Refusals in Early Modern English drama texts: New insights, new classification

Isabella Reichl

Abstract

Due to their largely non-routinized forms and their not being retrievable in computerised corpus searches, refusals have hitherto not been examined from a diachronic perspective. The present paper presents an inventory of refusal strategies in Early Modern English drama texts. Five comedies from two periods (1560–1599 and 1720–1760), respectively, taken from the Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (Kytö and Culpeper 2006Kytö, Merja, and Jonathan Culpeper eds. 2006A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760.Google Scholar) were examined manually and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. The analysis lead to an alternative classification of refusals which differs considerably from the frequently used taxonomy by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990)Beebe, Leslie, Tomoko Takahashi, and Robin Uliss-Weltz 1990 “Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, ed. by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine Slosberg Andersen, and Stephen Krashen, 55–73. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar. The proposed classification takes into account three levels of analysis: the propositional content of the utterance, the functional super-strategy, and the speaker’s stance. The development of refusal within the period under investigation partially matches findings regarding related speech acts that show a development towards increased indirectness (Culpeper and Demmen 2011Culpeper, Jonathan, and Jane Demmen 2011 “Nineteenth-century English Politeness. Negative Politeness, Conventional Indirect Requests and the Rise of the Individual Self.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12 (1–2): 49–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, Pakkala-Weckström 2008Pakkala-Weckström, Mari 2008 ““No botmeles bihestes”. Various Ways of Making Binding Promises in Middle English.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 133–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, Del Lungo Camiciotti 2008Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella 2008 “Two Polite Speech Acts from a Diachronic Perspective. Aspects of the Realisation of Requesting and Undertaking Commitments in the Nineteenth Century Commercial Community.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 115–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar).

Keywords:
Table of contents

1.Introduction

The speech act (henceforth SA) of refusing has been researched extensively in the last 25 years. The focus has been on cross-cultural investigations and language learning/teaching, however, and, no study has previously examined refusals in earlier stages of the English language. This is most likely due the fact that refusals are frequently realized by means of non-routinized forms which are not automatically retrievable with corpus software. The present paper represents a first step into the historical study of refusals by examining realizations of this SA in Early Modern English (henceforth EModE) drama texts. Based on the realization strategies found in the Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED) (Kytö and Culpeper 2006Kytö, Merja, and Jonathan Culpeper eds. 2006A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760.Google Scholar), and taking into account recent work on interpersonal pragmatics, I propose a new classification, which differs considerably from the hitherto most frequently used taxonomy by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990)Beebe, Leslie, Tomoko Takahashi, and Robin Uliss-Weltz 1990 “Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, ed. by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine Slosberg Andersen, and Stephen Krashen, 55–73. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar.

A refusal is “a responding act in which the speaker denies to engage in an action proposed by the interlocutor” (Chen, Y. and Zhang 1995Chen, Xing, Lei Ye, and Yanyin Zhang 1995 “Refusing in Chinese.” In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Langugage, ed. by Gabriele Kasper, 119–164. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honululu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar, 121). Performing this SA can be like walking a tightrope: it is potentially problematic, because it signals a conflict of interest and can trigger a verbal conflict (Vuchinich 1990, 118–119). In Brown and Levinson’s (1987)Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar terminology, it constitutes a face-threatening act. A large variety of SAs can elicit refusals. They are responses to a preceding SA of the directive or commissive type (Searle 1976Searle, John R. 1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar) and can themselves be classified as commissives (Searle and Vanderveken 1985Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken 1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 192). According to Searle and Vanderveken (1985Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken 1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 195), however, orders and commands cannot be refused.

1.1 Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990)Beebe, Leslie, Tomoko Takahashi, and Robin Uliss-Weltz 1990 “Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, ed. by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine Slosberg Andersen, and Stephen Krashen, 55–73. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar – Taxonomy and impact

The most influential study on refusals was conducted by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990)Beebe, Leslie, Tomoko Takahashi, and Robin Uliss-Weltz 1990 “Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, ed. by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine Slosberg Andersen, and Stephen Krashen, 55–73. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar (henceforth BTU), who looked at pragmatic transfer of Japanese speakers of English. Using discourse completion tasks (henceforth DCT), they elicit refusals of four types of SAs: ‘requests’, ‘invitations’, ‘offer’, and ‘suggestions’. Based on their findings, they established a taxonomy of refusal strategies or ‘semantic formulae’ (Figure 1), which has since been frequently used. Their taxonomy distinguishes between a direct and an indirect super-category, each consisting of multiple categories and sub-categories. In addition, they include adjuncts to refusals which do not function as refusals themselves. Their choice to differentiate between direct and indirect realizations can be explained with the theoretical environment at the time: Brown and Levinson’s (1987)Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar politeness theory was the most dominant account of politeness, postulating that more indirect SA realizations are more polite than direct ones. More recent approaches to im/politeness and interpersonal pragmatics (see e.g. Haugh, Kádár, and Mills 2013Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills 2013 “Interpersonal Pragmatics. Issues and Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 58: 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Locher and Graham 2010Locher, Miriam A., and Sage L. Graham eds. 2010Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar for trends and current debates) have moved away from this equation and look at a variety of linguistic means for interpersonal effects (see e.g. Part II in Locher and Graham 2010Locher, Miriam A., and Sage L. Graham eds. 2010Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar).

