(Im)Politeness in Uruguay

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
(Im)Politeness in Uruguay Negotiating Refusals in Three Domains of Interaction
Physical Description:
1 online resource (17 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Kaiser, Heather Renee
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Romance Languages, Spanish and Portuguese Studies
Committee Chair:
BOXER,DIANA
Committee Co-Chair:
AARON,JESSICA ELANA
Committee Members:
PHARIES,DAVID A
GRAVLEE,CLARENCE C,IV

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
domain -- linguistics -- politeness -- refusal -- spanish -- uruguay -- women
Spanish and Portuguese Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Romance Languages thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The present study examines the speech act of refusing in the spontaneous discourse of female Uruguayans in various domains: spheres of life in which certain socio-cultural norms and expectations guide both verbal and non-verbal interaction (Fishman 1972; Boxer 2002). It contributes to the establishment of baseline native speaker pragmatic norms that can later be compared with those of other speech communities, and used for instruction in the L2 classroom. Within a theoretical framework for relational work based on Locher and Watts (2005), and building on the findings of previous speech act research across speech communities (e.g., Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989; Marquez Reiter 2000; Felix-Brasdefer 2008), this study examines how female Uruguayan Spanish speakers realize refusals in the family, social and workplace domains. It investigates the pragmatic strategies that they employ, and the extent to which such strategies vary according to domain, participant characteristics, addressee characteristics and factors relating to social distance, such as participant-addressee relationship. Two hundred forty-three refusal sequences extracted from a 240 hour corpus of naturalistic recordings from Uruguay provided the basis for answering three research questions: 1) How do female Uruguayan Spanish speakers realize the speech act of refusing? 2) How and to what extent do their refusal strategies vary according to contextual features (e.g., domain, participant and addressee characteristics, participant-addressee relationship)? 3) What do these data reveal about these Uruguayans' socio-cultural norms and expectations for communication within relationships? The refusal situations were generated by ten women from lower and middle socioeconomic speech communities, resulting in 96 distinct participant-addressee pairs. The results are discussed in terms of non-politic/politic linguistic behavior and opposing views of social distance, particularly Wolfson's "Bulge" theory (1988) and Boxer's (1993) summations from her work on indirect complaints. The selection of refusal strategies was sensitive to various factors, but the strongest evidence emerging from these data was that for domain, social distance and addressee sex. The overall evaluation retained the hypothesis, posited by previous researchers, that Uruguayans orient more toward linguistic strategies of affliation and involvement.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Heather Renee Kaiser.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: BOXER,DIANA.
Local:
Co-adviser: AARON,JESSICA ELANA.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:
UFE0046501:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 (IM)POLITENESS IN URUGUAY: NEGOTIATING REFUSALS IN THREE DOMAINS OF INTERACTION By HEATHER R. KAISER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 2014 Heather R. Kaiser

PAGE 3

3 To David and my friends in Rosario

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank David, my husband and project manager, without wh om the completion of this project would have been impossible. I also thank my committee members, past and present, for their valuable knowledge, skills, insight and support: Diana Boxer, Jessi Elana Aaron, David Pharies, Clarence Gravlee, Virginia LoCast ro and Allan Burns. Finally, I give hearty thanks to those members of the Uruguayan community who let me into their lives with their voices and words. I am also grateful for the financial support awarded to me by the following entities, which provided res ources for research, travel and participant compensation: Spanish and Portuguese Studies, the O. Ruth McQuown Scholarship Fund and the Sigma Delta Pi National Hispanic Hon or Society.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGME NTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 Rationale ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Research Questions and Overview of Findings ................................ ...................... 21 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 23 Previous Re fusal Studies ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Refusals, General ................................ ................................ ............................. 24 Refusals, Spanish ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 Descr iption of the Speech Community Studied ................................ ....................... 39 Chapter Organization ................................ ................................ .............................. 46 2 THEORETICAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS ................................ ............ 51 Politeness Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 51 ................................ .... 52 Critici sm of Brown and Levinson ................................ ................................ ...... 55 ................................ ....................... 62 ................................ .............. 70 Speech Act Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 Frameworks for Analyzing Refusals ................................ ................................ ....... 76 3 METHO DOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 General Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ 85 Instrument Design and Testing ................................ ................................ ......... 85 Participant Recruitment ................................ ................................ .................... 88 Participant Profiles ................................ ................................ ........................... 88 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 90 Methodological Considerations and Rationale behind Approach ..................... 90 Recording of Data, Administration of Instruments and Follow Up .................... 91 Data Transcription ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 94 Conventions Used ................................ ................................ ............................ 94

PAGE 6

6 Identifying Refusal Sequences ................................ ................................ ......... 95 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 99 Methodological Considerations and Rationale behind Approach ..................... 99 Coding Procedure ................................ ................................ .......................... 102 Coding Refusals: an Example ................................ ................................ ....... 103 Coding for Domain ................................ ................................ ......................... 104 Secondary Coding a nd Intercoder Agreement ................................ ............... 106 Qualitative Comparisons and Statistical Analysis ................................ ........... 107 4 REFUSAL STRATEGIES ................................ ................................ ...................... 112 General Description of Results ................................ ................................ ............. 112 (In)Directness in the Refusal Head Act ................................ ................................ 11 4 Feature One: Number of Refusal Turns at Talk per Sequence ..................... 115 Feature Two: Mand Type ................................ ................................ .............. 116 Feature Three: Priming Effect ................................ ................................ ....... 117 Supportive Moves and Head Acts, Upgrading and Downgrading ................... 121 Linguistic Strategies ................................ ................................ .............................. 123 Linguistic Strategies: Head Acts ................................ ................................ .... 124 Linguistic Strategies: Supportive Moves ................................ ........................ 127 Linguistic Strategies: Mand Ty pe ................................ ................................ .. 131 Formulas ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 133 Formulaic Phrases ................................ ................................ ......................... 134 Formulaic Templates ................................ ................................ ...................... 137 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 141 5 DOMAINS OF INTERACTION ................................ ................................ .............. 173 Domain ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 174 Orientation of Talk ................................ ................................ .......................... 176 Semantic strategies (general) ................................ ................................ .. 177 Semantic strateg ies (sub types) ................................ ............................... 185 Linguistic strategies and post refusal small talk ................................ ....... 197 Physical Setting ................................ ................................ .............................. 204 Refusals and semantic strategies ................................ ............................ 206 Linguistic strategies and post refusal small talk ................................ ....... 212 Summar y ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 216 6 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES .......... 235 Participant Characteristics ................................ ................................ .................... 235 Participant Age ................................ ................................ ............................... 235 Participant Years of Formal Education ................................ ........................... 250 Participant Socioeconomic Statu s and Neighborhood of Residence .............. 256 Addressee Characteristics ................................ ................................ .................... 272 Addressee Sex ................................ ................................ ............................... 273 Relative Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 279

PAGE 7

7 Relative Education Level ................................ ................................ ................ 283 Relative Socioeconomic Status ................................ ................................ ...... 286 Relative Power ................................ ................................ ............................... 296 Social Distance ................................ ................................ ............................... 303 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 319 7 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 378 Discussion of Results and Theoretical Implications ................................ .............. 378 Principal Findings and Significa nce ................................ ................................ ...... 409 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 412 B INSTRUMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 414 C CODE BOOK ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 418 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 441 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 455

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Comparison of frameworks for classifying refusal strategies .............................. 81 3 1 Participant profiles. ................................ ................................ ........................... 109 3 2 Transcription conventions ................................ ................................ ................. 110 3 3 Refusal sequences by domain ................................ ................................ .......... 111 3 4 Intercoder agreement b etween researcher and cocoder. ................................ 111 4 1 Mand type by (in)directness (Token Level) ................................ ....................... 145 4 2 Mand type by (in)directness (Case Level ) ................................ ........................ 145 4 3 Mand type by refusal sequence type (Token Level) ................................ ......... 145 4 4 Mand type by refusal sequence type (Case Level) ................................ ........... 145 4 5 Mand type by observed and statistical tendency ................................ .............. 146 4 6 Priming by head act a nd sequence types ................................ ......................... 146 4 7 Priming by mand type ................................ ................................ ....................... 146 4 8 Supportive moves and down/upgraders as a percentage of sequence type and refusal turns ................................ ................................ ............................... 146 4 9 Frequency of linguistic strategies in head acts ................................ ................. 147 4 10 Frequency of linguistic strategies in supportive moves ................................ ..... 148 4 11 Key linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive moves in descending order of param eter estimate strength and frequency ................................ ........ 149 4 12 Key linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive mo ves by mand type .... 150 4 13 Formulaic phrases and templates by sequence type (Token Level) ................. 151 4 14 Formulai c phrases and templates by sequence type (Case Level) .................. 151 5 1 Physic al setting by setting category ................................ ................................ .. 221 5 2 Physical sett ing by o rientation of talk ................................ ................................ 221 5 3 Head act type by orientation of talk ................................ ................................ .. 222

