Pragmatic analysis of refusal strategies in spoken English of Bahraini and Indian L2 learners

Abstract

The present study investigated the pragmatic performance of Bahraini and Indian Second Language (L2) learners. The study explored the influence of factors (gender, social distance, and degree of imposition) on selected refusal strategies, in terms of frequency, number, and order of strategies. The participants of the study were comprised of three groups: 20 Bahraini Learners of English (BLE), 20 Indian Learners of English (ILE), and 12 Native English speakers from America and Britain (NE), equally distributed concerning gender. Role plays and Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used for data assortment. Data analysis was conducted based on the classification scheme and frameworks proposed by Brown and Levinson and Culpeper. The study findings indicated differences in terms of group sensitivity to social distance, gender, and imposition degree that affected the frequency, number, and order of using pragmatic strategies. Pragmatic transfer in Native Language (L1) was found among the responses of Bahraini and Indian learners, instigated by different communication styles and cultural factors. The results highlight that BLEs, ILEs, and NEs differ significantly concerning cultural influences and communication styles. Different refusal strategies were employed with varied methods of data assortment.

Keywords:

• Pragmatic strategies
• pragmatic failure
• face threatening
• SD
• DI
• gender

Reviewing Editor:

• Jeroen van de Weijer, College of International Studies, Shenzhen University, China

SUBJECTS:

• Multicultural Education
• Bilingualism/ESL
• Introductory Linguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• English Language

1. Introduction

Apposite communication demands linguistic proficiency as well as social and cultural competence in the spoken language. These three factors shape how individuals resort to using certain strategies in specific situations. Moreover, cultural and social norms shape speech behavior; communication style is constrained by rules that both allow and prevent utterances from being used depending on the context, interlocutors, place, and time (Hymes, 1972). This gives rise to misunderstanding and consequently communication failure, because people from different cultures may apply L1 norms and communication behavior to L2, during interactions.

The competencies of pragmatics embrace the receiving end of the communication process like hearing and reading as well as the creating aspects like writing and speaking. The successful transfer of pragmatics in L2 is influenced by various factors such as (i) Level of expertise in L2 (ii) Demographic variables like status, professional position, gender, and age (iii) previous experience or interactions with people who are proficient in L2 and (iv) general experiences with multiple languages or different cultures. Mostly, every language has these basic strategies. However, all strategies may not be used in a specific semantic environment, and even if used, it is difficult to determine the cause and the way people behave in different situations. Researching speech conducted in different culturalistic settings has become more enthralling, due to this phenomenon.

The precise knowledge about actions performed by humans and the causal pragmatics relies on the socio-cultural environment. Direct or indirect rules imposed by society on how, when and what to do or speak can be collectively comprised under the term ‘social norms’. The history of the community determines these regulations that mold the behavior in that particular society. Cultural norms cannot be constrained under one definition. Different traditions, ethnicities, beliefs, and values affect cultural norms in a society. The collective sharing of beliefs, values, and perspectives among a group, which affects the actions of each member of the group can be referred to as cultural norms. Moreover, the study by Al-Ghamdi and Alqarni (2019) indicated that cultural norms and values affected speakers’ refusals. The proposed study illustrated that speech acts represent the values and cultural norms of speakers from various cultures. It stated that refusal strategies have been motivated by the requirement to provide novel information on how the indigenous speakers utilize language rather than how the society thought that they would perform such acts.

Several misunderstandings arise when people are not aware of the sensitivities present in different cultures. The essence of pragmatics can be truly revealed with the appropriate usage of language. People should note down the social norms present in a community to exhibit desirable behaviors like choosing the right time and way to ask about promotions to a superior. Individuals should also be aware of the cultural norms to justify the actions and behavior of the people belonging to a specific cultural environment. It could be concluded that it is advantageous for humans to be aware of the appropriate method of carrying out an action or speaking in specific circumstances. In doing so, people should consider certain factors like the culture of the society and general details about the listeners and speakers (e.g. gender, age, profession, social status, contribution to the interactive process, etc) (Ishihara & Cohen, 2021). Nevertheless, the study (Zand-Moghadam & Adeh, 2020) confirmed that languages differ in pragmatic variations and that bilinguals are more aware of proper strategies in speech acts than monolinguals.

The present study aims to examine the occurrence of probable pragmatic transfer. Also, it intends to demonstrate the influence of culture, gender, Social Distance (SD), and Degree of Imposition (DI) on the pragmatic choices of utterances used in refusing an offer or request in L2. Given the mediating role of culture, this study specifically attempts to investigate how pragmatic factors affect the choice and nature of Refusal Strategies (RS) used by L2 learners of Bahrain and India.

1.1 Research question

The research question of the current study is given below.

• What are the factors that determine the occurrence of probable pragmatic transfer?

• Does the culture, gender, SD, and DI affect the pragmatic choices of utterances that are used in refusing an offer or request in L2?

• To what extent do pragmatic factors affect the choice and nature of RS used by L2 learners of Bahrain and India?

2. Literature review

This literature review appraises previous studies that aid in a comprehensive understanding of the pragmatic analysis of RS. The reviewed studies discuss various concepts like politeness, the concept of face, refusal as a speech act, and RS across cultures.

2.1. Theoretical background

The pragmatic transfer is considered as language transfer phenomenal. Based on variations and similarities between the original linguistic knowledge learners and the target of linguistic knowledge language, it is commonly determined to be an aspect that enacts the acquiring of new linguistic and cross-cultural communication and knowledge through the learning of the second language process. Pragmatic transfer develops when someone gathers their native speech community when communicating with members of the host community or basically when writing or speaking in a second language (Chen, 2023). Refusal can be considered as a criticism of the speaker’s intention. Various ways are often used in performing refusal actions to reassure the speaker that he/she has a valuable reason such as refusal strategy (Rahayu, 2019). The refusal strategies are classified into direct and indirect refusal strategies and these strategies vary from person based on situation, context, social distance, age, culture, and relationship. The direct refusal strategy is refusing by declaring a direct NO and the indirect strategy is refusing more indirectly (Kathir, 2015).

2.2. Previous study

Politeness is an important aspect of communication and it commonly signifies a social concern of a speaker about how to communicate with others properly by their social norm and personal status. The politeness concept has been widely examined in various frameworks for several valuable reasons and therefore different theories have been enhanced to seize the politeness complexity. The growth point of politeness is the recognition and knowledge of the presence of one’s duty to other members of the group to which the person belongs. This kind of politeness acknowledges, or the ability to characterize the social contexts and determine it as the polite behaviour practice as per the social conventions (Obidovna, 2022).

According to Brown and Levinson (BL), the studies of politeness consist of two important aspects such as the concept of face and politeness strategies. In their politeness theory, the face is determined as ‘self-image’. In any normal communicative situation, attempts are made to maintain self-image. This is frequently done through identifying the needs of understanding and interlocuting their desires. It also demands the capability to provide complete explanations about when people are expected to protect their faces and when they are more susceptible to aggressive acts. BL differentiates the negative face from the positive face. Though the negative face is considered to be the desire not to be enacted, the positive face is believed to be the desire to have the agreement or approval of others. Furthermore, they suggest that the differences between the positive and negative face is a universal phenomenon, but it can be a cultural enhancement subject in any speech community. Based on this, Mir-Fernandez maintains the concept of face which includes personal decisions about social norms and values for effective communication. In this regard, face is the cultural norm reflection and can differ from context to context (Behzadpoor, 2023).

Refusals are the statements spoken to perform the refusing action. This face-threatening act has an important function in community communication. The refusal complexity is determined primarily by their quality as face–threatening acts (FTAs) that foster the risk of positive or negative face interlocutor. To be successful in delivering the refusal message and minimizing the risk of face, a speaker needs to find a balance between clarity and politeness (Hashemian, 2021).

Refusal is a type of speech act that requires satisfactory pragmatic competence on the interlocutors’ parts. Refusals are of crucial importance and value; in fact, they are universal and used in everyday communication. Several studies investigate RS used in different parts of the world and aim to determine the cultural influences. The use of RS has also been investigated in literary works (Al-Nasrawi, 2023).