Not only BTU’s classification is still frequently used in analyses of refusals (e.g. Allami and Naeimi 2011Allami, Hamid, and Amin Naeimi 2011 “A Cross-linguistic Study of Refusals: An Analysis of Pragmatic Competence Development in Iranian EFL Learners.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 385–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Siebold and Busch 2015Siebold, Kathrin, and Hannah Busch 2015 “(No) Need for Clarity – Facework in Spanish and German Refusals.” Journal of Pragmatics 75: 53–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Bella 2014Bella, Spyridoula 2014 “Developing the Ability to Refuse: A Cross-Sectional Study of Greek FL Refusals.” Journal of Pragmatics 61: 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Lee 2013Lee, Hanjung 2013 “The Influence of Social Situations on Fluency Difficulty in Korean EFL Learners’ Oral Refusals.” Journal of Pragmatics 50 (1): 168–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Babai Shishavan and Sharifian 2016Babai Shishavan, Homa, and Farzad Sharifian 2016 “The Refusal Speech Act in a Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Study of Iranian English-Language Learners and Anglo-Australian Speakers.” Language & Communication 47: 75–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Guo 2012Guo, Yinling 2012 “Chinese and American Refusal Strategy: A Cross-cultural Approach.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Nikmehr and Jahedi 2014Nikmehr, Armin, and Fateme Jahedi 2014 “The Effect of Status on Refusal Strategies Used by American Native Speakers of English and Iranian EFL University Students.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 3 (5): 91–99.Google Scholar; Sattar, Lah, and Suleiman 2011Sattar, Hiba Qusay Abdul, Salasiah Che Lah, and Raja Rozina Raja Suleiman 2011 “Refusal Strategies in English by Malay University Students.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 11 (3): 69–81.Google Scholar; Félix-Brasdefer 2003Félix-Brasdefer, J. César 2003 “Declining an Invitation. A Cross-Cultural Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 22 (3): 225–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 2008 2008Politeness in Mexico and the United States. A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar); their study design itself has been replicated (somewhat modified) in numerous papers, for instance in Chen, Ye, and Zhang (1995)Chen, Xing, Lei Ye, and Yanyin Zhang 1995 “Refusing in Chinese.” In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Langugage, ed. by Gabriele Kasper, 119–164. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honululu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar, Yamagashira (2001)Yamagashira, Hisako 2001 “Pragmatic Transfer in Japanese ESL Refusals.” Retrieved from http://​www​.k​-junshin​.ac​.jp​/juntan​/libhome​/bulletin​/No31​/kiyo​_31​_15​.pdf; last access: 9.6.2015: 259–275., Chang (2011)Chang, Yuh-Fang 2011 “Refusing in a Foreign Language: An Investigation of Problems Encountered by Chinese Learners of English.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 30 (1): 71–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, Kwon (2004)Kwon, Jihyun 2004 “Expressing Refusals in Korean and in American English.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 23 (4): 339–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, Nelson et al. (2002)Nelson, Gayle L., Joan Carson, Mahmoud Al Batal, and Waguida El Bakary 2002 “Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Strategy Use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals.” Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 163–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, Hashemian (2012)Hashemian, Mahmood 2012 “Cross-Cultural Differences and Pragmatic Transfer in English and Persian Refusals.” Journal of Teaching and Language 3 (4): 23–46.Google Scholar, and Abed (2011)Abed, Ahmed Qadoury 2011 “Pragmatic Transfer in Iraqi EFL Learners’ Refusals.” International Journal of English Linguistics 1 (2): 166–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar. All of these studies, however, employ either DCTs or role plays.

Figure 1.

Classification of refusals taken from BTU (72–73)

  1. Direct

    1. Performative (e.g., “I refuse”)

    2. Nonperformative statement

      1. “No”

      2. Negative willingness/ability (“I can’t.” “I won’t.” “I don’t think so.”)

  2. Indirect

    1. Statement of regret (e.g., “I’m sorry…”; “I feel terrible…”)

    2. Wish (e.g. “I wish I could help you…”)

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

    4. Statement of alternative

      1. I can do X instead of Y (e.g., “I’d rather…” “I’d prefer…”)

      2. Why don’t you do X instead of Y (e.g., “Why don’t you ask someone else?”)

    5. Set condition for future or past acceptance (e.g., “If you had asked me earlier, I would have…”)

    6. Promise of future acceptance (e.g., “I’ll do it next time”; “I promise I’ll…” or “Next time I’ll…” – using “will” of promise or “promise”)

    7. Statement of principle (e.g., “I never do business with friends.”)

    8. Statement of philosophy (e.g., “One can’t be too careful.”)

    9. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor

      1. threat or statement of negative consequences to the requester (e.g., “I won’t be any fun tonight” to refuse an invitation)

      2. guilt trip (e.g., waitress to customers who want to sit a while: “ I can’t make a living off people who just order coffee.”)

      3. criticize the request/requester, etc. (statement of negative feeling or opinion); insult/attack (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”; “That’s a terrible idea!”)

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

      5. let interlocutor off the hook

      6. self defense (e.g., “I’m trying my best.” “I’m doing all I can do.” “I no do nutting wrong.”)

    10. Acceptance that functions as a refusal

      1. unspecific or indefinite reply

      2. lack of enthusiasm

    11. Avoidance

      1. nonverbal

        1. silence

        2. hesitation

        3. do nothing

        4. physic departure

      2. verbal

        1. topic switch

        2. joke

        3. repetition of part of request, etc. (e.g., “Monday?”)

        4. postponement (e.g., I’ll think about it.”)

        5. hedging (e.g., “Gee, I don’t know.” “I’m nor sure.”)

Adjuncts to refusals

  1. Statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement (“that’s a good idea”; “I’d love to…”)

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

  3. Pause fillers (e.g.. “uhh”; “well”; “oh”; “uhm”)

  4. Gratitude/appreciation

Despite (or maybe because of) this taxonomy’s popularity, only few modifications and additions have been suggested over the years (e.g. Félix-Brasdefer 2003Félix-Brasdefer, J. César 2003 “Declining an Invitation. A Cross-Cultural Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 22 (3): 225–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar; Salazar Campillo 2009Salazar Campillo, Patricia 2009 “Refusal Strategies. A Proposal from a Sociopragmatic Approach.” Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 139–150.Google Scholar) – none of them, however, being substantial.

