Article

Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL

Refusals
Anchalee Wannaruk
School of English, Suranaree University of Technology
Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
wannaruk@sut.ac.th

Abstract  Communication breakdowns can occur during cross-cultural communica-

tion due to different perceptions and interpretations of appropriateness and politeness.
This study investigates similarities and differences between refusals in American
English and Thai and incidences of pragmatic transfer by Thai EFL learners when
making refusals. The participants of the study include Thai and American native
speakers and EFL learners. All of them are graduate students. The data were collected
by means of a discourse completion test (DCT) which was designed on the basis of
interviews carried out with a view to possible situations for refusals. EFL data for
refusals were compared with similar data elicited from native speakers of American
English and Thai. Results indicate that overall all three groups share most of the
refusal strategies and that pragmatic transfer exists in the choice and content of refusal
strategies. Awareness of a person of a higher status and the characteristics of being
modest in L1 culture motivate pragmatic transfer. Language prociency is also an
important factor in pragmatic transfer. In making refusals, EFL learners with lower
English prociency translate from L1 to L2 because of their lack of L2 pragmatic
knowledge.

Keywords  Interlanguage pragmatics, pragmatic transfer, refusals, speech acts, Thai.

Introduction
Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) is a branch of second language acquisition
research. One of its aims is to study how non-native speakers comprehend
and perform a particular speech act in a target language and how they
acquire pragmatic competence in that language (Kasper 1992). Research
in interlanguage pragmatics has shown that ESL learners’ performance of
speech acts is often different from that of native speakers because of

Vol 39(3) 318-337 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688208096844

© 2008 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and
Washington DC
http://RELC.sagepub.com
 319
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

limited knowledge of L2’s sociolinguistic rules (Kwon 2003). As a result,

communication breakdown may occur. This kind of failure is called
‘sociopragmatic failure’, which is ‘the mismatch which arises from cross-
culturally different assessments within the social parameters affecting
linguistic choice, size of imposition, social distance between speaker and
hearer, relative rights and obligations, etc.’ (Thomas 1984: 226). Socio-
pragmatic failure is considered more serious than linguistic failure. If a
person commits a linguistic error, he is just perceived as less procient in
the language. If he makes a pragmatic mistake, however, he might appear
as rude, disrespectful or impolite.
One speech act in which communication breakdowns can possibly
occur is the speech act of refusal. Refusals are recognized as face-
threatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987) because the speaker is
making an attempt to refuse to engage in an act initiated by the inter-
locutor (Chen, Ye and Zhang 1995). Refusals are complicated because
they are inuenced by several social factors including gender, age, level of
education, power, and social distance (Fraser 1990; Smith 1998). Maing a
refusal in one’s native langauge can be awkward and it is even more
awkward in a second language. EFL learners, in particular, are likely to
encounter problems in performing the speech act of refusal appropriately
in English. Improper performance might lead to serious consequences,
including misunderstanding and making a negative impression during
interaction with English native speakers.
Pragmatic transfer, also referred to as ‘sociocultural transfer’ by Wolf-
son (1989), is one potential cause of inappropriate performance in a
second or foreign language. It occurs when speakers apply rules from the
L1 culture to a second or a foreign language. The phenomenon of
pragmatic transfer has been investigated in different speech acts in many
languages and it has been found that pragmatic transfer is evident in L2
speech performance (Jaworski 1994; He 1998; Hassall 2003; Byon 2004;
Huth 2006). For example, Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1990)
reported evidence of pragmatic transfer in refusals made by Japanese
learners of English. It was found that the content of excuses in both
Japanese and English made by Japanese learners of English was far less
specic than the content of excuses made by American participants.
Another signicant nding is that the Japanese subjects were likely to
make different responses to interlocutors of a higher or lower status in
both Japanese and English. Their awareness of social status was trans-
ferred from Japanese culture.
320
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

The relationship between pragmatic transfer and language prociency

is relatively complicated. Robinson (1992 cited in Takahashi, 1996)
studied rejections in English used by female Japanese ESL learners. It was
found that both intermediate and advanced learners realized the differ-
ences between American and Japanese cultures in terms of appropriate
refusal behaviours. Learners with a higher language prociency adopted
English refusal strategies whereas low-level learners were more likely to
be inuenced by their L1 refusal behaviours. Recently, Kwon (2003)
reported contradictory ndings. In Kwon’s study, although learners at all
levels displayed evidence of pragmatic transfer in refusals, pragmatic
transfer actually increased with linguistic prociency. Advanced learners
showed the greatest instances of pragmatic transfer due to their high
grammatical prociency in the target language, followed by intermediate
learners and then beginners, who showed the least instances of pragmatic
transfer. Another attempt by Al-Issa (2003) studied sociocultural transfer
and its motivating factors. It was found that sociocultural transfer exists in
the choice of selecting refusal strategies, length of responses, and content
of semantic formulae. Each was found to reect cultural values transferred
from Arabic to English.
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it investigates the simi-
larities and differences in American English and Thai refusals. Second, it
examines whether or not pragmatic transfer from Thai to English is
evident in the English spoken by Thai EFL learners. This will foster a
better understanding of appropriate ways for EFL students to make refus-
als in American English and also help teachers develop their learners’
pragmatic competence.

