Abstract

The present study explores refusal strategies used by advanced Serbian EFL learners and compares them to refusal strategies produced by English and Serbian native speakers in a relevant study (ŽIVKOVIĆ 2021). The aim is to identify potential pragmatic difficulties learners might have as well as the potential transfer of pragmatic norms from their native language. The participants completed a written Discourse Completion Test which introduced twelve everyday situations to which the participants were expected to respond by making refusals to requests. The situations were generated based on different combinations of two sociological variables: social distance and power. The results showed that while the frequency of direct and indirect refusals was similar for all three groups of participants, there were some differences in terms of the frequency and content of particular strategies. For instance, the EFL learners tended to overuse statements of regret/apology. They also provided more family-oriented excuses and used explanations that were less specific than the ones produced by the English native speakers. Furthermore, they produced fewer expressions of willingness and gratitude/appreciation. Apart from describing similarities and differences between the participants’ refusal strategies, the results also highlight the importance of incorporating pragmatics in EFL classrooms and working on learners’ pragmatic competence even when it comes to high-proficiency learners.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.