Pragmatic Transfer in Iraqi EFL Learners' Refusals

The present study deals with pragmatic transfer of Iraqi EFL learners' refusal strategies as reflected by their responses to a modified version of 12items written discourse completion task; and compare with two groups ,namely Iraqi native speakers of Arabic and American native speakers of English. The task consisted of three requests, three offers, three suggestions, and three invitations. Each one of these situations included one refusal to a person of higher status, one to a person of equal status, and one to a person of lower status. Data analyzed according to frequency types of refusal strategies and interlocutor's social status. It is found that the frequency of use of refusals by Iraqi EFL learners is different from that of Americans, though they do share some similarities. Iraqi EFL learners are apt to express refusals with care and/or caution represented by using more statements of reason/explanation, statements of regret, wish and refusal adjuncts in their refusals than Americans. Americans are more sensitive to their interlocutor's higher and equal status, whereas Iraqi EFL learners to lower status. Evidences proved the existence of little difference between IEFL males and females in refusal frequency and refusal adjuncts.

negotiated over several turns and involve some degree of indirectness. In addition to this, their form and content tends to vary depending on the type of speech act that elicits them (request, offer, etc.), and they usually vary in degree of directness depending on the status of the participants (see Beebe et al., (1990: 56) and Byon (2003:249)). To the researcher's best knowledge , there is no an existing study dealing with pragmatic transfer of Iraqi EFL learners' refusals to requests, invitations, orders, and suggestions. For this reason, the present study aims to fill up this gap by investigating pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners' performances of the face-threatening act of refusal with status equal, and status unequal (a person of lower status talking to someone of higher status and a person of higher status talking to someone of lower status). The primary purpose is to present data describing this transfer as their responses to DCT are compared with those of Iraqi Arabic native speakers (those who only use Arabic) and American native speakers of English. This comparison will be done by examining the differences in refusal strategies (or semantic formulas) and status perspective. Also, it is to raise the pragmatic and pedagogical awareness of Iraqi professors, who currently focus only on grammatical and/or structural/semantic aspects of the language.

Pragmatic Transfer
The use of rules of speaking from one's speech act community when interacting or when speaking in a second or a foreign language is known as pragmatic transfer. Weinreich (1953) says" (as cited in Wolfson, 1989): Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech act of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as interference phenomena. It is these phenomena of speech, and their impact on the norms of either language exposed to contact, that invite the interest of the linguist (p.141). What L2 learners must know for successful speech act performance has been presented in a "top-down processing" manner (Kasper, 1984): Learners first have to recognize the extra-linguistic, cultural constraints that operate in a NS's choice of a particular speech act appropriate to the context. They also have to know how to realize this speech act at the linguistic level, and in accordance with L2 socio-cultural norms (p.3). Cohen (1996:254) terms this "Socio-cultural knowledge" as … speakers ability to determine whether it is acceptable to perform the speech act at all in the given situation and, so far, to select one or more semantic formulas that would be appropriate in the realization of the given speech act. Transfer occurs in two ways :(1) negative transfer or 'interference' occurs where the two languages do not share the same language system, resulting in production of errors; and (2)positive transfer or 'facilitation', where the two languages share the same language system and the target form is correctly transferred(see Brown:2007:102ff). Pragmatic error or failure, as stated by Phuong (2006:13), occurs where speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2. Since Arabic and English are not the same in language system, thus, cross-cultural study like the present one focuses on negative transfer because this is a source of misleading or miscommunication. The cross-cultural study of speech acts is vital to the understanding of international communication. It is realized that face-threatening acts are particularly important to study because they are the source of so many cross-cultural miscommunications. Research has been done on a number of face-threatening speech acts, for example, on apologies, requests, complaints, and disagreement. The evidence provided in these studies suggests that second-language learners are faced with the great risk of offending their interlocutors or of miscommunication when performing face-threatening acts. While grammatical error may reveal a speaker to a less proficient language-user, pragmatic failure reflects badly on him/her as a person. The problem in such situations is often due to differences between languages in the social rules of speaking. It is thus due to the L2 learner's lack of pragmatic competence in the target language, resulting in what Phuong (ibid.) calls "pragmatic failure." Leech (1983) also points out that "transfer of the norms of one community to another may well lead to 'pragmatic failure' and to the judgment that the speaker is in some way being impolite" (p.281). In performing face-threatening acts, therefore, speakers must integrate personal and societal values with linguistic competence and, most importantly, gain some knowledge of "face-work") and some experience using it in L2 interaction. As Leech (ibid.) demonstrates, there exist universal strategies in performing face-threatening acts. At the same time we are also aware of cross-cultural differences in the realization of speech acts. People may transfer some culturally specific politeness strategies from native language into the target language. They may accurately or