The Study
Subjects
The subjects in this investigation were 40 American (NEs) and 40 Thai
native speakers (NTs) and 40 Thai EFL learners, 20 males and 20 females
in each group. The age of the subjects ranged from 22–40 years of age. All
of them were graduate students studying a variety of academic majors in
different universities in their own countries. Based on the scores obtained
from the university's Graduate English Test, the EFL participants were
categorized into three groups: lower intermediate, intermediate and upper
intermediate. Most of them had never travelled to any English-speaking
countries. A few had stayed in the US for less than a year for their re-
search work.
 321
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

Discourse Completion Test

Data was collected through a ‘Discourse Completion Test (DCT)’. The
researcher interviewed graduate students for possible situations in which
refusals were likely to occur. This resulted in four kinds of eliciting acts:
invitations, suggestions, offers and requests. In each eliciting act, refusal
was made to interlocutors of higher, equal or lower status. The DCT was
written in two versions, English and Thai, which were developed to be
equivalent in terms of format and content, except for one situation in the
English DCT which was adapted to suit the Thai EFL graduate students’
environment. The American and Thai EFL graduate students responded
to the English DCT whereas the Thai graduate students answered the Thai
version. In addition to the DCT data, retrospective interviews were con-
ducted with ve subjects from each group. Data gained from the inter-
views provided insights into their perceptions of the situations and their
production of refusals.

Data Analysis
Refusal strategies or semantic formulae were analysed based on the classi-
cation adapted from Beebe et al. (1990) (See Appendix). For example, if
a respondent refused an advisor’s offer of a teaching assistantship, saying,
‘I’d really love to teach but this term is hard for me. Thank you very
much’, this response was coded as consisting of three refusal strategies as
shown in the brackets:

I’d really love to teach but this term is hard for me. Thank you very much.
[Positive feeling] [Explanation] [Gratitude]

For reliabilty of coding, four raters, two Thai native speakers and two
American native speakers, were selected to code the DCT data independ-
ently.

Results
The following presents the ndings according to each eliciting act. Refus-
als by native speakers of Thai (NTs), native speakers of American
English (NEs) and Thai EFL learners are compared in terms of the
frequency of refusal strategies used in each situation. The responses
made by Thai native speakers are translated into English and those pro-
duced by Thai EFL speakers are presented as they are without any
grammatical corrections.
322
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

Refusals to Invitations
In refusing an advisor’s invitation to a party, NEs usually began their
refusals with ‘positive feeling’ followed by ‘explanation’. Typical refusals
by NEs are, for example, ‘I’d love to, but I can’t this weekend’ and ‘I’d
love to, but I have a lot of stats homework due in the morning’. Unlike
NEs, NTs began their refusal with ‘negative ability’ followed by ‘explana-
tion’. For example, they said ‘I’m afraid that I can’t go. There’s a party at
my house too.’ NTs also expressed their regret along with their
‘explanation’. Comparing the three groups, it was found that the EFL
group employed similar strategies to the NEs. Their refusal expressions
include ‘I’d really love to go, but I have something important to do this
weekend’ or ‘I would like to go, but I have another plan’.

Table 1. The Three Most Frequently Used Refusal Strategies to Invitations

Status of the NEs NTs EFL
interlocutor
Higher 1. Explanation 1. Explanation (90%) 1. Explanation (75%)
3. (80%) 2. Negative ability 2. Negative ability
2. Positive feeling 3. (75%) 3. (30%)
3. (45%) 3. Regret (30%) 3. Positive feeling
3. Negative ability 3. (25%)
3. (35%)
Equal 1. Explanation 1. Explanation (75%) 1. Explanation (75%)
3. (90%) 2. Negative ability 2. Positive feeling
2. No (45%) 3. (55%) 3. (35%)
3. Gratitude, future 3. No (25%) 3. Regret (20%)
3. acceptance (25%)
Lower 1. Explanation (95%) 1. Explanation (90%) 1. Explanation (75%)
2. Gratitude (50%) 2. Negative ability 2. Regret (35%)
3. Regret (30%) 3. (45%) 3. Positive feeling
3. Statement of alter- 3. (30%)
3. native (25%)
*The percentages in brackets show the number of respondents in a given group.

