FAKULTI PENDIDIKAN DAN BAHASA

HBEL 3303

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE TEACHING

NAMA : NOR HASNI BT MOHAMED

NOMBOR MATRIK : 730622035748001

NO KAD PENGENALAN : 730622-03-5748

NOMBOR TELEFON : 014-370 6689

E-MAIL : norhasni1973@oum.edu.my

PUSAT PEMBELAJARAN : OUM CAWANGAN TAWAU

JANUARI 2015

1

CONTENTS

NO CONTENTS PAGES

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.0 CHOSEN LANGUAGE 4

3.0 SPEECH ACT 5

4.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN CHINESE AND

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

8

5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 9

6.0 CONCLUSION 10

7.0 REFERENCES 10

2

INTRODUCTION

There was a time when philosophy of language was concerned less with language and its use

than with meanings and propositions. Meanings were abstracted from the linguistic items that

have them, and (indicative) sentences were often equated with statements, which were in turn

equated with propositions. It is no exaggeration to say that such philosophers as Frege,

Russell, and the early Wittgenstein paid only lip service to natural languages, for they were

more interested in deep and still daunting problems about representation, which they hoped to

solve by studying the properties of ideal (“logically perfect”) languages, where forms of

sentences mirror the forms of what sentences symbolize. As Austin complains at the

beginning of How to Do Things with Words, it was assumed by philosophers (he had the

logical positivists in mind, like Schlick, Carnap, and Ayer) that “the business of a [sentence]

can only be to ‘describe’ some state of affairs, or to ‘state some fact’, which it must do either

truly or falsely.” Austin and the later Wittgenstein changed all that.

Austin made it abundantly clear that there are all sorts of “speech acts” besides statements.

And the Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations, rebelling against his former self,

came to think of language not primarily as a system of representation but as a vehicle for all

sorts of social activity. “Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use,” he advised. Here he went

too far, for there is good reason to separate the theory of linguistic meaning (semantics) from

the theory of language use (pragmatics), not that they are unconnected.

Speech acts are characteristically performed in the utterance of sounds or the making or

marks. What is the difference between just uttering sounds or making marks and performing

a speech act? One difference is that the sounds or marks one makes in the performance of a

speech act are characteristically said to have meaning, and a second related difference is that

one is characteristically said to mean something by those sounds or marks. Characteristically

when one speaks one means something by what one says, and what one says, the string of

morphemes that one emits, is characteristically said to have a meaning. Here, incidentally, is

another point at which our analogy between performing speech acts and playing games

breaks down. The pieces in a game like chess are not characteristically said to have a

meaning, and furthermore when one makes a move one is not characteristically said to mean

anything by that move.

3

In Malaysia, we have various language and races. Every of them has their own slangs,

sounds, speech act and many more. The difference is not only at the basic level such as

sounds, words and syntax but also the more complex level such as pragmatic and discourse

level practically. Hence, in this assignment, a detail discussion will be done about the

difference between two chosen languages based on its pragmatic and discourse level from the

Malaysian context.

CHOSEN LANGUAGE

Malaysia is popular with its various races. Every races has its own language, way of speak,

culture, foods and so on. Thus, every race also has its own speech act. For this assignment I

choose Chinese language and English language.

Chinese language

As a whole, Standard Chinese (Mandarin) is most widely spoken among Malaysian Chinese,

due to it being the lingua franca for Chinese from different dialect groups, the language of

instruction in Chinese schools and an important language in business.

As most Malaysian Chinese have ancestry from the southern provinces of China, various

southern Chinese dialects are spoken in Malaysia. The more common dialects in Peninsular

Malaysia are Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Hainanese, and Hokchew.[8] Hokkien is mostly

spoken in Penang, Northern Perak and Kedah whereas Cantonese is mostly spoken in Ipoh

and Kuala Lumpur. In Sarawak, most ethnic Chinese speak either Hokchew or Hakka while

Hakka predominates in Sabah except in the city of Sandakan where Cantonese is more often

spoken despite the Hakka-origins of the Chinese residing there.