Since BTU’s taxonomy was designed with the objective of applying it to various languages, it was assumed that it is equally suitable for the analysis of different language varieties. Their categories were consequently taken as the starting point for this study.

1.2Historical development of commissives and directives

Although BTU’s data differs from the one examined here, their findings are a good starting point. Their results are, however, not straight-forward to read. The authors focus on pragmatic transfer, comparing Japanese speakers of English with American native speakers of English, and do not provide a full account of strategy frequencies. They do state that refusals of requests and invitations by American native speakers typically include the strategies ‘regret’ and ‘excuse’, as well as adjuncts – not taken into account in this paper – expressing a positive opinion or gratitude. In the case of offers, ‘no’ and letting the interlocutor off the hook are common. With the exception of ‘no’, these strategies are classified as indirect ones.

While no diachronic studies of refusals have hitherto been conducted, linguists have looked at the development of related SAs: other commissives and directives. What both types have in common is what Searle calls their direction of fit, which expresses “how [the propositional] content is supposed to relate to the world” (1976Searle, John R. 1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 4). Commissives and directives have a world-to-word direction of fit: they are attempts to get the world to match their content by demanding, asking for, promising, etc. some future action.

Researchers have mostly grouped strategies in terms of their level of (in)directness. Findings suggests that so called ‘conventionally indirect’ realizations (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain 1984 “Requests and Apologies. A Cross-Cultural Studie of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 201) are the most frequent type for directives in Present Day English (henceforth PDE) (e.g. Aijmer 1996Aijmer, Karin 1996Conversational Routines in English. Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar; Blum-Kulka and House 1989Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Juliane House 1989 “Cross-cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior.” In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies, ed. by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper, 123–154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar) and promises (which are commissives) in 19th century business letters (Del Lungo Camiciotti 2008Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella 2008 “Two Polite Speech Acts from a Diachronic Perspective. Aspects of the Realisation of Requesting and Undertaking Commitments in the Nineteenth Century Commercial Community.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 115–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar). At earlier periods of the English language, ‘direct strategies’ (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain 1984 “Requests and Apologies. A Cross-Cultural Studie of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 201) appear to have been the most common ones, for instance in the case of binding promises in Middle English (Pakkala-Weckström 2008Pakkala-Weckström, Mari 2008 ““No botmeles bihestes”. Various Ways of Making Binding Promises in Middle English.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 133–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar) and directives in EModE (Culpeper and Archer 2008Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer 2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar). Culpeper and Archer (2008Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer 2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 72) found that, in the EModE drama texts and trial proceedings they analysed, ¾ of all directives were realized directly by imperatives. What is interesting is that BTU’s categories ‘excuse’ and ‘hook’ are actually non-conventionally rather than conventionally indirect (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain 1984 “Requests and Apologies. A Cross-Cultural Studie of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 201) strategies. This raises the question why the results for refusals differ from the overall preference of conventional realizations for commissives and directives in PDE and where EModE refusals fit in.

1.3Defining refusals

A wide range of SAs can elicit refusals. The first methodological step in the present study was to determine which utterances were to be included. Since it has a diachronic perspective, the tertium comparationis had to be independent of language varieties. Relying on SA labels, or more specifically SA verbs, might have been problematic. All the refusal-eliciting SAs used in previous studies have one thing in common: their world-to-word direction of fit. This provided the basis for delineating what counts as a refusal. The below definition (Reichl 2015Reichl, Isabella 2015 “Refusals. Dispreferred Responses to Pre-Cooperative Illocutionary Acts in Early Modern English Drama.” MA thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar) is as broad as necessary in order for it to be applicable to (a) corpus data and (b) data sets from different periods:

  1. Conditions applying to the refusal-eliciting SA

    1. the refusal-eliciting SA performed by a speaker 1 (S1) has a world-to-word direction of fit;

    2. the propositional content condition of the eliciting SA is a future action X to be performed by S1 and/or the addressee/speaker 2 (S2) and/or third parties (S3);

    3. the performance of action X (by S1 and/or S2 and/or S3) as put forth by S1 depends on S2’s cooperation;

    4. action X can be a physical, verbal, or mental action;

    5. the intended perlocutionary effect of the eliciting SA hence consists of two parts: first, the cooperation of S2 and, second, the performance of X. The two could, in some cases, happen simultaneously, e.g. if S2 (truthfully) responds to a question, he/she cooperates and, at the same time, performs X;

  2. Conditions applying to the refusal

    1. a refusal, performed by S2 is a second-pair part in response to a SA performed by S1;

    2. the response performed by S2 is a denegation of the SA performed by S1;

This definition has a number of advantages: first, the distinction between ‘orders’ and ‘requests’ (Searle and Vanderveken 1985Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken 1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar) is obsolete; if there is a refusal, it is irrelevant whether S1’s eliciting SA intends to give the option to refuse or not; second, questions, i.e. requests for information (Searle 1969, 66; Searle and Vanderveken 1985Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken 1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 199), are included, while other types of questions such as rhetorical questions or ‘outlouds’ (Stivers and Enfield 2010Stivers, Tanja, and N. J. Enfield 2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2620–2626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 2623) are not. The definition also excludes a number of SAs. Utterances which represent, as Culpeper and Archer (2008Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer 2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar, 59) put it, “[i]ndirect speech acts in which the requestive force is the direct force and not the indirect force”, such as apologising by begging someone pardon, were not considered. SAs in which S1 informs interlocutors about a future action (e.g. holiday plans) are also excluded. Mediated third person SAs, i.e. utterances in which S1 speaks for an S3 but not him/herself, were not included either.