The Speech Act of Refusal
Refusals, as all the other speech acts, occur in all languages. However, not all languages/ cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable refusing the same invitation or suggestion. The speech act of refusal occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says 'no' to request or invitation. Refusal is a face-threatening act to the listener/ requester/ inviter, because it contradicts his or her expectations, and is often realized through indirect strategies. Thus, it requires a high level of pragmatic competence. Cohen (1996:258f) used semantic formula to analyze speech act sets of refusal (refusing requests, invitations, offers and suggestions), and concluded that direct refusal as "NO" was not a common strategy for any of the subjects, regardless of their language background. For example, an expression of regret, common in Americans' refusals, was generally produced by the Chinese speakers, which might lead to unpleasant feelings between speakers in an American context. Speakers who may be considered fluent in a second language due to their mastery of the grammar and vocabulary of that language may still lack pragmatic competence; in other words, they may still be unable to produce language that is socially and culturally appropriate. In cross-cultural communication, refusals are known as 'striking points' for many non-native speakers (Beebe, et al, 1990). Refusals can be tricky speech acts to perform linguistically and psychologically since the possibility of offending the interlocutor is inherent in the act itself (Know, 2004). As a face-threatening act, a sensitive pragmatic task and high pragmatic competence concern constructing refusals. As a failure to refuse appropriately can risk the interpersonal relations of the speakers, refusals usually include various strategies to avoid offending one's interlocutors. However, the choice of these strategies may vary across languages and cultures. For example, in refusing invitations, offers and suggestions, gratitude was regularly expressed by American English speakers, but rarely by Egyptian Arabic speakers (see Nelson, et. al., 1996;and Nelson, et. al., 2002). When Mandarian Chinese speakers wanted to refuse requests, they expressed positive opinion (e.g., 'I would like to….') much less frequently than American English ,since Chinese informants were concerned that if they ever expressed positive opinions, they would be forced to comply. Beebe et al. (1990:55-73)  They also added that these refusals may be preceded by adjuncts like: 1. Statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement (That's a good idea.../I'd love to...) Ai 2. Statement of empathy (I realize you are in a difficult situation.) Aii 3. Pause fillers (uhh/ well/oh/ uhm) Aiii 4. Gratitude/appreciation Aiv Refusals can be seen as a series of the following sequences:

Classification of Refusal Strategies
1. Pre-refusal strategies: these strategies prepare the addressee for an upcoming refusal . 2. Main refusal (Head Act): this strategy expresses the main refusal. 3. Post-refusal strategies: these strategies follow the head act and tend to emphasize, justify, mitigate, or conclude the refusal response. For instance, a refusal example below shows an instance of a refusal sequence to a boss' request for an employee to stay at work two extra hours: Boss: I was wondering if you might be able to stay a bit late this evening, say, until about 9:00 pm or so.  (4) suggestions. In each case, the task was designed so that one refusal will be made to someone of higher status, lower status, or a status equal. The responses of the three groups will be compared to each other to find out to what extent the Iraqi University-level students of English manipulate their pragmatic competence of the target language to refuse in English. This 12-items WDCT is a form of questionnaire depicting some natural situations to which the respondents are expected to respond making refusals. This test was originally designed by Beebe, et al (1990) and has been widely used since then in collecting data on speech acts realization both within and across language groups. The questionnaire used in this investigation involves 12 written situations. They were divided into four groups: three requests(items #1, #2, and #12), three invitations (items #3, #10,and #4), three offers( items #8 ,#5,and #6), and three suggestions (items #7, #9 ,and #11) . Each situation includes one refusal to a person of higher status , one to a person of equal status , and one to a person of lower status (see Appendix for the complete WDCT).