As with Malaysian youths of other races, most Chinese youth are multilingual and can speak

at least three languages with at least moderate fluency - Mandarin, English and Malay, as

well as their native Chinese dialect and/or the dominant Chinese dialect in their area.

However, Chinese dialects are losing ground to Mandarin, due to the prestige of Mandarin

and its status as language of instruction in school. Some parents speak Mandarin with their

children and do not pass down their native dialects. Some of the less-spoken dialects such as

Hainanese are facing extinction.

4

English Language

Malaysian English, also known as Malaysian Standard English (MySE), is a form of English

derived from British English, although there is little official use of the term except with

relation to education. Malaysian English also sees wide usage in business, along with

Manglish, which is a colloquial form of English with heavy Malay, Chinese dialect and Tamil

influences. Most Malaysians are conversant in English, although some are only fluent in the

Manglish form. The Malaysian government officially discourages the use of Manglish. Many

businesses in Malaysia conduct their transactions in English, and it is sometimes used in

official correspondence. Examinations are based on British English.

English was the predominant language in government until 1969. English served as the

medium of instruction for Maths and Sciences in all public schools per the PPSMI policy, but

reverted to Bahasa Malaysia in national schools and mother-tongue languages in 2012. [10]

The Parent Action Group for Education and former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir

Mohamad has called for science and math to be taught in English again.

SPEECH ACT

Speech act theory (SAT) is one of the core issues of modern pragmatics, as stated particularly

by the Oxford philosopher, Austin (1962) and expanded by his student Searle (1969) and

other scholars such as Back, and Harnish (1979). The speech acts of any language provide its

speakers with culture-specific categories of verbal interaction. Speech acts can shed a great

deal of light on broader cultural themes, but equally the significance of any particular speech

act category can only be fully understood in broader cultural context (cf. Goddard, 2004).

Further, cultures may differ in the rules when certain speech acts can be appropriately

performed (Benthalia and Davies, 1989:102).

Searle (1979) proposes another classification of illocutionary Acts and this classification is

considered to be the most influential one and the most widely adopted by many scholars for

further investigations (Cf.Mey, 1993: 170). Searle categorizes illocutionary acts into:

1. Assertive

2. Directives

3. Commissives

4. Expressives

5. Declartives

5

Following the previous classification, the speech act of offering is regarded as a commissive

act in which the speaker commits himself to a certain future course of action. The direction of

fit is world-to-words i.e., the speaker wants the world to be changed to fit his words. Sincerity

condition is intention (speaker intends to do the action). The propositional content is always

speaker does some future action (Searle, 1979: 14), e.g.: - “Can I help you?” Fraser (1975:

193) highlights that in making an offer, the speaker proposes to place themselves under an

obligation to bring about the state of affairs expressed in the proposition. This type of speech

act is being labeled under “acts of committing” as Fraser argues. Hickey (1986: 74-75),

likewise, states that offering is among the set of acts that express commitment. His argument

is that the commitment is independent of the hearer and his reaction to it is irrelevant because

the hearer may accept or refuse the offer as in: -

The doctor: I would like to take you to your hostel.

– “No, thanks”

For Hickey, the doctor has only the readiness for commitment and if the offer is accepted by

the hearer, the doctor‟s commitment comes into effect. By making an offer then, the

speaker‟s commitment becomes bound with the hearer‟s wish for doing the act.

Speech Act of Refusal

The speech act of refusal is identified as a response to four specific speech acts: those of

request, invitation, offer and suggestion (Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Chen, Ye,

and Zhang, 1995) rather than one which initiates this act by itself (Zhou Geyang, 2007).

Refusal is characterized as an act by which a speaker refuses to engage in an action proposed

by the interlocutor (Chen, Ye, and Zhang, 1995). For example, in refusing to an invitation to

go out, one might say, “Sorry, I have an exam tomorrow”.