Al-Ghamdi and Alqarni (2019) examined RS used in invitations and requests by Saudi and American female students, focusing on the content and frequency of pragmatic strategies. Study results indicated that cultural norms and values affected speakers’ refusals. It was recommended that further investigation of native speakers’ ways of using language as related to culture and social norms should be conducted, rather than focusing on learning how to perform speech acts. Al-Shboul and Maros (2020) investigated the difference between English speakers from America and Arabic speakers from Jordan in the context of RS. The findings of the study proved that the two groups differ in content and frequency of semantic calculations despite having similar inclinations for using RS. The study also provided evidence for the role of cultural influences in the application of these strategies. The influence of cross-cultural variations on RS were also confirmed by other studies (Almansoob, Patil, & Alrefaee, 2019; Ghazzoul, 2019; Hashemian, 2021; Nurjaleka, 2019; Rahayu, 2019; Shahi, 2022; Tabatabaei & Tabatabaei, 2019; Xiumin & Nuan, 2022).

A study (Heidari, Izadi, & Yarahmadzehi, 2021) examined the use of RS between English-learning Persians and Baluchi-speaking Persians. The results indicated that English learners used more indirect strategies for face-saving than the other group. Krulatz and Dixon (2020) researched inter-language refusal tactics used by Korean and Norwegian English language learners as a second language. According to the research findings, the pragmatic performance of multi-linguals is a complicated phenomenon that cannot be fully described by the unique pragmatic and ethnic norms of L1. A study (Chang & Ren, 2020) investigated how socio-pragmatic competency changes between cultures. The study was conducted among children speaking native Mandarin-Chinese and native English. The research findings demonstrated that interlocutor variation’s changing pattern exhibits cross-cultural variances. Dewi, Tantra, Artini, and Ratminingsih (2019) explored the RS used by students from multi-nationalities like India, Russia, Japan and Indonesia. The study results indicated that Russians used direct refusals the most, and Indonesians used indirect strategies the most, in cases of refusing requests. When it comes to refusing invitations, Indians mostly used direct strategies while indirect strategies were most used by Russians. Japanese mostly used indirect strategies at the time of refusing suggestions. Another study (Zand-Moghadam & Adeh, 2020) confirmed that languages differ in pragmatic variations and that bilinguals are more aware of proper strategies in speech acts than monolinguals.

On the contrary, one study (Durham, 2019) disproved the theory of cultural influences on RS. The study results suggested that speech acts should be studied as little discourse units rather than generalizing them with cultural or language orientations. Such contradictory findings make it necessary for researchers to further explore the area of RS in different cultures.

2.3. Theoretical framework

This section discusses two prominent theories about pragmatic transfer and RS. These theories act as a foundation for the present study.

Brown and Levinson (1978) Suggested the theory of politeness and identified five super-strategies from which the speaker chooses one, in a Face-Threatening Act (FTA). These strategies can be classified under two categories: simple (bald) on-record and off-record. This theory is still valuable in cross-cultural studies, and it is widely used for analyzing speech acts across varied cultures and languages. It is the most powerful framework available today for the investigation of speech acts in the cross-cultural context (Morkus, 2009). Many studies have applied the politeness theory model for literary discourse analysis (Xafizovna & Boboqulovna, 2022).

Culpeper’s (1996) framework targets the opposite goals in the abovementioned framework. While the latter considers strategies of politeness used to maintain face, Culpeper’s model deals with attacking face. Impoliteness involves two types of politeness, mock and inherent. Culpeper supported the previous model that politeness aims to protect the face, with interlocutors cooperating to save each other’s face. However, this framework is built on face-attacking rather than face-enhancing. It contains five impoliteness super-strategies each of which corresponds to one in the politeness framework proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). Culpeper added that impoliteness is an interaction between linguistic and non-linguistic signals. Considering the context is significant. Additionally, impoliteness strategies are supported by socio-linguistic and psycho-linguistic research (Culpeper, 2011).

Both frameworks are appropriate to the present study, along with the implementation of the coding scheme of RS (Beebe et al., 1990). L1 influence in the production of refusals in English will be indicated by the taxonomy of the strategies used. This will be identified with the comparison between the RS used by BLEs and ILEs. Therefore, the advanced learners have to attain enough knowledge to control what they desire to express in target languages though the less advanced learners are not proficient enough to express what they would like to utter. Hence, more competent learners are more likely to convey the pragmatic protocols of their first language into their second language. The data are examined and are derived from the percentage counts, frequency, and range of various strategies applied by each participant, each situation, and each group that is related to the strategy, DI SD, and gender. Role plays and Discourse Completion Test (DCT) are the two tools used in the study.

3. Research methodology

This section discusses the research approach used in the study. It covers important components like research design, sampling technique, data collection, and data analysis.

3.1. Research design

The current study uses a descriptive research design, where the observed and measured facts are reported. More specifically, the study employs a survey method to collect the data. Thus, the current study incorporates a quantitative approach for elucidating the persistence of the research objective. Quantitative research is considered a systematic phenomenon that is utilized for congregating the data in numerical form. Furthermore, the quantitative method is a statistical method that is employed to demonstrate the mathematical values. The quantitative method incorporates a questionnaire, survey, and online survey for collecting the data from the selected participants. Thus, the current study incorporates a quantitative method for illustrating the research objective. The study employs a questionnaire to collect data from the students from the University of Bahrain.

3.2. Sampling technique

The current study employs a convenience sampling technique to collect data from the respondents. Convenience sampling is a kind of non-random or non-probability sampling in which applicants of the objective populations, which encounter some real-world methods, like informal environmental contiguity, obtainability and convenience at a specific period, or the willingness to participate in the analysis are measured in the study resolve. Thus, the current study incorporates a convenience sampling method for collecting data from IT and Engineering students who are willing to participate in the survey.

3.3. Sample size and population

The study considers students from the University of Bahrain within the age category of 17-25 years. The study population is IT and Engineering students from the University of Bahrain. The study considers the experimental groups of Bahraini and Indian students from the University of Bahrain. The control group has 6 males and 6 females between the age of 45-65 years, who are Native American and British English speakers.

3.4. Data collection

The current study incorporated primary data collection to accumulate data from the respondents. Primary data collection is referred to as the method for collecting first-hand data. The current study employs a questionnaire method through which the DCT situation has been given to the students. The students are asked to respond to the given questionnaire which helped in collecting 1656 tokens for the current study.

3.5. Data analysis

Role plays and Discourse Completion Test (DCT) are the two tools used in the study. DCT situations were given to the participants and they were asked to respond. 1656 tokens were collected. 9 situations were acted in role plays, from which the study recorded 198 conversations of refusal reactions. The collected data is analyzed based on the classification scheme (Beebe et al., 1990) and frameworks proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Culpeper (1996). The number, order, and length of the refusal responses in each situation were considered for the study. The data is analyzed based on the frequency, percentage counts, and range of difference of the strategies used by each participant, each group, and for each situation about strategy, gender, DI, and SD. Finally, a comparison is executed between the experimental and control groups.

3.6. Ethical consideration

In previous to the survey, the demographic particulars of the participants will be congregated. The demographic detail comprises of name, job description, age, and other personal details which will be kept confidential by every respondent who will be taking part in the survey process. Moreover, the study obtained consent from participants by confirming the comprehension of the purpose, procedures, and possible risks and benefits of the research. It must reduce any possible harm or discomfort to respondents and regulate confidentiality.

4. Results and Discussion

The impact of SD, DI, and gender on the choice of RS are discussed, to conclude the frequency or occurrence, number, and order/sequence of RS. Evidence of pragmatic transfer was established in the results, confirming the findings of previous studies. (Al-Eryani, 2007; Al-Issa, 1998; Félix-Brasdefer, 2002; Jasim 2017; Morkus, 2009).

4.1 Social distance

The extent of acquaintance and unity shared between the listener and speaker as symbolized by membership in an in-group or out-group can be referred to as SD. It reflects how much the two individuals relate with one another and feel a sense of commonality or affinity.

