(No) need for clarity – Facework in Spanish and German refusals

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

(No) need for clarity -- Facework in Spanish and German refusals Kathrin Siebold a,*, Hannah Busch b,1 a

Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Departamento de Filología y Traduccio´n, Carretera de Utrera, km.1, 41013 Sevilla, Spain b St. George’s School, Carretera Sevilla-Huelva, s/n, 41800 Sanlucar La Mayor, Spain Received 27 May 2014; received in revised form 16 October 2014; accepted 17 October 2014

Abstract Given the linguistic complexity and the great impact a refusal can produce on the speaker’s and hearer’s face, this speech act has been the object of numerous comparative works on cross-cultural communication studies. This article compares the culture-specific realisation of different types of refusals in Spanish and German, a language pair that has not yet received much attention in the field of intercultural pragmatics. It presents a brief review of published works on the expression of refusals in different languages and describes in detail the threat that a refusal poses for the positive and negative face of both interlocutors. The analysis of the culture-specific means to manage this face threat reveals a high tendency for indirect refusal strategies and for vague answers without a clear final outcome by Spanish speakers, whereas German speakers place a higher value on more direct refusal strategies and explicit answers with a great level of pragmatic clarity, especially with regard to the final outcome of the conversation. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Refusals; Politeness; Face threat; Facework strategies; Spanish; German

1. How refusals threaten face The speech act of refusals represents a linguistic challenge in any conversation since it expresses a discrepancy between the communicative intentions of both interlocutors. As a second part of an adjacency pair, the refusal expresses a negative reply to another initial speech act previously stated such as an offer, an invitation, a suggestion or a request. Due to the complexity of their linguistic structure, refusals as not preferred answers have been the subject of numerous studies since the 80s in the area of conversational analysis (cf. Drew, 1984; Levinson, 1983). Levinson pointed out sometime ago the marked and elaborated form of refusals (1983:333) and specified several structural characteristic features of these non-preferred types of second turns, such as elements of delay (i.e. intentional pauses), preambles in the form of discourse markers (i.e. well, uhm), justifications, expressions of doubt or apologies. The use of these linguistic resources varies in line with numerous contextual factors. The specific expression of refusal is not only conditioned by the speech act that it evokes but by the more or less distant or authoritarian relationship between both speakers. It is also influenced by distinct cultural forms of politeness. In this sense Eslami (2010) correctly summarises what has been asserted by several researchers: ‘‘What is considered appropriate refusal behaviour may vary across cultures and pragmatic transfer is likely to occur as learners rely on their deeply held native values in carrying out complicated and face threatening speech acts’’ (Eslami, 2010:218). In this fashion, the insistent need for acceptance by

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 609156752. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Siebold), [email protected] (H. Busch). 1 Tel.: +34 693450091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.006 0378-2166/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

54

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

the person who expresses the offer or invitation and the difficulty of verbalising disagreement by the person who refuses, often produces long sequences of negotiation in which the refusal slowly surfaces after several exchanges. In other sociocultural contexts, this kind of interactional play is considered superfluous. This suggests that the degree of threat posed by the refusal to the face of both interlocutors is subject to cultural variations (cf. Section 3). Even if all researchers of this speech act, regardless of the language and culture analysed, agree that a refusal is a clear face threat, in the majority of these studies it remains imprecise how refusals threaten face. Hence we shall attempt to describe in greater detail the threat that a refusal can cause to both the speaker’s and the hearer’s face. Amongst the reviewed authors there is agreement in that the face of the hearer, the interlocutor receiving the refusal, is more exposed to damage than the face of the speaker. In this sense, Eslami states, in a very general way, that there is an ‘‘inherent risk of offending someone’’ at the time of refusing something (Eslami, 2010:217). Brown and Levinson (1987:65), for their part, are more specific and confirm that a refusal is a threat to the negative face of the hearer since it is in conflict with their desire for independence. Some authors, like Salazar Campillo, share this opinion: ‘‘Refusals threaten the addressee’s negative face, that is, the desire that his/her future choice of actions or words be uninhibited’’ (Salazar Campillo et al., 2009:140). Barron (2003), on the other hand, analyzes in more detail the possible damage that a refusal can cause as well to the hearer’s positive face. She explains that the speech act that precedes the refusal (i.e. an invitation) represents a wish by the person who expresses it and that in refusing it, the fact of ‘‘not to engage in a particular action, potentially threatens the hearer’s positive face’’ (Barron, 2003:128). That is, a refusal implies the risk of damaging the hearer’s negative face as it interferes with the execution of their plans; and their positive face since it does not satisfy their wish to see their ideas shared and acknowledged by other members of society. Now, an important side of refusals that has not been studied in the reviewed works is the danger that a refusal poses to the face of the speaker, the interlocutor who refuses something. In the interviews we performed with the participant students (cf. Section 4.1), some of the Spanish collaborators explained that they found it difficult to openly reject something above all because they wanted to give a good impression to their interlocutors. That is, the lack of agreement and solidarity that the person who refuses shows, considerably affects their own positive face needs. On the other hand, the speaker’s negative face wants are also at stake since they want to perform their own plans and not those proposed by the other interlocutor. If they are not able to successfully express the refusal, their wish of freedom will be affected. From this perspective it is worthwhile to note that some of the German speaking participants pointed out that, in conversation with Spaniards, they felt intimidated when trying to refuse and that it was almost impossible to do so given the strong insistence of their counterparts. It is important to bear in mind these additional features of refusals in order to adequately explain communicative differences between the German and Spanish participants that we found in our study. Given the multiple threat posed by the speech act of refusals, both to the positive and negative face, it is not surprising that there is a wide spectrum of strategies and linguistic resources available to ease its impact on both interlocutors. We present them in the following section. 2. Linguistic means to manage face threat in refusals Speakers have a wide linguistic spectrum to express refusal at their disposition. In agreement with Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), we classify the speech acts as ‘‘head act’’ and ‘‘supportive moves’’, where head act is the smallest linguistic unit with which a refusal can be realised, enhanced by supportive moves which place the speech act in a specific context and are able to modify its illocutionary force. In order to establish an analytical framework for this comparative study we have filtered and ordered inductively all the strategies employed in our corpus. For their classification and definitive denomination we have compared them with the taxonomy used by Gass and Houck (1999) and by Beebe et al. (1990). The result of this process is presented in the following analytic grid shown in Table 1. This taxonomy is comparable to that of Beebe et al. (1990) in that it sustains the main three categories of direct refusals, indirect refusals and supportive moves. Within direct refusals Beebe et al. (1990) differentiated between performative verbs and non-performative statements while we subdivided the non-performative statements into three categories (no, not wanting and exclamations) and thus obtained four possibilities for the direct refusal: one is the use of performative verbs like rechazar, no aceptar/absagen, ablehnen, nicht zusagen, nicht akzeptieren. Another possibility is an explicit and clear cut no/nein. Moreover, expressions of not wanting can be used, for example no quiero/ich will nicht, ich möchte nicht, as well as exclamations like de ninguna manera/auf keinen Fall. As for the indirect refusals, Beebe et al. (1990) grouped the following 11 subcategories: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Statement of regret Wish Excuse, reason, explanation Statement of alternative

