Annotated Bibliography on Refusals in Japanese

 

 

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T, & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.

The authors administered a discourse completion test with 60 participants (20 Japanese-speaking in Japanese, 20 Japanese-speaking in English, and 20 Americans speaking in English) to investigate pragmatic transfer in refusals to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions directed at higher-, equal-, and lower-status interlocutors.  The data were analyzed in terms of the sequence, frequency, and content of semantic formulas.  The evidence of pragmatic transfer was found at least on three levels: the sequence, frequency, and the intrinsic content (or tone) of the semantic formulas used in the refusals. This is an often cited paper in the study of refusals.  (See the paper or the Refusal section of the CARLA speech act website for details.)

 

 

Ikoma, T., & Shimura, A. (1993). Eigo kara nihongoeno pragmatic transfer: "Kotowari" toiu hatsuwa kouinitsuite [Pragmatic transfer from English to Japanese: The speech act of refusals]. Nihongokyouiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching), 79, 41-52. 

This study investigates pragmatic transfer among advanced-level American learners of Japanese (fourth-year students at the University of Hawaii).  Ten Japanese native speakers and ten American learners of Japanese performed refusals to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions based on Beebe et al. (1990) elicited through discourse completion tasks.  Three instances of negative transfer identified were that learners: 1) did not provide alternatives as often as native speakers, 2) tended to inappropriately use kekkoudesu ‘no, thank you’ in interactions with friends possibly due to its similarity to an English expression, “No, thank you,” and 3) did not use incomplete sentences fully, which would have assisted in presenting oneself hesitantly and politely especially with those of higher status. 

 

 

Kanemoto, M. (1993). A comparative study of refusal assertion in the United States and Japan. Ryudai Review of Language and Literature, 38, 199-212.

The author investigates five popular publications regarding refusals in American English and Japanese to examine the refusal strategies recommended by the writers from the two cultures and underlying values behind such refusal strategies.  The three formal characteristics in Japanese refusals were: 1) avoiding a clear refusal, 2) mentioning a third party as a reason for the refusal, and 3) using a fictitious reason for the refusal.  The author contends that in Japanese culture, refusal means not only a “no” to a request but also to personal relationships and that fictitious reasons and other strategies were employed as a social lubricant to reduce the impact of the refusal assertion.  Two characteristics of recommended refusals in American English were that the clear and constructive refusal must be articulated and that reasons for a refusal do not necessarily have to be offered.

 

 

Kawate-Mierzejewska, M. (2002). Request-refusal interactions in telephone conversation. Unpublished manuscript. Fourth Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan.

;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>This study investigated request-refusal interaction between Japanese speakers speaking Japanese (10 M, 10 F JJs - never having lived in English-speaking country) and North American English speakers speaking Japanese (10 M, 10 F AJs – living in Japan for over 10 years) in telephone conversations, focusing on the differences and similarities between native and nonnative speakers in 40 conversations (JJ-JJ and JJ- AJ) with two requests in each (10-15 minutes per conversation).  The nature of refusal sequences was examined by four coders.  JJs tended to employ delay as their immediate response to the implicative request types, while AJs were found to have a wider variety of refusal types (delay, avoidance, acceptance, positive indication but excuse, excuse).  They didn't use formulaic patterns as often as JJs.  The AJ variety was attributed to lack of sociocultural and pragmalinguistic ability.  The JJs had six types of refusal sequences: excuse, delay-excuse, delay-excuse-alternative, delay-excuse-apology, delay-apology, and delay-promise.  AJs had seven: excuse, delay-excuse, delay-avoidance by postponement, avoidance-delay-excuse, avoidance-avoidance, acceptance-delay-excuse, positive indication with excuse-avoidance.  Appendix B gives a classification of refusal realization strategies.

 

 

Kitao, S. K. (1996). Communicative competence, preference organization, and refusals in British English. Sougou Bunka Kenkyujo Kiyou, 13, 47-58.

The researcher administered a discourse completion test (based on Beebe et al., 1990), with 12 items on refusals to requests given to 40 British English speakers.  The magnitude of the request (large and small request), status of the interlocutors (higher, equal, and lower than the speaker), and the closeness of the interlocutors (close or distant) was manipulated in the DCT instrument.  The most common strategy was an expression of regret followed by an excuse or reason (30% of the responses).  Another 20% of the responses either reversed the order or added another element (such as promising future compliance of the request, or negative willingness).  As it is in American English, giving a reason seemed to be central, and the reasons were found to be generally concrete and specific.  Expression of regret occurred in more than half of the refusals (especially refusing a small request by those of equal status), although apologies were more often offered in response to a larger request. 