4.1.1. The Effect of SD on the frequency of RS

From the results, it was found that three strategies have differences in the range of frequency between high and low SD: ‘direct no’, ‘avoidance’ and ‘statement of apology and regret’. In the case of direct refusals, pragmatic transfer was found. NEs used ‘direct no’ only three times, while it was used more frequently by BLEs (28 instances) and ILEs (45 instances) which can be related to their lack of proficiency. BLEs and ILEs attempted to use ‘avoidance’ more frequently, which is considered as a vague strategy to negotiate the meaning of refusal, especially in situations of low SD, i.e. family and intimate friends. This can be explained as the temptation to avoid face-threatening, and to maintain harmonious relations with the close circle. On the contrary, the use of ‘direct no’ increased in situations of high SD in the case of BLEs and ILEs. Differences in the use of statements of apology and regret were 31 instances (23%) by BLEs, 12 instances by ILEs (9%), and only 8 instances by NEs (16%). Thus, the difference between NEs and BLEs was obvious in their use of adjuncts. Indication of pragmatic transfer is present in BLEs’ data, similar to the findings of Al-Issa (1998), which exposed that Jordanians used regret statements more frequently than Americans (Table 1).

Table 1. SD and Frequency of RS.

SD		DCT (Request)			DCT (Offer)			Role Play
No. of RS		BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
		N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Negative ability	High	37	31	18	0	0	0	5	13	8
	Low	32	22	7	0	0	0	8	12	8
	Acq.	34	35	10	0	0	0	6	17	7
Direct No	High	11	24	1	16	33	10	5	4	2
	Low	9	8	2	22	38	17	10	4	3
	Acq.	8	13	6	14	29	9	8	3	5
St. impeding events	High	71	65	18	44	44	8	13	21	16
	Low	69	61	16	51	34	7	10	5	16
	Acq.	66	65	15	62	57	11	18	21	11
Alternative	High	20	18	8	23	27	6	0	0	0
	Low	17	27	6	34	36	14	0	0	0
	Acq.	10	20	12	22	19	5	0	0	0
Avoidance	High	7	8	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Low	29	21	11	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Acq.	12	10	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Statement of regret/apology	High	34	39	16	11	11	0	14	8	8
	Low	65	51	24	14	18	0	11	8	8
	Acq.	40	40	11	20	13	1	10	19	14
Let off the hook	High	0	0	0	14	24	10	0	0	0
	Low	0	0	0	6	13	7	0	0	0
	Acq.	0	0	0	6	22	10	0	0	0
Gratitude/Appreciation	High	0	0	0	47	41	20	0	0	1
	Low	0	0	0	48	51	28	1	2	6
	Acq.	0	0	0	52	59	24	6	1	4

In the refusal of offers, NEs and ILEs preferred to use statements of impending events more often at times of high SD, while BLEs used it more frequently in situations of low SD. The degree of variation between high and low SD in NEs’ and ILEs’ use of statements of gratitude and appreciation was considerable. However, this strategy usage increased in situations of low SD. Nevertheless, no difference was found between high and low SD in BLEs’ data. Concerning statements of regret and apology, it was found that BLEs and ILEs used this strategy more than 45 times in refusing offers, while NEs used it only once. This suggests that BLEs and ILEs transferred the order of pragmatic strategies according to one’s L1 norms, especially as this strategy is normally applied for requests. This observation is consistent with the findings of studies (Kwon, 2003, 2004); (Beebe et al., 1990) that illustrated that Americans preferred using statements of gratitude and appreciation in refusing offers whereas Koreans and Japanese used statements of regret and apology.

Pragmatic transfer was evident in the data obtained from role plays. Both ILEs and NEs used direct strategies equally in high and low SD, while BLEs increased the usage of direct refusals in situations of low SD. However, both BLEs and ILEs differed from NEs in the frequency of statements of impending events and gratitude. The usage of impending event statements showed no difference in NEs results, while BLEs and especially ILEs increased the use of this strategy in situations of high SD. The strategy of gratitude and appreciation was rarely used by BLEs and ILEs, but NEs reached 55% (6 instances) in the situation of low SD. Overall, in Role Plays, BLEs appeared to be more direct with low-distant requesters/offerers than NEs. NEs preferred to start their refusals with an appreciation statement when interacting with low-distant requesters/offerers. Thus, these differences among BLEs, ILEs, and NEs seemed to denote pragmatic transfer.

4.1.2. The Effect of SD on the number of RS

All three groups favored the usage of two pragmatic strategies in refusing requests. While ILEs and NEs preferred greater use of these pragmatic strategies with increased SD degree (69 instances, 35%) (24 instances, 40.7%), BLEs’ use increased with low distance requesters (69 instances, 38%). However, ILEs and NEs preferred to use three pragmatic strategies in situations of low SD (16 instances, 37.2%) (9 instances, 42.9%). On the other hand, the percentage of three pragmatic strategies increased in situations of high SD in BLEs (20 instances, 48.8%). Nine refusal responses containing a single pragmatic strategy were found in BLEs’ data (34%) for low SD, and 17 instances (65%) for acquaintance, while no occurrence of any single pragmatic strategy was detected in the data of ILEs and NEs. This could be resulting from BLEs’ willingness to be direct with intimate friends and family members when it comes to refusals. However, this observation cannot be generalized since BLEs used two pragmatic strategies more frequently, with low SD requesters (Table 2).

Table 2. SD and Number of RS.

SD			DCT (Request)			DCT (Offer)			Role Play
No. of RS			BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
			N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
1	High	1	9	0	0	11	6	0	0	3	0
	Low	1	0	0	0	4	18	0	0	1	0
	Acq.	1	17	0	0	2	5	0	0	0	4
2	High	2	69	58	18	45	58	18	14	4	4
	Low	2	60	69	24	61	45	8	9	4	6
	Acq.	2	52	70	17	51	45	18	9	14	9
3	High	3	8	16	9	14	18	4	3	8	6
	Low	3	20	13	4	6	15	8	5	5	6
	Acq.	3	13	14	8	10	21	8	6	3	0
4	High	4	1	2	2	0	0	0	0	2	5
	Low	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	4
	Acq.	4	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1
5	High	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	Low	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0
	Acq.	5	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	2	4

The results of offer refusal indicated that Bahrainis’ cultural background affected the number of pragmatic strategies used i.e. they found it easier to refuse offers from family than from strangers. Thus, the usage of multiple strategies to protect the face of the offerers was observed. BLEs tended to use a single pragmatic strategy in situations of low SD (11 instances, 64.7%), while ILEs used a single pragmatic strategy more frequently in their responses to situations of high SD (18 instances, 62.1%). However, as in the results of request refusal, the single pragmatic strategy was not used in NEs’ data. Two pragmatic strategies were commonly used by all groups. BLEs increased usage when refusing higher and acquainted distance offerers (61 instances, 38.9%), while NEs and ILEs used two pragmatic strategies in responding to low (58 instances, 39.2%) (18 instances, 40.9%) and acquaintance distance offerers. However, BLEs and ILEs increased the use of three pragmatic strategies in situations of low SD (14 instances, 46.7%) (18 instances, 33.3%), while it was higher in situations of high SD for NEs (8 instances, 40%). Overall, BLEs were more sensitive to SD than ILEs and NEs. BLEs used one pragmatic strategy more frequently with low SD offerers, while two pragmatic strategies were used more frequently with high SD offerers.

From the responses collected using role plays, the highest number of pragmatic strategies in a refusal response was six, although all groups favored the usage of two or three pragmatic strategies. BLEs’ results did not display the use of a single pragmatic strategy, whereas ILEs used this three times with low and only once with high SD requesters/offerers. NEs used it four times with acquaintances. This observation indicates that ILEs were less sensitive with their refusals in natural settings. ILEs and NEs preferred to use two pragmatic strategies mostly with acquainted SD requesters/offerers respectively (63.6%; 47.4%), while BLEs used it in situations of low SD (43.8%). Three pragmatic strategies were used by ILEs in situations of low SD (8 instances, 50%), more than in high SD. BLEs used it more frequently for high distance (5 instances, 35.7%) and acquaintances (6 instances, 42.9%). However, NEs had the same percentage in both high and low SD (6 instances, 50%).