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

55

Table 1 Analytical grid for the speech act of refusals. Supportive moves

Head act

- Clarifying questions - Expression of  Insecurity  Affinity  Esteem  Thanks  Apologies

Direct refusal

Indirect refusal

-

- Alternative  Change  Change  Change

Performative verbs No Not wanting Exclamations

PROPOSAL of time of person of activity

- Explanation  Lack of time  Lack of money  Lack of affinity - Postponement

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Set condition for future or past acceptance Promise for future acceptance Statement of principle Statement of philosophy Attempt to dissuade interlocutor Acceptance that functions as a refusal Avoidance

In our categorisation, we classified the ‘‘statement of regret’’ and ‘‘wish’’ as supportive moves (expression of apology and affinity), since these two strategies do not appear in our corpus as head acts of refusal itself but as speech acts that accompany and give support to direct or indirect refusals. Furthermore, our main categories of indirect refusal (alternative proposal, explanation, postponement of decision) are comparable to number 3, 4 and 11, while numbers 5--10 of the classification of Beebe et al. (1990) did not occur in our corpus. In this context, it is important to mention that the present taxonomy is based on the inductive analysis of the linguistic resources and their communicative functions in our corpus. Hence we cannot exclude the possibility that specific linguistic resources, which in this classification belong to the supportive moves, could be used as an indirect strategy of refusal themselves in other sociocultural contexts. Regarding the strategy of explanation, there is an ample variety of explanations at hand referring to the lack of time like no tengo tiempo/ich habe keine Zeit, to economic resources like no tengo dinero/ich habe kein Geld or to the affinity of the speaker towards the proposal like no me gusta/me parece aburrido/ich mag nicht/das ist langweilig. Other indirect refusals are proposals that refer to an alternative period of time, like no podemos quedar otro día?/können wir uns ein andermal treffen?; alternative place, for example y si hacemos el curso en otro sitio?/warum fahren wir nicht nach Spanien?; alternative person, like por que no se lo preguntas a Pedro?/frag doch Ralf or alternative activity, for example y si hacemos footing en vez de ir al gimnasio?/warum können wir nicht einfach joggen gehen? As we mentioned before, the head act often appears with other speech acts that bring support, so-called ‘‘supportive moves’’ (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) or ‘‘adjuncts’’ (Gass and Houck, 1999) that can be found either before or after the head act. These support the communicative intention of the speaker, enhancing or diminishing the intensity of the illocutionary force. Beebe et al. (1990) divided the adjuncts into the four following categories: ?

?

?

?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Statement of positive opinion Statement of empathy Pause fillers Gratitude/appreciation

We can state that all of them were found in our corpus except for the ‘‘statement of empathy’’. The ‘‘statement of positive opinion’’ can be compared to our ‘‘expression of affinity or esteem’’, the ‘‘pause fillers’’ are similar to our ‘‘expression of insecurity’’ and the ‘‘gratitude/appreciation’’ is comparable to our ‘‘expression of thanks’’. Some of these supportive moves almost always appear before the head act and their function is to introduce or prepare the refusal or to delay it. Examples of this kind may be clarifying questions, i.e. a qué hora querías salir?/wann wolltest du denn gehen?; the expression of insecurity, like no sé/ich weiß nicht; the expression of esteem for the proposed activity, ?

56

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

i.e. me parece una idea estupenda/das ist wirklich eine tolle Idee or the expression of affinity with the proposed action, like me encantaría/ich hätte echt Lust. Other adjuncts may also appear after the refusal and help to soften the face threat of the speaker as in the case when offering apologies, like lo siento/es tut mir leid or thanks, like gracias por la invitacio´n/danke für die Einladung. In the following section of this study we are going to discuss the culture-specific use and interpretation of this wide range of refusal strategies. In this sense, we want to introduce a brief discussion on some comparative studies on the speech act of refusal most recently published in order to place the communicative patterns of Spanish and German speakers in a broader context. 3. How different cultures save face when refusing The following bibliographical revision is a selection of contrastive and interlingual research studies devoted to the analysis of the speech act of refusal. Due to its complexity this speech act has received much attention in pragmatic research and there are numerous contrastive studies on refusals applied to a great number of languages, although we are not aware of any work comparing refusals in Spanish and German speakers. The studies reviewed concur with the hypothesis that there exist cultural differences in performing speech acts. Moreover, to properly carry out a speech act as threatening as a refusal, it is not only necessary to posses a certain linguistic level but it is also necessary to have a certain level of cultural knowledge as explained by Eslami (2010:18): ‘‘What is considered appropriate refusal behaviour may vary across cultures and pragmatic transfer is likely to occur as learners rely on their deeply held native values in carrying out complicated and face threatening speech acts. Therefore, appropriate understanding and production of refusals require a certain amount of culture-specific knowledge’’. The studies on refusals usually have two different approaches. On one hand there are contrastive studies in which native speakers of the same language interact with each other and their linguistic performance is compared to that of native speakers of other languages; on the other hand there are interlanguage studies where native speakers of different languages interact in a common language and the learners’ performance in the interlanguage is compared to that of the native speakers. In most cases English is one of the two languages in study. A recent example for the contrastive approach is the study carried out by Ghazanfari et al. (2013) on refusals of Persian and English native speakers in film dialogues. They summarise that Persian speakers used apologies as an indirect refusal-strategy more frequently than the English speakers who more often refused by expressing a lack of enthusiasm. Another example of a contrastive study is that of Kwon (2004) who points out differences in the semantic formulas employed in refusals between native speakers of Korean and of American English. Amongst other results he shows that Americans refuse more directly than Koreans and that Koreans applied more mitigating structures to soften their refusals. With regards to German as a language to contrastively analyse refusals we are only aware of three comparative works in recent years. On one hand, Grein (2007) compares the communicative strategies used by Japanese and Germans to refuse different directive speech acts. The analysis shows that the German native speakers recur more often to direct refusal formulas whereas Japanese refusals are more indirect and often appear accompanied by apologies (cf. Grein, 2007:132). Another relevant difference consists of the German tendency to refuse using general critical statements like Museen sind doch langweilig (cf. Grein, 2007:406) which play a less relevant role in the Japanese refusals. Grein explains the communicative differences as due to the different social and cultural values in use in both countries. Whereas in German culture individualism, autonomy and independence are much prized, in Japanese culture belonging to a specific social group and to be in solidarity is more appreciated, hence replies that can suggest a disagreement with the interlocutor’s opinion are avoided (cf. Grein, 2007:148). On the other hand, Cho (2007) compared German and Korean refusals in a workplace context through directive action games. The main differences he found were the frequent use of honorifics, apologies and complex expressions in Korean, while the German speakers realised their refuses in a more direct and simple way. Cho (2007:210) explains the different communicative patterns in the same vein as Grein: ‘‘Whereas in the German tradition, the individual is mostly defined in terms of an autonomous person, in Korea, people are always seen as part of a community.’’ Another constrastive study, that of Nixdorf (2002), analyses the linguistic resources used in Russian, English and German to refuse an offer. In general, Nixdorf finds great similitude between their use of communicative strategies and semantic formulas. However, one of the relevant differences consists of the frequent use of the direct ‘‘no’’ in combination with a grateful expression in German (nein, danke) and English (no, thanks), while in Russian the formula most often used is a simple spasibo without any direct ‘‘no’’ (cf. Nixdorf, 2002:124). Given the high degree of cultural specificity of a linguistic realisation of refusal and the possible pragmatic transference from L1 to L2, the suitable learning of communicative patterns of refusals in a L2 is very complex. There is a significant chance of misunderstandings to occur; Eslami (2010:223) observes: ‘‘The studies on pragmatic transfer of refusals have

