Gender and power relation in English refusal strategies of ESL undergraduates
List of Authors
  • Adlina Ariffin , Nurul ‘Aqiilah Mohd Kamal

Keyword
  • ESL learners, refusal strategies, speech act, Malay undergraduates

Abstract
  • Refusal refers to a face-threatening act (FTA) which may put one’s self esteem at risk in communication. It encompasses turning down someone’s request, offer or suggestion. The speech act of refusal has been one of the most prominent areas of interest for many scholars. However, there is a dearth of such study particularly within the Malay community. Thus, this study examined the refusal strategies used by Malay undergraduates in the context of English as a Second Language (ESL), observed the differences and similarities in the refusal strategies of male and female undergraduates, and analysed the influence of relative power on the choice of their refusal strategies. This study employed the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) which was distributed among sixty Malay ESL undergraduates, consisting of 30 males and 30 females where they were required to refuse requests from three addressees (lecturer, friend, junior) in five different situations. The collected data were then analysed quantitatively. The findings showed that 32 out of 41 types of refusal strategies were used by the participants such as statements of regret, excuse and reason. Both male and female students employed indirect refusal strategies regardless of the person’s relative power. However, in using direct refusal strategies, females tended to be more direct in stating their refusals than males. The findings of this study will provide new insights on the pragmatic competence of Malay ESL undergraduates in employing refusal strategies in English, specifically when different gender and relative power are deployed in communication.

Reference
  • 1. Abdul Sattar, H. Q., Che Lah, S. & Raja Suleiman, R. R. (2011). Refusal strategies in English by Malay university students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 69-81.
    2. Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviours: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581-601.
    3. Al-Kahtani, S.W. (2005). Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A speech act theoretically based cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University, 18, 35-57.
    4. Al-Shboul,Y. & Maros, M. (2023). The high and low-context communication styles in refusal strategies by Jordanian Arabic and American English speakers. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 28(3), 2063-2080.
    5. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House (pp. 55-73).
    6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
    7. Eslami, Z. R. (2010). How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. M. Flor, E. U. Juan, On the Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 217-236). John Benjamin Publishing Company.
    8. George, K. (2022, August 29). How men and women communicate differently. Activebeat. https://activebeat.com/your-health/how-men-and-women-communicate-differently/
    9. Hei, K. C., Ling, W. N., & David, M. K. (2015). The perceived value of silence and spoken words in Malaysian interactions. SEARCH: The Journal of the Southeast Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities, 7(1), 53-70.
    10. Lakens, D. (2021, January 4). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267
    11. Mahmud, M. (2013). The roles of social status, age, gender, familiarity, and situations in being polite for Bugis society. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 58-72. https://doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p58
    12. Maryam Farina & Wu, X. (2012). An intercultural communication study of Chinese and Malaysian university students’ refusal to invitation. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 162-176.
    13. Moaveni, H. T. (2014). A study of refusal strategies by American and International students at an American University. [Master’s thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato].
    14. Musa, H., Sheikh Said, N., Che Rodi, R. & Abd Karim, S. Ab. (2012). Hati budi Melayu: Kajian keperibadian sosial Melayu ke arah penjanaan Melayu gemilang. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 163-182.
    15. Saad, N., Bidin, S. J. & Shabdin, A .A. (2016). Refusal strategies used by Malay ESL students and English native speakers to refuse a request. Proceeding of ICECRS, 1(1), pp.253-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.21070/picecrs.v1i1.609
    16. Sadighi, F., Chahardahcherik, S., Delfariyan, M., & Feyzbar, F. (2018). The influence of L2 English acquisition of the request speech act on Persian preschool children. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(4), 25-34.
    17. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press.
    18. Sumaco, F. T., Imrie, B. C., & Hussain, K. (2014). The consequence of Malaysian national culture values on hotel branding. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144, 91-101. https://doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.277
    19. Umale, J. (2011). Pragmatic failure in refusal strategies: British versus Omani interlocutors. Arab World English Journal, 2(1), 18-46.
    20. Varisoglu, M.C., Basutku,S. & Kafali,S. (2023). Refusal strategies of foreign students learning Turkish at B1 level. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture. 8(20), 301-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoecc.650
    21. Wang, Q. (2019). A comparative study of gender differences in refusal strategies from English majors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(8), 1040-1048. https://doi: 10.17507/tpls.0908.24
    22. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House.
    23. Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271-292.