When refusing a friend’s invitation to see a movie, both NEs and NTs
often began their refusals with direct strategies, including ‘no’ and ‘nega-
tive ability’ followed by ‘explanation’. NEs’ statements are, for example,
‘Nah, I need to get on back. I was going to work on the project’ or ‘Mmm,
no, you know I don’t like movies too much’. NTs’ expressions include ‘I
can’t go. I’m too sleepy’ or ‘No. I’m going to watch the program X
tonight.’ Unlike the NEs, NTs hardly thanked their friends for inviting
 323
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

them out. Interestingly, it was observed that the Thai EFL learners were
likely to use indirect strategies rather than direct ones. For example, they
said ‘Umm… I’m sorry. I don’t think I can make it’ and ‘Sorry. Tomor-
row I have class early.’
‘No’ was not used by any of the three groups when refusing a junior
ofcial’s invitation to speak for an orientation program. NEs usually began
their refusal with ‘gratitude’ or ‘regret’ followed by ‘explanation’ (e.g.,
‘Sorry, but I’m not prepared enough to address the group. Maybe next
time’, ‘Thanks, I’m honored, but I am really too busy’). In contrast, NTs
were likely to use ‘negative ability’ followed by ‘explanation’, such as ‘I
don’t think I can. I’m not good at public speaking.’ As for the EFL group,
‘positive feeling’ was also used as when they refused a higher status
person. These responses might be a result of the fact that ‘a junior ofcial’
is not considered to be of lower status. Further studies should be more
careful when designing a research tool.

Refusals to Suggestions
In refusing an advisor’s suggestion to take statistics, all groups were
similar in terms of frequently used refusal strategies. Usually they used
only one refusal strategy in their refusals, which was ‘explanation’. For
example, they said, ‘I think I know enough to be able to do it’ and ‘I
don’t think I can t it into my schedule’. They also used ‘statement of
alternative’, such as ‘I prefer to study statistics myself’ or ‘I’d rather take
that next semester’. NEs also mitigated their refusals with pause llers.
As for NTs, the researcher is quite certain that if oral role play had been
used instead of DCTs, tone of voice would have been observed as a
mitigating device.
In refusing a friend’s suggestion to narrow a research topic, all groups
were similar in terms of the content of ‘explanation’. They usually
explained their reasons in terms of relevant information and the limitations
of time or resources. For example, they said ‘I wanted to show how this
affects a variety of areas rather than focuses on one aspect’ or ‘That would
be nice if I had the time’. However, sometimes the explanation by the NTs
was so strong that it was categorized as ‘self-defence’, such as ‘I think it’s
okay’ and ‘I think it’s specic enough’. ‘Pause ller’ was also employed
by the NEs to mitigate their refusals. Compared to the other two groups,
the Thai EFL learners sounded more polite by using ‘gratitude’ in their
refusals, such as ‘Thank you for your suggestion. That’s a good idea, but I
think it will be too narrow.’
324
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

Table 2. The Three Most Frequently Used Refusal Strategies to Suggestions

Status of NEs NTs EFL

the
interlocutor
Higher 1. Explanation (70%) 1. Explanation (90%) 1. Explanation
2. Statement of alter- 2. Statement of 3. (60%)
3. native (50%) 3. alternative (40%) 2. Statement of alter-
3. Negative ability, 3. Negative ability 3. native (25%)
3. pause ller (30%) 3. (30%) 3. Negative ability,
3. gratitude (20%)
Equal 1. Explanation (60%) 1. Explanation (75%) 1. Explanation
2. Pause ller (25%) 2. Self defense (25%) 3. (65%)
3. Positive feeling 3. Positive feeling, 2. Gratitude (25%)
3. (20%) 3. no (10%) 3. Positive feeling
3. (10%)
Lower 1. Explanation (70%) 1. Explanation (80%) 1. Explanation
2. Statement of alter- 2. No (30%) 3. (70%)
3. native (45%) 3. Statement of 2. Positive feeling
3. Negative ability 3. alternative (15%) 3. (10%)
3. (20%) 3. Regret (5%)
*The percentages in brackets show the number of respondents in a given group.

When refusing a high school student’s suggestion to skip details in a

tutoring class, all three groups used ‘explanation’ as the most frequent
strategy. For example, they said, ‘I really need to know how well you
understood the lesson in order to continue’ and ‘It’s my responsibility to
make sure you understand the details’. The other strategy employed by
both NEs and NTs was ‘statement of alternative’ such as ‘Let me ask you
some questions to see how much you understand’ and ‘Why don’t you tell
me the details instead?’ ‘No’, the most direct strategy was used by NTs
followed by a short explanation, such as ‘No, these chapters are
important’. Compared with the other two groups, the Thai EFL learners
sounded more polite; they hardly used any direct refusal strategies.

Refusals of Offers
In refusing an advisor’s offer of a teaching assistantship, all groups usually
used only one refusal strategy, which was ‘explanation’. For example,
NEs said, ‘I don't really like to teach’ and ‘I’m a little busy right now’
while NTS said, ‘I’m taking many courses this semester’ and ‘I haven't
got enough ability and knowledge’. Sometimes NEs and the EFL group
 325
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

expressed their gratitude, such as ‘I appreciate the offer’ and ‘I’m honored
that you’d ask me’ before giving the explanation. ‘Positive feeling’
including ‘It sounds like a great opportunity’ and ‘I’d love to take this job’
was also employed by all three groups.