PAGE 9

9 5 4 Refusal sequence type by orientation of talk ................................ .................... 222 5 5 Orientation of talk (incl. sub types) by refusal turns and mean RTT ................. 222 5 6 Aggravating and mitigating supportive moves by orientat ion of talk ................. 223 5 7 Downgraders and upgraders by orientation of talk ................................ ........... 223 5 8 Linguistic strategies (I) by orientation of talk ................................ ..................... 224 5 9 Linguistic strategies (II) by orientation of talk ................................ .................... 226 5 10 Post refusal small talk by orientation of talk ................................ ..................... 227 5 11 Physical setting by refusal turns, sequences and mean RTT ........................... 227 5 12 Physical setting by head act type ................................ ................................ ..... 227 5 13 Refusal sequence type by physical setting ................................ ....................... 227 5 14 Downgraders and upgraders by physical setting ................................ .............. 228 5 15 Aggravating and mitigating supportive moves by physical setting .................... 228 5 16 Linguistic strategies by physical setting category ................................ ............. 229 6 1 Age, formal education and SES of participants by number of participants and refusal sequences ................................ ................................ ............................ 323 6 2 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by participan t age group ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 324 6 3 Linguistic strategies by participant age group ................................ ................... 325 6 4 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategi es by years of formal education ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 327 6 5 Mitigating moves by participant age and education level ................................ .. 328 6 6 Linguistic strategies by years of formal education ................................ ............ 329 6 7 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by SES /neighborhood of residence ................................ ................................ ....... 331 6 8 Linguistic strategies by SES /neighborhood of residence ................................ .. 3 32 6 9 Addressee characteristics ................................ ................................ ................ 333 6 10 Addressee's alias and sex ................................ ................................ ................ 335

PAGE 10

10 6 11 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by addressee sex .. 338 6 12 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence ty pes and strategies for addressee sex by domain and participant neighborhood of residence ................................ ..... 339 6 13 Refusal turns, sequences, seque nce types and strategies by relative age ...... 341 6 14 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for relative age by domain and participant neighborhood of residence ................................ .......... 342 6 15 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies of much older addressees compared with overall and Centro data ................................ ......... 343 6 16 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by relative edu cation level ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 344 6 17 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for relative education level by domain and participant neighborhood of residence ............ 345 6 18 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by relative SES ..... 347 6 19 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for relative SE S by domain and participant neighborhood of residence ................................ .......... 348 6 20 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by the relative power of the addressee, business domain ................................ ....................... 350 6 21 Addressee's relationship to the participant by role category ............................. 351 6 22 Role category by composite social distance score ................................ ........... 352 6 23 Role category by average distance intimacy score and role distance measure ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 352 6 24 Refusal sequences by role category, role distance me asure and number of addressees ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 353 6 25 Major semantic strategies by addressee role ................................ ................... 354 6 26 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by frequency of contact with the addressee ................................ ................................ ............... 355 6 27 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by level of familiarity with addressee ................................ ................................ ................. 356 6 28 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by level of trust toward addressee ................................ ................................ ............................. 357

PAGE 11

11 6 29 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types an d strategies by number of interactional contexts shared with addressee ................................ ................... 358 6 30 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by role distance measure ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 359 6 31 Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for role distance measure by domain and participant neighborhood of residence ...................... 360

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Layout of the city of Rosario ................................ ................................ ............... 48 1 2 la plaza Benito Herosa ................................ ................. 49 1 3 Centro dwellings ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 1 4 El Pastoreo dwellings ................................ ................................ ......................... 50 2 1 Relation al work ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 84 4 1 General description of results ................................ ................................ ........... 152 4 2 Crosstabulation of refusal sequence type by refusal turns per sequence ......... 153 4 3 Crosstabulation of indirect head acts by refusal turns per sequence ................ 154 4 4 Crosstabulation of direct head acts by refusal turns per sequence .................. 155 4 5 Correlations between priming and semantic components, down and upgraders, and sequence types ................................ ................................ ....... 156 4 6 Correlation s between priming and mand type ................................ .................. 157 4 7 Pairwise comparisons of sequence types as a function of the distribution of Priming. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 158 4 8 Cor relations between head act type supp ortive moves, downgrading and upgrading ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 159 4 9 Correlations between head act type supportive move type and the ling uistic strategies found in each ................................ ................................ .................. 160 4 10 Results of a non parametric regression, where Y = HAInd and X = all linguistic strategies that correlated with head acts ................................ ............ 166 4 11 Results of a non parametric regression, where Y = HADir and X = all linguistic strategies that correlated with head acts ................................ ............ 167 4 12 Results of a non parametric regression, where Y = SMM and X = all linguist ic strategies that correlated with supportive moves ................................ .............. 168 4 13 Results of a non parametric regression, where Y = SMA and X = all linguistic strategies that correlated with supportive moves ................................ .............. 169

PAGE 13

13 4 14 Correlations between formulaic templates and head act type, supportive move type, up/downgrade rs, sequence type and mand type ........................... 170 5 1 Correlations between domain sub types, refusal turns and semantic strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 230 5 2 Domains according to the orientation of talk and the linguistic st rategies associated with them. ................................ ................................ ....................... 231 5 3 Domains according to the physical setting and the linguistic st rategies associated with them. ................................ ................................ ...................... 232 5 4 Pairwise comparis ons of domain types (orientation of talk) as a function of the distribution of post refusal Small Talk ................................ ......................... 233 5 5 Pairwise comparisons of talk orientation sub types as a function of the distribu t ion of post refusal Small Talk ................................ ............................... 234 6 1 The two trends: the percentage of indirect and direct only refusal seq uences and the percentage of refusal sequences containing indirect and direct hea d acts by participant age group ................................ ......................... 362 6 2 Average number of refusal sequences per participant by age group and orientation of talk ................................ ................................ .............................. 362 6 3 Indirect head act RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk ........... 363 6 4 Direct head act RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk .............. 363 6 5 The percentage of refusal sequences containing aggravating moves, mitigating moves and downgraders by participant age group ........................... 364 6 6 SMA RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk .............................. 364 6 7 SMM RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk ............................. 365 6 8 DnG RS% by participan t age group and orientation of talk .............................. 365 6 9 Participant age groups and the linguistic strategies associated with them. .... 366 6 1 0 T he percentage of refusal sequen ces containing mitigating moves, the formula s + pero [x] and post refusal small talk by participant education level 367 6 11 SMM RS% by participant educatio n level and orientation of talk ...................... 367 6 12 The formula s + pero RS% by participant education level and orientation of talk ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 368 6 13 Small talk RS% by participant education level and orientation of talk ............... 368

PAGE 14

14 6 14 Percentage of SM RequInfo in refusal sequences by participant education level and orientation of talk ................................ ................................ ............... 369 6 15 Percentage of CCGSolid in refusal sequences by participant education level and orientation of talk ................................ ................................ ....................... 369 6 16 Participant educati on levels and the linguistic strategies associated with them 370 6 17 Participant SES/ neighborhood s of residence and the linguistic strategies associate d with them ................................ ................................ ........................ 371 6 18 Percentage of PropName in refusal sequences by participant SES/neighborhood of residence and orientation of talk ................................ .... 372 6 19 Bivariate correlation of the Average Distance Intimacy score with refusal turns and major strategies. ................................ ................................ ............... 373 6 20 Domains and participant neighborhood of residence by Average Distance Intimacy scores. ................................ ................................ ................................ 374 6 21 Overall data: Role distance measures of major semantic strategie s and post refusal small talk ................................ ................................ ....................... 374 6 22 Business domain: Role distance me asures of major semantic strategie s and post refusal small talk ................................ ................................ ....................... 375 6 23 Domestic domain: Role distance measures of major semantic strategie s and post refusal small talk ................................ ................................ ....................... 375 6 24 Social domain: Role distance measures of major semantic strategie s and post refusal small talk ................................ ................................ ....................... 376 6 25 Pastoreo group: Role distance meas ures of major semantic strategie s and post refusal small talk ................................ ................................ ...................... 376 6 26 Centro group: Role distance measures of major semantic strategie s and post refusal small talk ................................ ................................ ....................... 377

PAGE 15

15 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBR abbreviated ( as ) CCSARP C ross Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns code manual (Blum Kulka et al. 1989) DNG downgrader EMPH empha tic EST estimated as F formal FB Flix Brasdefer, J. Csar HA head ac t INCL including INF Informal LIT literally LS linguistic strategy POP population REQ request REF refusal RS refusal sequence RTT refusal turn at talk SM supportive move SMA supportive move, aggravating SMM supportive move, mitigating SUB subordinate, workplace/business domain UPG upgrader

PAGE 16

16 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (IM)POLITENESS IN URUGUAY: NEGOTIATING REFUSALS IN THREE DOMAINS OF INTERACTION By Heather R. Kaiser May 2014 Chair: Diana Boxer Cochair: Jessi Elana Aaron Major: Romance Languages Spanish The present study examines the speech act of refusing in the spontaneous discourse of fem ale Uruguayans in various domains: spheres of life in which certain socio cultural norms and expectations guide both verbal and non verbal interaction (Fishman 1972; Boxer 2002) It contributes to the establishment of baseline native speaker pragmatic no rms that can later be compared with those of other speech communities, and used for instruction in the L2 classroom. Within a theoretical framework for relational work based on Locher and Watts (2005), and building on the findings of previous speech act r esearch across speech communities ( e.g., Blum Kulka, House and Kasper 1989; Mrquez Reiter 2000; Flix Brasdefer 2008), this study examines how female Uruguayan Spanish speakers realize refusals in the family, social and workplace domains. I t investigates the pragmatic strategies that they employ, and the extent to which such strategies vary according to domain participant characteristics, addressee characteristics and factors relating to social distance, such as participant addressee relationship.