4.1.3. The Effect of SD on the order of RS

The order of pragmatic strategies was the same for BLEs, ILEs, and NEs when refusing long-distance requesters. The observation that NEs preferred to use avoidance in the second position, while BLEs and ILEs preferred the use of statements of impending events, is insignificant since both strategies are indirect refusals. However, pragmatic transfer seemed to be obvious in the results of low-distance situations. NEs preferred to use an adjunct in the first position and direct refusals in the second, whereas BLEs tended to use indirect refusals in the second position followed by direct refusals. Another difference was that BLEs and ILEs relegated indirect refusals to the second position, with almost 50% (24 instances; 23 instances), using direct refusals in the first position. BLEs and ILEs made little distinction between low and high SD, although NEs seemed to be direct in their refusals in situations of low SD. Table A1 (in the appendix) illustrates the findings of SD’s effect on the order of RS.

In refusal to offers, BLEs, ILEs, and NEs used different orders of pragmatic strategies. In situations of high SD, both ILEs and NEs used direct refusals in the first position, followed by adjuncts then indirect refusals. However, adjuncts were placed in the first position by BLEs, followed by indirect refusals, with zero occurrences of direct refusals. BLEs also preferred to use adjuncts more, a polite way of refusing both high and low SD offers, while ILEs preferred direct refusals in the first position with both strangers and intimates. NEs followed the same pattern as BLEs in situations of low SD. Thus BLEs and NEs were more conscious of the need to maintain harmonious relationships with intimates, while ILEs seemed to be influenced by pragmatic transfer. In general, NEs preferred to be direct with their refusals to high SD offers and more polite to low SD offers. Yet, BLEs seemed to be influenced by the pragmatic transfer of their L1 preferring adjuncts to direct refusals to obtain smooth reactions. However, ILEs were direct and firm in situations of low and high SD, indicating pragmatic transfer.

Overall, BLEs and ILEs expressed distinct order of pragmatic strategies when compared with NEs. In situations of high SD, BLEs used direct refusals in the first and second positions followed by an indirect refusal, while adjuncts followed by indirect refusals in situations of low SD. However, NEs and ILEs initiated with indirect refusals followed by direct refusals. These observations indicate that BLEs may be influenced by L1 refusal order, saving face for intimate relations with adjuncts usage, while not being bothered about damaging the face of strangers.

4.2. Degree of Imposition

The possible imposition of doing the speech act, in terms of the listener’s spending of goods and/or services, or the speaker’s responsibility to undertake the act, is referred to as absolute ranking or DI.

4.2.1. The Effect of DI on the frequency of RS

The norm for DI is as follows: higher DI requires a more elaborate refusal. Thus NEs used direct refusals only in situations of a low DI. However, both BLEs and ILEs used it in situations of high and low degrees of imposition, and ILEs increased the use of this strategy in situations of high DI. In the frequency of alternatives; both BLEs and NEs used this strategy more often in situations of high DI, while ILEs increased the frequency in situations of low DI. In addition, all groups increased the use of statements of apology and regret, although the range of difference was higher in ILEs’ data (20 instances). Therefore, ILEs differed from NEs more than BLEs, according to the DI in refusal of requests. Table A2 (in the appendix) demonstrates the outcome of the analysis

In offer refusals, the only noteworthy difference was found in the use of statements of regret and apology. This strategy was used once by NEs, but more often by BLEs and ILEs. The use of regret statements in situations of high DI increased. The frequency of using this strategy to refuse offers is considered to be insufficient. This is because, normally it is used to replace requests and offer refusals with gratitude and appreciation. In contrast to DCT data, all three groups increased the usage of regret/apology statements in situations of high DI in the Role Play data. However, no other significant differences were found in the data on Role Plays. This confirms the importance of having both DCT and Role Plays in combination to find authentic proof of pragmatic transfer. It is worth noting that in the data gathered from role plays, all groups reduced the use of avoidance.

4.2.2. The Effect of DI on the number of RS

BLEs were more direct in refusing requests thereby increasing the frequency of one pragmatic strategy in their refusals in situations of low DI (17 instances, 65.4%) and of two and three pragmatic strategies in situations of high DI. This observation can be confirmed by the study results of Jasim (2017), which found that Iraqis tend to use more than one pragmatic strategy to maintain harmonious relations. On the other hand, NEs and ILEs preferred using two (25 instances; 84 instances) and three pragmatic strategies (12 instances; 9 instances) more habitually in situations of low DI (Table 3).

Table 3. DI and Number of RS.

DI			DCT (Request)			DCT (Offer)			Role Play
No. of RS			BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
			N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
1	low	1	17	0	0	17	19	0	0	4	0
	High	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
	Med.	1	8	0	0	0	10	0	0	0	3
2	low	2	50	84	25	75	66	15	10	2	11
	High	2	77	46	14	36	48	14	10	7	2
	Med.	2	54	67	20	46	34	15	12	13	6
3	low	3	8	19	12	13	21	10	2	8	4
	High	3	17	8	3	10	10	6	7	5	4
	Med.	3	16	16	6	7	23	4	5	3	4
4	low	4	0	2	2	0	1	0	1	1	1
	High	4	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	6
	Med.	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	3
5	low	5	0	0	0	17	19	0	1	2	1
	High	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	2
	Med.	5	0	0	0	0	10	0	0	1	1

In refusing offers, all groups preferred to use more than one pragmatic strategy, linking direct and indirect RS with adjuncts. BLEs and ILEs used one pragmatic strategy more recurrently in situations of low DI (17 instances, 100%; 19 instances, 65.5%). However, NEs avoided the use of a single pragmatic strategy according to the DI. Furthermore, BLEs and ILEs used two pragmatic strategies (75 instances, 47.8%; 66 instances, 44.6%) more repeatedly in situations of low DI than NEs, who used two pragmatic strategies equally in high, medium, and low degrees of imposition. Finally, three pragmatic strategies were used more commonly in situations of low DI by all three groups.

In Role Plays, one pragmatic strategy was used only by ILEs and NEs. No difference was found in the use of two pragmatic strategies between high and low degrees of imposition in BLEs’ data. However, it was used more frequently in circumstances of high and medium degrees of imposition by ILEs and in circumstances of low and medium degrees of imposition by NEs. However, three pragmatic strategies were used more frequently in high DI by BLEs (7 instances, 50%), and in low DI by ILEs (8 instances, 50%). Whereas three pragmatic strategies are not influenced by DI in NEs data (4 instances, 33.3%). It was also observed that four pragmatic strategies were used six times by NEs (60%) in situations of high DI.

4.2.3. DI And the order of RS

In the refusal of requests, all groups had a similar order in low DI situations, adjuncts followed by indirect refusals. However, some differences were found in the order in high DI situations. BLEs preferred to use indirect refusals in the first, second, and third positions. For ILEs, the order was adjunct and indirect refusals whereas for NEs, it was adjuncts and direct refusals. BLEs tended to mitigate their responses with multiple indirect refusals, especially with statements of impending events. On the other hand, NEs started with adjuncts to soften their direct refusals in situations of high DI and attempted to be polite while stating their refusal decision (Table 4).

Table 4. DI and Order of RS.