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

57

indicated that differences between the learners’ native languages and the target languages may lead to the transfer of native language refusal strategies which may be inappropriate in performing refusals in the target language’’. In fact, there are many interlanguage studies -- which brings us the second approach -- that show how pragmatic transference in the speech act of refusals takes place when the learner applies the rules of their own native language and culture in their interlanguage. An important reference and inspiration for many of the recent interlanguage studies on refusals is the classic study conducted by Beebe et al. (1990), where these authors analysed answers of refusal by American English native speakers, Japanese native speakers and Japanese speakers learning English. The participants had three different social status (equal, higher, lower) for each initial act (invitations, requests, orders and proposals) and in the analysis the authors compared the frequency and content of the semantic formulas such as the influence of status and sex. Beebe et al. (1990) concluded that the refusals of Japanese speakers were similar in Japanese and in English but different from the Americans, which brings to light a clear pragmatic transference. Moreover, the status of the interlocutor was an important factor in the selection of communicative strategies by the Japanese whereas for the Americans it depended more on how well they knew the interlocutor. Hence, the Japanese transferred their awareness of social status, native to their culture, to the target language. In so far as the frequency and content of the semantic formulas goes, the Americans were more specific in their excuses than the two Japanese groups. Liao and Bresnahan (1996) analysed order refusals of Chinese students from Taiwan who interacted in English with native-speaker American students. Both groups apologised with a similar frequency when refusing something, but overall they used different expressions and strategies of refusal. Americans gave several reasons to excuse themselves and did not hesitate to lecture their interlocutor if they thought it was suitable, whereas Chinese excuses were shorter as they used less strategies. These differences in the use of verbal politeness reflect the modesty of Eastern countries and the high level of self confidence of Western countries, as explained by Liao and Bresnahan (1996:703). Another study that analyses refusals in interlanguage is that of Widjaja (1997) which compares the linguistic realisation of refusals of Taiwanese women talking in English with those of American women as native speakers of English, showing that the Taiwanese participants refused the proposed dates in a more direct fashion. One of the factors that determined this result in the foreign language was the transference of the Chinese structures into English. Wannaruk (2008) analysed the refusals in English and in Thai made by American students speaking in their native English language and two groups of Thai where one group made the refusal in their own native Thai and the other in English. Among the results of this study is the finding that there was pragmatic transference from L1 to L2 both in the selection and in the content of the strategy. The social status of the interlocutor, the role of modesty in the native culture and the level of English were the most important factors for pragmatic transference (cf. Wannaruk, 2008:318). Furthermore, very interesting studies based on the work of Beebe et al. (1990) with Arabic native speakers have been published. For example, Al-Shboul et al. (2012) compared students of English as a foreign language born in Jordan, with second language English speakers from Malaysia. The study reveals that both groups used similar strategies, however the Malaysians used less indirect strategies than the Jordanians but expressed gratitude more often. Another example is that of Qadoury (2011) who studied the interlanguage pragmatics of Iraqi Arabic native speakers with English as a foreign language compared with American English native speakers. The results show that the Iraqis chose the refusal strategies very carefully and used more explanations, expressions of feeling, wishes and adjuncts than the English native speakers. Al-Issa (2003) compared Jordanians learning English with American English native speakers. The result shows that there was pragmatic transfer not only in the frequency but also in the content of the semantic formulas. The Jordanians’ refusals were longer and more detailed than those of the Americans as well as using less direct strategies especially when talking to an interlocutor with a higher social status. Al-Kahtani (2005) carried out a study of the realisation of refusals in English performed by native speakers of American English, Japanese and Arabic. The findings show that there are differences in the use of order, frequency and content of semantic formula between the native and the non-native speakers, but interestingly the study also reveals that in one situation, where a request is the initial act, all three groups perform their refusals in the same way. Also to be mentioned is the volume about refusals in instructional contexts edited by Martí-Arnándiz and SalazarCampillo (2013) which contains ten interesting papers on the speech act of refusal in interlanguage pragmatics in a foreign language learning context. The studies discussed in this article are but a small selection of the works dedicated to researching the speech act of refusal and are a measure of the attention this speech act draws. Nonetheless, as stated above, the authors of this article are not aware of any published work that compares the differences and similarities in the use of refusal strategies in German and Spanish. The present study is a contribution to filling this void and to revealing the structures employed in Spanish and German to carry out the complex speech act of refusal. The preferences towards positive or negative politeness in both cultures will be determined, based on the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987). Another important research question of this