Table 3. The Three Most Frequently Used Refusal Strategies to Offers

Status of the NEs NTs EFL

interlocutor
Higher 1. Explanation (95%) 1. Explanation (90%) 1. Explanation (70%)
2. Gratitude (30%) 2. Negative ability 2. Gratitude (35%)
3. Negative ability, 2. (35%) 3. Positive feeling
3. Positive feeling 3. Positive feeling 3. (20%)
3. (25%) 3. (35%)
Equal 1. No (85%) 1. Explanation (80%) 1. Gratitude (70%)
2. Gratitude (80%) 2. Gratitude (75%) 2. Explanation (65%)
3. Explanation (65%) 3. No (35%) 3. No (40%)
Lower 1. No (85%) 1. Explanation (60%) 1. No (50%)
2. Gratitude (75%) 2. No (55%) 2. Gratitude (45%)
3. Negative ability, 3. Gratitude (30%) 3. Explanation (40%)
3. explanation (35%)
*The percentages in brackets show the number of respondents in a given group.

In refusing a neighbour’s offer of a ride, all three groups were alike in

terms of the refusal strategies they employed the most. These include
‘explanation’, ‘gratitude’ and ‘no’. It should be noted that most responses
were brief, such as ‘No. Thank you’ or ‘No. Thanks. I’m almost there.’
Interestingly, NTs and the EFL group used ‘no’ much less frequently than
did the NEs. The EFL group’s explanation, however, seemed to be a little
longer compared with the other two groups’, such as ‘I will stop to buy
something at that store rst’ or ‘I have something to do before going
home’.
Similar to the case of a neighbour’s offer of a ride, all groups employed
the same rst three strategies including ‘explanation’, ‘no’ and ‘gratitude’
in refusing a call from a newspaper’s agent. The responses were also alike
in terms of length, such as ‘No. Thank you’ or ‘No, I’m not interested’.
Examples of ‘explanation’ provided by NTs were, for example, ‘I have
already subscribed to X’ and ‘I haven’t got time to read a newspaper’
whereas those by NEs included ‘I read (newspaper’s title) at work’ and
‘The department gets a copy already’. According to the retrospective
interviews, this situation is the easiest one in which to make a refusal
326
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

because there is a social distance between the interlocutors and because it

is a more impersonal situation.

Refusals to Requests
Although all groups employed ‘explanation’ the most when refusing a
familiar person of higher status, the content of the ‘explanation’ was
varied. Most responses provided by NEs and NTs were specic in that
they usually mentioned important business to be done that day. For exam-
ple, NEs said, ‘I have to be at the library tomorrow’ or ‘I have a doctor’s
appointment’ whereas NTs said, ‘I have an appointment with my class-
mates to do a term project’. On the other hand, the more advanced EFL
students were likely to give specic explanations, such as ‘I cannot do that
for you because I have to study all day long’ whereas the lower inter-
mediate ones produced ‘I have something important to do’ and ‘I’ll be
busy tomorrow’. Interestingly, ‘regret’ was used by both the NE and the
EFL groups, but hardly used by the NTs.

Table 4. The Three Most Frequently Used Refusal Strategies to Requests

Status of the NEs NTs EFL

interlocutor
Higher 1. Explanation (80%) 1. Explanation (90%) 1. Explanation (60%)
2. Statement of alter- 2. Statement of 2. Regret (45%)
3. native (55%) 3. alternative (50%) 3. Negative ability,
3. Regret (40%) 3. Negative ability 3. statement of alter-
3. (15%) 3. native, positive
3. feeling (10%)
Equal 1. Explanation (90%) 1. Explanation (75%) 1. Regret (60%)
2. Regret (55%) 2. Regret (45%) 2. Explanation
3. Statement of alter- 3. Negative ability, 3. (55%)
3. native (25%) 3. statement of 3. Negative ability
3. alternative (35%) 3. (30%)
Lower 1. Explanation (95%) 1. Explanation (95%) 1. Explanation (70%)
2. Regret (45%) 2. Regret (45%) 2. Regret (50%)
3. Positive feeling 3. Future acceptance 3. Future acceptance
3. (25%) 3. (35%) 3. (30%)
*The percentages in brackets show the number of respondents in a given group.

In refusing a graduate student’s request to use a computer, most expres-

sions were quite long, consisting of three types of refusal strategies includ-
ing ‘regret’, ‘explanation’ and ‘statement of alternative’, such as ‘I’m
 327
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

sorry, I still have a lot to nish before tomorrow. Perhaps someone else
does not have such a tight deadline.’ Sometimes ‘explanation’ was used
along with ‘regret’, such as ‘I’m sorry. I’m in a hurry too’ provided by the
NTs. Pragmatic transfer was observed here. That is, the Thai EFL group
employed ‘negative ability’, as did the NTs, whereas the American group
hardly used this strategy.
Refusing a junior member’s request for an interview, all groups usually
used ‘regret’ followed by ‘explanation’. For example, NEs said, ‘I’m
terribly sorry but I don’t have a minute’ or ‘I’m sorry but I really don’t
have the time right now’ whereas NTs said, ‘I’m sorry. I have an appoint-
ment’ or ‘I’m sorry. I’m quite busy.’ Similar to both native groups, EFL
expressions include ‘Sorry. I have to go to the library now’ and ‘I’m sorry.
I’m in a hurry. I need to see my professor right after lunch.’ In this situa-
tion pragmatic transfer was also observed. That is, while few American
participants used ‘future acceptance’, it was found in both the NT and EFL
refusals. For instance, NTs said, ‘I can’t now. I’m quite busy. I will next
time’ whereas EFL learners said, ‘Sorry. Now I don’t have enough time.
Maybe next time.’