PAGE 17

17 Two hundred forty three r efusal sequences extracted from a 240 hour corpus of naturalistic recordings from Uruguay provided the basis for answering three research questions: 1) How do female Uruguayan Spanish speakers realize the speech act of refusing? 2) H ow and to what extent do their refusal strategies vary according to contextual features ( e.g., domain, participant and addressee characteristics, participant addressee relationship ) ? 3 cultural norm s and expectations for communication within relationships? The refusal situations were generated by ten women from lower and middle socioeconomic speech communities, resulting in 96 distinct participant addressee pairs. The results are discussed in term s of non politic/politic linguistic behavior and opposing views of social distance particularly theory (1988) and The selection of refusal strategies was sensitive to vario us factors but t he strongest evidence emerging from these data was that for domain, social distance and addressee sex. The overall evaluation retained the hypothesis, posited by previous researchers, that Uruguayans orient more toward linguistic strategi es of affliation and involvement.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The present study examines the spontaneous speech of Uruguayan women to better understand how these speakers negotiate discordant stances in everyday situations, and the underlying regularities cha racterizing their linguistic behavior. It takes as challenge to apply baseline data generated from natural discourse to language learning contexts : [ I t] is important to take into account norms . o f any community . to be able to guide and train novice language users into increased expertise. Once we have knowledge of what members of discourse communities successfully do in spontaneous spoken discourse, we can then apply these findings to situations in which novice language users are acquiring and employing an L2 in any domain and in variously configured communities and interactions. Such varied contexts include . sensitivity to the constraints of the sociolinguistic variables (e.g., gender, social distance, and social status) in the L2; [and] sensitivity to domains of usage (e.g., workplace, education, and social interaction) (Boxer 2008: 314 ). This study accepts this challenge by examin ing the real wo rld of native speaker interaction, focusing on the natural face to face discourse of Uruguayans in various interactional domains. T hese naturalistic data provide many avenues for exploration ; for this project I restrict the scope of analysis to the speech act of refusals, which have been shown to differ cross culturally ( e.g., Blum Kulka et al. 1989, Garca 1989, 1992, 1999, Mrquez Reiter 2000, Flix Brasdefer 2008). I n doing so, I seek to answer the principal question: What formulas and strategies do f emale Uruguayan Spanish speakers use to realize refusals in different domains of life and to what extent does the use of these strategies demonstrate sensitivity to the various contextual features characterizing each interaction ?

PAGE 19

19 Rationale Foundational is the assumption that inextricably linked in interaction are language and culture. 1 notion of habitus the product and producer of individual and collective experiences: The habitus, a product of history, produces individual and collective practices more history in accordance with the schemes generated by history. It ensures the active presence of past experiences, which, deposited in each organism in the form of schemes of perception, thought and action, constancy over time . . This system of dispositions [is] a present past that tends to perpetuate itself into the future by reactivation in similarly structured practices (Bourdieu 1990: 54). Being r esponsible for all our reasonable common sense behaviors, much of the habitus is acquired through socialization. To the extent that others share a similar linguistic habitus it can be argued that these individuals belong to a common speech c ommunity. However, the covert nature of makes it difficult to pinpoint much less teach the underlying premises for interaction sustained by the members of different linguistic groups. Based on politeness theory li terature ( e.g., Scollon and Scollon 2001; Watts 2003), and the findings of previous speech act research ( e.g., Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Blum Kulka, House and Kasper 1989; Mrquez Reiter 2000; Flix Brasdefer 2008), it is encouraging that focused study can bring aspects of these dispositions to the surface. This is of ultimate importance to linguistic and cross cultural studies, as well as to those adult language learners seeking to approximate native speaker norms. 1 cquired knowledge that people use to interpret experience

PAGE 20

20 The literature reveals that domains, or i nteractional spheres of life, are important to consider for such a study, since the verbal and non verbal interactions within each are guided by certain shared socio cultural norms and expectations (Fishman 1972; Boxer 2002). Fitch (1998) credits domains with providing a locus for the construction of these norms and holds that communication practices, such as speech acts ( Austin 1962; Searle 1969), are fundamental to the relationships formed within them. Thus, a focus on speech acts in the context of the domain in which they occur ( e.g., family, social workplace ) is a valid point of departure The act of refusing is an understudied phenomenon particularly with naturalistic data; what attention has been given it t end s to involve experimental data and cr oss cultural interlanguage pragmatics ( i.e., non native learner behavior) rather than on native speaker varieties. However it is a cogent area of pragmatic research in that it entails or to ggestions or opinions. Such situations require cultural expertise in order to save the face (Goffman 1967; Brown and Levinson 1987) of one or more interlocutors and to manage rapport pursuant to the interactional goals of the speakers (Spencer Oatey 2000 ). To date, little work has been done on the linguistic practices of Uruguayans; what has been done focuses on the capital region of Montevideo ( e.g., Mrquez Reiter 2000) or on the northern area bordering Brazil ( e.g., Elizaincn 1997). This study shifts the focus to a less densely populated region in t he southwestern department of Colonia Also because I l iv ed in this area of Uruguay for one year (1996 1997), I was familiar with the territory and ha d established contacts. I limited the primary partici pants to women because, as a woman myself, I ha d more access to women, and was more

PAGE 21

21 easily able to establish the trust and rapport crucial to this type of data collection especially g iven the relatively short time period available for collecting the data (nine weeks) Research Questions and Overview of Findings T he data produced by these Uruguayans in interaction provide answer s to the following three research questions: 1) How do female Uruguayan Spanish speakers realize the speech act of refusing? Spe cifically, what formula ic utterances and strategies do they use? 2) How and to what extent do their refusal strategies vary according to the following contextual features : domain of interaction participant and addressee characteristics and factors perta ining to the participant addressee relationship ( i.e., social distance )? 3) What do these data reveal about these cultural norms and expectations for communication within relationships? The subsequent chapters handle each one of these questions in turn. Chapter 4 show s for example, that these Uruguayans d id not s hy away from direct refusals but often mitigate d direct or head act ) and, at times, with downgraders (interna l to the head act ). Exceptions to this trend occur ed while refusing orders and invitations, and, particularly, within the social domain of interaction ; in these cases, indirect refusal strategies prevailed A structural feature common to direct refusals wa s the no + porque [x] template, while the s + pero [x] template was common to indirect refusals. In Chapter 5 I argue for the concept of interactional domain as a variable in its own right, distinct from others such as social distance and power. I als o suggest that the orientation of the talk played more of a role

PAGE 22

22 in the selection of refusal strategies than did the physical setting, though both were important. C hapter 6 examines the impact of various participant characteristics (e.g., age, education level, socioeconomic status, addressee sex), as we ll as factors pertaining to the participant addressee relationship on how the participants refused It was found that the sex of the addressee and the social distance between interlocutors were the most s ignificant factors to affect refusal strategy choice, while others, such as participant age, did as well, but to a lesser degree. Surprising was the fact that the socioeconomic status of the participant did not seem to play a role in how the participants refused. (2001). I propose several norms of i nteraction conceptualized as underlying regularities of th e speech community, based on the trends that emerged I make the case that the Uruguayans of this study adhered primarily to what Scollon and Scollon term a solidarity politeness system in line wi th Placencia 2005) but that they were not limited to this system. I show that the participants engaged in the co construction of emergent networks and, in so doing, relied on strategies less demonstrative of involvement, but more indicative of independence Thus, the participants at times made adjustments to the proposed norm of the addr essee, how familiar they were with the situation and the social distance

PAGE 23

23 between interlocutor s In addition, I demonstrate how the findings, when organized by with regard to speech acts and social distance. Significance This study bridge s several gaps in the discourse analysis and pragmatics literature. F oremost, it bring s to light aspect s of language that are difficult to capture : the underlying regularities inherent in interaction Much work on interlanguage and cross cultural pragmatics has shown this to be an important area of current and further research In so doing, it contributes to the establishment of baseline native speaker norms that can later be compared wi th those of other speech communities. In general, some work has been done on the speech act of r efusals ; however, t he majority have use d written surveys or role plays to elicit data often comparing non native speakers of a particular language with a sam ple group of that target language ( e.g., Beebe et al. 19 90 ; Sadler and Erz 200 1 ; Flix Brasdefer 2003, 2004 ). S tudies relying primarily on naturalistic data within native speaking communities are rare. While more scholars have taken an interest in the S panish language within the body of politeness and speech act literature (Daz Prez 2003; Mrquez Reiter and Placencia 2004; Mrquez Reiter and Placencia 2005; Placencia and Garca 2007) o nly a sliver of the empirical studies ha s taken native varieties of Southern Cone Spanish as the focus. T o date, n o previous study has examined spontaneously generated Uruguayan refusals within a domain based framework. Previous Refusal Studies The present review of previous refusal studies is divided into two sections first a review of the work on refusals in general and, second, a review of refusal studies