 

 

Laohaburanakit, K. (1995). Refusal in Japanese: A comparison of Japanese textbooks and actual conversation data. Nihongo Kyouiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching], 87, 25-39.

Focusing on the refusal itself and the statement of the reasons as core strategies of refusals, the author compares refusals for requests and invitations in ten Japanese language textbooks with those in authentic telephone conversation by native speakers.  Most of the textbooks did not carry sufficient information regarding the refusing context (i.e., relationship of the interlocutors, whether the refuser is able to comply with the request/invitation in terms of time and ability, and the degree of importance for acceptance of the request/invitation in the requester’s perspective), although the authentic data showed the refusing context influenced the selection of the refusal strategy or the combination of the refusal strategies.  Authentic data found cases where the speakers made refusals even thought they were able to comply with the request/invitation, and several strategies used by the speakers in such a case. 

 

 

Laohaburanakit, K. (1997). Forms of refusals: A comparison of refusal forms used by learners of Japanese and Japanese native speakers. Japanese-Language Education around the Globe, 7.

The author uses authentic telephone conversation including refusals from 15 native speakers of Japanese and 11 nonnative speakers of Japanese.  The analysis focuses on the refusal itself and the statement of the reasons.  Learners’ overall use of sentence-final particles following an excuse (e.g. noda/kara/node/te/shi) approximated that by native speakers.  However, conversation analysis of the data also revealed that learners generally did not use sentence-final particles (e.g., kna, na(a), wa) which serve to soften the refusal assertion and refusal markers (e.g., chotto, yappari, uun) which precede a refusal and prepare the hearer for the upcoming refusal. The author contends that these are missing aspects in Japanese language textbooks and research that require more attention.

 

 

Moriyama, T. (1990). ‘Kotowari’ no houryaku: Taijin kankei chouseito komunikeishon (Strategies of refusals: Interpersonal adjustments and communication). Gengo [Language], 19 (8), 59-66.

This article analyzes the speech act of refusals in terms of benefits and imposition, strategies, and reasons behind using particular strategies.  The author administered a questionnaire to 51 male and 40 female Japanese college students, eliciting the refusal strategies that they would use in one refusal situation.  The refusal strategies fell into four categories: 1) direct refusal, 2) telling a white lie, saying tsugouga tsukanai ‘I have a prior engagement that cannot be changed,’ 3) postponing response, saying kangaete oku ‘I’ll think about it,’ and 4) making an indefinite response by smiling.  The response strategies were also analyzed in terms of closeness, social status, age, and gender of the interlocutors.  The direct refusal (Type 1 above) was found to be often directed to close friends (approximately 70%) as the respondents probably perceived no need to conceal true feelings in such a relationship.  Telling a white lie (Type 2 above) was perhaps used in consideration for the hearer, behaving as if the hearer’s intentions were more important than the speaker’s or as if the refusal was beyond the speaker’s control.  The postponement (Type 3) by a close friend was interpreted as cause for hope by 60% of the participants while only about 30% did so if uttered by someone not very close.  The postponing strategy was seldom used with someone of higher status, since it presupposed the importance of the speaker’s intention rather than the hearer’s.  With regard to the second refusal in response to the friend’s repeated request, males were likely to make a direct refusal while females tended to tell a white lie. 

 

 

Naitou, M. (1997). Nihongono taiguu hyougen “irai” “kotowari”: Nihongo bogowashato nihongo gakushuushatono koodono sai [Japanese politeness in requests and refusals: Differences in code between native speakers and learners of Japanese]. In M. Hubbard, T. Sakamoto, & J. Davis (Eds.), Nihongo kyouiku ibunkano kakehashi: Miura Akira Sensei Koki Kinen Ronbunshuu [Progress in Japanese Linguistics and pedagogy: A collection in honor of Professor Akira Miura’s 70^th birthday] (pp. 101-115). Tokyo: Arc.