Discussion
The Use of Direct Strategies
In line with previous research, ‘no’ was hardly employed by any of the
three groups, particularly to a person of higher status. EFL respondents
hardly employed ‘no’, except in responding to the neighbour’s or a news-
agent’s offer. For NEs, the percentage of respondents using ‘no’ in most
situations was quite low, except in situations in which the interlocutors
were of equal or of lower status, such as a friend’s invitation, a neighbour’s
or a newsagent’s offer. As for Thai native speakers, they employed ‘no’
more often than the NEs, namely in refusing a friend’s invitation and
suggestion, a neighbour’s and a newsagent’s offers, and a high school
student's suggestion. The manner of avoiding saying ‘no’ is probably due
to the fact that all three groups consider the ‘face’ of the interlocutor of the
most importance in an interaction (Brown and Levinson 1978). They do
not want to hurt people's feelings or insult people by saying ‘no’. Based on
a follow-up interview, the respondents had similar opinions concerning
the use of ‘no’. That is, it was appropriate to say ‘no’ directly in certain
situations, such as to friends because friends were close to them. In
addition, a stranger or a newspaper agent was socially distant; therefore,
328
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

directness was given the rst priority. In the case of a high school student,
social status was an important factor, especially in Thailand which has ‘a
hierarchy-sensitive society’ (Intachakra 2004: 57). In most interpersonal
communication in Thai culture, a person of higher status is likely to be
assertive and expressive whereas a person of lower status tends to be
passive. Thus, a tutor who was faced with his or her student's suggestion
would think that his or her authority was being challenged and would
become defensive and authoritative.
‘Negative ability’ is the other type of direct strategy used by NEs in
refusing an advisor’s invitation, suggestion, or offer. On the other hand,
NTs used ‘negative ability’ in more situations, including in all situations
of invitations, an advisor’s suggestions and offers, a mother’s and a
graduate student’s requests. As for the EFL group, ‘negative ability’ was
employed in fewer situations, including for an advisor’s invitation and
suggestion, a mother’s request, and a graduate’s request. Although ‘nega-
tive ability’ carries a degree of directness, it is less direct than ‘no’ in the
respondents’ opinions. They used ‘negative ability’ because they wanted
to be direct, but were still able to sound polite.

The Use of Indirect Strategies

In the present study ‘explanation’ was frequently used in all 12 eliciting
acts. However, unlike the Japanese, whose explanations were more vague
than those given by the NEs (Beebe et al. 1990), and the Koreans who
gave unspecic times or places in their explanations (Inook 1992), most
NTs in the present study gave clear and acceptable explanations. Common
explanations given by NTs when refusing an advisor’s invitation, were,
‘My mother and I plan to visit my grandmother this weekend’ or ‘My
family and I will be out of town this weekend’. On the other hand, it was
observed that responses given by EFL learners with different levels of
English prociency varied. That is, EFL learners with higher English
prociency were more capable of giving clear and specic explanations
than those with lower language prociency. Their explanations include
‘Oh, that’s a pity, because I have to go to my hometown to visit my father.
He’s in the hospital’ and ‘Oh, I’m sorry. I can’t. I have an appointment
with the dentist’ when refusing an advisor’s invitation. On the contrary,
lower intermediate learners said, ‘Sorry. This Thursday I’m not free’ in
responding to a junior member’s request or ‘I think I can do it’ in refusing
a friend’s suggestion. In short, language prociency level seems to be an
important factor.
 329
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

Concerning the use of ‘gratitude’, Nelson, Al Batal and El Bakary

(2002) found that English participants used ‘gratitude’ much more fre-
quently than Arab subjects in refusing invitations, offers, and suggestions.
Likewise, the present study found that the NEs adopted ‘gratitude’ in more
situations than did the NTs. The frequent use of ‘gratitude’ by NEs was
observed in invitations by equals and lower status persons and in all cases
of offers. According to the interview, the use of ‘gratitude’ by the NEs in
response to a neighbour’s or a newspaper agent’s offers serves two pur-
poses, including showing appreciation and closing the conversation. In
contrast, the NTs were found using ‘gratitude’ in only two situations,
including a neighbour’s offer and a newspaper agent’s offers. The less
frequent use of ‘gratitude’ conrms Cooper and Cooper (1996) and
Redmond (1998) in that ‘thank you’ is used much less often in Thailand
compared with its use in western countries. Usually, NTs preferred to use
other types of refusal strategies including ‘explanation’ and ‘negative
ability’. Based on a follow-up interview, the respondents did not think that
it is necessary to thank friends for inviting them out. It is common practice
for friends to invite each other if they are going out. This nding accords
well with Eisenstein and Bodman (1993). They stated that in several
cultures, among family members, if one has performed a particular act
which is a part of a social role, another person does not need to say ‘thank
you’ to express appreciation. Surprisingly, the Thai EFL learners in the
present study fell between the other two groups. They tended to use
‘gratitude’ in more situations than did the NTs, but less than the NEs.
According to the follow-up interview, the Thai EFL learners were aware
of being polite when speaking English. In line with Kwon (2003), the EFL
group diverged from the native language norms expressing appreciation
by saying ‘thank you’ more often than did the NTs. However, they had not
acquired enough pragmatic knowledge to perform appropriately in all
situations.
According to Liao and Bresnahan (1996), native speakers of English
employed ‘positive feeling’ such as ‘I’d love to but…’ much more fre-
quently than did the native speakers of Mandarin. It is explained that
Chinese people do not state positive opinions rst in their refusals because
they are afraid that if they do, they will be forced to comply. In the present
study, it was found that the NTs were likely to use ‘regret’ rather than
‘positive feeling’ in response to an advisor’s invitation whereas the NEs
seemed to prefer ‘positive feeling’. According to the interviews, the NTs
perceived refusals to a higher status person to be face-threatening. In their
330
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

