavl LUSemclejl.L§§QlfiYlijgljfiamlmj
was; ginghamusyu desegqyzgmmusmgs
J‘s—ills! ael-fiw‘lle-‘Hfimolfllefijl~W514-‘Zsfi'dv-3a3330l
WM‘JJK—‘lflslfimd—Sfi-‘SO‘J «.4513le ‘MJGJl‘flf—J

.MJfllwflngfifilfidflhdfih
anus: Us;
easel

Quail) 5.2.5
Laban .‘ss gs: asjman 5.1:: .3501
I ................... Jul)
2 ................ M1
: .................. be 5.1

79

80

; QWI

$35 )3 Les 3.11.1331 33-35314 16-23:— 349)“) 1am” my 559 @0511 3“} RJ‘
. as; ,an 0.53 gs bus

 

Iiwlécajfluifidltflhcglkggfifigiwljflléfifieemqj .\
afietiillehlsajldqécQYlli; dangagflasaayws. ju-aansulzqui
immature

Ellie «P553 J

:4}. .le elf-.4... 1.419111: ennui 3.3.1 .r
fJPflltfiiSAepkjcngaetfi-uyl tin eggswuagne dim“
3135903555)

zeasaulg Mjeifnaum 4:1 gsjscsijunnasjsgsdsasml .r
wast—psi new as .194le .9 bass Lula aisle said J 93‘ web”
sehljmsaanuas,»

3‘3“}! 04°03)

guild) talelecjflgc‘aatill Ml 513‘.)le lefllflficaelilqi .f
:SJDJM

Jamaal 3151.91.14: 3.3.11 ngiagssauuljcusseulgljassijaai
.Jasaaui 33.1.6591le Jessica: .3. set.

zenjiauaé},

81

:uJJueilAALJlagkmqurfllLJ .131 .0
13A 93$.)ch €145.51 daifiblghl @3333qu (1.411155 qudl :dyjl
Yul-1:1 139:3:

zen}, 0'4}:

24.1ij as}, agent .131 .1
ij'aallellSAedgicglfigétfi-A'YllMQHJQSBWUththSng

3“}! 0353.:

Zlejjaiaeu‘aiij “21.91.31 5.1:.) 931.31.34.41 4:191.)le .V
gjfissjqjssdl ehljmtgfifi‘allmnislltfll 15A qfilflnggAAl
fetal);

211,13 02-5}:

25.3311 gist»; .131 Qfiul seam: Mi Justinian-.3. .A
.5331 U151 Y)‘ '6le 03A «3.1.131 3.1 051 61-6—3 0.2L.” 3.11.411 03A idea)“
iéufie 0’45}:

82

IMGgle'dldMlgbthlélhgfil .aaataligsasuul .‘l
“1.4511InalygujgjzfidSLfiuqlJlganlgjs1.3;}:quail
sgqujaeutsauda .saetaanuaaascual,

33333-3 035};

GilLlflldjsmllgiemaateiaummdhjgi.atelienuasl .l.
29135.4“
Yflélytflfieda.mlfiuahg§ewekjluhuldag :ultlall
394533903333

:muaejnaiastxielsijeejasaum 33“.} .n
may.Assaqulmsmpsusunlgjsgnnumlqnj:hsuil
.Lgifiallciilqyjslsslmlghjsayflé Amigjnlijflligffil
3313339029333

dfllgwigseaiuawjnsefis.genuijaeltiaeal .w
.3JREJH3JMQ4LEJLAZUJ‘149WHBSM 133 ()1 filQJulzganll
seaguuedwqym muwguleumuuafitpmianel,
331.41

3913339 03333

83

:UJJutflMHILgJUJMl 431133939” .IY
)1”JillquJfilfiwéaidigflsgchSfismgigfi}:Cilia-4.11.131
«quUlélJclJtdLAllu’auqmlfiltflJSth.Ugflléflfiulflcfilwfi

.3313“ Jeni“ (£19.15
3313339 0‘5};

:dfijwficflywdfistjmlgé MQSW .12
Yéflmjldleaafidezggfil
iénfiiu'ésfij

APPENDIX C
Classification of Refusals (Beebe and Cummings, 1985)

APPENDIX C

Classification of Refusals (Beebe and Cummings, 1985)

DIRECT
Perforrnative (e.g., “I refuse”)

Nonperformative statement:
1. “No”
2. Negative willingness / ability (“I can’t.” “I won’t.” “I don’t
think so.”)
INDIRECT

Statement of regret (e.g., “I’m sorry...,” “I feel terrible...”)
Wish (e.g., “I wish I could help you...”)

Excuse, reason, explanation (e.g., “My children will be home that
night,” “I have a headache”)

Statement of alternative
1. I can do X instead of Y (e.g., “I’d rather...” “I’d prefer...”)
2. Why don’t you do X instead of Y (e. g., “Why don’t you ask
someone else?”)