PAGE 24

24 specific to the Spanish language. In this review I show that the majority of scholars thus far have depended on elicited or experimental data to make their claims I conclude by underscoring the need to collect and analyze natural data in order to better understand native speaker norms and more aptly guide non native learners of Spanish. Refusals General Previous studies of refusal behavior have focused on langua ges such as American English (e.g., Labov and Fanshel 1977; Bardovi Harlig and Hartford 1991; Beebe and Cummings 1996), Scottish English (Wootton 1981), British English (Kitao 1996), Japanese (e.g., Shigeta 1974; Moriyama 1990; Furumura 2002), Korean (Lyuh 1992; Kwon 2004), v arieties of Chinese (e.g., Chen et al. 1995; Bresnahan et al. 1999), Arabic (e.g., Hussein 1995; Nelson et. al 2002), German (e.g., Beckers 1999), Italian (Frescura 1997), Zapotec (Schrader Kniffki 2007), and varieties of Spanish (e.g., Garca 1992, 1999; Margalef Boada 1993; Flix Brasdefer 2003; VonCanon 2006). These and others have also taken as their object of study non native varieties, which they have compared to native speaker norms, e.g., L2 English by L1 Japanese speakers (e.g ., Takahashi and Beebe 1987; Beebe et al. 1990), L2 English by L1 Chinese speakers (e.g., Ren 2013), L2 English by L1 Arabic speakers (Al Issa 1998), L2 English by L1 Spanish speakers (e.g., Flix Brasdefer 2003), and L2 Spanish by L1 German speakers (Marg alef Boada 1993). Sc holars have employed comparable frameworks for analyzing refusals (e.g., Blum Kulka et al. 1984; Beebe et al. 1990) (see also Chapter 2) which has facilitated making comparisons among studies. For example, Chen, Ye and Zhang ( 1995) used Beebe et al. (1990) in their analy sis of Mandarin Chinese refusals They found that the participants of their study favored indirect refusal strategies. The y most commonly

PAGE 25

25 refuse d offers by dissuading the interlocutor with threats, guilt trips, and criticisms. For requests suggestions and invitations the most frequent indirect refusal was to give reason s Refusals to invitations in Peruvian Spanish (Garca 1992), Venezuelan Spanish (Garca 1999), Mexican Spanish (Flix Brasdefer 2008) and America n English (Flix Brasdefer 2003) were similar to the Chinese refusals in terms of a preference for indirectness, but not always in terms of strategy type As noted, Chinese refusals to invitations most frequently consisted of reasons; the second most fre quent strategy, however, was a direct refusal, followed by an expression of regret (Chen et al. 1995) For Peruvian Spanish mitigated refusals (e.g., yo creo que no va a ser posible were as prevalent as giving r easons ; direct refusals and expressions of sorrow /regret were the next most common (Garca 1992) per se we can see that the two groups the Chinese and the Peruvians both relied on giving reasons d irect refusals and expressions of regret for refusing invitations. Th e Venezuelans giving reasons to refuse Unlike the Chinese and the Peruvians, however, the Ven ezuelans did not employ expressions of sorrow to as great an extent, or direct refusals at all. Instead, they were more likely to negat e/doubt their ability to comply and give an indefinite reply (1999: 417) The Mexicans, on the other hand, differen tiated their strategies on the basis of power (an artifact of Flix When the interlocutor was of equal status, they most frequently refused the invitation with reasons. T he y then tended to refuse directly, give indefinite re plies and mitigate their refusals. When refusing an

PAGE 26

26 invitation from someone in a position of authority mitigating the refusal (rather than giving reasons) was the main strategy, followed by direct refusals Compared with the Mexicans, the American Engli sh speakers relied more heavily on direct refusals when refusing someone in authority, but tempered their use of direct refusals with reasons with an addressee of equal status. In both cases, the Americans were direct more often than the Mexicans, though the overall tendency for both groups was to use indirect strategies Th us, th e above suggests that the study of refusals is demonstrative of how people from very different speech communitie s (e.g., Chinese and Peruvians) can produce similar linguistic be haviors, while groups that seem more alike can display differences (e.g., Peruvians and Venezuelans) I nvitations for example, tend ed to be refused indirectly across cultures but not in the same way G iving reasons wa s the most common strategy for refu sing invitations across the groups mentioned but the extent to which the participants of the various studies refused with for example, direct refusals, indefinite replies and expressions of regret varied by country of origin. Also, v ariables such as r el ative power were shown to affect refusal behavior While useful as a starting point for identifying areas of cross cultural difference (and similarity), t hese studies are not representative of natural, face to face discourse. These and the m ajority of r efusal studies are based on elicited, rather than natural, data. Over two thirds of the 51 studies listed in Flix Brasdefer (2008: 46 50) relied on discourse completion tasks (in which participants wrote down what they might say in a given situation) ro le play data (in which participants acted out what they might say and/or do with another participant or a research assistant) or a combination of the two.

PAGE 27

27 Studies relying solely on natural data were significantly fewer (seven), while five of these added s ome aspect of natural observation to a discourse completion task or role play technique. Thus, natural data formed a part in only a quarter of the studies. Other approaches involved judgment tasks and retrospective verbal reports. Additionally, the vas t majority of these works elicited their data from university students in academic settings and focused on some variety of English. Notable toddler interaction using natural of American children using a telephone role play technique, Schrader cultural communication and silence in Zapotec using natural data, and two studies of Japanese refusals in business settings ( Tickle 1991 ; Cramer 1997). In the latter, though the setting was novel, the researchers still relied on discourse completion tasks and role plays, respectively. Thus, more studies are in order that study languages other than English, participants other than students, and use methods o ther than discourse completion tasks and role plays. Specifically, there is a need for more studies that record and analyze natural data. Because, while experimental methodologies are good for controlling certain features of an interaction, natural disco urse assures us authenticity that what was produced is really what someone would say or do in a given situation. Refusals Spanish The focus of this review will be on findings related to native speaker patterns of refusal behavior. The works reviewed and critiqued here include Garca (1992, 1999) for Peruvian and Venezuelan Spanish, Pinto (2003) for Spanish/Mexican Spanish compared with US English, and Flix Brasdefer (2003, 2008) for Latin American and Mexican Spanish compared with US English.

PAGE 28

28 Garca (1 992, 1999) examines and compares refusal behavior of men and women in Peru (1992) and Venezuela (1999). Both studies employ an open role play technique in which each of the twenty participants (10 male, 10 female) are instructed to decline an invitation t and deference strategies (upon w hierarchy, discussed below) 2 For coding purposes, she employs the classification of h ead a cts and s upporti ve m oves of Blum Kulka et al (1989) which she categorizes in terms of solidarity and deference politenes s. profile to include non university adults, varying in terms of class, education and occupation, 2) attending to detail in the transcription (including non verbal and parali nguistic behavior) and presenting contextualized samples of transcript, 3) giving attention to the potential differences between men and women when refusing, and 4) revealing a two stage pattern for the Peruvians for declining an invitation (request respon se, insist response) and a three stage pattern for the Venezuelans (request response, insist response, wrap up). In terms of the sociolinguistic variables, the benefit is limited to displaying significant differences between male and females for the sele ction of refusal strategies, though there seemed to be no marked differences between the Peruvian and the 2 Solidarity politeness: low power difference and low social distance between interlocutors; includes bald on record and positive politeness. Def erence politeness: high social distance between interlocutors; includes off record, do nothing, and negative politeness (Garca 1992: 209).

PAGE 29

29 Venezuelan set. In both studies, both groups of men and women were deferential in their refusals in both stages of the interaction. In the first sta ge, the most prominent deferential strategies for head acts among Peruvian men included expressions of sorrow/regret and giving reasons/excuses, while for the Venezuelans it was ruvian men made (token) agreements to go to the party (solidarity) and expressed their gratitude for having been invited; the Venezuelans, on the other hand, continued to give reasons/excuses and doubt their ability to comply. For the women, in the first stage, the most prominent deferential strategies for head acts among Peruvians included mitigating the refusal or giving reasons/excuses. With the same frequency that they gave excuses, they also refused directly (solidarity). Venezuelan women mirrored the Venezuelan men in that they gave reasons/excuses and doubted their ability to comply. The second stage displayed more differences between the men and the women. When insisted upon, the Peruvian women extended more (token) agreements (solidarity) than did the men, while the Venezuelans still gave reasons/excuses, but also made (token) future plans (solidarity). The overall conclusion was that Peruvian and Venezuelan men were more deferential than the women. The women tended to temper their deferentia l strategies with more friendliness / solidarity behavior. Nevertheless, all demonstrated that they deemed it more important to Despite their contribution, lyses ignore some extralinguistic variables and poorly define others. For example, t hough her participants vary in age, class,

PAGE 30

30 these terms not even to say that her dat a were insufficient for such a discussion. Also, the concept of as to how these categories were deriv ed. In addition, the use of open role plays restricted the type of invitation to one (i.e., extremely limited in scope and calls into question the validity of a s tudy on Venezuelan invitation s (plural). In both studies, each participant spoke with the same female interlocutor, whose behavior 1) possibly had a priming effect on the participants (cf. 1992: 212) and 2) was likely rehearsed after several rounds. Addi tionally, because of the unnaturalness of the experimental set up, we cannot be sure that this is what the participants actually would have said or responded. Finally, regarding the theoretical/analytical framework, synthesis of the various persp ectives is cumbersome and, i n some cases, stands in contrast to her own coding scheme. For example, while Garca classifies giving reasons as an example of deferential/negative politeness, Brown and Levinson (1987) consider this behavior an example of pos itive politeness. Because giving reasons was a prevalent strategy, a change in classification from negative to positive politeness likely would affect the conclusions of her study. Pinto (2003) uses discourse completion tasks to compare native English, native Spanish, and interlanguage 3 (Spanish) speech act data. Her participants include native Spanish speakers from Spain (N=23) and Mexico (N=21), plus four levels of non native, university Spanish students (N=80). Based on t he classi fication scheme for refusals of 3 See Selinker (1972) for a full explication of the notion of interlanguage: knowledge under construction that con tains L1, L2, and autonomous features found in neither.