Response
Requests are defined as polite demands for something; the requester asks a favour of the other person as to borrow class notes. Invitations are types of requests as to come to dinner. Instead of asking a favour, the inviter is usually attempting to be thoughtful and kind. Offers refer to asking individuals if they want something as a piece of cake. Suggestions are ideas put forward for people to consider as lecturing less in class.

Administration of the Test
The WDCT is administered to fifty-five participants, distributed into three groups: (1) D in Translation). Finally, the Arabic version was back-translated into English by a professional translator. The existing drawbacks were resolved during the discussions between the researcher, the professional translator, and the two Arabic experts. For validity, this WDCT has its face and content validity since it is used widely in relevant studies (see Phuong, 2006:46ff).The content validity of its Arabic translation is obtained by submitting the translation to three experts in translation. On their suggestions, some rewording was done.

Research Questions
This study investigates how IEFL learners and ANSEs will make refusals in particular situations. The research questions are: 1-Are IEFL learners are aware pragmatically of this speech act? That is, are there instances of pragmatic transfer? 2-Are IEFL learners and ANSE different in using refusal strategies and refusal adjuncts? 3-Are IEFL males and females learners different in using refusal strategies and refusal adjuncts?

Data Collection
To obtain an adequate set of strategies, frequencies, and semantic formulas, the researcher first divided the subjects' replies into sets of idea units (see Nelson et. al., 2002:46). For the Iraqi Arabic data, a professional translator was asked to translate them into English ones. Both the English and Arabic data were then classified according to strategies suggested by Beebe et. al. (1990) The researcher consulted the two Arabic experts when some replies were not within Beebe et. al's classification. Examples of these are those related to colloquial Iraqi. The codes suggested by the researcher to these strategies were finally specified to all replies. The total number of semantic formulas of any kind used for each situation was obtained for each of the three subject groups. Then, the frequency of each formula for each situation is counted and listed.

Results
Results are analyzed according to the frequency of strategies, semantic formulas, interlocutor's social status, and refusal adjuncts. For IEFL, gender will be added as a variable to get a better understanding of males and females' communication towards this speech act.