A response to refusal can be expressed either directly, e.g. “No, I can’t”, or indirectly. An

indirect response to refusal may increase the degree of complexity, as the speaker has to

choose the appropriate form or forms to soften the negative effects of a direct refusal (Felix-

Brasdefer, 2008). Refusals may be mitigated by giving reasons (e.g. I have to do my

assignment), expressing regret (e.g. I’m so sorry), or promising future acceptance (e.g. I hope

I can make it next time). Refusals can also be accompanied by expressing positive remarks or

feelings (e.g. Congratulations on your promotion. I am very happy to hear that but…), an

6

expression of gratitude (e.g. Thanks for your invitation), an expression of willingness (e.g. I’d

love to but…).

Overall, refusals are complex speech acts which require not only long sequences of

negotiation and cooperative achievements, but also “face-saving manoeuvres to

accommodate the noncompliant nature of the act” (Gass and Houck, 1999, p.2). According to

Tanck (2002), refusal occurs “when a speaker directly or indirectly says no to a request or

invitation” (p.2). Refusal is described as “a major cross-cultural ‘sticking point’ for many

non-native speakers’ (Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz, 1990). It is a complicated act since

it is affected by several factors including gender, age, level of education, power, and social

status (Fraser, 1990; Smith, 1998, cited in Wannaruk, 2008).

In politeness theory, refusal is a face-threatening act since it contradicts listener/ requester /

inviters’ expectations and is realized through indirect strategies (Tanck, 2002). In cross-

linguistic or cross-cultural communication, people are different in terms of the language they

employ in each speech community. In these communities, pragmatic failure sometimes

occurs when the speaker uses a face-threatening speech act (e.g. request, apology, refusal).

According to Takahashi and Beebe (1987, p.133), “the inability to say ‘no’ clearly and

politely …has led many non-native speakers to offend their interlocutors”. The speech act of

refusal is a universal phenomenon. However the realization of this speech act may be

culturally- specific.

These two situations explained the use of speech act of refusal from perspective of a Chinese

and Malaysian using English Language.

Situation 1:

Example by Chinese responses:

- Thank you to invite me, but there is some reasons I can’t join your party. I’m sorry

(gratitude + reasons + negative ability + statement of regret).

Example by English Malaysians responses:

- I’m sorry; I can’t come to your birthday party. I’ve got other important things to do; I really

can’t postpone it to other day. (Statement of regret+ negative willing/ability+ reasons).

7

Situation 2:

Example by Chinese responses:

- Dear sir, thank you for your invitation. I’d like to but I am sorry I can’t attend. But I’ll try

my best to attend (Alerters+ gratitude+ statement of positive feelings+ statement of regret+

negative ability+ promise of future acceptance).

Example by English Malaysians responses:

- Congratulations for your promotion. Thank you for inviting me to a party, but I’m really

sorry I can’t come because I really have an important thing to do with my family (Greetings +

gratitude+ statement of regret+ negative willing/ability+ reasons).

COMPARISON BETWEEN CHINESE AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE

From these two situations, we can see the differences. For example, in the first situation,

expressions of excuses, the reasons or explanation and statement of regret were the first and

second most frequently used strategy by Chinese students in refusal to an invitation while

Malay respondents used statement of regret followed by expressions of excuses, reasons or

explanation as the first and second most frequently used strategies in refusal to an invitation.

It is also indicated that expressions of negative ability or willingness was the third most

frequently used strategies by both Chinese and Malaysian students. The Chinese used

greetings as the fourth frequently used strategy in their responses while their Malaysia

counterparts used repayment followed by greetings in the frequency pattern of strategies. The

results showed that expressions of positive opinions, feelings or agreement had been the fifth

frequently used strategy by both Chinese and Malaysian respondents. Moreover, Chinese

used expressions of future acceptance of invitation and expressions of gratitude more often

than their Malaysians counterparts.

Meanwhile, in situation 2, it displayed that excuses, reasons or explanation and statement of

regret were the first and second most frequently used strategies by Chinese students in

refusing an invitation while the frequency pattern of strategies for Malaysian students were

statement of regret followed by excuses, reasons or explanations. Expressions of negative

ability or willingness was the third frequency of used strategy for both Chinese and

Malaysian students. With regard to the use of adjuncts, the Chinese respondents preferred to

state their positive opinions, feelings or agreement for refusing an invitation and use

8

expressions of gratitude and appreciation more than Malaysians did. On the other hand,

Malaysian used more alerters in their responses and attempted to redress the threatening face

of refusal by offering and inviting the superior with another event or gatherings.