58

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

survey applies to the ongoing debate about the East-West divide in politeness initiated by Leech (2007). It aims at examining how far Spanish and German communicative patterns in refusals indeed correspond to the western politeness style described by Leech as individualistic and egalitarian, in contrast to eastern cultures where ‘‘the group values are more powerful’’ (Leech, 2007:170). 4. Methodology 4.1. Data collection, subjects and corpus The acquisition of data for the present study took place in the spring of 2010 in the Universidad Pablo de Olavide in Seville. The method of data gathering for the linguistic analysis used was that of the open role-play where two participants interacted with each other according to their role after reading the written description of the situation. The interaction had to be as natural and as spontaneous as possible. The dialogues were recorded in video and transcribed afterwards. According to Gass and Houck (1999:47) role-play is the method that best reflects natural speech acts: ‘‘Of the common data elicitation methods, open role-plays are the closest to what we might expect to reflect naturally occurring speech events. They have the advantage of allowing the researcher to set up situations in which the occurrence can be recorded and/or videotaped, thus making possible the close analysis of long interaction sequences of comparable data’’. In comparison with naturally produced speech acts, the data obtained via an open role-play have the advantage of being easily comparable. Other advantages in comparison to the written questionnaires, like the Discourse completion tests, are the high degree of spontaneity, authenticity and interplay that allows the negotiation of the speech act along several sequences. In total 115 open role-plays took place covering 6 different situations, 58 of them in Spanish and 57 in German. In total 450 moves were analysed as shown in Table 1 (cf. Section 5). In situations 1--3 the interlocutors have the same social status, they are friends and the initial speech act is a proposition. In situations 4--6 the social status of the interlocutors is unequal and the initial speech acts are propositions and invitations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Dinner: One student proposes having dinner together. Gym: One student proposes joining the same gym together. Linguistic trip: One student proposes a joint linguistic trip to England. Theatre project: One student proposes his/her teacher to be in charge of directing a theatre project. Beach house: A parent invites a friend of their child to spend a weekend with the family in their beach house. Congress: A university teacher asks a student to give a talk in a congress.

Given that in our research we analyse refusal strategies in very specific situations and carried out by a small number of participants, this study is not representative either of Spanish or German communicative patterns in general. Its objective is to identify tendencies that might suggest possible differences in the realisation of this speech act in both languages. These tendencies could then be analysed in a more extensive project, in which case more factors such as status and social distance, the initial speech act and the degree of face threat caused by it, the gender of the interlocutors, etc. which have not been included in this study, could be taken into consideration. In total 24 people participated in the recordings, 11 exchange students from all over Germany and 13 Spanish students from the Universidad Pablo de Olavide. The German students were 21 and 22 years old but for one of 29 and another of 32 years of age. The Spanish students were between 18 and 22 years old. After the role-plays the participants were personally interviewed about their impressions of the role-play and about their intercultural German--Spanish experiences, especially regarding the realisation of the speech act of refusal. With respect to the recordings, most of the students answered that after feeling insecure in the very beginning, they were able to act in a spontaneous and natural way. Some of the interpretations given by the students about their intercultural experiences with different communicative styles in Spanish and in German are mentioned in the analysis below in order to back up the results of this survey, even though this study is entirely based on the analysis of the transcribed role plays. 4.2. Transcription of data The transcription of the recordings followed, albeit in a simplified way, the conventions of ‘‘Minimaltranskript’’, according to the ‘‘Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionsverfahren 2 (GAT 2)’’ suggested by Selting et al. (2009). In GAT 2 the content of the turn, parallel sequences, turn-taking, pauses, inhaling and exhaling, laughter, non verbal acts and

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

59

witticisms are written down, as well as segments which are hard to understand or unintelligible (cf. Selting et al., 2009:359). To ensure legibility, the transcription of the examples presented in this study is limited to the content of turns and pauses [(.)]. The transcription is literal and in accordance with standard Spanish and German orthography. 5. Facework strategies in Spanish and German refusals In this section we summarise the more relevant results from the comparative study of the corpus of Spanish and German conversations, described in Section 4.1 and based on the analytical framework discussed in Section 2. The following comparative analysis is centred on the direct and indirect strategies that constitute the head act of refusal (cf. Section 5.1) as well as on the distinctive supportive moves that back it up (cf. Section 5.2). Furthermore, we will draw special attention to the culture-specific differences concerning the final outcome of the conversations (cf. Section 5.3). The exact numbers, distribution and percentages of the different Spanish and German refusal strategies and supportive moves are summerised in Table 2 in Appendix. 5.1. Head act 5.1.1. Indirectness vs. directness The first striking fact that appears in the comparative analysis of the head act is the choice of indirect strategies in most of the communicative situations made by both the German and Spanish speakers. In spite of sharing the preference for indirect linguistic resources in the head act of refusals, it is worth pointing out that the overall percentages vary and reflect a higher value for the preference of indirect refusal strategies in Spanish (83%) than in German (74%) and a slightly higher tendency to use direct strategies of refusal by the German speakers (26%) than that of Spanish speakers (17%). Another noticeable difference relates to the fact that amongst the direct refusals in German some of them were a straight ‘‘no’’ (cf. Example 1) or were made using performative verbs (cf. Example 2), while these structures were not found in any example in the corpus of conversations in Spanish. Example 1: Direct refusal in German using a ‘‘no’’: A: hast du bock mitzukommen ich werd mitmachen wahrscheinlich (do you fancy coming? I’ll probably participate) B: lass mich kurz überlegen (.) nein. (let me think about it (.) no) Example 2: Direct refusal in German using a performative verb. A: und da wir ja am strandhaus sind so (.) da wollt ich dich fragen ob du da vielleicht mitkommen willst (and as we are at the beach house (.) I wanted to ask you if you’d like to join us) B: auf jeden fall schon mal danke für das angebot nur jetzt hab ich leider gerade dieses wochenende mit ein paar freunden schon was geplant deswegen muss ich leider absagen (thanks anyway for the offer, it’s only that unfortunately just this weekend I’ve already planned something with a couple of friends so I have to refuse) Anyway, in both groups we find that the use of direct refusal is infrequent and that when used, it is always followed by supportive moves (cf. Section 5.2) or other indirect refusal strategies, which will be described in the following paragraphs. 5.1.2. External reference vs. self-reference As we have shown, the great majority of refusals, both in German as in Spanish, are performed using indirect strategies, in other words the tendency to refuse without expressing the speech act directly and explicitly exists in both cultures. Let us recall that the indirect refusals used by the subjects of our study can be classified in two main groups; on onehand explanations about lack of time, means and affinity, and on the other the proposal of alternative dates, persons or activities (cf. Table 1). In the case of indirect strategies, the explanations of the reasons why the speaker cannot participate in the proposed activity by the interlocutor represent the most preferred indirect strategy of refusal in the text corpus (64% of all indirect strategies in Spanish vs. 61% in German). In any case we would like to stress that the weight given to the different type of explanation seems to be subject to cultural variations.