Refusal strategies: A comparison
In order to compare the frequency of strategies used by INSA, IEFL, and ANSE, the number of each strategy is counted. Tables (1, 2, and 3 below) present a detailed description of these refusal strategies used. Gender is used as a variable only for IEFL. The total number of refusal strategies used by the three groups is (1171): (659) (271) strategies are indirect at (%91.56).These numbers and percentages indicate clearly that the three groups adopted indirect strategies more than direct ones. This in turn indicates a similarity between them even the percentages of indirect strategies are relatively different. The strategy of "reason/explanation" was in the first position in INSAs (% 39.93) and ANSEs (%23.26).On the other hand , "non-performative statements" was in the first position for IEFLs (%34.22).Avoidance as a refusal strategy was the less used one in INSAs (% 1.01) and ANSEs (%1.85). No single instance was registered for avoidance and verbal refusing strategies in IEFLs. Examples of these direct strategies" using performative verbs" used by INSAs are the following.
No instance of direct strategies is registered in the other two groups, which clearly reflects insights of existing pragmatic transfer. Table (4) below is a comparison of these refusal strategies used by the three groups. Numbers of instances, percentages and high-low ranks are mentioned. IEFLs did not use the following refusal strategies: "using performative verbs", "statement of principle", "acceptance as a refusal", "avoidance", and "verbal". INSAs did not use two refusal strategies, namely, "condition for future acceptance" and "acceptance as a refusal". ANSEs did not use the following two strategies: "using performative verbs" and "verbal". This clearly indicates a relative similarity between IEFLs and ANSEs in avoiding certain refusal strategies; an instance of change in IEFLs' use and knowledge occurred leading indirectly to state again that some insights of positive pragmatic transfer are evident. Positive pragmatic transfer, to the understanding of the researcher, is represented in using and also avoiding these refusal strategies.Another instances of positive transfer is the use of "regret" refusal strategy occurring in the third position in all the three groups. Furthermore, as an instance of negative transfer, is the extensive use of "wish" refusal strategy by IEFLs where (28) instances at (% 4.24), particularly in the fourth position of the used strategies. On the other hand, (4) instances were found for INSAs and ANSEs at (% 1.35) and (% 1.85), particularly in the eighth and tenth positions, respectively. The other instance to be examined here is the use of "statement of principle" by IEFLs only. To the researcher's best understanding, the reason behind is less acquaintance with such structures or strategy in English. Examples of these uses by ANSEs and INSAs are the following: -I never do these things with mates. -I never like such things.
-Never tell these things again.

Semantic formulas
The semantic formulas of the three groups are outlined in Tables (5, 6, 7, and 8 below) with reference to interlocutor's social status. In all situations and social status, the use of the strategy of "Reason/Explanation" is inevitable. The minimum use of semantic formulas is seen in Request where majority of the subjects' replies contained two formulas. The maximum use is in Offer. Majority of the subjects prefer to use "Non-performative statement" refusal strategy in the first position of the semantic formulas for the four speech acts, followed by "Reason/Explanation" or "Attempt to dissuade the interlocutor". Also, an important point here is that if the reply begins with a refusal adjunct, the semantic formula will start by "Non-performative statement", especially for Request, while, on the other hand, different refusal strategies for the other three speech acts. Instances of pragmatic transfer have been seen in the entire three interlocutor's social statuses. These instances of pragmatic transfer are stated when both IEFLs and ANSEs adopt similar refusal strategies and sometimes similar refusal adjuncts. Majority of the patterns of semantic formulas contain two or three refusal strategies. Only six instances were with four strategies. In Request, all the three groups used three patterns for lower and equal interlocutor's low and equal status, while four patterns were for higher status. This indicates that all the three groups are more sensitive to higher status than other two statuses. In Invitation, ANSEs used less number of patterns of refusal strategies than the other two groups, especially for lower and equal statuses. IEFLs used more patterns than others, especially in lower and equal statuses. In Suggestion, the behaviour of the three groups was about to be similar since all used more than four patterns of refusal strategies in the three interlocutor's social statuses. In Offer, IEFLs used more patterns than INSAs and ANSEs since they used more than five patterns of refusal strategies for the three interlocutor's social statuses. INSAs used fewer patterns than the other two groups.