		DCT- Request
Imposition	Group	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
High	BLEs	St. Impeding events (37)	St. Impeding events (52)	St. Impeding events (8)	Alternative (1)
High	ILEs	St. Regret/ Apology (42)	St. Impeding events (58)	St. Impeding events (12)	Negative ability (1) St. Impeding events (1)
High	NEs	St. Regret/ Apology (22)	Negative ability (17)	St. Impeding events (7)	Alternative (2)
Low	BLEs	St. Regret/ Apology (31)	St. Impeding events (22)	St. Impeding events (4)	————
Low	ILEs	St. Regret/ Apology (23)	St. Impeding events (20)	St. Impeding events (3)	________
Low	NEs	St. Regret/ Apology (11)	Avoidance (7)	Direct No (1) St. Impeding events (1) General principle (1)	Let off the hook (1)
Acq.	BLEs	St. Regret/ Apology (35)	St. Impeding events (38)	Statement of impending events (5)	________
Acq.	ILEs	St. Regret/ Apology (42)	St. Impeding events (43)	St. Regret/ Apology (4)	________
Acq.	NEs	St. Regret/ Apology (13)	St. Impeding events (9)	St. Impeding events (4)	________

In refusal to offers, BLEs and ILEs preferred to use indirect RS in the second and third positions and prefaced their refusals in situations of medium DI by adjuncts followed by indirect refusals. However, NEs appeared to be more direct in situations of high DI, while being indirect in situations of low degree. BLEs preferred to start with adjuncts followed by indirect refusals. ILEs preferred to be direct, starting with direct refusals followed by indirect refusals in situations of high and low DI. All in all, BLEs were different from NEs in the order of pragmatic strategy in situations of high DI, while ILEs were different in situations of low DI. These observations demonstrate that, in most situations, BLEs tried to prevent being direct when refusing both requests and offers, following Bahraini culture; they were unwilling to reject requests and offers regardless of high or low DI. This observation coincides with Al-Issa’s (1998) study findings that Arabs tend to be indirect in their refusals, compared to native speakers of English.

From the observations of role plays, it was observed that all groups used adjuncts followed by indirect refusals with high DI, but in the third position, ILEs and NEs used direct refusals but BLEs employed indirect refusals. In situations of low DI, ILEs, and NEs had the same order of pragmatic strategies, while BLEs started with direct refusals followed by indirect refusals. Surprisingly, BLEs used direct refusal only in situations of low DI in the Role Play data, with no incidence of direct refusals in the DCT results, which displays the significance of having more natural scenarios.

4.3. Gender

Gender in this study proved to be a significant influencing factor in all groups’ use of certain RS. Subjects demonstrated awareness of female/male distinction. In this section, the impact of gender on the frequency of semantic formulae in the DCT’s request/offer refusals and role-play data will be discussed. Also, this section provides evidence of pragmatic transfer as well as the impact of gender on the groups’ responses.

4.3.1. The Effect of gender on the frequency of RS

Both NEs and ILEs females used more direct refusals than males when refusing requests. However, NEs females preferred the use of indirect refusals. BLEs males used indirect refusals more frequently than females. Regret and apology statements were used more recurrently by BLEs and NEs males. However, ILEs’ females used this strategy significantly more frequently than males. In addition, and contrary to NEs, both BLEs and ILEs preferred to use avoidance and statements of regret and apology more frequently with the same gender. (Table A3 on the effect of gender on the frequency of RS is given in the appendix).

In refusing offers, the range of difference between females and males was dissimilar to that observed for NEs concerning both direct and indirect refusals. According to the offerer’s gender, both BLEs and ILEs preferred to use statements of impending events with female offerers, while NEs used this strategy more frequently with male offerers. Unlike ILEs and NEs, BLEs used alternatives more frequently in refusals to male offerers. ILE females preferred direct refusals, although lesser than BLEs and NEs males. NEs females used indirect refusals more frequently than males, while BLEs males had a higher rate of frequency. It was also found that NEs males preferred the use of gratitude and appreciation more than females, while it was the opposite for BLEs and ILEs refusals. These observations can be considered as indications of BLEs and ILEs’ lack of awareness of favored RS according to gender. All in all, the result of frequency for the same/opposite gender indicates that NEs were more consistent in their use of RS. However, most of these strategies were used more frequently with the same gender in the case of BLEs and ILEs refusals. This observation illustrates that BLEs and ILEs are more sensitive to the gender factor of the addressee (Table 5).

Table 5. Gender and frequency of RS in offers.

Gender		DCT- Offerer			Refuser			Same/Opposite
No. of RS		BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
		N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Direct No	Female	29	50	22	17	56	10	28	49	18
	Male	23	50	14	35	44	26	24	30	18
St. impeding events	Female	80	69	8	74	58	19	81	67	9
	Male	77	66	18	83	77	7	76	36	17
Alternative	Female	38	42	15	36	50	15	43	37	13
	Male	41	40	10	43	32	10	36	28	12
St. regret/apology	Female	12	14	0	20	22	1	19	24	0
	Male	33	28	1	25	20	0	26	10	1
Let off the hook	Female	20	39	15	9	34	10	13	17	14
	Male	6	20	12	17	25	17	13	27	13
Gratitude/Appreciation	Female	85	87	38	76	108	33	84	72	37
	Male	62	64	34	71	43	39	63	41	35

In the Role Play data, NEs used more RS with male requesters/offerers, while female refusers preferred direct refusals, and the frequency of pragmatic strategies increased with the same gender. However, some differences were found between BLEs and ILEs. Unlike NEs, BLEs used negative ability more frequently with female requesters/offerers, while direct no and statement of impeding events were applied more often with females by ILEs. Both BLEs and ILEs used regret and apology statements more commonly with female requesters/offerers. This coincides with the conclusions of previous studies (Moaveni, 2014; Rezvani, Ismael, & Tok, 2017). Also unlike NEs males, ILE males used direct refusals more frequently than females. Both BLEs and ILEs females used statements of impending events more frequently than males. However, this strategy was used almost equally by NEs females and males. Regarding the same and opposite gender, frequency in the three groups’ data increased with the same gender. However, only one difference was observed among the groups. Direct no was used with the same gender more frequently by BLEs, and with the opposite gender by ILEs, while there was no dissimilarity in the use of this strategy for NEs with the same and opposite gender.

4.3.2. The Effect of gender in the number of RS

In request refusals, there were slight differences in the number of pragmatic strategies. BLEs increased the frequency of one pragmatic strategy when the requesters were males (26 instances), while there was no occurrence of this number in ILEs’ and NEs’ data. The maximum use of one pragmatic strategy by BLEs was 24 instances (92.3%) with the opposite gender when the refusers were females. The previous observation shows that BLEs females were more influenced by gender differences than BLEs males, ILEs, and NEs. This observation suggests pragmatic transfer, in line with the theory of low- and high-context cultures (Hall, 1976) especially as Bahraini Arabic falls into the second category, in which language is more influenced by social factors such as gender. The English language falls under low context culture, i.e. person-oriented. Two pragmatic strategies were used more frequently in refusing female requests by BLEs (98 instances, 54%), while ILEs and NEs preferred to use it more with male requesters (105 instances, 53%; 32 instances, 54%). However, no difference was found in the use of three pragmatic strategies with female and male requesters in BLEs’ data, while ILEs and NEs preferred to use it more with female requesters. Regarding refusers’ gender, BLEs males and ILE females preferred to use two and three pragmatic strategies. However, NEs males preferred two pragmatic strategies (35 instances, 59%), while three pragmatic strategies were used more by females (15 instances, 71%). All in all, one, two, and three pragmatic strategies were used more with the opposite gender in BLEs data, while no significant difference was found in ILEs results. However, two pragmatic strategies were used more with the opposite gender (31 instances, 52.5%), and three pragmatic strategies with the same gender (13 instances, 61.9%) (Table 6).

Table 6. Gender and number of RS.