opinion, ‘regret’ conveyed the message of feeling guilty for being unable
to comply with the advisor’s invitation. As a result, they used ‘regret’ to
compensate for the interlocutor’s loss of ‘face’. As for the EFL group,
they employed ‘positive feeling’ in invitations. Frequent use of ‘positive
feeling’ may be related to classroom instruction. Patterns such as ‘I’d
really love to but…’ or ‘That’s a good idea but…’ are often introduced as
common expressions to begin a negative response to invitations.

Evidence of Pragmatic Transfer

The employment of the strategy ‘future acceptance’ by members of the
two Thai groups reects a native cultural rule. In Thai society, senior
members are expected to help and support juniors, especially in an edu-
cational environment. When juniors ask for help, a senior person should
not refuse. However, it is permissible to refuse with a reasonable excuse,
but to maintain a good relationship one should offer to help if he/she is
asked again in the future. In Situation 1, a Thai native speaker and an EFL
subject adopted ‘future acceptance’ to respond to a junior’s request for an
interview.

Situation 1
NT12. Torn nii mai dai yung mark aw wai khraw nah na (Now I can’t.
I’m very busy. I will next time.)
EFL20. Sorry. Now I don’t have enough time. I will next time.

Pragmatic transfer was also observed in the choice of ‘negative ability’,

a type of direct strategy. Similar to the NTs, some EFL members used
‘negative ability’ to respond to a mother’s request, a friend’s invitation to
see a movie, and a graduate’s request to use a computer. According to the
retrospective interviews, the respondents thought that it was appropriate to
be direct with an intimate person, such as a family member or a close
friend or an acquaintance in a hurried situation as in Situation 2.

Situation 2
NT7. kong mai dai raw tong pim ngarn hai set muan kan (Probably not.
I have to nish typing my work too.)
EFL34. I think I couldn’t this time. I still have much to do.
 331
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that although ‘negative ability’ implies the

sense of being direct, Thai people have a way of lessening the degree of
directness by beginning the statement with ‘kong’ (probably) or ‘kit wah’
(I think). These linguistic forms, such as ‘I don’t think’, ‘maybe’, and
‘probably’ are used to soften the illocutionary force of a statement (Félix-
Brasdefer 2006). In addition, Thais sometimes incorporate another strat-
egy such as ‘regret’ to lessen the threatening effect. In face to face
interaction, Thais can also show their sense of feeling guilty for refusing
through facial expressions or tone of voice.
Another example of pragmatic transfer in the choice of semantic for-
mula exists in the use of ‘regret’. Overall, in refusing an advisor’s invita-
tion to a party, the NTs’ refusals sounded more regretful than those of
the NEs. ‘Regret’ is one of the three most frequently used strategies in
the NTs’ group. NEs typically stated positive feeling followed by ‘nega-
tive ability’ and ‘explanation’. Adopting the NTs’ norms, some EFL
learners employed ‘regret’ when responding to this situation. According
to the follow-up interviews, the transfer of ‘regret’ in L1 to the target
language reected the EFL learners’ awareness of a person of a higher
status person in their target language refusals. They want to show that
they feel sorry for not being able to accept the invitation of an advisor as
in Situation 3.

Situation 3
NT15. khor thot ka ajarn nuu tong klab barn ar thit nii (I’m sorry, sir. I
have to go home this weekend.)
EFL28. I’m sorry but I have to go back home this weekend.