This paper contains a report dealing with three questionnaires investigating native and nonnative Japanese speakers’ 1) politeness judgment of request expressions in six situations, 2) judgment of the speaker’s intent in two hints, and 3) feelings experienced by the speaker who once again refuses a second invitation made to him/her.  The author also lists useful request and refusal expressions that can be taught to learners of Japanese.

 

 

Sameshima, S. (1998). Communication task ni okeru nihongo gakusyusha no tenkei hyougen/bunmatsu hyougen no syuutokukatei: Chuugokugo washa no "ira" "kotowari" "shazai" no baai [The acquisition of fixed expressions and sentence-ending expressions by learners of Japanese]. Nihongo Kyouiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching], 98, 73-84.

This paper examines speech act performance in requests, refusals, and apologies by Chinese speakers of Japanese in Taiwan.  Three levels of learners, high-beginners, low-intermediate, and high-intermediate, took a discourse completion test that included 3 situations, eliciting performance on the three speech acts.  The results were analyzed in terms of the linguistic form of each core speech act and the language use in the opening and closing of the dialogue.  The author also compared the learners’ performance with the expressions included in their textbooks.  The learners’ general linguistic performance approximated that of native speakers as their levels became more advanced, although all level learners tended to oversimplify opening and closing statements.

 

Shigeta, M. (1974). Ambiguity in declining requests and apologizing. In J. C. Condon & M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural encounters with Japan: Communication -- contact and conflict (pp. 193-195). Tokyo: Simul Press.
The study compared responses by Japanese and Americans at International Christian University in Tokyo in six situations, 2 apologies, 2 requests, and 2 refusals – in each case, once to a higher status person and once to a person of equal status.  While the Japanese were concerned about relative status, the Americans paid more attention to the personal relations or closeness with the person.  The Japanese were more ambiguous in their responses.  While this is a very short report with no details, the study constitutes a pioneering effort, some seven years before the appearance of what were considered the “initial” empirical studies.

 

Shimura, A. (1995). "Kotowari" toiu hatsuwa kouiniokeru taiguu hyougentoshiteno syouryakuno hindo, kinou, kouzouni kansuru chuukanngengo goyouron kenkyu ‘Frequency, function, and structure of omissions as politeness expressions in the speech act of refusal.’ Keiougijyuku Daigaku Hiyoshi Kiyou [Keio University at Hiyoshi, Language, Culture, Communication], 15, 41-62.

This paper focuses on the use of incomplete sentences in performing refusals in Japanese.  Native speakers often use incomplete sentences especially with those of higher status in order to avoid making direct refusals and appear hesitant, which is considered a polite gesture.  Based on the same data used in Ikoma and Shimura (1993), learners’ and native speakers’ use of incomplete sentences were analyzed in terms of the syntactic and semantic structures, frequency, correlation with interlocutors of various status.  Approximately 24% of the refusal sentences made by native speakers were left incomplete and over half of them (54%) were used with someone of higher status than the speakers.  Over half of the incomplete sentences used by natives (61%) and learners (72%) were when providing a reason for a refusal (e.g., …te/de, …node/kara), as well as in responding negatively, providing an alternative, and responding positively.  More than half of the incomplete sentences (61%) appeared at the end of the refusal sequences.  The learners’ use of incomplete sentences was similar to that of natives except that the learners used incomplete sentences less frequently (15%) and more often with someone of lower status, rather than with higher status interlocutors.   

 

 

Ueda, K. (1974). Sixteen ways to avoid saying "no" in Japan. In J. C. Condon & M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural encounters with Japan: Communication -- contact and conflict (pp. 185-192). Tokyo: Simul Press.
The chapter is about not wanting to say no to a boss so as not to hurt the superior's feelings and not to endanger own position at work.  A "no" may suggest the junior person is selfish and unfriendly, so this person may have not choice but to accept.  The flat "no," ie, is avoided in speaking.  A vague "no" is preferred or an expression that could be either yes or no.  Silence is also used.  Other possibilities: a counter question, a tangential response, leaving the scene, lying, criticizing the question, refusing to answer the question, giving a conditional "no," using "yes, but...," delaying the answer, declining but without giving a direct "no" but rather an expression involving both apology and regret, expressing "I will accept" (to a superior) but with some excuse which warns of likely failure to carry out the request, an apology.  An empirical study found that lying was the preferred approach.  Younger respondents preferred apologies.  The older generation preferred tangential responses and delayed answers.  Men used a flat "no" more than women which women avoided.