[(Fig._1)TD$IG] 60

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

Fig. 1. Different explanations as indirect refusals.

Hence, as can be seen in Fig. 1, Spanish indirect refusals register a greater number of explanations related to lack of time (45% of the total number of indirect refusals), that is, to external factors not controlled by the speaker, as is shown by the following examples from our corpus: Examples 3--6: Indirect refusals in Spanish using explanations about the lack of time (3): me voy con mis padres por ahí (I’ll go away with my parents) (4): me coincide con un viaje que ya tengo programado (it coincides with a journey that I’ve already planned) (5): mi horario está ahora mismo que no cabe nada más (in my timetable right now nothing else fits in) (6): estoy en exámenes y la verdad mucho tiempo libre no tengo (I’ve got exams and the truth is I don’t have lots of free time) The data reveals that, without expressing a general disagreement with the interlocutor, Spanish speakers emphasise more often that external factors do not permit them to participate in the proposed activity. This communicative behaviour on the Spanish side clearly shows the importance given to attending to the positive face needs of both interlocutors. The positive face of the speaker is safeguarded by being in solidarity, and the listener’s by avoiding a disagreement. The second reason that appears in the explanations of the research corpus is the lack of affinity with the proposed activity. Though this strategy is less favoured by both groups of speakers than lack of time, its use as seen in Fig. 1 is more common amongst the German speakers (21% of the total number of indirect refusals vs. 16% in Spanish). The following expressions (cf. Examples 7--10) exemplify this indirect refusal case for lack of affinity. Examples 7--10: Indirect refusals in German by explanations of lack of affinity (7): ins verregnete England da will ich nicht hin (I don’t want to go to rainy England) (8): England ist mir zu kalt (England is too cold for me) (9): ich hab keine Lust da an irgendwelchen geräten zu hängen (I don’t fancy hanging on any machines) (10): ich bin einfach nicht der fitness-studio-typ (I’m simply not the gym-type) The high use of this strategy by German speakers shows a greater self-reference, a higher consideration for their own wishes and preferences, and therefore, a greater tendency to protect their own negative face. At the same time, while expressing a lack of affinity with the proposed plan, the German speakers opt in more instances not to agree with the ideas of their interlocutors and thereby contradict their taste. In this way they disregard their own positive face needs for not being in solidarity, and that of the listener by not avoiding the disagreement with the proposal. However, it is worthwhile recalling that the registered percentages of the use of explanations as an indirect strategy of refusal are not very dissimilar in the Spanish and German texts, hence they only reflect a slight variation due to the relative attention given to the different face needs in both cultures.

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

61

Fig. 2. Indirect refusals using alternative proposals.

5.1.3. Another time vs. another person Another noticeable difference is in the use of alternative proposals to the suggested initial act. Resorting to this indirect strategy of refusal tends to be less frequent in the text corpus, with a total of 17% of alternative proposals in Spanish and 18% in German. However, amongst the Spanish speakers, we find a preference for suggesting a postponement of the joint activity with the tendency not to abandon the original plan. The German speakers, on the other hand, propose more often that the activity be accomplished with someone else or that the original plan be modified (cf. Fig. 2). As indicated in Fig. 2, the Spanish communicative behaviour shows more often a general agreement with the proposed plan and the intention to jointly carry it out, even if it happens another time (10% of all indirect refusals vs. 4% in German); this once again suggests a clearer concession to the positive face needs of both interlocutors on the Spanish side. The German speakers, when suggesting alternative people (9% of all indirect refusals vs. 5% in Spanish), more often express that they do not want to share the plan thereby damaging not only the positive face of the listeners who want the regard of their interlocutors but also their own by not showing an image of solidarity. At the same time they strive to defend their own negative face needs, which aspire to be independent of other peoples plans. We should also mention that in several conversations there is a combined use of various indirect strategies that are complementary in the negotiation of the refusal. The communicative sequences of Examples 11 and 12 show that in several instances the refusal is formed by a combination of explanations and alternative proposals, the two most employed indirect strategies in the corpus of our study. Example 11: Combination of indirect refusals in Spanish (lack of time and proposal of an alternative date). A: oye y si vamos a cenar esta noche (.) no sé (.) a algún lado (listen what about dinner tonight (.) I don’t know (.) somewhere) B: es que ya había quedado con otra amiga para cenar pero si quieres vamos otro día (.) te parece bien (it’s that Id already arranged to meet another friend for dinner but if you want we can go another day (.) is that ok with you) Example 12: Combination of indirect refusals in German (lack of affinity and proposition of an alternative person). A: nee also allgemein würde ich eher sagen dass ich keine lust habe no in general I’d say that I don’t fancy . . . B: ja hm weil ja der sommer kommt und irgendwie äh hab ich da wirklich dann angst vor dann ins freibad zu gehen (.) so von daher (yes hm because the summer is coming and somehow Im really frightened to go to the open air pool (.) so) A: nee das musst du schon irgendwie aber allein oder frag jemand anders (no you have to somehow but alone or ask somebody else) In these two examples we can see that in spite of the use of the same indirect strategies (explanation and alternative proposal) there are communicative differences with regards to the choice of explanation and the preferred alternative. On the one hand, the Spanish refusal referring to the lack of time (‘‘ya había quedado con otra persona’’) and the alternative time proposal (‘‘vamos otro día’’) show once again a clear respect for the positive face of both speakers. On the other, the German example, where there is a lack of affinity (‘‘dass ich keine lust habe’’) and the suggestion of an alternative person (‘‘frag jemand anders’’), show the use of linguistic resources more akin with the negative politeness destined to satisfy wants of independence and self-determination.