Pragmatic transfer was also observed in the content of ‘explanation’

given by EFL members, especially those with lower English prociency.
When refusing an invitation to speak for an orientation program, NEs
were likely to give such reasons as being committed to something else,
such as ‘I already have a previous engagement so I won’t be able to
attend’ or ‘I already have a commitment for that evening’, whereas some
Thai native speakers tended to be modest in responding to the same
situation by saying ‘I’m not good at public speaking’ or ‘I’m bad at
speaking in front of people’. In addition, in the situation of being offered
a teaching assistantship, most NEs would give clear and honest reasons,
such as ‘I don’t really like to teach’ or ‘I’m really busy these days and I
332
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

wouldn’t be able to give you 100%’. In contrast, most NTs gave expla-
nations such as, ‘I won’t make a good teacher’ or ‘I don’t think I am
capable enough’. Following the NTs’ norms, the lower intermediate EFL
learners’ ‘explanations’ include, ‘I have no condence in public speak-
ing’, ‘I’m afraid I couldn’t teach’, or ‘teaching is too difcult for me’.
Giving modest explanations or downgrading their ability may be
explained by the cultural value given to being modest by Thai people.
This characteristic is reected in the way they communicate in their L1
and is transferred to the target language. The transfer phenomenon is
inuenced by language prociency; those with low language ability just
translated directly from the response they would give in their L1. This
nding conrms Robinson’s (cited in Takahashi 1996) in that it was
easier for lower prociency learners to be inuenced by their L1 behav-
iour than higher prociency learners.

Conclusion
Implications of the Research
This study contributes to cross-cultural communication by identifying
cross-cultural and linguistic differences between Thai and American
native speakers. With knowledge of the refusal patterns of their respective
cultures, Thais and Americans can avoid communication failures when
engaged in face-threatening speech acts. Based on the ndings, there seem
to be more similarities than differences between the NTs and the NEs in
making refusals. As a result, we do not expect to nd a lot of miscom-
munication between the two groups. However, situations of communica-
tion breakdowns can be predicted. For example, misunderstanding may
occur when native speakers of Thai express ‘gratitude’ less frequently than
do native speakers of American English in refusing offers and invitations
by equals and lower status persons. According to the present study, in-
uenced by both the L1 and L2 norms, Thai EFL learners use ‘gratitude’
in more situations than the NTs, but less than the NEs. This lack of
expressing ‘gratitude’ might lead to pragmatic failure, in that native
speakers of English may nd them rude.
Pedagogically, this study has implications for the development of
pragmatic competence. That is, for L2 learners to become competent in
the target language, learners should not only be exposed to the correct
grammatical forms of speech but also to the sociolinguistic rules of the L2
culture. With a limited exposure to the target language norm, explicit
 333
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

instruction may be necessary to ensure that learners do not accidentally

appear impolite to their interlocutors (Cohen 1996; Tateyama 2001).
Lessons should be designed to include the speech act of refusal in different
cultural contexts. Teachers should use audiovisual media which include
contextually appropriate forms, together with regular practice of prefabri-
cated expressions. However, it is important to note that in mastering
intercultural competence the learners are not necessarily assimilated into
the target culture (Pohl 2004). They just need to develop pragmatic
awareness and sensitivity when they use L2 (Kasper 1997).
Another possible pragmatic failure is found among lower intermediate
learners who transferred their characteristic of being modest in L1 to L2.
Unlike advanced learners who were more like native speakers of English,
lower intermediate learners tended to downgrade their ability when giving
explanations in making refusals to invitations or offers. Again, these EFL
learners might risk misinterpretation by the interlocutors. To solve the
problem, this group of students should have extra practice to develop both
linguistic and pragmatic competence. In particular, they should practice
giving clear and reasonable ‘explanation’ in response to different eliciting
acts, according to the norms of L2 culture.

Suggestions for Further Research

It is important to note that this study focuses on two social variables
including status and distance. Further research should investigate other
possible social variables such as age, gender, and level of formality. In
addition, the present study used DCTs as a research tool which might yield
data different from naturally occurring data. Future studies may study data
from a corpus of natural spoken language or employ ethnographic meth-
odology so as to broaden our understanding of refusal behaviour in natural
settings. A longitudinal approach might be applied for a better understand-
ing of the development of pragmatic competence by EFL learners. Finally,
with the increase of contact between non-native speakers of English due to
the use of English as an international language, cross-cultural studies
comparing the use of English between non-native speakers of English
should be conducted.
334
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

REFERENCES
Al-Issa, A.
2003 ‘Sociocultural Transfer in L2 Speech Behaviors: Evidence and Motivating
Factors’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27: 581-601.
Beebe, L., T. Takahashi and R. Uliss-Weltz
1990 ‘Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals’, in R.C. Scarcella, E. Anderson and
S.D. Krashen (eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second
Language (New York: Newbury): 55-73.
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
1978 ‘Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena’, in E.N. Goody (ed.),
Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press): 56-289.
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Byon, A.S.
2004 ‘Sociopragmatic Analysis of Korean Requests: Pedagogical Settings’, Journal
of Pragmatics 36: 1673-704.
Chen, X., L. Ye and Y. Zhang
1995 ‘Refusing in Chinese’, in G. Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a Native
and Target Language (Technical Report #. Second Language Teaching and
Curriculum Center; Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press): 119-63.
Cohen, A.
1996 ‘Developing the Ability to Perform Speech Acts’, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 18: 253-67.
Cooper, R., and N. Cooper
1996 Culture Shock! Thailand (London: Kuperard).
Eisenstein, M., and J.W. Bodman
1993 ‘Expressing Gratitude in American English’, in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka
(eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 64-81.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C.
2006 ‘Linguistic Politeness in Mexico: Refusal Strategies among Male Speakers of
Mexican Spanish’, Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2158-87.
Fraser, B.
1990 ‘Perspectives on Politeness’, Journal of Pragmatics 4: 219-36.
Hassall, T.
2003 ‘Requests by Australian Learners of Indonesian’, Journal of Pragmatics 35:
1903-28.
He, W.
1998 ‘Issues in Second Language Teaching: Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis in
Teaching Chinese as a Second Language’ (Unpublished doctoral dissertation:
Clark University).
Huth, T.
2006 ‘Negotiating Structure and Culture: L2 Learners’ Realization of L2 Compli-
ment-Response Sequences in Talk-in-interaction’, Journal of Pragmatics 38:
2025-50.
 335
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