PAGE 31

31 Beebe et al. (1990) 4 she categorizes the strategies used among native and non native speakers, according to their written answers to two refusal scenarios: an invitation and a request. Her findings suggest that, for language learners pragmatic competence does not develop simultaneously with grammatical competence; for example, English (2003: 163) This points to an area of potential pragmatic difficulty for En glish speaking learners of Spanish that our research can help to address In refusing an invitation most frequently chosen first strategy was an expression of refusal (e.g., no puedo / not tonight ), the Spanish speakers employed this strategy nearly twice as often as the English speakers (48% vs. 28%). Explanations or excuses were equally frequent among the Spanish and English speakers as a first strategy (26% and 25%); however, the Spanish speake rs expressed a desire to accept (e.g., me encantara / I would love to ) much less than the English speakers (5% vs. 26%). Statements of regret (e.g., apologies) were less frequently a first strategy among both groups, although the Spanish speakers made th ese statements comparatively less than the English speakers (10% vs. 16%). Suggestions of alternatives and expressions of gratitude were infrequently used as first strategies among both groups. In refusing a request from a friend, the strategy preference for native Spanish and English speakers was very different. In this case, though statements of regret were the most frequent first strategy for both groups the Spanish speakers employed this 4 Pinto modifies the classification scheme into seven categories: 1) expression of refusal, 2) explanation/excuse, 3) desire to accept, 4) statement of regret, 5) suggest alternative, 6) future offe r, 7) expression of gratitude

PAGE 32

32 tactic much less than English speakers (48% vs. 64%). For the Spanish speakers, expressions of refusal w ere a strong alternative to statements of regret (33%), but there was nothing in the English data that came close to offsetting the preference for the statement of regret (e.g., desire to accept achieved only 1 8%) Overall according to Pinto (2003: 160), the Spanish and English prefer red first strateg ies f or refusing an invitation from a friend were from most to least preferred : SPN: explicit refusal > excuse > regret > alternative > desire to accept / gratit ude ENG: explicit refusal / desire to accept / excuse > regret > gratitude > alternative Likewise, t he Spanish and English first strategy preference s for refusing a request were: SPN: regret > explicit refusal > excuse > desire to accept / alternative ENG : regret > desire to accept > alternative > explicit refusal > excuse The problematic areas of this study include reliance on discourse completion tasks to obtain native speaker data. While they form an appropriate comparison for learner data in a study such as hers, these data are highly questionable if taken as representative of native speaker linguistic norms. A p ositive point is that the refusal situations used in her study are highly relevant to university students in Mexico, Spain and the Uni ted States. However, due to the scope of her project, which includes myriad speech acts, her investigation of refusals is limited with only two refusal situations. Also, she aggregates data from two native varieties of Spanish that have been shown to dif fer in specific pragmatic areas, such as apology behavior (Wagner 1999). A better practice would have been to separate them into two groups and/or conduct tests of intragroup difference to show if and where there were significant differences between the M exicans and the Spaniards.

PAGE 33

33 Flix s respects. First, he focuses only on refusals to invitations, allowing for more in depth exploration of this area: three situations, each with different power/distance constellations versus one of equal power/distance. Second, he relies on open role plays (N=90) rather than written discourse completion tasks. This had the advantage of allowing speaker negotiation and interaction, and produced m ore tokens of refusal speakers). Third, Flix Brasdefer employs a more complex refusal strategy coding system as well as retrospective verbal reports (akin to Garca (1992, 1999)). Like Pinto, his goal is to compare interlanguage (Spanish) data with native speaker (English and Spanish) data; but, unlike Pinto, he looks at one group of advanced Spanish learners, rather than four groups of distinct proficiency levels. Regard ing the native Spanish speakers of his study, they were from six different Latin American countries (Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and from Mexico and Spain. Based also on a modified version of th e f ramework of Bee be et al (1990) Flix s his data into four main categories (i.e., direct, indirect, solidarity, adjuncts) with various sub categories. This makes direct comparison with Pinto difficult, especially since Pinto does not divide her data in this way and works with a reduced set of strategies Also Flix Brasdefer presents his descriptive statistics in terms of all strategies used, rather than first strategies making it difficult to compare his findings as well.

PAGE 34

34 To summarize Flix findings, he found that the native Spanish speakers employed less direct strategies overall than the native English speakers (4% vs. 11%), and within each power/distance constellation (2003: 233, 239). This diffe rence was corroborated by retrospective data, Spanish speakers refused an invitation with e xpressions of refusal nearly twice as often as the Englis h speakers (48% vs. 28% as first strategy; 62% vs. 33% overall ), these findings appear to be in direct opposition Noting that the stylistic variation of the different Spanish li kely impacted the outcomes i t would be of interest to isolate and compare the two to see if the y continue to produce such distinct results. With regard to indirect strategies, Flix Brasdefer found that these were the dominant ca tegory for both native Spanish and English speakers (53% and 51% respectively ). However, within the gamut of indirect strategies, Spanish speakers were most likely to 1) make excuses and 2) give indefinite replies (e.g., voy a intentar I will try ), whe reas English speakers were most likely to 1) give apologies and 2) make finding s that English speakers were always more apologetic than Spanish speakers when refusing ( whether the proposition be an invitation or request ) and that both groups tended to give reason s/make excuses Also of interest is the fact that only Spanish speakers employed any strategies in Flix larger category of solidarity, which included explicit acceptance of the invitation, m dinner: me da mucho gusto que le hayan ofrecido ese puesto [a Ud.] I am really

PAGE 35

3 5 pleased that they have offered you that position ). While absent in the native English data, soli darity strategies were prevalent in the native Spanish data comprising 12% of all strategies. Finally, it is worth noting that for the Spanish role plays, the inviter was a native Spanish speaker who followed the pattern set forth by Garca (1992) in whic h the invitation is followed by an insistence. While it is unknown how the native Spanish speakers responded to this technique, in the verbal report, 80% of the English speaking This illustrates another potential area of contrast between native Spanish and English speakers when refusing. Flix respects. As mentioned above he combines into one native Span ish group speakers spanning Latin American and the Caribbean; thus, despite his claim, there is no control 5 Second, he enlists the help of two female research assistants (one Peruvian, one American), rather than two fema les and two males, to perform the role plays with each of the participants. This is problematic because of gender differences in refusal behavior (e.g., Holmes 1995 ; Garca 1993). Also, it is likely that the repetition of role plays would create a rehear sal effect on the part of the research assistant, causing at least one side of the conversation to be less natural. Third, his data presentation is highly restricted to descriptive statistics and reveals only lines of transcripts, rather than full, contex tual examples of results. The few transcribed 5 explicitly state where they are from, we presume that, as a group of 80 college students, they come from different regions of th e United States.

PAGE 36

36 data that he does present are not coded for non verbal (e.g., a smile) or paralinguistic behavior (e.g., prosodic stress, laughter). Fourth, some of the situations that he chooses beg the question as to the v alidity of the data; that is, he asks the participants to perform roles for which they probably have little or no real life experience (e.g., as the department manager of a telephone company). In a later study, Flix Brasdefer (2008) remedies many of the above issues ; also, he the politeness1 and politeness2 distinction (discussed in Chapter 2) he situates this study within a politeness1/relational work framework ( Eelen 2001; W atts 2003 ). Based on the notions of face (Goffman 1967) and relational work (e.g., Locher and Watts 2005), this study examines expressive and metapragmatic politeness 6 among Mexican (Tlaxcalan) and American (Minnesotan) males via six open role play situati ons, with refusals to invitations, requests and suggestions. The role plays are organized in terms face systems : hierarchical (unequal power), deference (high social distance) and solidarity (low social distance). Using this relational work/face systems approach and role play/data triangulation methodology, Flix Brasdefer makes a strong case for his conclusions regarding the refusal strategies for these two groups and the values that he claims these strategies im ply. Among others findings, Flix and Americans gave reasons/excuses, refused directly, and even agreed with the interlocutor whom they were refusing, differences emerged. The Mexicans mitigated 6 e open to a polite politeness as a concept in daily interaction, here accessed by gathering participant responses from data triangulation (Flix Bras defer 2008: 4).