2.Data and methodology

The data was taken from the Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (Kytö and Culpeper 2006Kytö, Merja, and Jonathan Culpeper eds. 2006A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760.Google Scholar). The corpus is divided into five periods of 40 years11.Period 5 in fact spans 41 years. each and includes five text types: trial proceedings and witness depositions, which are authentic dialogues, as well as drama comedy, didactic works, and prose fiction, considered ‘constructed’ dialogues (Kytö and Walker 2006Kytö, Merja, and Terry Walker 2006Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar, 12).

Since close reading of the texts was required to find instances of refusals, it was not feasible to incorporate all text types in the study. Trial proceedings and witness depositions as well as didactic works were ruled out, because they were not considered likely to include a high number of refusals. The decision against prose fiction is based on the fact that, in this text type, “the presence of the narrator is often explicit, as the ‘storyteller’, and the dialogue may be mediated as both direct and indirect speech” (Kytö and Walker 2006Kytö, Merja, and Terry Walker 2006Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar, 24). In the case of drama comedy, by contrast, narratorial intervention is minimal (Kytö and Walker 2006Kytö, Merja, and Terry Walker 2006Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar, 22). For this reason, drama comedy was chosen.

Each period consists of five text files, but due to feasibility only the first (1560–1599) and last period (1720–1760) of the corpus were examined. The assumption was, however, that these two periods should suffice for the identification of changes over time, if there are any. Although periods 1 and 5 of the corpus were used, they will henceforth be referred to as period 1 (P1) and period 2 (P2).

The refusal realizations found where coded manually, initially guided by the preliminary categories adopted from BTU. In the course of the analysis, however, additional categories were added, some of the preliminary categories were modified, redefined, split up, or merged, and a new classification was established based on the data. The methodology was hence data-driven and (partially)22.I approached the data with a set of categories, but did not attempt to impose BTU’s taxonomy. bottom-up in the tradition of grounded theory approaches (see, for instance, Jaccard and Jacoby 2010Jaccard, James, and Jacob Jacoby 2010Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills. A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar, 256–308).

Table 1.Percentages of IP-IR pairs followed by CP-CR pairs
P1 P2
No CP-CR pair 67.8 25.2
≥ 1 CP-CR pairs 18.8 26.7
≥ 2 CP-CR pairs  8.1 12.6
≥ 3 CP-CR pairs  2.7  8.9
≥ 4 CP-CR pairs  2.0  5.9
≥ 5 CP-CR pairs  0.7 20.7

The basic units of analysis in this study is the adjacency pair, consisting of a refusal-eliciting SA followed by a refusal.33.The dissertation on which this paper is based includes an analysis of the refusal-eliciting SAs and the correlations between content and form of refusal-eliciting SA and the refusal. The occurrences found, however, quickly revealed that interactions of this kind can be longer than just one move of S1 and S2, respectively. The first eliciting SA of an interaction shall henceforth be referred to as initial proposal (IP),44.The term ‘proposal’ is use as an umbrella term for all refusal-eliciting SAs. and the first elicited refusal as initial refusal (IR). Any further persuasive attempts by S1 are termed continuations of the proposal (CP) and the corresponding responses by S2 continuations of the refusal (CR). Both are numbered consecutively. In total, 149 interactions were found in P1 and 135 in P2. In addition to the IPs and IRs, there are a total of 48 CP-CR pairs in P2 and 101 in P2. Table 1 illustrates the percentage of IP-IR pairs followed by CP-CR pairs.

3.Analysis

Rather than differentiating between direct and indirect strategies, the revised categories were grouped according to their broad function. These functional super-strategies are partially present in BTU but not fully followed through. Like BTU, I consider some strategies to aim at dissuading – though I do not class exactly the same categories in this super-strategy –, while others are attempts to deflect – or avoid a refusal, as they call it. But if a realization fits in neither of these groups, it must belong to some other super-strategy. I propose to consider such categories ‘definite’ refusals, which may or may not convey a reason for refusing.

With current research on interpersonal pragmatics in mind, it became apparent during the qualitative analysis that some strategies inherently convey a positive or negative stance – i.e. “personal feelings, attitudes, value judgments, or assessments” (Biber et al. 1999Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan eds. 1999Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar, 966). This aspect, disregarded by BTU, was hence integrated in the present taxonomy and the individual strategies were classified according to the stance expressed with them. Strategies are considered neutral if they do not convey any information concerning how S2 feels about S1 or the proposal. It is important to note, however, that the expressed stance does not say anything about the potential effects a refusal might have, nor are ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ strategies to be equated with impoliteness and politeness, respectively.

3.1Classification of strategies

In the following subsections, the different super-strategies of the proposed revised classification shall be introduced. In addition, the provided examples will also illustrate the dimension of intrinsically expressed stance.

3.1.1Definite refusals

Group 1 subsumes strategies expressing a definite refusal and consists of two further sub-sets. Strategies in the first sub-group simply express – implicitly or explicitly – that X will not happen. It consists of six strategies, four of which are neutral in terms of stance and two of which express a positive stance.

ex1.svg

Example (1) illustrates two neutral categories: [no], consisting of the one-word responses ‘no’ or ‘nay’, and [negA/F] a modified version of BTU’s ‘negative willingness and ability’. In this classification, it includes negations of ability, as shown above, as well as negations of the future act X happening. Neither of the strategies in (1) expresses a stance. The emphasized utterance in (2), by contrast, does. Here, the speaker expresses their hypothetical wish for X to happen, implying it will not. In doing so, they convey a positive stance towards X.

Realizations of the second sub-group, by contrast, provide a reason – implicitly or explicitly – why X will not happen. This subset is the largest one, consisting of 13 strategies: six neutral, six negative, and one positive.

ex2.svg

In (3), we see two strategies expressing a positive stance and no stance, respectively. Initially, the speaker states their theoretical willingness to comply under different, hypothetical circumstances ([cond>hyp]). This hypothetical willingness conveys a positive stance. The second strategy constitutes a plain excuse or reason ([exc]) why X will not happen without the speaker taking a stance. An instance of a strategy communicating a reason and a negative stance is given in (4). Using sarcasm ([sarc]), the speaker indirectly expresses a negative stance towards X, simultaneously implying the reason for the refusal: they do not want X to happen.