Gender	No. of RS		DCT (Request)			DCT (Offer)			Role Play
			BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
Requester Gender	1	Female	2	0	0	13	14	0	0	0	0
		Male	24	0	0	4	15	0	0	4	4
	2	Female	98	92	27	76	78	23	14	8	8
		Male	83	105	32	81	70	21	18	14	11
	3	Female	20	29	13	15	24	12	12	11	5
		Male	21	14	8	15	30	8	2	5	7
Refusers’ Gender	1	Female	24	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	3
		Male	2	0	0	17	29	0	0	2	1
	2	Female	88	113	24	90	65	38	10	12	11
		Male	93	84	35	67	83	6	22	10	8
	3	Female	18	26	15	9	40	4	10	10	7
		Male	23	17	6	21	14	16	4	6	5
Same/ Opposite Gender	1	Same	2	0	0	0	7	0	0	0	0
		Opposite	24	0	0	17	22	0	0	4	4
	2	Same	82	98	28	87	83	25	19	18	4
		Opposite	99	99	31	70	65	19	13	4	15
	3	Same	18	24	13	16	21	6	10	8	3
		Opposite	23	19	8	14	33	14	4	8	9

When refusing offers, the frequency of one pragmatic strategy increased by BLEs in refusing female offers (13 instances), while no difference was found in ILEs’ data, and no occurrence in NEs’. Two pragmatic strategies were used more with male offerers in BLEs’ data (81 instances, 51.6%), while both ILEs and NEs used it more with females (78 instances, 52.7%; 23 instances, 52.3%). Three pragmatic strategies were used more frequently by ILEs (30 instances, 55.6%) when refusing male offers, while no difference was found in BLEs’ data (15 instances, 50%). However, NEs used three pragmatic strategies more frequently with female offerers (12 instances, 60%). This observation shows that NEs were the most sensitive to gender, especially as the number of pragmatic strategies increased when the offerers were females, and there was no use of a single pragmatic strategy. Males in the BLEs and ILEs groups preferred the use of one pragmatic strategy (17 instances, 100%; 29 instances, 100%), while there was no occurrence of this in NEs’ data. However, BLEs and NEs females favored using two pragmatic strategies when refusing offers (90 instances, 57.3%; 38 instances, 86.4%), while two pragmatic strategies were preferred by ILEs males (83 instances, 56.1%). Also, three pragmatic strategies were used the most by BLEs males, NEs males, and ILEs females. Finally, BLEs ILEs, and NEs used one pragmatic strategy more frequently with the opposite gender and two pragmatic strategies more frequently with the same gender. However, ILEs and NEs preferred to use three pragmatic strategies with the opposite gender respectively (33 instances, 61.1%) (14 instances, 70%), while it was used more frequently with the same gender by BLEs (16 instances, 53.3%).

In Role Plays, BLEs and ILEs responded with three pragmatic strategies more frequently when the requesters/offerers were females (12 instances, 85.7%; 11 instances, 68.8%), but they preferred two pragmatic strategies when the refusers were males (18 instances, 56.3%; 14 instances, 63.6%). However, one, two, and three pragmatic strategies were used with male requesters more frequently by NEs. The female members of all three groups preferred to use three pragmatic strategies in their refusals more than male refusers. Two pragmatic strategies were used more frequently by ILEs and NEs females (12 instances, 54.5%; 11 instances, 57.9%), than BLEs females who used it less than males (22 instances, 68.8%). Regarding the same/opposite gender, both BLEs and ILEs preferred to use two pragmatic strategies with the same gender (19 instances, 59.4%; 18 instances, 81.8%). Three pragmatic strategies were used more frequently with the same gender by BLEs (10 instances, 71.4%), while no difference was found in ILEs’ data (8 instances, 50%). NEs preferred two and three pragmatic strategies with the opposite gender (15 instances, 78.9%; 9 instances, 75.0%). To conclude, BLEs and ILEs showed gender sensitivity, while NEs did not.

4.3.3. Gender and the order of RS

Regarding gender in request refusals, the order of pragmatic strategies used by BLEs differs when refusing female requests. They used indirect refusals in the first position and direct refusals in the second, followed by direct refusal with the female requester. Other groups preferred to use adjuncts followed by indirect refusals in the second and third positions. However, BLEs and ILEs refusers used the same order, adjuncts followed by indirect refusals, while NEs female refusers preferred to use direct refusals in the second position and male refusers in the third position. All groups preferred to use indirect refusals in the second position preceded by adjuncts and followed by indirect refusals, except NEs in the case of the opposite gender, where they preferred to use direct refusals in the second position. All in all, NEs seemed to be more direct according to gender than BLEs and ILEs. However, the pragmatic transfer seemed to occur not only when BLEs needed to refuse female requesters, but also when BLEs and ILEs preferred indirectness in their refusals of requests. (See Table A5 in the appendix). This observation can be linked to the belief that high-context cultures, such as Arab, avoid direct refusals, or give vague refusals. These people find it difficult to refuse rather, they are more willing to give explanations, elaborations, and apologies (Jasim, 2017; Rubai’ey, 2016).

As in refusal to offer, BLEs, and NEs used almost the same order when refusing male offers. However, for ILEs, the order was different. BLEs and NEs started their refusal with adjuncts, but ILEs preferred the use of direct refusals followed by indirect refusals. ILEs seemed to be more firm and direct with male offerers, though they and BLEs initiated refusals to female offerers with adjuncts followed by indirect refusals. On the contrary, NEs used direct refusals in addition to adjuncts. BLEs and NEs were more reluctant to use direct refusals and tried to protect both female and male offerers from any kind of face-threatening, whereas ILEs were more direct with male offerers. On the other hand, NEs males engaged in direct refusals in the first position, while females responded with adjuncts and indirect refusals. Like NEs females, BLEs females, and males initiated refusals with adjuncts followed by indirect refusal. Like NEs males, ILEs females, and males used direct refusals first, followed by adjuncts and indirect refusals. However, there is no significant difference between BLEs and ILEs by the same/opposite gender. This discussion has highlighted inconsistencies among the groups about the order of pragmatic strategies. BLEs males and NEs females followed the same order, just like ILEs females and NEs males. ILEs and NEs used the same order with the same gender, while BLEs and NEs used the same order with the opposite gender. The lack of awareness in BLEs and ILEs in differentiating refusals by gender may be proved by this observation, as both groups followed the same order of pragmatic strategies (Table 7).

Table 7. Gender and order of RS in offers.

DCT- Offer		Group	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
Offerer	Female	BLEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (60)	St. of impending events (27)	St. of impeding events (8)	———
	Female	ILEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (48)	St. of impeding events (40)	Alternative (10)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (2)
	Female	NEs	Direct No (17) Gratitude/ Appreciation (17)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (16)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (5)	———
	Male	BLEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (40)	St. of impeding events (42)	Negative ability (5)	St. of Regret/ Apology (2)
	Male	ILEs	Direct No (50)	St. of impeding events (35)	Alternative (9)	St. of Regret/ Apology (1)
	Male	NEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (16)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (18)	St. of impeding events (4)	———
Refuser	Female	BLEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (62)	St. of impeding events (31)	St. of impeding events(3)	St. of Regret/ Apology (2)
	Female	ILEs	Direct No (53)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (46)	Alternative (17)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (1)
	Female	NEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (25)	St. of impeding events (15)	St. of impeding events (3) St. of Positive Opinion, feeling, or agreement (3)	———
	Male	BLEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (38)	St. of impeding events (38)	St. of impeding events (10)	———
	Male	ILEs	Direct No (44)	St. of impeding events (40)	St. of impeding events (5)	St. of Regret/ Apology (1)
	Male	NEs	Direct No (21)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (27)	Alternative (4) Gratitude/ Appreciation (4)	———
Opposite	Same	BLEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (60)	St. of impeding events (37)	St. of impeding events (8)	———
	Same	ILEs	Direct No(48)	St. of impeding events (36)	Alternative(9)	Let off the hook(1)
	Same	NEs	Direct No (18)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (19)	St. of impeding eve (3)ts3	———
	Opp.	BLEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (40)	St. of impeding events (32)	St. of impeding events (5) Alternative (5)	St. of Regret/ Apology (2)
	Opp.	ILEs	Direct No(30)	St. of impeding events (19)	Alternative(8)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (2)
	Opp.	NEs	Gratitude/ Appreciation (16)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (15)	Alternative (5)	———

BLEs and ILEs used the same order when refusing female requesters/offerers in the Role Plays, unlike NEs. NEs started refusing male requests/offers with indirect strategies, while BLEs and ILEs used adjuncts in the first position. However, only BLEs had a different order when refusing male requests/offers, starting with direct refusals and followed by indirect refusals and adjuncts. Both NEs and ILEs used indirect refusals in the first position. It was followed by using direct refusals by ILEs and indirect refusals by NEs. BLEs and ILEs seemed to be more direct in their refusals to males than NEs. BLEs and ILEs females, as well as NEs females and males, preferred to begin their refusal with indirect strategies in an attempt to soften their decision. It was followed by direct refusal by BLEs and ILEs females and indirect refusals by NEs. A considerable difference was found in the responses of BLEs and ILEs males, who used direct refusals in the first position. Regarding the same/opposite gender, each group followed a different order. NEs used indirect strategies. On the contrary, BLEs and ILEs used direct refusals with the same genders and opposite genders respectively. This indicated the occurrence of pragmatic transfer happening in both BLEs and ILEs.