PAGE 37

37 their refu sals and gave indefinite replies to a greater extent than the Americans. The Americans preferred to offer alternatives and/or request additional information. The data iterated his 2003 work in which the Spanish speakers, as a whole, displayed a higher de gree of indirectness than the English speakers. With the use of retrospective verbal reports, Flix Brasdefer glean ed the insistence. In the moment of the interaction, whereas the Mexicans reported being conscious of power differences and maintaining/building relationships, the Americans were more concerned with being honest, fair and straightforward. With respect to directness, the Mexicans felt that being more indire ct reflected respect and concern for suavizar el trancazo soften the blow (2008: 149). (Mitigated) directness, they expressed, was more appropriate for relationships of confianza or trust. The Americans, on the other hand, felt that by Regarding insistence, Mexicans felt that such behavior was expected and appropriate, while for the Americans it was genera lly unexpected and inappropriate. Combining the data from the role plays and the verbal reports, Flix Brasdefer proposes an overarching evaluation of the Mexican and US cultures: on the one hand, an inclination towards involvement or affiliation with an interlocutor who shows concern for the other and expresses cooperation and solidarity with the interlocutor (Mexicans); on the other, a tendency towards independence or autonomy to reflect values of fairness and individuality, and a focus on the self as a n independent member of a society (Americans) (2008: 161). As noted, this study takes steps to correct many of the shortcomings in Flix Brasdefer (2003). He limits the groups to participants from relatively small geographic

PAGE 38

38 areas, controlling as m uch as possible for language variety ; he increases the interlocutors from one to two per group ; he controls for gender by employing only men in the study, and he gives ample stretches of transcript upon which the reader can base her or his own opinion. Mo reover, the transcripts are much more detailed with non verbal and paralinguistic cues. Also, the situations that he employs are all relevant to his participant base and performed in appropriate settings, assuring maximum validity with in a role play frame work. While overall a tightly knit work methodologically and theoretically, we are still left with questions and concerns. For example, what did the participants do/say who did not follow re bothered by an insistence and Americans who were not)? He gives no examples or explanations of these exchanges or verbal reports. Also, how would women participants have compared in the study? And would ethnographic research corroborate or contradict the findings? The strongest concern still has to do with the type of data analyzed. If one wishes to propose overarching evaluations of different cultures, experimental data lacks taneous face to face interaction. Also, it is fallacious to generalize findings to an entire country based on data generated by only one group from a smaller geo political region within that country. Based on the review of these studies in which native Spanish was taken as the experimental studies conducted to date, it is time for scholars to focus on baseline data generated from spontaneous speech. This is especially true f or those of us interested

PAGE 39

39 in teaching Spanish as a second language. In order to guide and train novice language users, we need to know what the members of different discourse communities do to successfully manage situations during spontaneous spoken disco urse. The present study accepts this challenge by examin ing natural face to face discourse of Uruguayans in various interactional domains taking extralinguistic and social variables into account Description of the S peech C ommunit y Studied This section describes the area of Urugua y in which I collected the data, i.e., the speech community. T ; my use of speech community combines background against which members of the community have come to know their variety of Spanish and the norms for ap propriate pragmalinguistic behavior (i.e., the pragmatic approach, cf. Hymes 1972); on the other hand, through careful analysis of refusal practices, I seek to discover whether there is any significant difference in these practices between the two groups o f participants based on area of residence within Rosario (i.e., the distributional approach, cf. Labov 1972). 7 Regarding my choice of the term "speech community" as opposed to "community of practice," I chose the former because I deem its bounds to be le ss restrictive than the latter. For the purposes of this study, I define a speech community as a geopolitically 7 Source: http://www.academia.edu/1220308/Speech_community._Handbook_of_pragmatics_e d._by_J._Verschuer en_J._Ostman_J._Blommaert_and_C._Bulcaen_1_30 Last accessed on April 27, 2013.

PAGE 40

40 for the interpretation of at least one linguistic va the more inclusive realm of people and their activities. The other is more constrained and specified toward achieving a common goal or purpose (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998), such that within a given speech commu nity, any number of communities of practice consisting of members of one or, potentially, various speech communities can form, operate and disband (e.g., an academic committee, a project team, a rehabilitation group, a marriage). While I recognize that al l of the participants of this study function within various communities of practice during their day to day interactions (loosely operationalized through the domain framework), the goal of this section is not to describe these; it is to give the reader som e insight as to the historical, structural and social context in which these women operate and share with their interlocutors. Over the course of nine weeks in the summer of 2009, I collected the data for this project in the once town, now city, of Nuestra Seora del Rosario (abbr. Rosario) (pop. 10,085 8 ) located in the southwestern department of Colonia, Uruguay (Figure 1 1). capital, the historic Colonia del Sacramen to, which is also a major access hub to Buenos Aires by ferry. In addition to beaches a few miles to the south, Montevideo lies less than a two hour bus ride to the southeast and is highly accessible by private and public transport. nitiative, attributed to Spanish Captain Benito Herosa, was completed in 1775, a year before the formation of the 8 A ccording to the Censo 2011 as reported by the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, R epblica Oriental del Uruguay ( 2012a).

PAGE 41

41 Viceroyalty of the Ro de la Plata. While the first rooted inhabitant of this area was Pascual de Chena (d. 17 36), an Amerindian of Peruvian descent, not much political, cultural or linguistic influence is attributed to the indigenous presence here (or in Uruguay), though some dispute this view (Mezzera 1968, Caetano and Rilla 2005). 9 Undeniably influential, howe ver, was the massive influx of European immigrants (est. 550,000) over a relatively small national population (est. 74,000 in 1830) between 1824 and 1924 (Caetano and Rilla 2005: 106, 494). These hailed in smaller numbers from England, France and Germany, and in larger quantities from Spain and northern Italy (117). Without a doubt, these European newcomers affected the political, cultural and linguistic landscape of a country so new and sparsely populated: studies have detailed the outcomes of Spanish in contact with Italian in the River Plate area (e.g., De Pierris 1990; Cancellier 1996), while towns neighboring Rosario, such as Colonia Valdense and Nueva Helvecia, maintain ties and celebrate their historic connections with France, Italy and Switzerlan d. 10 Nevertheless, despite the multilingual influences that have crafted the southern Uruguayan variety of Spanish into what it is today, my perception based on nearly seventeen years of interaction with this community is that Rosarians, in general, are fo r the most part monolingual speakers of this variety of Spanish. Personal communications from two primary school teachers in the public system confirm that 9 According to Caetano y Rilla, following Uruguayan independence in 1830, the extermination of the remaining indigenous people rituales [e.g., el 10 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueva_Helvecia Last accessed on October 15, 2012.

PAGE 42

42 early foreign language training, primarily in English and/or Portuguese, occurs in some public scho ols; however, it is not consistent due to a lack of resources and personnel: [foreign language training] no es obligatorio porque no hay recursos para tener profesores de idiomas en todas las escuelas, pero s hay varias escuelas que tienen profesor de idi oma, en general ingls. En el programa (currculum) estn detallados contenidos de ingls y portugus para c ada ao, pero . si hay profesores (Silvana Dalms Gardiol, personal communication, April 23, 2013). [foreign language training] is not obligatory because there are not resources to have language teachers in all the schools, but there are various schools that have a language teacher, typically for English. In the program (curriculum) there are content guidelines for English and Portuguese for each year, b ut . only if there are teachers (Silvana Dalms Gardiol, personal communication, April 23, 2013). guide to schools with instruction in English and/or Portuguese supports Dalms statements 11 According to this official source, in the Department of Colonia there are only ten public schools with language training (English only), none of which are in Rosario. In Rosario, this makes learning another language a questi on of private instruction and, therefore, the prerogative of individual families. Present architecturally prominent Catholic church, well established business es, and colonial homes (Figure 1 2) The plaza is still a place for people to come together, to share mate shop and/or conduct business and financial transactions. Those living in this centro area (Centro) are privileged in that they are close to the national bank, schools, churches, med ical facilities, transport hubs and social establishments. Also, they tend 11 Information found on the home page of the Depart amento de Segundas Lenguas a department of the Consejo de Educacin Inicial y Primaria which is overseen by the Administracin Nacional de Educacin Pblica Source: http://www.ceip.edu.uy/documentos/2013/segundaslenguas/NomenclatorSegundasLenguas21_03_13.pd f Last accessed on April 30, 2013.

PAGE 43

43 to live in well established, single family homes, often abov e their own businesses (Figure 1 3). The local economy has historically centered on agriculture, meat and dairy produc tion, though at one time Rosario was a locus of intense factory production (the last of these a battery plant closed in 2002). 12 In fact, the whole of the department is known throughout the country for its artisanal cheeses, preserves and other products. 13 Fields laden with cattle, sheep and other livestock surround the area outlined in Figure 1 1. A slaughterhouse is located in the southwestern outskirts and is considered a significant source of employment; an impressionistic survey of the t own reveals a large number of butcher shops, signaling a lucrative source of income. Another emerging sector is that pertaining to medical facilities, most notably the centrally located Cooperativa Asistencial Mdica del Este de Colonia which boasts 64 beds and an int ensive care unit, and is the largest, most complete facility in the department. 14 On the outskirts of town, some two miles to the south of the central plaza and roughly adjacent to the slaughterhouse, is the ne ighborhood of El Pastoreo (Figure 1 1). Geogra phically marginalized with 400 plus residents, it was only in 2011 that it was incorporated into the census area of Rosario. 15 There is, for example, no bus route that connects it to the city center, and certain shops offering basic provisions have sprung up within the neighborhood to supply goods to those who choose not to make the trek 12 Sou rce: http://www.teledoce.com/telemundo/nacionales/30612_Fanaesa%3A abandono y contaminacion. Last accessed on April 23, 2013. 13 One commercial example of this is the company Los Nietitos, which began operations in La Paz, Colonia and produces fr uit and dairy products. Source : http://www.losnietitos.com.uy/home.htm Last accessed on April 23, 2013. 14 Source: http://www.camec.com. uy/content/servicios.html Last accessed on April 23, 2013. 15 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosario,_Uruguay Last accessed on October 15, 2012.