62

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

These two opposing examples have been chosen to highlight some of the elicited communicative differences that could lead to misunderstandings in the context of intercultural communication. Yet it must be emphasised that in many cases the refusal strategies used in Spanish and in German are similar and that they do not always show these outstanding communicative differences. 5.1.4. Decide it later vs. decide it now As we have stated in Section 2, another possibility to perform an indirect refusal consists of postponing the decision without giving a fixed explicit answer in the course of the conversation. This strategy is more evident in Spanish conversations, comprising 16% of all indirect strategies, compared to only 7% in indirect German strategies. As is evident in the interviews carried out with the participants in this study after the recordings, the indirect strategy of postponing the decision implies a high risk in the context of intercultural communication, since its interpretation is subject to cultural variations. In this sense it seems that Spanish speakers actually interpret expressions like the ones in the Examples 13--15 of the corpus as indirect refusals, whilst the German subjects could interpret them literally and expect a definitive answer in the future. Examples 13--15: Indirect refusals in Spanish using the postponement of the decision (13): ya veré ya te lo digo (I’ll see and tell you) (14): tendría que mirarlo (I’d have to see) (15): ya me lo pienso (I’ll think about it) Once more, this indirect strategy makes it plain that Spanish speakers often strive to avoid disagreement and prefer to use vague or not very precise replies before explicitly refusing the activity proposed by the interlocutor. Example 16 shows that German speakers also use the postponement of a decision in some conversations, but, as we have already stated, this strategy is rare in our German corpus and could be interpreted as real postponement of the decision. Example 16: Indirect refusal in German using postponement of a decision (16): ich lass mir das nochmal durch den Kopf gehen und wir sprechen dann nochmal drüber (I’ll think about it again and then we’ll talk about it) 5.2. Supportive moves As we have explained above (cf. Section 2) the head act of refusal is often accompanied by supportive moves or adjuncts, other speech acts that mitigate or emphasise the communicative intention of the head act. The modification of the illocutionary force by means of supportive moves is denoted as external modification, since it is performed indirectly and does not modify the linguistic structures of the head act. This supports Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s assertion that ‘‘external modification does not affect the utterance used for realising the act, but rather the context in which it is embedded’’ (1994:204). With reference to the placement of the supportive moves, they can precede the head act or they can be placed after it. In the case of refusal, when the adjuncts precede it, they often have the function of preparing the interlocutor to receive the less preferred answer by introducing it by means of other related acts. At the same time they can assume a tactical move by the speaker in order to gain time to suitably realise this face threatening speech act. The supportive moves after the head act often happen when, in the negotiation of the refusal, the speaker feels the need to keep modifying the illocutionary force of the refusal, in the majority of cases in order to soften its impact on the interlocutor. Supportive moves depend to great extent on the development of the conversation and on the expected or performed reactions of the interlocutor, that is, on the particular context of each conversation. This further underlines the advantages inherent in eliciting data by means of the role play since it allows the reflection and analysis of all communicative sequences necessary in each step to negotiate the refusal; in contrast with the DCT which only reveals the production of the head act. In our corpus of Spanish and German conversations, all refusals, both direct and indirect, are accompanied by at least one adjunct. Fig. 3 shows the different supportive moves performed by the Spanish and German subjects in our study. At first glance a more balanced use of the different types of adjuncts by the German speakers emerges, while the Spanish

[(Fig._3)TD$IG]

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

63

Fig. 3. Supportive moves.

speakers show a clear preference for specific supportive moves. In the following sections we analyse some of the differences encountered in the corpus. 5.2.1. Clarification and insecurity Clarification questions are the supportive move most used by both groups of speakers (35% of all supportive moves in Spanisch vs. 25% in German). This speech act offers the possibility of answering the initial act posed by the interlocutor with interest yet without undertaking. Requesting more detailed information on the proposed activity implies that the answer is not an unconditional ‘‘yes’’ and opens the way to the non-preferred reply. In addition, it allows the speaker to gain time to think about the suitable realisation of the refusal; in this way questions to clarify can also be employed as a delaying tactic in the negotiation of refusal. The following dialogue (cf. Example 17) presents several clarification questions, which appear in similar forms in numerous Spanish communicative situations in our corpus. Example 17: Clarification questions in Spanish A: qué pasa (whats the matter) B: pues nada (.) aquí tío (.) que ahora voy a ir yo a SDUPO a eso del gimnasio para apuntarme (.) tú te apuntas conmigo (nothing, just here, man, now Im going to go to the SDUPO to join the gym (.) come along and join with me?) A: no sé (.) cuando te quieres apuntar tú (I don’t know (.) when would you like to join) B: oye llevo varios días pensando tío y ahora que me veo aquí con una cerveza en la mano (.) ahora que ha venido el buen tiempo (.) apuntarnos al gimnasio (.) no (listen I’ve been thinking about it for some days and now that I see myself here with a beer in my hand (.) now that the good weathers come (.) join the gym (.) no A: en que mes sería (.) serían un par de meses (what month would it be (.) would it be a couple of months) The second most registered adjunct in the corpus of Spanish conversations is the expression of insecurity (33% in Spanish vs. 15% in German). As in the case of clarification questions, with the expression of insecurity the speaker can gain time in order to later perform the refusal although the negative reply is introduced more openly than in the case of questions of clarification. As is evident from the following examples, the conventional formula to express insecurity in Spanish contains a ‘‘no sé’’ that can be used to introduce other supportive moves or indirect strategies of refusal, like explanations (cf. Example 18), or to form an independent turn of speech. In this case it is often introduced by the expression ‘‘es que’’ (cf. Example 19) and/or reinforced by the discursive particle ‘‘eh’’ (cf. Example 20) that implies the communicative interpersonal function of asking corroboration or the acceptance of what has been said.

64

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

Examples 18--20: Expression of insecurity in Spanish (18): no sé el problema es que no tengo mucho tiempo (I don’t know the problem is that I don’t have lots of time) (19): es que no sé (it’s that I don’t know) (20): no sé yo eh (I don’t know) The high use of insecurity formulas by Spanish speakers shows their tendency to avoid the direct expression of refusal and to delay the realisation of the non-preferred answer as well as the implied face threat. 5.2.2. Esteem, affinity and apology As can be seen in Fig. 3 the expression of affinity (16% in German vs. 2% in Spanish) or esteem (19% in German vs. 9% in Spanish) with the initial act as well as the apology for not taking part in the proposed activity (13% in German vs. 4% in Spanish), are three types of supportive moves employed more often by the German speakers than by their Spanish counterparts. The frequent use of appreciation formulas in German conversations stands out since the approval of the proposed activity, as shown in the following examples, is a clear strategy of positive politeness, which is considered more in line with the Spanish communication style. Examples 21--23: Expression of esteem in German (21): das wär eigentlich sehr geil (.) ja (that would actually be very cool (.) yes) (22): das hört sich alles ja super an (all that sounds super) (23): das ist eine sehr gute idee (that’s a very good idea) By means of the appreciative expression, therefore, German speakers reveal a clear attention to the positive face needs of the interlocutor, a linguistic practice that traditionally is not attributed to the German culture. We consider that the Examples 21--23 can be interpreted in a similar way as the expressions of affinity with the proposed activity in Examples 24--26. Both show a positive appraisal of the proposed activity from the perspective of the refusing interlocutor, that is, they transmit positive politeness in the sense they share the taste of the interlocutor that brings the proposal. Moreover, as we have described in Section 5.1.2, the expression of affinity also is a means to negative politeness since it reflects the self-reference of the speaker with a clear consideration of their own interests which, if not satisfied, can equally lead to the negation of affinity and, hence to the refusal of the initial speech act. Examples 24--26: Expression of affinity in German (24): grundsätzlich würde mir das schon großen spaß machen (normally it’d be great fun for me) (25): ich würd echt gern mitmachen (I’d really like to participate) (26): ich wär aber gerne mit dir essen gegangen (but I’d have liked to eat out with you) We can state hence, that the fact of feeling (or not) esteem or affinity with the proposed activity is made explicit more often in German negotiations of the refusal, either in negative form to express indirect refusal (cf. Section 5.1.2) or in a positive way as a supportive move to mitigate the face threat of refusal. The last supportive move analysed in this comparative study is that of the apologies. Their frequency of use in German is comparable with that of the other adjuncts but their use in Spanish is more restrained. These findings about apologies within the speech act of refusals are consistent with earlier studies of Spanish and German communicative patterns (cf. Haverkate, 1994; Siebold, 2008), where it is verified that in comparable communicative situations, German speakers tend to perform more explicit apologies than Spanish speakers. In terms of face threat, we can explain the low employment of apologies found in the Spanish corpus with the Spanish need to safeguard their own positive face, since with an apology the speakers recognises something unsuitable in their own behaviour thereby endangering their own positive face.

