How to say “no” in Korean: Politeness strategies in refusals Yeonhee Yoon, UHM April 29, 2010
1
How would you refuse a request, invitation, suggestion or offer?
Although it may be O.K. to decline the invitation, the reply “안돼(요) (No)” would probably constitute an inappropriate form for refusal.
An appropriate response might be: “초대에 가고 싶지만 선약이 있어서(요) I would love to, but I have a prior engagement.”
2
Literature Review
Pragmatics deals with three concepts (meaning, context & communication) (Schiffrin, 1994)
Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) proposed to divide pragmatics into pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics.
3
Pragmatics
Pragmalinguistics
•The resources include pragmatic strategies such as indirectness, routines, and various linguistic forms that intensify or soften communicative acts.
Sociopragmatics
•Strategies of communicative actions vary according to context such as social power, social distance, and the degree of imposition. 4
Why the speech act of refusal?
Speech acts require not only knowledge of the language but also appropriate use within a given culture. Among several speech acts, refusal is a face threatening act (henceforth, FTA) to the listener. Face‐threatening acts (FTAs) such as refusals are particularly important to explore because they are the source of many cross‐cultural miscommunications. 5
Why the speech act of refusal? (Cont’d)
Refusals also require a high level of pragmatic competence.
In order to mitigate the FTA effect, various strategies are employed. (e.g., in Korean illocution‐mitigating devices in terms of politeness)
6
Speech acts of refusal •A response to another initiating speech act such as a request, invitation, offer, or suggestion •A very complex task which requires careful wording and thoughtful negotiation between the interlocutors (e.g., requester and refuser) 7
Purpose of the study •To investigate the nature of politeness strategies in the Korean speech act of refusal. •To identify various mitigating devices such as the hedge, which softens the strength of illocutionary forces in communication and facilitate successful communication as an interactional strategy. 8
Research Questions 1. What types of ‘semantic formulae’ are most frequently used in the realization of the speech act of refusal in terms of pragmalinguistics? 2. Are there any gender differences in employing refusal strategies in terms of sociopragmatics? 9
Research Questions (Cont’d) 3. What types of illocution‐mitigating devices are used in Korean speech act of refusal? 4. Are there any typical patterns or routines in refusal strategies?
10
Previous studies on Korean speech act of refusals(1) Lyuh (1992)’s Comparison of Korean and American cultures.
•Koreans use more vague excuses than Americans do. •Korean refusals are less direct while American refusals tend to be more direct.
11
Previous studies on Korean speech act of refusals(2) Byon (2003)’s The Korean speech act of refusals: Sociopragmatic analysis
•discussed the use of semantic formulae reflecting Korean hierarchism and indirectness. •emphasized the patterns of semantic formulae usage based on power and distance. 12
Previous studies on Korean speech act of refusals(3) Kwon (2004)’s Expressing refusals in Korean and American. •Korean speakers frequently pause and apologize before refusing while English speakers often state positive opinion and express gratitude before a refusal. •Korean speakers tend to take a more mitigating approach in dealing with a higher status person as compared to other status types.
13
Data Collection for the study
70 participants
Participants responded to six questions
35 female 35 male four requests, one invitation, one offer
Two variables (power and social distance) were considered in designing the scenarios. Data was collected from an eliciting Discourse Completion Task (DCT) 14
6 possible combinations of two social variables [P+, D+] i.e., S>L, unfamiliar [P+, D‐] i.e., S>L, familiar [P=, D+] i.e., S=L, unfamiliar [P=, D‐] i.e., S=L, familiar [P‐, D+] i.e., S<L, unfamiliar [P‐, D‐] i.e., S<L, familiar P: power, D: social distance, S: speaker, L: listener
15
Why eliciting DCT •Eliciting written Discourse Completion Test was employed since this study focuses on classification of interlocutor’s use of pragmalinguistic strategies in the realization of speech act of refusal, rather than on dynamic conversational interaction and the sequencing of communicative action. •It is an efficient method to collect a large number of data within a short period of time. 16
Method of Data Analysis
Semantic formulae for Korean refusal developed by Byon (2003) were adopted and used in coding Korean refusal strategies Data analysis based on the twelve semantic formulae for Korean refusal head act (HA) strategies and five semantic formulae for Korean refusal supportive move (SM) strategies. 17
Table 1. Total Distribution of Refusal HA Semantic Formulae (N=Row Score)
Refusal HA Semantic Formulae Alternative Criticism Hesitation Non‐performative Principle Excuse/ Reason Regret Suggestion Set condition for future acceptance Wish Implicature Total
Frequency (Percentage) 5 (0.4%) 34 (2.7%) 8 (0.6%) 232 (18.5%) 27 (2.1%) 654 (52.0%) 8 (0.6%) 120 (10.0%) 149 (11.8%) 7 (0.5%) 11 (0.8%) 1255 (100%) 18
Korean Refusal Head Act Strategies (Cont’d) •Korean interlocutors frequently use a sentence enders as a conventionalized illocution‐mitigating device, such as ‘‐kes kath‐a(yo)’,‘‐ketun(yo)’, ‘‐ nuntey(yo)’ along with non‐performative statement in order to reduce the illocutionary force. e.g. silh‐untey ‘No, literally, ‘I don’t like’; konlanha‐ntey ‘It’s troublesome.’; mwuli‐il kes kath‐a(yo) ‘It seems to be impossible’; mos kal kes kath‐a(yo) ‘I am afraid I can make it.’