PAGE 44

44 into town. While motos (scooters) are prevalent, few of the residents own cars. There are no medical services in El Pastoreo, but there are three educational facilities: an agricultural school, an elementary school and a social service center that houses a government supported preschool and kindergarten. Based on my interactions in El Pastoreo, residents tend to possess lower levels of education (i.e., less than a high s chool equivalent) and work as laborers (e.g., construction, brick making), cleaning services). While this is by no means an exhaustive list the perception of El Pastoreo population is that of a lower socioeconomic class with much less privileged access to basic goods and services than their Centro counterparts, the latter boasting a more bourgeois lifestyle. Over the decades, several generations have been born in El Pastor eo and have, over time, formed a close knit community where most know each other. It is common for offspring to build onto existing family owned structures or beside other family dually (Figure 1 4). Among those with whom I have had contact, a general air pervades that the Centro ), respectively. Based on my contacts with those from t he Centro area, I can say that the feeling is mutual to an extent. The question remains, though, as to whether I have presented to the reader one or two speech communities, since historically these groups have maintained some degree of isolation and separa tion of identity. In the sense that a speech community

PAGE 45

45 Jackson (2007), I would be hesitant to claim two distinct speech communities: within the jurisdiction of the same local government, they share the language of Spanish and certain tell tale phonological features typical of the southern Uruguayan variety, such as shesmo the elision and aspira tion of /s/, and voseo (cf. Lipski 2004). Also, the residents of El Pastoreo frequent the city center and interact with those from the Centro area on a regular basis (while separate, the physical distance is relatively short). In addition, ethnicity in U ruguay is relatively irrelevant as compared with other areas of Latin American where the question is more salient, such as the Andean region. According to the 2011 census, 94% of the Uruguayan population consider ed n fact, the department of Colonia is one of the most ethnically homogenous in the country. 16 On the other hand, however, taking the definition of speech community proposed at the outset of this section (and extended here): conduct and interpretation of speech, and rules for the interpretation of at least one linguistic variety . [mingling] what a linguist would distinguish as grammatically and as 1972, 36), one could argue that the Centro and Pastoreo areas make up two speech communities. Mutual intelligibility and shared local governance aside, linguistic practices that are socially acceptable and thus shared in El Pastoreo may not be so en the Centro and vice versa. Greetings (cf. Pinto 2008; Spencer Oatey 2009: 1), the use of ritual insults (cf. Holmes 1995), levels of in/directness and attenuation (cf. Mrquez Reiter 2002) and the strategies employed to 16 Instituto Nacional de Estadstic a Uruguay. Source: http://www.ine.gub.uy/censos2011/index.html Last accessed on October 15, 2012.

PAGE 46

46 maneuver within various speech situatio ns (cf. Garca 1992, 1999, 2007; Flix Brasdefer 2003, 2008) are only a few of myriad areas in which differences in pragmatic norms can be ascertained. This is one of the questions of the present study : how and to what extent do the practices for negotia ting refusal situations vary based on participant area of origin: Centro versus El Pastoreo. Thus, in this study I have recognize d the possibility of two speech communities within a small geographic area and relatively homogeneous population, and have co nducted the analysis with that possibility in mind. As I show in Chapter 6, however, the refusal behavior between the Centro and Pastoreo groups was surprisingly similar. For the purposes of this study, this finding supports treating the data as having c ome from one speech community. Chapter Organization The organization of the present dissertation is as follows: Chapter 2 presents the major theories of politeness and the theoretical framework chosen for the present study. I also review Speech Act Theor y, as well as previously established frameworks for analyzing refusals. In Chapter 3 I provide a thorough description of the methodology used to carry out the research: instrument design, participant selection and profiles, data collection, data transcri ption and data analysis. I also give the rationale behind each of these procedures. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the refusal strategies used by the participants in answer to the first research question. I discuss these results in terms of in/direct ness of the refusal head act, the salient linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive moves, as well as the use of formulaic phrases and templates. Chapters 5 and 6 answer the second research question regarding the extent to which the participants exchange. In Chapter 5 I analyze the data from the perspective of domains roughly

PAGE 47

47 described as domestic, social and workplace/business. This analysis takes as separate t he social orientation of the talk and the physical setting in which it took place. It reveals Chapter 6 involves the participant characteristics (i.e., age, education level, socio econom ic status/neighborhood of residence) and other social variables pertaining to the addressee in relation to the participant (i.e., addressee sex, relative age, relative education level, relative socioeconomic status and relative power). I also take into co nsideration factors relating to the participant addressee relationship, such as level of familiarity and contexts of contact, generally described as social distance factors. The last chapter, Chapter 7, provides the reader with a discussion of the result s and the overall conclusions. Here I discuss the major findings in relation to previous research and to the theoretical and analytical frameworks guiding the study. One conclusion was that the domain of interaction the sex of the addressee and social d istance factors analyzed individually and compositely were the most important determiners for how the participants of this study refused Thus, examining refusal patterns along various lines underscored the salienc e of certain variables, such as domain, t hat are generally overlooked in experimental studies and also pointed to the need to investigate more thoroughly the inner workings of social distance with data rooted in natural, spontaneous discourse.

PAGE 48

48 Figure 1 1. Layout of the city of Rosar io, as shown by the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, Repblica Oriental del Uruguay (2012b). Central plaza Centro area of research El Pastoreo area of research

PAGE 49

49 A B Figure 1 la plaza Benito Herosa A) Taken from the northeast corner of the plaza looking onto the square and B) from the central square looking south to the statue of Artigas and the Catholic Church. Photos courtesy of Heather Kaiser. A B F igure 1 3 Centro dwellings A) T aken from the northeast corner of the plaza looking onto its north side where a single family dwel ling, situated above the family shop, is nestled between a corner business and a social club and B) a t ypical single family dwelling one block from the central plaza. Photos courtesy of Heather Kaiser.

PAGE 50

50 A B F igure 1 4 El Pastoreo dwellings A ) O ne o f the original ranchos currently uninhabited, and B ) a typical present day multi family dwelling. Photos courtesy of Heather Kaiser.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS Th is chapter discuss es in broad strokes the theoretical literature unde rpinning this study. It consists of three principal sections: 1) politeness theory, 2) speech act theory and analysis and 3) frame work s for analyzing refusals. In the first section, I outline the major politeness theories, concentrating on Brown and Lev inson (1987) and Scollon and Scollon (2001) rk. In the second section, I focus on Speech Act Theory (Austin (1962); Searle (1969)), outline its basic tenets and underlying assumptions, and emphasize the ways in which Speech Act Theory conflicts and coalesces with the latter theories. For t he third section I outline analytical frameworks that have been used previously to analyze refusals and the extent to which they are practical for the present study Politeness Theory As reviewed in much of the discourse analysis and pragmatics literat ure (cf. Watts 2003; Mrquez Reiter and Placencia 2005; Placencia and Garca 2007; Fli x Brasdefer 2008), the most prominent scholars theorizing about politeness (or area thereof) include: Lakoff (1973) (rules of politeness), Grice (1975) (cooperative pri nciple and maxims), Brown and Levinson (1987) (universal model of linguistic politeness/theory of face), Fraser and Nolen (1981) (conversational contract), Leech (1983) (politeness principle and maxims), Aston (1988) ((positive) rapport), Ide (1989) (socia l norm/volition and discernment view), Gu (1990) ( connects p oliteness with moral societal norms), Blum Kulka (1992) (cultural norms/scripts), Janney and Arndt (1992)

PAGE 52

52 (interpersonal supportiveness/tact view), Culpeper (1996) (model of impoliteness), Spencer Oatey (2000) (rapport management), Chen (2001) (model for self politeness), Scollon and Scollon (2001) (politeness/face systems), Watts (2003) (social practice and emergent networks view) and Locher and Watts (2005) (theory of relational work) Detailed descriptions of each of these theoretical approaches are found in Watts (2003), Placencia and Garca (2007) and Flix Brasdefer (2008). For this review, I concentrate on Brown and Levinson (1987) Scollon and Scollon (2001) and that which will serve as th e overarching framework for this study, Watts (2003) and Locher and Watts (2005) U niversal M odel of P oliteness 2 In 1978, Brown and Levinson proposed a theoretical model to account for similarities in linguistic behavior found among s peakers of highly distinct language groups (i.e. English, Tzeltal and Tamil). Noting, for example, that people across groups often employed hedged, indirect speech when making relatively large requests, severe criticisms, etc., they sought to provide an e xplanation for what appeared on the surface to be irrational behavior: that is, communicative behavior that was inefficient, flouting, for example, the Gricean maxim of Manner (i.e. not avoiding obscurity or ambiguity of expression) (Grice 2006). However the fact that speakers from unrelated speech communities did this consistently tuned the researchers in to the possibility that this face into a duality of positive and negative face (discussed below). They theorized that an underlying, unifying and universal force responsible for such similarities. The central question of their 1978

PAGE 53

53 (1987: 57). To answer th willful fluent speaker of a natural language, further endowed with two special properties Every Model Person is rational, i.e. able to use reason to determine t he means by which she or he can achieve some desired end. Additionally, all Model Persons possess both positive and negative face. The notion of image . crucially including the desire that this self imag . (61). In general, it is to the benefit of the interlocutors (assumed to be Model Persons) to preserve satisfied by the actions of others. However, and this is their crucial point, speech acts threaten either positive or negative face. In their framework, certain acts inherently do t his ; these are known as face threatening acts or FTAs. Acts inherently threatening positive face include criticisms, disagreements, raising of emotional or divisive topics (causing the addressee to be put in an awkward position damaging to the self image) the use of address terms (that cause embarrassment to the addressee) and apologies include orders, requests, suggestions, threats, offers (causing the addressee to incur a possible debt), and compliments (possibly causing the addressee to think she or h e may have to protect the desired object) (cf. 1987: 65 68).