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

65

In contrast with this conduct, Examples 27 and 28 show that in German conversations one apologises more frequently for not reacting positively with the initial act, not giving the same attention to protecting ones own positive face. Examples 27 and 28: Apologies in German (27): nee wirklich nicht tut mir leid (no really not, I’m sorry) (28): es tut mir wirklich leid ich würd echt gern mitmachen (I’m really sorry I’d really like to join you)

5.3. Final outcome -- (no) need for clarity In previous sections we have analysed the use of different direct and indirect refusal strategies as well as other face saving strategies like speech acts and linguistic resources that accompany the refusal in order to mitigate its impact on both interlocutors. As we have explained in Section 5.1.3, these resources are often used in combined form and are a part of the refusal negotiation along various discursive sequences. In this way, a refusal can contain different strategies depending on the need the speaker feels to support the refusal with other linguistic resources and in function of the response given by the other interlocutor, that is, whether the negative answer is easily accepted, or if a prolonged argumentation is needed. This means that in conversations where the speakers opt, for example, to postpone the decision (cf. Section 5.1.4), they do not necessarily end with a true postponement, as it is possible that after using this strategy the conversation might take a different turn and the speaker might yet express a clear answer. Likewise, it is probable that a direct and explicit refusal at the beginning of the conversation will not end in the same terms. These observations have led us to examine in greater detail the endings in Spanish and German conversations contained in our corpus, finding a great difference with regard to the outcome of these communicative situations. As shown in Fig. 4, over a third of Spanish conversations (36%) are characterised by an ending that leaves open the option that the person who has refused or has attempted to refuse, might reconsider their decision. What is remarkable in this context is that the person who invites or offers and who during the negotiation has been attempting to work out a positive outcome, is ultimately willing to cede to an open ending. We see this in Examples 29 and 30: Examples 29 and 30: Open conversation endings in Spanish (29): A: piénsatelo venga a ver si te animas (think about it and let’s see if you fancy it) B: me lo pensaré I’ll think about it)

[(Fig._4)TD$IG]

(30): S1: tú te lo piensas y ya hablamos (.) vale (you think about it and then we’ll talk (.) ok) S2: venga (ok) These examples seem to indicate that an open ending is thought to be satisfactory for both parties since it appears to be acceptable for the face needs of the person who was giving the refusal as well for the one receiving it. In fact, in the Spanish corpus we find numerous endings of the type seen in Examples 29 and 30, consisting of a terminal exchange with an adjacency pair composed of a preliminary offer or request to reconsider the refusal, followed by the acceptance to do

Fig. 4. Final outcome with open conversation endings.

66

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

so. The interviews with the participants in the study show that the final agreement to rethink the decision does not need to be interpreted as such either by the speaker or the hearer. In accordance with the communicative context, this final outcome can assume a real possibility to return to the matter at another moment or be a mere polite strategy to safeguard the face of both interlocutors, albeit one not to be taken seriously. It is clear that native speakers of other languages or of different cultures who are not familiar with these forms of verbal politeness can have difficulties in adequately interpreting the communicative intentions underlying these types of conversational endings. In this sense, it is important to remember that there can be clear cultural variations with regards to the perception of final outcomes, as explained by Gass and Houck (1999:5): ‘‘The final outcome may or may not be mutually satisfactory. Importantly, it must be noted that what constitutes a satisfactory outcome may vary cross-culturally’’. This leads us to examine the outcomes in German conversations. In comparison with Spanish culture, the German culture has been considered, for quite some time, a low context culture, in which the messages are expressed in explicit and clear fashion and are not transmitted through information implicit in its context (cf. Schroll-Machl, 2013:169). The outcomes of German conversations in our corpus are in agreement with these communicative patterns typical of low context cultures. In the German corpus there are also final open outcomes with the adjacency pair described above (request to reconsider the refusal and acceptance to do so), as it is shown in Examples 31 and 32. However, in quantitative terms they appear less often (21%) and in qualitative terms it must be stressed that they are realised in a broader syntactic and lexical variety that indicates a less conventional and ordinary use than the one registered in the Spanish corpus. Examples 31 and 32: Open conversation endings in German (31): A: wir können ja morgen nochmal drüber reden (we can talk about it again tomorrow) B: ok ich ruf dich an (ok I’ll call you) (32): A: du kannst es dir ja nochmal überlegen (you can think about it again) B: ich lass mir das nochmal durch den kopf gehen und wir sprechen dann nochmal drüber (I’ll think about it and we’ll talk about it again) In the majority of the German conversations the refusal, whether direct or indirect, is evident at the end of the conversation; the matter is clearly closed. It seems that German speakers appreciate having an unequivocal end to a conversation and are not comfortable with outcomes that lead to ambiguous interpretations. Hence, what was concluded by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) for the expression of requests in Israeli culture appears to apply equally to the culture-specific realisation of refusals in German: ‘‘A certain adherence to the pragmatic clarity of the message is an essential part of politeness’’ (BlumKulka et al., 1989:131). 6. Conclusions and perspectives The comparative study here discussed shows that in apparently similar occidental cultures, like the German and Spanish cultures, there also exist considerable differences between the systems of verbal politeness and communicative styles. In fact, the differences found in the linguistic realisation of the speech act of refusal do not confirm that there is a clear separation between the East and West politeness systems, as suggested by the recent debate generated by Leech (2007) on the East-West Divide in politeness. Moreover, in the Spanish refusals in our corpus we have found communicative features and facework strategies proper of a verbal politeness based on the ‘‘Eastern group-orientation’’ (Leech, 2007:201), such as the high tendency to use indirect refusal strategies, the frequent recourse by the speakers to impervious external factors in their explanations and the high number of final outcomes that leave open the explicit answer. The linguistic realisation of refusals in German, by contrast, manifests communicative patterns and face work strategies more characteristic of the ‘‘Western individual-orientation’’, like the higher tendency to use direct refusals, the expression of lack of affinity in their explanations and the need of pragmatic clarity that renders the refusal as the final outcome. According to our understanding, these substantial contrasts between communicative patterns and politeness styles in the two western cultures Spain and Germany reveal the great diversity and uniqueness of language use in every different culture. In doing so, they question a general division in eastern and western politeness systems as unduly simplified and imprecise. Furthermore, the findings of this study offer a scientific basis for the development of intercultural training programmes and the teaching of pragmatic competence in foreign language teaching.