3.1.2Attempts at dissuasion

The strategies in this second group differ from the previous one in that, rather than expressing a definitive refusal to cooperate, they constitute attempts at dissuading S1. Three negative, two neutral, and one positive strategy form this group.

ex3.svg(5) Countess Moren: Go to, you shall not go and leaue me alone.Count Moren: For one meale gentle bird: Veron inuites vs to buy some iewels he hath brought of late from Italie: [Ile buy the best, and bring it thee, so thou wilt let me go]. (D1CCHAPM)[comp](6) Frankly: I understand you. [Any time but now. You will certainly be discover’d. [To-morrow – at your Chambers]. (D5CHOADL)[alt](7) Daffodil: You must go again, Ruffle, to Night, perhaps you may be in better Luck.Ruffle: [If I go again, Sir, may I be can’d, kick’d, and Horse-ponded for myPains – I believe I have been lucky enough to bring an old House overyour Head]. (D5CGARRI)[guilt]

A neutral dissuasive strategy is exemplified in (5). This new category includes offers of compensation and bribery ([comp]). In the above example, the speaker attempts to dissuade his wife from her request that he stays home, suggesting the decisive power is with the listener rather than the speaker. The strategy is neutral, because it does not reveal a positive or negative feeling towards X or S1. In (6), by contrast, the refuser takes a positive stance towards X by proposing an alternative time and location ([alt]), conveying his overall willingness for X to happen, if in a somewhat modified form. The strategy ‘guilt trip’ ([guilt]), on the other hand, is inherently negative regarding its expressed stance: it consists of utterances intended to make S1 feel guilty in order for them to drop the proposal, as illustrated in Example (7).

3.1.3Attempts at deflection

The final group comprises strategies which constitute refusals by means of deflection, i.e. neither a clear acceptance nor refusal is performed. None of these strategies consequently expresses a stance. The strategy ‘avoidance’ ([avoid]), for instants represents utterances in which S2 evades S1’s proposal. In (8), S2 deliberately builds his response on a word play and so avoids performing an acceptance or refusal.

(8)

ex4.svg

All strategies found in the data, and those retained from BTU, can be categorized in terms of one of these super-strategies. The benefits of clearly defined functional sub-classes will be addressed in the subsequent section.

3.2An alternative classification – Differences and advantages

The classification proposed here (Figure 2) differs considerably from BTU’s. The second and third super-strategy are based on their categories ‘attempts to dissuade interlocutor’ and ‘avoidance’, respectively. In contrast to BTU’s dissuasion strategies, however, Group 2 does not include criticism, requests for help, letting the interlocutor of the hook, and self-defence55.This strategy was subsumed under ‘plain excuse’. – all of which are treated here as definite refusals rather than attempts at dissuasion. In addition, proposals of alternatives and lack of enthusiasm were subsumed under Group 2, unlike in BTU, and two new categories were added: compensation and dissuasion. Group 3 differs from BTU’s group ‘avoidance’ as well: first, no non-verbal responses were included; second, jokes and repetitions were subsumed under the new category avoid; finally, indefinite responses were considered deflection as well and the new class ‘questioning the proposal’ was established.

All remaining of BTU’s strategies, if retained, were classified as ‘definite’ refusals – either providing or not providing a reason. Newly created definite strategies are: oppositions and counters, preconditions, exclamations, requests to stop, sarcasm, and hypothetical conditions – split off BTU’s conditions for future or past acceptance, since the former is neutral whereas the latter expresses a positive stance.

Figure 2.

Classification of refusal strategies

Strategies grouped by super-strategy Stance Explanation
Group 1: strategies suggesting definite refusal
Group 1a: strategies expressing, explicitly or implicitly, that X will not happen
– performative [perf]* neutral Use of performative verb
– [no] neutral Use of ‘no’ or ‘nay’
– opposition and counter [opp] neutral Statement expressing S2 will do the opposite of S1’s proposal or counter-proposal
– negation of ability condition or X happening [negA/F] neutral S2 expresses X can or will not happen
– [wish] positive S2 expresses hypothetical wish for X to happen, implying that it will not
– apology and regret [apol] positive S2 expresses regret, implying that X will not happen
Group 1b: strategies directly or indirectly expressing a reason why X can/will not happen (other than [negA/F])
– 'plain' excuse or reason [exc] neutral reason, justification, excuse why X can/will not happen
– negation of want or willingness [negwill] negative S1 expresses they do not want X to happen
– statement of principle or philosophy [princ] neutral reason in form of universal/principle statement
– precondition or quid pro quo [precond] neutral precondition requested by S2 of S1 in order for S2 to accept
– exclamation or interjection [exclam] negative Expression of emotion implying S2’s opposition towards proposal
– [hook] neutral letting S1 (and S2) off the hook by stating that X is not necessary
– [help]* neutral Request for help or assistance, implying S2 cannot do it by themselves
– condition for future acceptance [cond>future] neutral S2 expresses future state of affairs required for X to happen
– hypothetical condition [cond>hyp] positive S2 expresses their hypothetical willingness if it were not for some reason preventing X from happening
– criticism [crit] negative Insult, curse, or criticism of S1 or proposal, expressing S2’s negative attitude towards S1 or proposal
– [stop] negative S2 tells S1 to stop talking, go away, not pursue the issue any further, implying S2’s unwillingness to cooperate
– sarcasm [sarc] negative utterance expressing opposite of what S2 means, implying (reason for) S2’s unwillingness to cooperate
– making fun or mocking [fun] negative criticising S1 or proposal by mocking
Group 2: strategies attempting to dissuade S1
– dissuasion [diss] neutral attempt to dissuade S1 by asking what S2 can do to dissolve S1’s reasons for wanting X
– offer compensation [comp] neutral S2 offers compensation, bribery
– proposal of alternative [alt] positive S2 offers alternative, implying that X will not happen the way S1 proposed it
– guilt trip [guilt] negative utterance meant to make S1 feel guilty in order to dissuade them
– [threat] negative ‘real’ threats against S1 implying S2s negative attitude towards S1 or X
– lack of enthusiasm [lack] negative ‘acceptance’ expressing lack of enthusiasm
Group 3: strategies attempting to deflect
– indefinite reply [indef] neutral vague formulation that constitutes neither a clear commitment nor a clear refusal of cooperation
– hedging [hedge]* neutral “I don’t know, I’m not sure”
– questioning the proposal [questP] neutral S2 questions S1’s reason/motivation for proposal
– postponement [post] neutral decision concerning cooperation is postponed to a later point
– avoid response [avoid] neutral S2 acknowledges proposal but avoids responding to it
– topic change [topic] neutral S2 changes topic without reacting the proposal