5. Discussion

In the study, analyses were made about refusal speech acts in the English language from three various cultural groups. Moreover, the study provides an understanding of variances in the realization of specific acts of speech that result from cultural and social factors. In the area of pragmatic transfer and pedagogy occurred many times. The study incorporated DCT and role-play methods to collect data. Though these two methods have been incorporated, role play has demonstrated the actual speech of the speaker in an artificial situation. Nonetheless, it makes the participants imagine them to represent in the given situation which gives appropriate data for the research objective. Thus, the current study incorporated role play and DCT to demonstrate the influence of culture, gender, Social Distance (SD), and Degree of Imposition (DI) on the pragmatic choices of utterances used in refusing an offer or request in L2. Hence, pragma linguistics with socio-linguistic knowledge desires to make consideration with educating the English language. Also, it is important for students to be aware of the crucial effects and role of contextual factors such as gender SD and DI in the understanding of common speech acts especially refusals.

The study (Chojimah, 2015)examined two main strategies such as the use of regressive expressions and the use of verbose refusal to reduce the offense. The most often influencing regressive expressions such as thanks, compliments, deferential, and apology. The indirect refusal was started and ended with a thanks expression. Compliment was another regressive expression extensively applied in the social status relationship. Deferential expression is one of the essential expressions to humble the addresser and develop the self-worth of the addressee. Apologizing makes the speaker reduce the discomfort and disappointment on the addressee’s part. Similarly, the study has three strategies in various ranges of frequency between low and high SD such as avoidance, statement of regret and apology, and direct no. According to direct refusals, pragmatic transfer was found. NEs used direct no for only three times but it is more frequently used by ILEs and BLEs that can be compared with the devoid of competence. ILEs and BLEs attained to use avoidance more often which is considered as an indefinite strategy to transfer the refusal meaning, specifically in the low SD situations. Therefore, this provides a complete understanding of the temptation to avoid facing threats to maintain good relations with the close circle.

The order of pragmatic strategies was the same for ILEs, NEs, and BLEs when refusing highly different requesters. The analysis for NEs desired to use avoidance in the second position, while ILEs and BLEs desired to use the statements of hindering events is irrelevant as both strategies are indirect refusals. Moreover, pragmatic transfer is made obvious in the outcomes of low-distance situations. Likewise, the study (Malmir & Derakhshan, 2020) describes the order of pragmatic strategies as the manifold process that includes the concurrent use of various lexico-grammatical, cognitive, and socio-pragmatic strategies. EFL learners used more socio-pragmatic strategies to cognitive pragmatic and lexical grammatical strategies

The females of both NEs and ILEs applied more direct refusals than males when refusing requests. Moreover, NEs females desired indirect refusal use. BLEs males use indirect refusals more often than females. Apology and regret statements were applied more often in BLEs and NEs males. Similarly, the study (Akram, Rohani, & Ravand, 2015) describes that men used to criticize the requester formula more than women. Males criticize the requester for the fact that men often use more direct language than women. So, men are often less concerned about their feelings.

6. Implications of the study

According to Nelson, Carson, Batal, and Bakary (2002), a common belief is that an individual’s behavior in a real-time scenario may differ from one’s statement regarding the behavior in the same situation when imagined in mind. Teachers should use communicative styles in teaching English, i.e. discourse situations to develop the competence of the students by adopting more socially and culturally appropriate refusals in the English language. Students must be aware of the similarities and differences between their native language and the English language, encouraging them to reuse only the similarities and replace any negative pragmatic transfer with positive pragmatic transfer. Also, teachers could use a variety of listening and speaking dialogues, which means that, they should outline different RS based on factors like SD, DI, and gender. They could also include written dialogues, to highlight the order of selected strategies and some expressions that are normally used or avoided in different situations. Considering the pragmatic transfer and differences among groups, this study will be useful in designing the materials of the English language. Finally, several useful observations were made in this study that could be beneficial for researchers undertaking intercultural and pragma-linguistic comparative studies.

7. Conclusions and future recommendations

Speech acts in general are realized differently in different cultures and languages. The realizations of L1 contextual factors on L2 may cause pragmatic failure. To prevent conflicts and communicative failures, some pedagogical implications are provided in this section, directed towards L2 teachers, learners, and researchers. In the present study, observations were made regarding refusal speech acts in the English language from three culturally different groups. Therefore, the present study contributes to our understanding of variances in the realization of certain acts of speech, resulting from social and cultural factors. Several implications could be articulated based on the findings of this study. In the area of language pedagogy, pragmatic transfer appeared several times. Although many strategies were shared among groups, some were used inappropriately. Therefore, pragma-linguistic along with socio-linguistic knowledge needs to be taken into consideration while teaching the English language. Moreover, students need to be aware of the crucial role and effects of contextual factors like SD, DI, and gender in the realization of general speech acts, particularly refusals.

Taking these findings into consideration, some limitations need to be addressed. This study serves as a pioneer in comparing the groups of BLEs, ILEs, and NEs regarding RS, to the researcher’s best knowledge. However, there is a need for more studies concerning speech acts that investigate RS, considering more personal differences. The study findings serve as a valuable source for English language teachers, students, curriculum designers, and researchers. In addition to this, researchers are encouraged to replicate this study using a qualitative or mixed-methods design, addressing the limitations of the present study. This study tested the influence of certain socio-pragmatic variables including SD, DI, and gender, but other variables such as power and social status can be considered in future research. The study employed two data collection methods to balance and mitigate certain drawbacks. However, the present study did not consider certain factors like examinations of non-verbal communication strategies, pause fillers, hesitation sounds, tone, and mood. Refusal statements of gratitude and appreciation in verbal interactions are considered but nonverbal reactions like head signals are omitted. Pragmatic refusal strategies in speech acts are a promising area of research, which could be pursued in further studies with more natural methods of data collection.

Acknowledgment

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors received no financial support or specific grant for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rawan Emad Al-Sallal

Ms. Rawan Emad Al-Sallal, is a lecturer in English Language and Study Skills at the British University of Bahrain. She has an MA in Applied English Language Studies, University of Bahrain, Bahrain, 2020; a BA in English language and Literature, Al-Balqa’a Applied University, Jordan, 2012. Her main areas of interest are pragmatics, applied linguistics, language acquisition, language and gender, culture, and society.

Appendices

Table A1. SD and order of RS.

		DCT Request
Refuser Distance	Group	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
High	BLEs	St. Regret/ Apology (50)	St. Impeding events (35)	St. Impeding events(10)	———
High	ILEs	St. Regret/ Apology (41)	St. Impeding events (40)	St. Impeding events (6)	———
High	NEs	St. Regret/ Apology (22)	Avoidance (9)	St. Impeding events (2)	———
Low	BLEs	St. Regret/ Apology (26) Negative ability (24)	St. Impeding events (49)	Negative ability (3)	Alternative (1) St. Regret/Apology (1)
Low	ILEs	St. Regret/ Apology (29) Direct No (23)	St. Impeding events (44)	St. Regret/ Apology (5)	Negative ability(1) St. impeding events (1)
Low	NEs	St. Regret/ Apology (14)	Negative ability (13)	St. Impeding events (6)	Alternative (2)
Acq.	BLEs	St. Impeding events (33)	St. Impeding events (28)	St. Impeding events (5) Negative ability (4)	———
Acq.	ILEs	St. Regret/ Apology (37)	St. Impeding events (37)	St. Impeding events (5)	———
Acq.	NEs	St. Regret/ Apology (10)	St. Impeding events (9)	St. Impeding events (4)	Let off the hook (1)

Table A2. DI and Frequency of RS.