Refusal Adjuncts
The results of using refusal adjuncts are stated in Table ( 9) below. The total number of used refusal adjuncts by the three groups is (421): INSAs used (170) instances at (%40.38) of the total number of adjuncts, IEFLs used (169) instances at (%40.14), and ANSEs used (82) instances at (19.48). The numbers and percentages indicate a clear approximation between INSAs and IEFLs, compared with the third group. This extensive use of refusal adjuncts is coincided with higher interlocutor's social status (items #12, #4, #6, and #11) where (189) instances at (%44.89) of the total number of adjuncts. To the researcher's best knowledge, these refusal adjuncts are used as decreasing factors of refusing. The maximum use of these adjuncts for ANSEs is (13) instances for (item #3/ invitation /lower status).While the maximum is (27) instances for INSAs and IEFLs in (item #11/offer/ higher status). Also, it can be said that the differences in using refusal adjuncts is related to culture variance between Iraqis and Americans. For example, ANSE don't need to give or express feelings when they are refusing others. Like to what's stated in Nelson, et. al. (2000:52), this is also related to the nature of the language and method of communication. Arabic users of English still tend to adopt their native tendencies in such real life situations. The most common adjunct are "thank you, thanks, I thank you", or similar statements. The following table will also prove this fact since the total number of the fourth type of refusal adjuncts, namely, "Gratitude /appreciation" is (91) with percentage of (% 53.84). The use of refusal adjuncts by IEFL males and females is in table (10) below. The results show that females used more refusal adjuncts than males. The females used (86) instances at (%50.88) of the total number of adjuncts used by IEFLs whereas (83) instances at (%49.12) for males. This indicates no such a big difference between males and females. But gender is still seen reflecting the fact that IEFL females are less direct in refusing, instead preferring to start replies by adjuncts. No instance of "statement of empathy" refusal adjunct is registered by both males and females. The maximum use is seen in "gratitude/appreciation" refusal adjunct. Males used (53) instances at (%31.36) of the total number of IEFLs' adjuncts, whereas (38) instances at (%22.48) for females. Seventy eight instances coincided with interlocutor's higher status in both, (58) instances for equal status, and (33) instances for lower status. This clearly indicates that both males and females have similar reactions towards interlocutor's social status, especially higher one. This is used a strategy for decreasing the effects of refusing. Request is the less speech act in using refusal adjuncts where only (21) instances were registered. The maximum use is in Offer where (57) instance found. Forty four instance were found for Invitation, and (47) for Suggestion. Table ( 11) below is a comparison among the three groups of participants in this WDCT with references to interlocutor's social status. (395) instances were registered for interlocutor's lower status at (%33.73) of the total number of refusal strategies, (392) instances for equal status at (%33.47), and (384) at (%32.79).In the three interlocutor's social statuses, IEFLs used more strategies than the other two groups. ANSEs are the least which in turn indicates that ANSEs are more sensitive, especially to higher and equal status since they make fewer refusals compared with higher status. On the other hand, IEFL are only sensitive to lower status. This can be justified to cultural differences between Arabic and English societies.

Discussion
The present study investigates pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners' performances of the face-threatening act of refusal with three interlocutor's social statuses: lower, equal, and higher. Therefore, three research questions put forwards. The first research question was: "Are IEFL learners are aware pragmatically of this speech act? That is, are there instances of pragmatic transfer?" The results of the present study proved that IEFL were capable of refusing these twelve situations. Moreover, they were apt to identify the possible refusal strategies, semantic formulas, and refusal adjuncts. They were able to use (659) instances at (%56.27) of the total number of refusal strategies (1171). These instances were nine of these fourteen stated strategies in Beebe, et al. (1990). "Non-performative statements" was the most used refusal strategy while "Using performative verbs", "Statement of principle", "Acceptance as a refusal", "Avoidance/silence", and "verbal" were out of use. Tables (5, 6 ,7 , and 8) presented these patterns of semantic formulas and refusal adjuncts used by the three groups of participants. Many instances of positive pragmatic transfer were found. IEFLs adopted similar semantic strategies to ANSEs. The three groups used "Excuse/reason/ explanation" extensively since this strategy giges the possibility to reduce the effects of refusing. Also, the three groups used "Regret" in the third position. Another instance of pragmatic transfer is the negligence of one particular refusal strategy, namely, "Verbal", whereas one instance is registered for INSAs. Both IEFLs and ANSEs were able to adopt relatively similar patterns of semantic formulas and refusal adjuncts (especially for higher status). On the other hand, there were also instances of difference between the two groups, especially when both IEFLs and INSAs used similar refusal strategies for lower and equal statuses. All these justification can lead to say that Iraqi EF learners were pragmatically aware of refusals since many evidences of pragmatic transfer existed. The second research question was: "Are IEFL learners and ANSE different in using refusal strategies and refusal adjuncts?" The results proved that even there were similarities between IEFLs and ANSEs , instances of difference were also found in frequency and content of refusal strategies. Both points of similarity and difference can be plainly regarded positive and negative transfer, respectively. One of the most evident differences between the two groups is related to interlocutor's social status. ANSEs were more sensitive to higher status while IEFLs (and INSAs) to lower and equal status. The third research question was: "Are IEFL males and females learners different in using refusal strategies and refusal adjuncts?" The results presented in Tables (10 and 12) that both IEFL males and females behaved differently. IEFLs used (659) refusal strategies: IEFL males used (341) refusal strategies at (%51.74) while (318) refusal strategies were for females at (%48.26). Females were more sensitive to higher status than males, a matter totally related to the values of Iraqi culture and communication. This sensitivity was reflected in using more refusal adjuncts than males; females used (86) instances at (%50.88) of the total number of adjuncts used by IEFLs whereas (83) instances at (%49.12) for males. Therefore, evidences proved a slight difference between IEFL males and females.