Establishing hypothetical conditions as a category on its own was consequently necessitated by the introduction of stance as a classification dimension. The number of sub-categories which are completely new suggests considerable differences between BTU’s data and those analysed here. In terms of super-strategies, their taxonomy proved inconsistent and not fully thought through. They furthermore did not consider that some strategies intrinsically express stance – a shortcoming probably owing to the theoretical environment of their study. This analysis dimension may prove a more useful tool in the analysis of interpersonal effects than in/directness. Similarly, systematically grouping realizations in functional super-strategies may also aid in the analysis of im/politeness or identity construction.

3.3Most frequent strategies – Comparison to BTU’s findings

The usefulness of the classification dimensions proposed in the previous section can be further corroborated by quantitative analyses. In total, the IRs in P1 contained 283 instances of refusal strategies, those in P2 216. An additional 74 and 137 locutions were found in the CRs in P1 and P2, respectively. Overall, excuses are the most common strategy in my data, followed by expressions of criticism (Table 2). The former do, however, increase over time, while the latter decreases – in IRs as well as CRs. A slight decline can also be seen in the frequencies of noes and expressions of oppositions, whereas the percentage of exclamations rises. Interesting, none of these top strategies expresses a positive stance; they are all either neutral or even negative.

Table 2.Percentages of most frequent strategies
Super-strategy Stance Strategy IR CRs
P1 P2 P1 P2
definite, no reason neut [no]  8.8  6.5  6.8  2.9
neut [opp] 13.4 10.2  9.5  4.4
neut [exc] 20.8 30.6 31.1 46.7
definite, reason neg [crit] 18.7 12.5 28.4 13.9
neg [exclam]  9.9 11.1  2.7  7.3

As already mentioned, BTU found that ‘regret’, ‘excuse’, ‘no’, and ‘letting the interlocutor off the hook’ are commonly used in Present Day American English refusals. As Table 2 shows, ‘no’ and excuses are common in the drama texts under investigation as well. Most significant, however, is the fact that BTU attest the frequent use of expressions of regret or apologies, which only appear a handful of times in the EModE data. This strategy is considered to express a positive stance in the revised classification – a feature, as mentioned above, not prominent in my findings. Rather, expressions of criticism, which express a negative stance, are the second most common strategy in the drama texts, whereas they do not seem to emerge in BTU’s data. This may, however, not (merely) be a difference in terms of language change over time, but could well have to do with the types of data.

3.4Differences in the use of super-strategies and stance as time and interactions progress

A number of trends with regard to the super-strategies used and stance expressed can be detected when we compare (a) the two periods and (b) the initial refusals with the CRs.

Definite refusals which express a reason make up the majority of utterances. In both the IR and the CRs of both P1 and P2, this super-strategy is used in more than 60% and up to ¾ of the realizations, as Table 3 shows.66.Chi-square yielded a p-value of 0.0004 Looking at the frequencies in the IR compared to the CRs, we see that this super-strategy is more common in CRs than in IRs in both periods. Definite refusals not expressing a reason and deflecting strategies, by contrast, are overall more frequently used in initial refusals than the CRs. For dissuading strategies, no general trend can be detected when comparing IRs and CRs, due to the low number of occurrences. As an interaction progresses, then, strategies conveying a reason for the refusal are used more frequently whereas the number of realizations expressing a definitive refusal without a reason as well as attempts at deflecting decrease compared to the IRs.

Table 3.Percentages of realizations by super-strategy
Super-strategy IR CRs
P1 P2 P1 P2
definite, no reason 26.1 19.9 21.6 10.9
definite, reason 62.9 63.0 77.0 76.6
dissuasion  1.8  2.8  1.4  4.4
deflectiona  9.2 14.4  0.0  8.0
aEight instances of [avoid] and 13 instances of [topic], found in one interaction, respectively, were excluded from P2, since they skewed the results and made the increase of G3 strategies appear much greater than if they were not included.