DI		DCT (Request)			DCT (Offer)			Role Play
No. of RS		BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
		N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Negative ability	High	56	44	24	0	0	0	9	18	12
	Low	15	16	2	0	0	0	2	12	3
	Acq.	32	28	9	0	0	0	8	12	8
Direct No	High	7	22	0	33	49	29	9	3	2
	Low	11	11	7	11	30	3	7	5	3
	Acq.	10	12	2	8	21	4	7	3	5
St. impeding events	High	97	96	24	80	67	12	16	14	15
	Low	37	35	7	38	36	7	13	16	14
	Acq.	72	60	18	39	32	7	12	17	14
Alternative	High	19	17	16	43	37	15	0	0	0
	Low	18	24	2	24	28	4	0	0	0
	Acq.	10	24	8	12	17	6	0	0	0
Avoidance	High	6	7	3	0	0	0	0	2	5
	Low	25	17	9	0	0	0	2	3	6
	Acq.	17	15	9	0	0	0	3	6	9
Statement of regret/apology	High	47	51	23	21	24	0	14	13	13
	Low	40	29	12	16	10	1	6	9	4
	Acq.	52	50	16	8	8	0	15	13	13
Let off the hook	High	0	0	0	7	17	6	1	0	2
	Low	0	0	0	15	27	14	4	7	4
	Acq.	0	0	0	4	15	7	0	1	2
Gratitude/Appreciation	High	0	0	0	71	72	42	0	0	0
	Low	0	0	0	38	41	14	0	0	0
	Acq.	0	0	0	38	38	16	0	0	0

Table A3. Gender and Frequency of RS in Requests.

Gender		DCT- Requester			Refuser			Same/Opposite
No. of RS		BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
		N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Negative ability	Female	70	45	16	51	61	21	49	48	18
	Male	48	43	19	52	27	14	54	40	17
Direct No	Female	1	26	9	14	18	4	13	31	4
	Male	13	19	0	14	27	5	15	14	5
St. impeding events	Female	71	92	27	98	99	27	111	98	31
	Male	99	99	22	108	92	22	95	93	18
Alternative	Female	7	31	11	26	30	16	24	28	15
	Male	30	34	15	21	35	10	23	37	11
Avoidance	Female	12	15	8	23	19	9	28	21	8
	Male	33	24	13	25	20	12	20	18	13
Statement of regret/apology	Female	14	64	24	59	86	23	72	66	24
	Male	65	66	27	80	44	28	67	64	27

Table A4. Gender and frequency of RS in role plays.

Gender		RP- Requester/ Offerer			Refuser			Same/Opposite
No. of RS		BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE	BLE	ILE	NE
		N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Negative ability	Female	13	20	6	12	19	12	14	31	13
	Male	6	22	17	7	23	11	5	11	10
Direct No	Female	11	9	2	12	2	7	20	4	5
	Male	12	2	8	11	9	3	3	7	5
St. impeding events	Female	24	27	16	26	25	20	29	33	29
	Male	17	20	27	15	22	23	12	14	14
Avoidance	Female	2	5	10	1	5	10	4	11	12
	Male	3	6	10	4	6	10	1	0	8
St. regret/Apology	Female	20	23	8	22	21	15	23	27	21
	Male	15	12	22	13	14	15	12	8	9
St. positive opinion, feeling, or agreement	Female	0	5	7	1	5	8	1	10	12
	Male	2	5	8	1	5	7	1	0	3

Table A5. Gender and order of RS in requests.

DCT-Request		Group	1st	2^nd	3rd	4th
Requester	Female	BLEs	St.of impeding events(63)	Negative ability(21)	St. of Regret/ Apology (60)	Negative ability(15)
	Female	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (53)	St. of impeding events (58)	St. of impeding events (13)	St. of impeding events (1)
	Female	NEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(22)	St. of impeding events (15)	St. of impeding events (7)	Alternative (1)
	Male	BLEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(43)	St. of impeding events (49)	St.of impeding events (9)	Alternative (1)
	Male	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (54)	St. of impeding events (63)	Negative ability (6)	Negative ability (1)
	Male	NEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (24)	St. of impeding events (14)	St. of impeding events (5)	Alternative (1)
Refuser	Female	BLEs	St.of Regret/ Apology (39)	St. of impeding events(55)	St.of impeding events (8)	St. of Regret/ Apology (1)
	Female	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (68)	St. of impeding events (59)	St. of impeding events (12)	St. of impeding events (1)
	Female	NEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(22)	Negative ability(16)	St. of impeding events(11)	Alternative(2)
	Male	BLEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (64)	St. of impeding events (57)	St. of impeding events (9)	Alternative (1)
	Male	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (39)	St. of impeding events(62)	St. of impeding events(6)	Negative ability(1)
	Male	NEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (24)	St. of impeding events (17)	Negative ability(3)	———
Opposite	Same	BLEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(50)	St. of impeding events(62)	St. of impeding events(9)	Alternative(1)
	Same	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(52)	St. of impeding events(66)	St. of impeding events(9)	Negative ability(1)
	Same	NEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(22)	St. of impeding events(18)	St. of impeding events(8)	Alternative(1)
	Opp.	BLEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(53)	St. of impeding events (50)	St. of impeding events(8)	———
	Opp.	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(55)	St. of impeding events(55)	St. of impeding events(9)	———
	Opp.	NEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(24)	Negative ability(13)	St. of impeding events(4)	Alternative(1)

Table A6. Gender and order of RS in role plays.

Role Play		Group	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
Requester/ Offerer	Female	BLEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (17)	St. of impeding events (11)	St. of impeding events (8)	Gratitude/ Appreciation (2)
	Female	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(10)	St. of impeding events (11)	St. of impeding events (7)	St. of Regret/ Apology (2) St. of impeding events (2)
	Female	NEs	St. of impeding events (7)	St. of impeding events (5)	Negative ability (2) St. of impeding events (2) Alternative (2)	Alternative (2)
	Male	BLEs	Direct No (10)	St. of impeding events (12)	St. of Regret/ Apology (4)	Negative ability (1)
	Male	ILEs	St. of impeding events (9)	Negative ability (9)	Negative ability (4)	Negative ability (2)
	Male	NEs	St. of impeding events (8)	St. of impeding events (11)	St. of Regret/ Apology (8)	St. of Regret/ Apology (2)
Refuser	Female	BLEs	St. of impeding events (13)	Negative ability (7)	St. of Regret/ Apology (6)	St. of impeding events (2)
	Female	ILEs	St. of impeding events (13)	Negative ability (7)	St. of Regret/ Apology(6)	St. of impeding events(2)
	Female	NEs	St. of impeding events (6)	St. of impeding events (7)	St. of Regret/ Apology (6)	St. of Regret/ Apology (3)
	Male	BLEs	Direct No (9)	St. of impeding events (10)	St. of impeding events (8)	Negative ability (2)
	Male	ILEs	Direct No(9)	St. of impeding events (10)	St. of impeding events (8)	Negative ability (2)
	Male	NEs	St. of impeding events (9)	St. of impeding events (9)	Negative ability (5)	Alternative (2) Negative ability(2) St. of impeding events (2)
Opposite	Same	BLEs	Direct No(17)	St. of impeding events (14)	St. of impeding events(10)	Negative ability (2) Gratitude/ Appreciation(2)
	Same	ILEs	St. of Regret/ Apology(13)	St. of impeding events (13)	St. of Regret/ Apology (8)	St. of impeding events(3)
	Same	NEs	St. of impeding events(8)	St. of impeding events(12)	St. of Regret/ Apology(6)	St. of impeding events (4)
	Opp.	BLEs	St. of Regret/ Apology (10)	St. of impeding events(9)	St. of Regret/ Apology (2)	———
	Opp.	ILEs	Direct No (7)	Negative ability (6)	St. of impeding events(4)	St. of Regret/ Apology (1)
	Opp.	NEs	St. of impeding events (7)	Let off the hook (4) St. of impeding events(4)	St. of Regret/ Apology (4)	Alternative (1) St. of Regret/ Apology(1) Direct No (1)