Set condition for future or past acceptance:
(e.g., “I’ll do it next time,” “I promise I’ll...” or “Next time
I’ll...” -using “will” of promise or “promise”)

Statement of principle (e.g., “I never do business with friends”)
Statement of philosophy (e. g., “One can’t be too careful”)

Attempt to dissuade interlocutor
1. Threat or statement of negative consequences to the
requester (e.g., “I won’t be any fun tonight” to refuse
an invitation.)
2. Guilt trip (e.g., waitress to customers who want to sit a
while: “I can’t make living off people who just order
coffee.”

84

85

4. Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping
or holding the request.

5. Let interlocutor off the hook (e.g., “Don’t wony about it.”
“That’s okay.” “You don’t have to.”
6. Self-defense (e.g., “I’m trying my best.” “I’m doing all I
can do.” “I don’t do nothing wrong”)

Acceptance that functions as a refusal
1. Unspecified or indefinite reply
2. Lack of enthusiasm

Avoidance

l. Nonverbal
Silence
Hesitation
Do nothing
Physical departure

2. Verbal
Topic switch
Joke
Repetition of part of request, etc. (E.g., “Monday?”)
Postponement (e.g., “I’ll think about it.”)
Hedging (e.g., “Gee, I don’t know.” “I’m not sure.”

ADJUNCTS TO REFUSALS
Statement of positive opinion/ feeling or agreement (“That’s a
good idea...” ; “I’d love to...”)

Statement of empathy (e.g., “I realize you are in a difficult
situation”)

Pause fillers (e.g., “uhh”; “Well”; “oh”; “uhm”)

Gratitude / appreciation

APPENDIX D
Examples of Semantic Formulas quoted from the Questionnaire

Appendix D

Examples of Semantic Formulas quoted from the questionnaire

1. Direct no: ‘No,’
‘laa,’ ‘no’

2. Negative ability:
‘I cannot,’
‘laa astatii?,’
‘ma?gdar,’ ‘I don't think I can make it’

‘I won’t be able to come.’ ‘Laa astatii?’

3. Regret: ‘I’m very sorry...,’
‘I’m sorry
‘Sorry’
‘anaa aasifjidan ‘I’m very sorry’
‘ana assif.’ ‘I’m sorry’

4. Wish: ‘I wish I can come
‘I wish I could, but I have
‘yaa layt,’ ‘I wish’
‘atarnanaa’ ‘I wish’
‘I hope to attend but...’
‘that would be no problem, however, I have...’
‘I wish it is on Saturday’

5. Explanation: ‘I have to stay home with my family,’
‘I have to take my family out this weekend,’
‘I have an exam’
‘I have troubled stomach,’
‘I have to study.’
‘I’m too busy’
‘I have a class in a couple of minutes’
‘I already have a dinner engagement’
‘1 already have too many hours in this semester’
‘I’m broke and simply don’t have any money.’

6. Alternative: ‘Why don’t you ask someone else,’
‘ If you ask another person would be better,’

86

87

‘I can look into the possibility of having this course
waived’

‘If you work extra hours you can cover the cost for this
damage,’

‘this course is more related to my major than the first
one.’

‘Why don’t you ask the secretary to transfer this call to
the meeting room’

7. Future acceptance:
‘1 will come next time I promise,’
‘I promise I’ll accept your invitation next time,’
‘I’m busy now, but next time I’ll...’
‘I’ll take this course next semester.’
may be next time.’

8. Principle: ‘1 don’t like to give examples outside the book,’
‘My way of teaching is to stick to the book,’
‘I don’t like lazy students who like easy exercises.’

9. Philosophy: ‘Life is full of difficult examples,’
‘Excuse is worse than sin,’
‘asking too many questions is a bad habit.’

10. Self-defense: “You should blame yourself for not studying hard
‘I’m trying to explain every thing in an easy way
‘l’m trying my best
‘It’s your problem
‘try to read before you come to class.’

1 1. Repeat: ‘Next weekend ..uhm .. next weekend, I don’t think I can’
‘Research method ?,’

‘party...party, oh, I’m sorry I cannot...’

12. Postpone: ‘Check with me later’
‘I’ll think it over’
‘try to remind me before the weekend’
‘...I’ll think about it’

13. Hedge: ‘I don’t know what to choose’
‘I’m lost...’
‘...I don’t know what to say,...’
‘I really don’t know’

88

14. Positive feeling: ‘I would love to do my advisor a favor but...’
‘I would love to come if I have time
‘I will be happy to come and meet your wife...’
‘It’s a great honor to be invited

15. Empathy building:
‘I know that you are in a trouble, but I can do nothing to
you’
‘I’m sure that you need help in your studies...’
‘I know your difiicult situation but I’m not the right person...’
‘I really understand how serious your problem are but

16. Question: ‘Is it required to take this course’
‘What weekend you are talking about’
‘Can I take this course instead of that one’
‘Can I waive it’
‘Do you really have a party?’

