REFUSAL STRATEGIES

USED BY SOMALI EFL

STUDENTS IN
ACADEMIC CONTEXT

FINAL YEAR PROJECT

PREPARED BY
Humdasha

SUPERVISED BY
Dr.
 CHAPTER 1

 To successfully observe EFL learners’ refusal strategies, it

would behoove one to investigate the speech act of refusal
(Morkus, 2009).
 According to Chen, (1996), Refusal requires high pragmatic
competence since it is a response to an initiating speech act
 Speech act of refusal commonly occurs in any social
context, when a speaker directly or indirectly rejects to a
request, invitation or offer from others (Balakumar &
Tabatabaei, 2014).
 Many studies on refusals have used a modified version of a
written DCT first introduced by Beebe, Takahashi, and
Uliss-Weltz (1990).
However, the current study shed light on the first research line
by examining refusal strategies of Somali EFL in different social
status context

- 2
 CHAPTER 1

 Refusal is a type of speech act that occurs in everyday

communication, is it a rejection to offers, suggestion, invitation or
request that sometimes might result in offensive to the addressee
(Miah & Talukder, 2012)

 There are few studies that have been conducted on refusal

strategies (Allen and Meyer, 1990)

 A little attention is paid to create a connection between the act of

refusal and the social situation in different social context.(Griffeth &
Hom, 1995; Griffeth, Hom & Gaerthner, 2000)

 The current study used a modified version of a written DCT first

introduced by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990).

 The current study attempts to fill this gap in the literature and
contributes to the field of refusal strategies by investigating the
development of refusals to invitations among Somali EFL students

- 3
 CHAPTER 1

1. What are the refusal strategies used by

Somali EFL students in Academic
context
2. Are there any differences of the use of
refusal strategies among Somali EFL
with different social status(higher, equal
or lower

- 4
 CHAPTER 1

1. To investigate the refusal strategies used

by Somali ELF students in Academic
context.
2. To compare the refusal strategies used by
Somali EFL students related to different
social status (higher, equal, or lower).

- 5
 CHAPTER 2

Speech Act
 A speech act: is an act that a speaker performs when making an
utterance. Words are actions in conversation we perform a number of
acts.
 For Example, to ask, to request, to demand, to propose, to suggest, to
disagree, to agree, to bargain, to compliment, to give reasons or to
make a joke (Yule, 1996).

Refusals
 Refusal is a face threatening act to the hearer because it contradicts
his or her expectations. It is often recognized though indirect strategies
and face mitigation responses, therefore it requires a high level of
pragmatic competence. Chen, (1996),

Discourse completion task (DCT)

The discourse completion task (DCT) was originally employed by Blum-
Kulka (1982) and has been used a written DCT that elicited refusals of
offers, requests, suggestions, and invitations.

- 6
 CHAPTER 2

 Politeness Theory and Face-Threating Acts

 Brown and Levinson (1987) defined face as “the public self- image
that every member wants to claim for himself

 Theory of Speech Act

 Austin (1962) first introduced Speech Act Theory (SAT), and this has
received considerable attention in modern pragmatics. Austin’s
student Searle (1969) and other linguists expanded this theory. Searle
(1969) defined the term “speech act” as a minimal unit of discourse.

 Speech Act of Refusal

 Refusals are kind of speech acts that usually occur as negative

responses to researchers view refusals as omissive speech acts (e.g.,
Félix-Brasdefer, 2004; García, 2007),

- 7
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

- 8
 CHAPTER 3

MEASUREMENT & INSTRUMENTS

 The current study adopts from Discourse

Completion Test (DCT) classifications proposed by
Beebe et al. (1990). DCT is a set of questionnaires
that contain situations that require the participants
to carry out acting by imagining themselves are
present in a given scenario.

(Sekaran, 2003; Salking 2009; Sekaran & Roger, 2010)

- 9
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY
Methodology

Research Design Quantitative

Population and Sample Somali students (USSEL, PSSEL) in UPM: 100

Sampling Method Stratified Random Sampling

Layout of Questionnaire Discourse Completion Test
Num. of Sample required: 24 respondents
Data Collection Technique Face to Face questioning

- 10
 CHAPTER 4

Indirect refusal strategies by both groups in all situations

- 11
 CHAPTER 4

Overall use of direct refusal strategies both groups in all

situations.

- 12
 FINDINGS
 It is important to observe the overall use of refusal strategies by group
in all situations, as this allows for better understanding of how the
percentage of refusal of each group was distributed.
 the Excuse strategy was, in general, the most frequently used indirect
strategy by all the two groups.
 In addition, the Promise of Future Acceptance strategy was the
second most frequently used indirect strategy for the PSSEL groups.
 and it was the third most frequently used strategy for the USSEL
group.
 Further, the Apology strategy was the second most frequently used
strategy for the USSEL group.
 The USSEL group used the Apology strategy far more frequently than
the other two groups.
 the Apology strategy accounted for 20.7% of all strategies used by the
USSEL group.
 whereas it accounted for 13.3% of all strategies used by the PSSEL
group and only 4.6% of all strategies used by the USSEL group.

- 13
 Limitations
 Limited Generalizability
University Putra Malaysia operating in Malaysia
Taking into consideration the other Factors that may influence the
refusal strategies of Somali EFL students in UPM.
 Cross SectionalAnalysis - the study is unable to conduct on other nation
than Somali

Implications
 Relationship of social status and the adoption of refusal strategies’
among Somali students
 Implementing the social status perspective in increasingrefusal
strategies reactions
 Area of importance in terms of refusal strategies of Somali students in
UPM

- 14
 CONCLUSION

 Different Factors of Refusal strategies

 Data Use in all three social status (Higher, Equal, Lower)

 Educational context (USSEL, PSSEL)

 Quality work with productive effort.

 Improving in the refusal strategy studies in the academic context

- 15
- 16