Conclusions
Refusals of IEFL are different from those of ANSE and INSA, though they do share some similarities. Parallel to differences in culture, IEFL and ANSE also differ in the ways they say "NO" to their conversational partners. IEFL are at to express refusals with caution and/ or care , represented by using more "Statements of excuse /reason/ explanation", "Statements of regret", "Statements of wish" , and refusal adjuncts (especially those of gratitude and appreciation like "thank you' and 'thanks') in their refusals than others. ANSE are more sensitive to interlocutor's social status in higher and equal, whereas IEFL are in lower status. This is also reflected in the higher percentage of "Non-performative statements" like 'can't' and 'don't agree', and 'no'. Instead, ANSE employ more "Statements of principles", "Statements of philosophy", "Statements of acceptance as a refusal", and "Avoidance", especially silence. IEFL still adopt their native -language tendencies when start refusing a situation. This is proved by their percentage of refusal adjuncts, which is about-to be-equal to INSA, and double the ANSE. IEFL males are more sensitive to interlocutor's social status in all four types of life situations; this can be justified by being more in communication and responsibilities than females. On the other hand, IEFL females use more refusal adjuncts than males, especially with offers. Consequently, IEFL are aware pragmatically of refusals; and results prove that there is a kind of positive pragmatic transfer represented by following the same order of Notes Note 1. Please search the following website by CARLA for details about Beebe et al. (1990) Kasper & Rose (2001:1-9) for these languages in which this classification is taken into consideration , like French, Japanese, Chinese, German, Spanish, Turkish, and Hebrew. Note 2. See Brown, J. D. (2001:301-325) for a detailed study of the used pragmatic tests in second language classroom. Note 3. As Nelson et. al. (1996) and Nelson, et. al. (2002) did in their studies, the researcher himself translated the English version of the applied WDCT into Arabic, then submitted this translation to three experts in translation who gratefully assess this translation making the necessary modifications. Note 4. The researcher is grateful to two persons who helped him in obtaing responses of ANSE. They are Agnieszka Alboszta ( American English Institue, Oregan University,USA /alboszta@uoregon.edu) and Masoud El-sherif (University Utara of Malaysia, Malaysia /elsharifmas@hotmail.com ).    IIxii  IIxi  IIx  IIix  IIviii  IIvii  IIvi  IIv  IIiv  IIiii  IIii  IIi  Iii  Ii   - Items  Speech  Acts  No  IIxii  IIxi  IIx  IIix  IIviii  IIvii  IIvi  IIv  IIiv  IIiii  IIii  IIi  Iii  Ii   --1  Instances indicate that a pragmatic transfer occurs represented by using similar refusal strategies like "Reason/Explanation", "Regret", and "Non-performative statements" in this speech act. Also, it is interesting to find out that all the three groups have the same tendency in making refusals. The number of refusal strategies in requests is less than other situations.