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

67

Appendix Table 2 Distribution and percentages of refusal strategies and supportive moves in Spanish and German. German n Role plays

Spanish (%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

57

n

(%)

(%)

(%)

100 17.3 82.7 53.1 37.8 13.3 2.0 14.3 8.2 4.1 2.0 13.3 2.0

100 64.19 45.7 16.0 2.5 17.3 9.9 4.9 2.5 16.0 2.5

(%)

58

Total moves Total refusals Direct Indirect Total explanations - Time - Affinity - Money Total alternative proposal - Time - Person - Activity Postponement Others

307 192 50 142 87 48 30 9 26 6 13 7 10 19

100 62.5

Total supportive moves Clarification Insecurity Esteem Apology Affinity Others

115 29 17 22 15 19 13

37.5

100 26.0 74.0 45.31 25.0 15.62 4.7 13.54 3.1 6.8 3.6 5.2 9.89 100 25.21 14.78 19.13 13.0 16.52 11.30

100 61.26 33.80 21.12 6.3 18.30 4.22 9.15 4.92 7.04 13.4

100 55.2 34.5 10.3 100 23.1 50.0 26.9

143 98 17 81 52 37 13 2 14 8 4 2 13 2

100 68.5

45 16 15 4 2 1 7

31.5

100 71.2 25.0 3.8 100 57.1 28.6 14.3

100 35.6 33.3 8.9 4.4 2.2 15.55

References Al-Issa, Ahmad, 2003. Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: evidence and motivating factors. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 27, 581--601. Al-Kahtani, Ali Saad W., 2005. Refusals in three different cultures: a speech act theoretically-based cross-cultural study. Lang. Transl. 18, 35--57. Al-Shboul, Yasser, et al., 2012. An intercultural study of refusal strategies in English between Jordanian EFL and Malay ESL postgraduate students. Southeast Asian J. Engl. Lang. Stud. 18 (3), 29--39. Barron, Anne, 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Beebe, Leslie M., et al., 1990. Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals. In: Scarcella, R., Anderson, E., Krashen, S.D. (Eds.), On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House Publishers, Cambridge, MA. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Olshtain, Elite, 1994. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Appl. Linguist. 5 (3), 196--213. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. University Press, Cambridge. Cho, Yongkil, 2007. Refusals and politeness in directive action games: cultural differences between Korean and German. In: Grein, M., Weigan, E. (Eds.), Dialogue and Culture. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 191--212. Drew, Paul, 1984. Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Strucutres of Social Action. University Press, Cambridge, pp. 129--151. Eslami, Zoreh R., 2010. Refusals: how to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In: Martínez-Flor, A., Uso´-Juan, E. (Eds.), Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 217--236. Gass, Susan N., Houck, Noal, 1999. Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-cultural Study of Japanese-English. Mouton, Berlin. Ghazanfari, Mohammad, Bonyadi, Alireza, Malekzadeh, Shirin, 2013. Investigating cross-linguistic differences in refusal speech act among native Persian and English speakers. Int. J. Res. Stud. Lang. Learn. 2 (4), 49--63. Grein, Marion, 2007. Kommunikative Grammatik im Sprachvergleich. Die Sprechaktsequez Direktiv und Ablehnung im Deutschen und Japanischen. Max Niemeyer, Tübingen. Haverkate, Henk, 1994. La Cortesía Verbal. Estudio Pragmalingüístico. Gredos, Madrid. Kwon, Jihyun, 2004. Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua 23, 339--364.

68

K. Siebold, H. Busch / Journal of Pragmatics 75 (2015) 53--68

Leech, Geoffrey, 2007. Politeness: is there an East-West divide? J. Politeness Res. 3, 167--206. Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatik. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Liao, Chao-chih, Bresnahan, Mary I., 1996. A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Lang. Sci. 18, 703--727. Martí-Arnándiz, Otilia, Salazar-Campillo, Patricia, 2013. Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond. Rodopi, Amsterdam. Nixdorf, Nina, 2002. Höflichkeit im Englischen, Deutschen und Russischen. Ein interkultureller Vergleich am Beispiel von Ablehnungen und Komplimenterwiderungen. Tectum, Marburg. Qadoury, Ahmed, 2011. Pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners’ refusals. Int. J. Engl. Linguist. 1 (2), 166--185. Salazar Campillo, Patricia, Safort-Jordá, M. Pilar, Codina-Espurz, Victoria, 2009. Refusal strategies: a proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. Rev. Electro´n. Lingüíst. Apl. 8, 139--150. Schroll-Machl, Silvia, 2013. Doing Business with Germans. Their Perception, Our Perception. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen. Selting, Margret, et al., 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2), Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10, 353--402. Siebold, Kathrin, 2008. Actos de Habla y Cortesía Verbal en Espanñol y en Alemán. Estudio Pragmalingüístico e Intercultural. Peter Lang, Frankfurt. Wannaruk, Anchalee, 2008. Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC J. 39 (3), 318--337. Widjaja, C.S., 1997. A study of date refusals: Taiwanese females vs. American females. Working Papers in ESL 15 (2), 1--43. Kathrin Siebold is a professor at the Faculty of Humanities at Pablo de Olavide University in Seville, Spain. Her main research interests lie on Intercultural Pragmatics, where she investigates culturally related realisations of different speech acts and verbal politeness. She teaches German, Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Hannah Busch is a graduate of a Spanish--German bi-national master degree of Teaching German as a foreign language and contrastive studies of language, literature and culture. Her focus in research is contrastive linguistic and the comparison of different speech acts. She teaches German as a foreign language at a British School in Seville.