Inook, L.
1992 ‘The Art of Refusal: Comparison of Korean and American Cultures’ (Unpub-
lished PhD thesis: Indiana University).
Intachakra, S.
2004 ‘Contrastive Pragmatics and Language Learning: Apologies and Thanks in
English and Thai’, Regional Language Centre Journal 35: 37-62.
Jaworski, A.
1994 ‘Pragmatic Failure in a Second Language: Greeting Responses in English by
Polish Students’, IRAL 1: 41-55.
Kasper, G.
1992 ‘Pragmatic Transfer’, Second Language Research 8: 203-31.
1997 ‘Can Pragmatics Competence be Taught?’ (Network#6; HTML document).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center. http://www.nrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/ (retrieved 1 December
2006).
Kwon, J.
2003 ‘Pragmatic Transfer and Prociency in Refusals of Korean EFL Learners’
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Boston University).
Liao, C., and M. Bresnahan
1996 ‘A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin Refusal
Strategies’, Language Sciences 18: 703-27.
Nelson, G.L., M. Al Batal and W. El Bakary
2002 ‘Directness vs. Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English Communication
Style’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26: 39-57.
Pohl, G.
2004 ‘Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure and Implications for Language Teaching’.
http://www.usq.edu.au/opacs/sllt/ (retrieved 10 January 2006).
Redmond, M.
1998 Wondering into Thai Culture (Bangkok: Redmondian Insight Enterprises).
Smith, C.
1998 ‘Can Adults “Just Say No?”: How Gender, Status and Social Goals Affect
Refusals’ (Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of South Florida).
Takahashi, S.
1996 ‘Pragmatic Transferability’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 189-
223.
Tateyama, Y.
2001 ‘Explicit and Implicit Teaching of Pragmatic Routines: Japanese Sumima-
sen’, in K.R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching
(New York: Cambridge University Press): 200-22.
Thomas, J.
1984 ‘Cross-cultural Discourse as “Unequal Encounter”: Towards a Pragmatic
Analysis’, Applied Linguistics 5: 226-35.
Wolfson, N.
1989 Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL (New York: Newbury House).
336
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.3

APPENDIX

Classication of Refusal Strategies

a. Direct strategies: Direct denial of compliance without reservation

1. ‘No’
2. Negative willingness/ability (e.g., ‘I can’t’; ‘I won’t’; ‘I don’t
think so’)

b. Indirect strategies
1. Regret: Utterances expressing regret (e.g., ‘I’m sorry’; ‘I feel
terrible’)
2. Positive opinion/feeling or agreement (e.g., ‘That’s a good idea’;
‘I wish I could help you but…’)
3. Excuse, reason and explanation: Explaining a reason for non-
compliance
4. Statement of alternative: Suggesting other alternatives or possi-
bilities in order to maintain a positive relationship with the
interlocutor (e.g., ‘I can do X instead of Y’; ‘Why don’t you do X
instead of Y?’)
5. Future acceptance: Using the promise to delay acceptance (e.g.,
‘I’ll do it next time’; ‘I promise I’ll…’)
6. Statement of negative consequences (e.g., ‘It’s your grade, not
mine’)
7. Criticism (e.g., ‘That’s a terrible idea!’)
8. Letting interlocutor off the hook (e.g., ‘Don’t worry about me.
You go and have fun’)
9. Self-defence (e.g., ‘It is not because I don’t want to listen to your
opinion’)
10. Acceptance that functions as refusal: Unspecic or indenite
reply or lack of enthusiasm (e.g., ‘I’ll do that when I have time’)
11. Avoidance: Avoiding direct response to proposed act
11.1. Topic switch (e.g., ‘Now let’s go back to Chapter One’)
11.2. Hedging (e.g., ‘Gee, I don’t know’; ‘I’m not sure’)
11.3. Joke (e.g., ‘I like walking in the rain’)
11.4. Questioning (e.g., ‘How do you expect me to answer
you?’)
11.5. Postponement (e.g., ‘I’ll think about it’)
 337
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals

11.6. Pause llers: Use of llers to ll a moment between the

end of the interlocutor’s utterance and the beginning of the
speaker’s refusal utterance (e.g., ‘well…’; ‘oh…’; ‘wow’)
12. Gratitude (e.g., ‘Thank you for inviting me’)
13. Asking for approval (e.g., ‘Is that possible?’)
14. Sarcasm (e.g., ‘I forgot you almost got “A” last term’)