19
Korean Refusal Head Act Strategies (Cont’d) •a new semantic formula in Korean refusal strategy: an ‘implicature’, which is not included in Beebe et al’s and Byon’s semantic formulae. e.g 1. 과장님! 얼굴이 너무 피곤하신 것 같습니다. (퇴근 후 회식하자는 제안하는 과장님께 거절을 하는 상황)
e.g 2. 나 오늘 지갑을 안가져왔는데…. (생일초대에 거절하는 상황) 20
The most common combination of refusal HA strategies (1)an expression of excuse/reason + set condition for future acceptance (41.3 %) e.g. (미안한데 )오늘 먼저 한 약속이 있거든. + 있다가 전화할게.
(2) an expression of excuse/reason + non performative ( 17.5%) with illocution‐mitigating sentence enders in terms of the routines. e.g. 아, 내일 모레 캠코더 쓰려고 했거든. + 이번에는 안되겠다.
21
Korean refusal head act (HA) strategies (Cont’d) •KNSs take “a multiple layered strategic routine” when refusing in order to mitigate the FTA. (e.g. apology‐wish‐excuse‐suggestion‐future acceptance
The longest pattern of routine Apology + Wish + Excuse/reason + Non‐Performative with mitigating devices + Suggestion+ Future acceptance 22
Table 2. Relative frequency of Korean refusal SM strategies (N=Row Score) Refusal SM Semantic Formulae
Frequency (Percentage)
Apology
400 (96.2%)
Empathy
0 (0.0%)
Gratitude
15 (3.6%)
Positive opinion Total
1 (0.2%) 416 (100.0%)
23
Table 3. Frequency of Mitigating Devices (N=Row Score) Situation
1 [P+, D+]
2 [P+, D‐]
3 [P=, D+]
4 [P=, D‐]
5 [P‐, D+]
6 [P‐, D‐]
Total
Attitudinal hedges (e.g., ~kes kathta)
29
34
24
28
13
16
144 (41.4%)
Lexical Hedges (e.g., kulsse, ceki, ce, ‐kyess)
15
20
11
10
1
3
60 (17.2%)
Clausal mitigation (e.g., ~nuntye, ~ketun, ~e/ase )
12
15
20
11
10
9
77 (22.1%)
Pragmatic idioms(e.g., eccecyo/ ettekhaci?)
7
2
14
12
10
7
52 (14.9%)
Understate (e.g., diminutive: com, yakkan)
4
3
2
3
1
2
15 (4.3%)
Total
67
74
71
64
35
37
348 (100%) 24
Illocution‐mitigating devices in the realization of speech act of refusal •Mitigating devices that this study identified are: (1)attitudinal hedges (e.g.) ~ket kath‐a(yo) ‘it seems that~’; ~tus hay(yo) ‘It looks like~; ~canh‐a(yo), ‘as you know’ (2)suffixal hedge (e.g.) ~kyess, modal suffix as a politeness marker (3)discourse markers as hedge (e.g.) kulsse ‘well’; ceki ‘well’; 25
Illocution‐mitigating devices in the realization of speech act of refusal (Cont’d) (4)clausal mitigating device expressed by main clause omission (e.g.) sentence enders ~nuntey(yo); ~ketun(yo); ~e/ase(yo) (5)pragmatic idioms (e.g.) ecce‐cyo?; ettek‐ha‐ci? ‘ what should I do?’ (6)understater (e.g.) diminutive ‘com’, ‘yakkan’ 26
Table 4. Gender Comparison of Refusal HA strategies
Male Female Total
A
C
H
NP
P
E/R
R
S
SF
W
I
Total
4 1 5
22 12 34
3 5 8
119 113 232
14 13 27
342 312 654
1 7 8
68 52 120
65 84 149
3 4 7
7 4 11
648 607 1255
Figure 1. Gender Comparison of Refusal HA strategies 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Table 5. Gender Comparison of Refusal SM strategies Male Female Total
Apology 216 184 400
Empathy 0 0 0
Gratitude 8 7 15
Positive opinion 1 0 1
Total 225 191 416
Figure 2. Gender Comparison of Refusal SM strategies 250 200 150 100 50 0 Apology
Empathy
Gratitude
Positive opinion
Total
Pedagogical implication
This study of Korean refusal strategies will be beneficial in terms of pedagogical implication since it has often been pointed out that teaching pragmatics should be research‐based rather than dependent on the native speaker’s, instructor’s, or curriculum writer’s intuition. Teach the routines of refusal semantic formulae to improve a ‘pragmatic competence’. Improve teaching materials based on the semantic formulae (e.g., elicited role play). 29
Shortcomings (1) Eliciting DCT data may differ from naturally‐occurring data. (2) Study results cannot be generalized to all Korean native speakers. (3) To broaden understanding of refusal strategies in Korean interaction, future studies should focus on sociopragmatic variation by different age, social class and regions of Korea. 36
Conclusion
KNSs tend to use more mitigating devices toward a higher status individuals in the realization of refusal speech act in terms of sociopragmatics. There is no significant difference between males and females in using refusal semantic formulae. KNSs take “a multiple layered strategic routine” when refusing in order to mitigate the FTA. 37
Reference 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. Byon, A. (2003). The Korean speech act of refusals: Sociopragmatic analysis. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 11(1), 241‐270. Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and American. Multilingua, 23(4), 339‐364. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London ; New York: Longman. Lyuh, I. (1992). The art of refusal: Comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Blackwell Publishing. Sohn, H.‐M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. Sohn, H.‐M. (2001a). Linguistic Politeness in Intercultural Communication pp. Paper from 5th Conference of the Pan‐Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 51‐70.
37
감사합니다.