While the use of definite strategies expressing a reason remained consistent over time, there is a noteworthy decrease of those not expressing a reason and an increase of deflecting realizations. This partially matches the general trend towards increased indirectness in other commissives and directives, as discussed in the introduction. Where the above results, as well as those of BTU, differ, however, is that non-conventionally indirect rather than conventionally indirect realizations feature most prominently in the case of refusals and – as far as the EModE data is concerned – increased over time. One possible reason for this may be that refusals are second-pair parts, whereas the directives and commissives in the above studies are first-pair parts. There is, however, a methodological aspect to this discrepancy as well. Kohnen (2007, 139) points out that non-conventionally indirect realizations are often ‘hidden’ – and hence not analysed – in corpus studies, because they are not automatically retrievable. Although Culpeper and Archer (2008)Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer 2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar do take into account non-conventionally indirect directives, their differentiation between head acts and support acts means that non-conventionally strategies are treated as ‘second-class realizations’ and often categorized as mere supporting moves rather than directives proper when they occur together with more direct forms. In the approach by BTU, which we followed here, by contrast, any locution expressing a refusal, no matter how (in)directly, was classified as such.77.Adopting the methodology of strategy sequences to the refusal-eliciting SAs, the data revealed that the majority of those realizations are in fact of the so called non-conventionally indirect type, as Table 5 in the appendix shows. In addition, non-conventional strategies are, by far, the predominant group in S1’s continued attempts at persuading S2, making up 74.1% and 90% in P1 and P2, respectively. This points to another question regarding methodology: while it is apparent from BTU’s study design that they elicited only an initial refusal, but no continued attempts, it is unclear whether CPs were taken into account in previous (historical) studies on directives and commissives such as Culpeper and Archer’s (2008)Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer 2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar. If they were, the authors do not explicitly state so and do not compare IPs with CPs.

Regarding the stance expressed in refusal realizations, neutral strategies are overall the most common, as shown in Table 4.88.p-value: 0.506. They amount to roughly 2/3 of all locutions, followed by negative strategies, which make up the final third. Interestingly, strategies expressing a positive stance are hardly used at all in either period. As already addressed briefly, however, the reason for the high amount of negative strategies may lie in the text type under investigation: conflicts are, after all, a central part of drama (2008)‘drama’ 2008 In The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms ed. by Chris Baldick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar. A comparison with refusal strategies in other text types of the same periods would hence be highly interesting, but unfortunately available and suitable data is scarce.

Table 4.Percentages of realizations by expressed stance
stance IR CRs
P1 P2 P1 P2
neutrala 60.1 58.5 69.0 67.9
positive  1.1  4.1  0.5  2.9
negative 38.9 36.5 30.6 29.2
aThe same instances of [avoid] and [topic] in P2 were excluded (cf. Table 3).

The diachronic comparison of expressed stances in refusal realizations does not reveal any substantial developments. Although there is a minimal decrease of neutral and negative strategies and a corresponding increase in positive ones, both in the IRs and CRs, evaluating the meaningfulness of this change is impossible due to the small number of positive strategy tokens. We can, however, detect differences between IRs and CRs once more: as interactions progress, neutral strategies are used more frequently and negative ones less so. The expression of (negative) stance is hence somewhat more common in initial refusals rather than at later stages of an interaction.

4.Conclusion

This paper presents an inventory of refusal strategies in EModE and traced changes in realizations in the course of that period. Departing from BTU’s influential taxonomy and with recent work in the field of interpersonal pragmatics in mind, a new classification was proposed, which is deemed to be more suitable for the analysis of interpersonal effects. Moving away from a focus on in/directness, the taxonomy is more fine-grained and consistent in terms of functional super-strategies and furthermore takes into account the strategy-intrinsic expression of stance.

The diachronic comparison showed that, overall, definite refusals not providing reasons decrease over time, while deflecting realizations increase. This can be interpreted as being in line with attested developments towards increased indirectness since the EModE period for related SAs. The presented results, as well as BTU’s results, however, show a predominance of what are traditionally considered non-conventionally indirect rather than conventionally indirect strategies – a finding contrasting the generally assumed trend for directives and commissives. This discrepancy may be due to differences between first- and second-pair parts.

The introduction of stance as an analysis dimension revealed substantial differences when comparing my results to BTU’s. They found that strategies which, according to the revised classification, express a positive stance are common, whereas the EModE data showed a considerable amount of negative strategies. It is unclear, whether this is truly a diachronic difference or related to the text type analysed here. What is apparent, however, is that neutral strategies are less frequent and negative ones more frequent in initial refusals then in continued attempts – an aspect not addressed by BTU and other researchers. Similarly, definite refusals not expressing a reason and deflecting strategies decrease as the exchange continues, whereas definite refusals providing a reason increase.

Due to the substantially different data sets, a comparison between my and BTU’s results is problematic. Comparing these findings with refusals in other EModE text types would hence be interesting. A further important next step is to test the applicability and usefulness of the proposed classification on authentic PDE data. The present paper hence represents a first contribution to the diachronic investigation of refusals and a step towards an interactional pragmatics perspective of refusals.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a larger study I conducted for my MA dissertation (University of Vienna, 2015). I would like to thank my MA supervisor Professor Nikolaus Ritt for his support and encouragement.

Notes

1.Period 5 in fact spans 41 years.
2.I approached the data with a set of categories, but did not attempt to impose BTU’s taxonomy.
3.The dissertation on which this paper is based includes an analysis of the refusal-eliciting SAs and the correlations between content and form of refusal-eliciting SA and the refusal.
4.The term ‘proposal’ is use as an umbrella term for all refusal-eliciting SAs.
5.This strategy was subsumed under ‘plain excuse’.
6.Chi-square yielded a p-value of 0.0004
7.Adopting the methodology of strategy sequences to the refusal-eliciting SAs, the data revealed that the majority of those realizations are in fact of the so called non-conventionally indirect type, as Table 5 in the appendix shows. In addition, non-conventional strategies are, by far, the predominant group in S1’s continued attempts at persuading S2, making up 74.1% and 90% in P1 and P2, respectively. This points to another question regarding methodology: while it is apparent from BTU’s study design that they elicited only an initial refusal, but no continued attempts, it is unclear whether CPs were taken into account in previous (historical) studies on directives and commissives such as Culpeper and Archer’s (2008)Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer 2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar. If they were, the authors do not explicitly state so and do not compare IPs with CPs.
8.p-value: 0.506.