LITERATURE REVIEW

From the situations, it display that expressions of excuses, reasons or explanation , statement

of regret and expressions of negative ability or willingness were the most frequently used

strategies for Chinese and Malaysian students in Situation number 1 and Situation number 2.

Moreover, it were in line with the findings of refusal studies on Malaysian students (Farnia

and Abdul Sattar, 2010, Abdul Sattar, Salasiah Chel Lah, and Raja Rozina, 2010) in which

statement of regret followed by excuses, reasons or explanations were the most frequently

used strategy among Malaysian respondents.

According to the findings, the degree of elaboration of strategies varied for each group of

respondents and this could be conditioned by the students’ level of grammatical competence.

The analyses display that Malaysian respondents used longer and elaborated responses than

their Chinese counterparts. It might lie for the fact that Chinese student’ lack of control of the

L2 grammar prevented them from conveying and elaborating their language compared to

their Malaysian counterparts.

Another conditioning factor for the planning and execution of a refusal to an invitation was

the selection of thought. The most common pattern for more than 50% of students was to

start thinking in the native language (i.e. planning the refusal) and then to translate from

Chinese or Malay into English (i.e. executing the refusal in English). Thus, contrary to the

popular belief that learners should not consult their L1 during speech act production, the

results of the present study are consistent with the ideas expressed by Cohen (1998) which

demonstrated that consulting the native language may be beneficial for the following strategic

purposes:

(1) to chunk material into semantic clusters;

(2) to help learners keep their train of thought;

(3) to create a network of associations;

(4) to clarify grammatical roles; and

(5) to make the input more familiar and consequently more user-friendly (p.5).

9

According to Bardovi-Harlig (1996), one of the goals in facilitating the development of

pragmatic competence to provide learners with enough input and classrooms can be the

source of input especially for foreign language learners. Teaching how to communicate

appropriately both pragmalinguistically (using appropriate form) and sociopragmatically

(using appropriate meaning) is of great importance since native speakers often forgive

linguistics errors (phonological, syntactic or lexical) but they may interpret sociolinguistic

errors as learners’ rudeness and impoliteness rather than as the transfer of different

sociolinguistic rules (Thomas, 1983; cited in Boxer, 1996, p.128).

CONCLUSION

Both Chinese and English speakers have their own way in expressing the refusals. However,

the purpose is the same which is to deliver the message of refusal in nice way so that the one

who offers does not offended or hurt by the refusals. Thus, I agree with the statement that

languages not only differ at the basic level such as sounds, words and syntax but also at the

more complex levels such as pragmatics and discourse levels particularly.

(2708 words)

REFERENCES

Abdul Sattar, H. Q., Salasiah Che Lah & Raja Rozina, R. S. (2010). A Study on Strategies

Used in Iraqi Arabic to Refuse Suggestions. The International Journal of Language

Society and Culture, (30), 81-95.

Al –Issa, A. (2003). Sciocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: evidence and motivating

factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581-601.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00055-5

Al-Eryani, A. A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. The Asian EFL Journal

Quarterly, 9(2), 19-34.

Al-Kahtani, W. (2005). Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A Speech Act

Theoretically based Cross-cultural. Study Journal of King Saud University, 18, 35-57.

Al-Momani, H. (2009). Caught between two cultures: The realization of requests by

Jordanian EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University of

Pennsylvania, Indiana. PA.

10

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and

pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning Vol. 7 (pp.

21-39). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the Interlanguage of Interlanguage Pragmatics: A

Research Agenda for Acquisitional Pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with

words in a study abroad context. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic failure in ESL refusals. In

C. Robin, E. S. A.Scarcella & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative

competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.

Boxer, D. (1996). Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis: The

case of complaints. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures:

challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 217-239). Berlin; London:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings.

Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1673-1704.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003

Chen, H. J. (1996). Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in

refusal. Indiana University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408860).

11