17. Threat: ‘...But if you do it again you blame yourself
“This time you have no problem but don’t do it again’
‘...do not do it again and be careful when you clean my office’
‘...next time, you will pay for every thing’
‘...next time I’ll deduct from your salary.’

18. Let interlocutor off the hook:

. ‘No, that’s Ok’

. ‘Don’t worry about it’

. ‘No, no problem’

. ‘M?alesh’ ‘that’s Ok’

. ‘That’s Ok.’

. ‘Masar i?la khair ‘nothing happened’

. ‘Laa, laa, mafih Mushkilah’ ‘no, no problem’

flavors-catch-

19. Pause fillers: ‘wallahi’ ‘by God’
‘Well,...’
‘uhm’
‘Uh,

20. Gratitude: ‘Shukran’ Thank you’
“Thanks a lot’
Thank you’
‘J azaka allahu khayran’ ‘May Allah reward for that’
‘Allah yukremuk’ ‘ May God be generous with you’

2 1. Sarcasm:

22. No thanks

23. Criticism:

89

‘Allah yukremuk’ ‘ May God be generous with you’
‘I appreciate your offer...’

‘I appreciate your suggestion...’

‘a smart person like you doesn’t need a help from a
person like me’

‘why don’t you teach the class instead of me’

‘I didn’t think that you are a genius person’

“Who do you think you are to suggest different
exercises’

‘I have never thought that you have stupid ideas’
‘This is ridiculous’

‘A student like you should not ask for easy exercises’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdrabboh, Bob (1984). Saudi Arabia: Force of modernization.
Brattleboro, Vermont: Amana Books.

Al-Juwayer, A. (1984). Development and family in Saudi Arabia: An
explanatory study of the views of university students in Riyadh.
Unpublished dissertation, The University of Florida.

Al-Zahrany, S. (1991). Cross-Cultural Differences in Attributions of
Responsibility to the Self, the Family, the in-group, and the out-
group in the USA and Saudi Arabia: Western versus Non-Western
cultural Attributional Patterns of Responsibility. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Anwar, A. Hussein (1995).The Sociolinguistic Patterns of Native Arabic
Speakers: Implications for Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language.

Applied Langpage Learning, 6, 1&2, 65-85.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, Beverly S. (1990). Congruence in Native
and Normative Conversation: Status Balance in the Academic
Advising Session. Langpage Learning, 40, 4, 467-501.

-------- . (1991). Saying “No” in English: Native and Normative Rejections.
In L. Bouton and Y. Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and Langpage
learning, Monograph series, 2, 41-58.

-------- .(1992). Refinipg the DCT: Comparing Open Questionnaires and
Dialogre Completion Tasks. Paper Presented to the Sixth International
Conference on Pragmatics and Language Leaming.

Barnlund, D. and Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural Encounters: The
Management of Compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 9-26.

---------- . and Yoshioka, K. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American

Styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193-
206.

90

91

Beebe, Leslie and Cummings, Martha Clark. (1985). Speech Act
Performance: A Function of the Data Collection Procedure? Paper
presented in the Sixth Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics
Colloquium at the International TESOL Convention, New York.

---------- . and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatics Transfer in ESL
Refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson and S. D. Krashen (eds.), Qp
the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second
Langpage, Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. pp. 55-73

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning How to Say What You Mean in a
Second Language: A Study of the Speech Act Performance of
Learners of Hebrew as a Second Language. Applied Lingpistics, 3,
29-59.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). Interpreting and Performing Speech Acts in a
Second Language: A cross-Cultural study of Hebrew and English.
In Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd (eds.) Sociolinguistics and
Langpage Acguisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 36-55

------------- .(1987). Indirectness and Politeness in Request: Same or
Different? Journal of Pragmatics, 1 1, 145-160.

-------------- . and House, J. (1989). Cross-Cultural and Situational
Variation in Requesting Behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House,
and G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and
Apologies, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp.
123-154

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage:
Politeness Phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (eds.) grestionrs and
Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 56-289.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied

Lingpistic, I, 1, pp. 1-47.

Cohen, A. D. and Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a Measure of
Sociolinguistic Competence: The Case of Apology. Langpage
Learning, 31, 113-134.

92

DeCapua, A. (1989). An Analysis of Pragmatic Transfer in the Speech Act
of Complaints as Produced by Native Spegers of German in
Engfish. unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University.

Deephuengton, P. (1992). Politeness in Thai: Strategies of refusing and
disagreeing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.

