1

Research Project/ENGL3129 Samples of Annotated Bibliography

Literature Review

1.2. Refusal speech acts

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the development
of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.

Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990) examined the realization patterns of refusals
by 20 Japanese NSs and 20 Japanese ESL learners and compared them to the refusal
patterns of 20 English NSs using a DCT questionnaire. Beebe, et al. analyzed the
realization patterns of refusals by their participants and classified them into two types:
direct and indirect refusals. Under each type of refusal, they identified several types of
refusal strategies.
Beebe, et al. were also able to identify three areas of similarities and differences
between the refusals behaviors of NSs and the Japanese ESL learners: the sequence,
frequency and content of the semantic formulas. The sequence of semantic formulas
(i.e., refusal pattern) concerns the typical order of these formulas used by a particular
group of participants in response to a particular speech act such as requests or invitations
in a particular speech situation. Frequency refers to the frequency of occurrence of a
particular semantic formula in the responses of a particular group of learners to a
particular speech act in a particular speech situation. Content refers to the type of
semantic formulas (e.g., regret, apology, explanation), also known as pragmatic
strategies, used in response to a particular speech act in a particular speech situation. The
areas of similarities and difference between NSs and NNSs of English identified by Beeb
et al. will be used to inform the analysis of the refusal speech act behavior of the Omani
EFL learners in the current study.

(Words Count: 242)

 2

Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and

motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581-601.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00055-5

Al Issa (2003) examined the Jordanian EFL learners’ choice of semantic formulas
(i.e., direct vs. indirect), and content of semantic formulas (i.e., type of pragmatic
strategy). However, instead of examining the frequency of semantic formulas, Al-Issa
examined the length of response or “the number of semantic formulas employed by each
group in response to each DCT situation” (p. 584). Al-Issa found that there was no
significant difference in the length of responses by Arab students in their responses in
Arabic and their responses in English. However, the Arab participants used significantly
more semantic units (i.e., lengthier responses) to refuse in English compared to NSs of
English. Therefore, Al-Issa concluded that the length of a response is another area of
pragmatic transfer. However, he noted that in a study by Nelson, Al Batal, and Al Bakary
(2002), the responses of the Egyptian Arab participants were less elaborate than the NSs
of English. Al-Issa expounded that this difference could be due to differences in the
culture, the variety of Arabic used by a particular Arabic speaker, or even the type of
response elicited by DCT (i.e., oral or written response). In addition, Al Issa found areas
of similarities and difference between his classification scheme of refusal speech acts by
Arabic EFL learners and the one developed Beebe et al.
The current study will also examine the similarities and differences between the
refusals of Omani EFL learners in Omani Arabic and their refusals in English in terms of
refusal level of directness (i.e., direct vs. indirect), the type of refusal strategies (e.g.,
Negation, Regret, Excuse),, number of strategies (i.e., total strategies used to refuse to a
particular speech event), the frequency of refusal strategies (i.e., length of refusal), and
the refusal pattern in terms of type, frequency, and strategies used to initiate the refusal
patterns.

Word Count: (302)

3