References

Abed, Ahmed Qadoury
2011 “Pragmatic Transfer in Iraqi EFL Learners’ Refusals.” International Journal of English Linguistics 1 (2): 166–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
1996Conversational Routines in English. Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Allami, Hamid, and Amin Naeimi
2011 “A Cross-linguistic Study of Refusals: An Analysis of Pragmatic Competence Development in Iranian EFL Learners.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 385–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Babai Shishavan, Homa, and Farzad Sharifian
2016 “The Refusal Speech Act in a Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Study of Iranian English-Language Learners and Anglo-Australian Speakers.” Language & Communication 47: 75–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, Leslie, Tomoko Takahashi, and Robin Uliss-Weltz
1990 “Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, ed. by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine Slosberg Andersen, and Stephen Krashen, 55–73. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Bella, Spyridoula
2014 “Developing the Ability to Refuse: A Cross-Sectional Study of Greek FL Refusals.” Journal of Pragmatics 61: 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
eds. 1999Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Juliane House
1989 “Cross-cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior.” In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies, ed. by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper, 123–154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
1984 “Requests and Apologies. A Cross-Cultural Studie of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yuh-Fang
2011 “Refusing in a Foreign Language: An Investigation of Problems Encountered by Chinese Learners of English.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 30 (1): 71–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Xing, Lei Ye, and Yanyin Zhang
1995 “Refusing in Chinese.” In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Langugage, ed. by Gabriele Kasper, 119–164. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honululu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Jane Demmen
2011 “Nineteenth-century English Politeness. Negative Politeness, Conventional Indirect Requests and the Rise of the Individual Self.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12 (1–2): 49–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Dawn Archer
2008 “Requests and Directives in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
‘drama’
2008 In The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms ed. by Chris Baldick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella
2008 “Two Polite Speech Acts from a Diachronic Perspective. Aspects of the Realisation of Requesting and Undertaking Commitments in the Nineteenth Century Commercial Community.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 115–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. César
2003 “Declining an Invitation. A Cross-Cultural Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 22 (3): 225–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Politeness in Mexico and the United States. A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Yinling
2012 “Chinese and American Refusal Strategy: A Cross-cultural Approach.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hashemian, Mahmood
2012 “Cross-Cultural Differences and Pragmatic Transfer in English and Persian Refusals.” Journal of Teaching and Language 3 (4): 23–46.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills
2013 “Interpersonal Pragmatics. Issues and Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 58: 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaccard, James, and Jacob Jacoby
2010Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills. A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Kwon, Jihyun
2004 “Expressing Refusals in Korean and in American English.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 23 (4): 339–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Jonathan Culpeper
eds. 2006A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Terry Walker
2006Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung
2013 “The Influence of Social Situations on Fluency Difficulty in Korean EFL Learners’ Oral Refusals.” Journal of Pragmatics 50 (1): 168–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Sage L. Graham
eds. 2010Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gayle L., Joan Carson, Mahmoud Al Batal, and Waguida El Bakary
2002 “Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Strategy Use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals.” Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 163–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikmehr, Armin, and Fateme Jahedi
2014 “The Effect of Status on Refusal Strategies Used by American Native Speakers of English and Iranian EFL University Students.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 3 (5): 91–99.Google Scholar
Pakkala-Weckström, Mari
2008 ““No botmeles bihestes”. Various Ways of Making Binding Promises in Middle English.” In Speech Acts in the History of English, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 133–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reichl, Isabella
2015 “Refusals. Dispreferred Responses to Pre-Cooperative Illocutionary Acts in Early Modern English Drama.” MA thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Salazar Campillo, Patricia
2009 “Refusal Strategies. A Proposal from a Sociopragmatic Approach.” Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 139–150.Google Scholar
Sattar, Hiba Qusay Abdul, Salasiah Che Lah, and Raja Rozina Raja Suleiman
2011 “Refusal Strategies in English by Malay University Students.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 11 (3): 69–81.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken
1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siebold, Kathrin, and Hannah Busch
2015 “(No) Need for Clarity – Facework in Spanish and German Refusals.” Journal of Pragmatics 75: 53–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanja, and N. J. Enfield
2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question-Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2620–2626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yamagashira, Hisako
2001 “Pragmatic Transfer in Japanese ESL Refusals.” Retrieved from http://​www​.k​-junshin​.ac​.jp​/juntan​/libhome​/bulletin​/No31​/kiyo​_31​_15​.pdf; last access: 9.6.2015: 259–275.

Appendix

Figure 3.

List of text files, taken from Kytö and Walker (2006Kytö, Merja, and Terry Walker 2006Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar, 17)

File name First print Publ. date Short text title Author Word count
D1CLYLY 1584 1584 Alexander and Campaspe John Lyly  9,450
D1CKNAVE 1594 1594 A Knacke to Knowe a Knaue Anonymous 10,740
D1CWARNE 1595 1595 Menaecmi William Warner 10,290
D1CPEELE 1595 1595 The Old Wiues Tale George Peele  7,920
D1CCHAMPM 1599 1599 An Humerous Dayes Myrth George Champman  9,190
D5CSTEEL 1723 1723 The Conscious Lovers Richard Steele  9,190
D5CMILLE 1734 1734 The Mother-in-Law James Miller  9,670
D5CFIELD 1737 1744 The Historical Register Henry Fielding  8,790
D5CHOADL 1747 1747 The Suspicious Husband Benjamin Hoadly 11,340
D5CGARRI 1757 1757 The Male-Coquette David Garrick  9,520
Table 5.Percentages of refusal-eliciting realizations by level of (in)directness
IP CPs
P1 P2 P1 P2
direct 39.7 25.9 12.9  6.5
conventionally indirect 19.8 20.8 12.9  3.5
non-conventionally indirect 40.5 54.3 74.1 90

Address for correspondence

Isabella Reichl

Department of English Language and Linguistics

University of Kent

Canterbury CT2 7NF

United Kingdom

i.reichl@kent.ac.uk