Eisenstein, M. and Bodman, J. W. (1986). “1 Very Appreciate”:
Expressions of Gratitude by Native and Normative Speakers Of
American English. Applied Lingpistics, 7, 167-185.

Gass, S. &Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An
Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ. : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face—to-Face
Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Gumperz, J. (1966). Linguistic repertoires, grammers, and second
language instruction. In Dil (eds.), Langpage in Social groups :
Essays by John Gumperz. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hall, E. T. (1976). BeyoncL Culture. N .Y.: Doubleday.

Hartford, B. and Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992a). Closing the Conversation:
Evidence from the Academic Advising Session. Di_scourse
Processes, 15. pp.93-116

------------ .(1992b). Experimental and Observational Data in the Study of
Interlanguage Pragmatics. Pragmatics and Langu_age learning,
Monogpaph Series, University of Illinois. 3, 33-52

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences
in worlLregted values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.

House, J. And Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness Markers in English and
German. In Florian Couhnas (eds.) Conversation Routine:

Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and
Prepattemed Speech. The Hague: Mouton. pp.157-186.

Hui, C. H. and Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism- collectivism: A
study of cross-cultural researchers. J. Cross-Cult. Psychology, L7;
225-248.

93

Hymes, D. (1964). Directions in Ethnolinguistic Theory. American
Anthropologist, 6, 3 (2), pp. 6-56.

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In Pride and Holmes
(eds.), Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.

Keenan, E. Ochs (1976). The Universality of Conversational Implicature.
Langpage in Society. S, 67-80.

Kleiner, B. (1992). Politeness: Social Class ethos in a Northern US city. A
qualitative study of politeness behavior in language. MA thesis.

Klopf, D. W. and Park, M-S. (1982). Cross-Cultural Communication: An
Introduction to the Fundamentals. Seoul, Korea: Han Shin
Publishing Co.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. NY. Longman.

Lyuh, I. (1992). The Art of Refusal: Comparison of Korean and American
Cultures. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Indiana University

Miller, Joan (1984). Culture and development of everyday social
explanation. J. Person. soc. Psychology, 46_, 961-978.

Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies Across Languages. In Shoshana Blum-
Kulka, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper (eds.) Cross-Cultural
Pragmatics: Rgpests and Apologies, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation. pp. 155-173.

----------- . And Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A Speech Act Set. In Nessa

W. And Elliot, J. (eds.) Sociolingpistics and Langpage Acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Omar, A. (1992). Conversational Openings In Kiswahili: The Pragmatic
Performance of Native and Normative Speakers. In LB. and Y. K.
(Eds.) mgmatics and Langpage learning, University of Illinois,
Monograph Series 3, 20-32..

Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Langpage in
Sociegg, E, 31 1-335.

94

Scollon, R. And Scollon,S. B. K (1981). Narrative, geracy and Face in
Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex P. C.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: A11 Essay in the Philosophy of
Langpage. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.

--------- . (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole and J .Morgan (eds.)
Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics V. 3), NY. Academic Press, pp.
59-82.

Takahashi, T. And Beebe, L. (1987). The Development of Pragmatics
Competence by Japanese Learners of English. JALT Journal, 8,
131-155.

Tannen, Deborah. (1981). Indirectness in Discourse: Ethnicity as
Conversational Style. fiscourse Processes.

Ting-Toomy, S. (1985). Toward a Theory of Conflict and Culture. In W.
Gudykunst, L. Stewart, and S. T‘ing-Toomy (eds.) Communication
Culture, and Organi_zational Processes, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp.
71-85

 

............. , (1988). A face-Negotiation Theory. In Y. Kim and W.

Gudykunst (eds.) Theog; in Intercultural Communication, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage, pp. 213-235

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs Individualism. In G. Verrna & C.
Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes, and
cogpition (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.

T‘riandis, H., Brislin, R. And Hui, c. Harry. (1988). Cross-Cultural
Training Across the Individualism-Collectivism Divide.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269-289.

----------- , H., Bontempo, J ., Villareal, M., Asia, M.,& Lucca, Nydia (1988).
Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-
ingroup relationships. J. Person. Soc. Psychology, 54 (2), 323-338

Trosborg, Anna. (1987). “Apology strategies in native /nonnatives.”
Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147-167.

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

95

Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in Cross-Cultural Perspective. TESOL
quarterly, 15, 117-124.

------------ . (1988). The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behavior and Social
Distance. In Jonathen Fine (eds.) Second Langu_age Discourse: A
Textbook of Current Research, Norwood. NJ .: Ablex Publishing
Corporation. pp. 21-38.

............. , (1939). perspectives on Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley.
Mass: Newbury House.

------------- . Marrnor, T. And Johns, S. (1989). Problems in the
Comparison of Speech Acts Across Cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.
House, and G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies, (PP. 174-196). Norwood, NJ .: Ablex P. C.

"I'lllllllllllllilllllllf