PAGE 54

54 It is therefore up to the rational speaker, the Model Person, to determine what course to take based on the ou tcome of a cost the perceived needs of the other in a given speech community. Here, three variables come into play: P (power, the relative status of the speaker to the hearer), D (distance, the social relationship be tween the speaker and hearer in terms of familiarity/intimacy), and R (ranking, how a culture ranks a particular imposition or face threatening act such: Wx = D(S, H respectively (1987: 76). A higher weight corresponds with an increased risk of face loss. Of note is the implication that cultural knowledge vis vis the ranking of the imposition could be as certained by comparing the outcomes of, say, two situations for which the relationships of power and distance are the same. or he will follow a decision based, politeness hierarchy in order to determine the strategy for doing some FTA (cf. figure p. 60 ) Brown and Levinson have identified five main strategies (1 5): where do the FTA b ald on record equals 1 (most face threatening) and do the FTA equals 5 (least face threatening). To ar rive at strategies 2 4, the speaker has chosen to do the FTA, but must then choose whether to do it on record with redressive action ( 2, 3) or off record (4) in hopes that the addressee will understand the message via inference (i.e. implicature (Grice 2 006)) with the risk that she or he may not. At the speaker chooses to do the FTA on record with redressive action this means that she or he to the hearer using either (69 70) :

PAGE 55

55 positive politeness : negative politeness : el predicts that bearing agents will choose ways of doing face threatening acts that minimize those threats, hence will choose a higher numbered strategy as the threat f threatening the or softeners (i.e. bald on record = 1), as when a woman, about to laundry, says to her sk is more serious, a speaker may use an apology (i.e. negative politeness = 3) ; f or example, at a bus stop, one stranger to another (high D) might initiate a request with but . in order to communicate the desire to not impinge upon the addressee. C riticism of Brown and Levinson Such scholars as Ide (1989), Werkhofer (1992), Mrquez Reiter (2000), Eelen (2001), Watts (2003), and Locher and Watts (2005) have criticized Brown and ous coun ts. Since many are interrelated, I have outlined ten key critiques within which certain groups of problematic areas are subsumed. The following is a synopsis of these points. Woven throughout is my argument that these shortcomings necessitate the depart ure from the Brown and approach), which I discuss below. First, Brown and Levinson conflate the notions of first and second order politeness, or politeness1 and politeness2 Watts, Ide, and Ehlich (1992) argue for the need to distinguish between politeness 1 a nd politeness 2, a banner that has been taken

PAGE 56

56 up by others in works such as Eelen (2001), Watts (2003), and Watts and Locher (2005). The difference resides primarily in the empirical versus the abstract, with politeness1 corresponding to commonsense, folk notions of the term, i.e., ways in which polite behaviour is perceived and talked about by members of socio en (2001), fundamental characteristics of (involved with social norms associated with appropriateness), and polite ness (oriented to the polite end of the polite impolite spectrum). Politeness2, o n the other hand, is a theoretical construct in pursuit of linguistic universals; it is informed by politeness1 phenomena and seeks t o explain them. However, a proper politeness2 theory must avoid the trap of being evaluative, normative, and one sided. An acceptable politeness2 theory must take into consideration the discursive (social) struggle 1 involved in the everyday hashing out o f politeness1. In the end, claim Eelen and others, Brown and Levinson fail on all accounts. A s Watts (2003) points out, Brown and Levinson make the error of evaluating a priori which linguistic forms are polite, instead of leaving such notions to th e speakers themselves. In fact, as Holmes (1995), Watts (2003) and Locher and Watts (2005) demonstrate, no linguistic exp ression is inherently polite. Also there is evidence in the literature to support the statement that their universal concepts of p ositive and 1 ore than a

PAGE 57

57 negative face especially the latter are premised on predominantly Western norms of when applied to the analysis of non Wester n speech in interaction (e.g. Gu (1990) for Chinese, Ide (1989) for Japanese, DeKadt (1998) for Zulu). Watts (2003) claims that sided, biased toward the polite end of the polite impolite continuum. It does not and cannot account for im politeness that obtains in the real world of discourse (cf. Kaul de proposes a remedy to this shortcoming by devising positive and negative impoliteness strategies to attack, rather t is merely a patch to a fundamental problem, rather than a significant step toward creating a comprehensive theo negative distinction . Additionally, it assumes politeness values, functions, and meanings 2 of ling uistic forms and strategies to be pre formed and static (Watts 2003; Mrquez Reiter 2000) 1992: 163) of pre conceived polite utterances, it tries to predict what linguistic 2003: 25). It does not pr ovide space for the discursive struggle or the process nature in which politeness is constructed, negotiated and renegotiated in social interaction. The second major problem with Brown and Levinson is that in striving for a theory of politeness2, it discon nects from the first. Politeness1 is important because 2 of situated usage

PAGE 58

58 involve first abstracting away from p oliteness1 by showing how the empirical variability inherent in a politeness1 system is lost in the resulting theoretical model; empirical data that represent no o adolescents, etc.) are excluded from the outset. Werkhofer (1992), Eelen (2001), and Watts (20 03) view the notion of the Model Person as unrealistic and not representative of speakers in everyday, real world interaction. maxims and Cooperative Principle (CP) as a theoretical basis (Grice 2006). It is flouting (purposeful, but cooperative, non fulfillment of a maxim) that is the most interesting for Brown and Levinson, because it gives rise to conversational implicatures. Watts and others (e.g., Ochs Keenan 1976; Locher and Watts 2005) criticize the classic Gricean pragmatics underscoring Brown and Levinson (and others, e.g. Leech 1983) on several accounts: it is contradictory politeness requires one to violate a cooperative maxim in order to be more cooperative (read polite ); it tends toward a Eurocentric bias (cf. Ochs Keenan 1976); its rationality does not allow for the constant negotiation and renegotiation of meanings 3 neglects the social meanings displayed in ongoing discourse, a point also made by 3 Again, Evans (2006) is relevan non natural meaning, i.e. implicatures] is grounded within the traditions of intensional/extensional and truth is in some sense encoded by 205).

PAGE 59

59 correct implicatures are constructed (2003: 208, 206). Fourth is the critique that Brown and Levinson is less a theory of politeness2, and more a theory of facework that (Watts 2003, Locher and Watts 2005). The crux of th is critique is that Brown and Levinson e quate politeness with FTA redress and, in so doing, restrict facework to the polite end of the polite impolite continuum. In fact, Locher and Watts show that positively marked polite behavior is only a small part of the realm of facework/relational work (Figure 2 1). Given that there are some arenas in which it is perfectly acceptable does not always have to do with rational, planned instrumental behaviour in the ef fort to addresses this issue and, as stated earlier, a proper politeness2 theory must account for this reality. The fifth major criticism is that the FTA centered model ass umes that all rational human beings are concerned with preserving their individual image, mitigating face threatening acts whilst satisfying their wants. Nwoye finds this view to reduce social oring of potential threats to This is not appropriate for cultures in which the needs of the social group not the individual take precedence, which is the principal critique of Japanese linguists Ide, et al. (19 92) and Matsumoto (1989). The root of this (Eurocentric) cultural bias is the Brown and Levinson imposed dialectic of

PAGE 60

60 positive and negative face, with that of negative face being highly contentious. It has been shown to be problematic and/or irrelevant f or many language groups, for example : Chinese (Mao 1994, Gu 1990), Japanese (Ide 1989, Matsumoto 1989), Nigerian Igbo (Nwoye 1992), Polish (Wierzbicka 1985), Turkish (Bayaktaroglu 2000), Egyptian Arabic (Mursy and Wilson 2001), Zulu (De Kadt 1998). Watts conceptualization of face ( explained below), since it is able to handle the cases in which negative face lacks validity. Sixth, Brown and Levinson do not make the distinction between what is polite behavior and what is mer ely appropriate. Their theory shows little, if any, regard for behavior that is simply expected (and therefore not polite) or for polite expressions that are perceived negatively by the hearer (e.g., insincerely). This goes back to (Watts 2003: 91 92). In other words, they do not take into consideration how the utterance is perceived, wh ether positively or negatively, and suggest that certain linguistic expressions are inherently polite (i.e. vested with positive or negative politeness). In addition to evidence for this point produced by scholars such as Watts (2003), Locher and Watts (2 005), Holmes (1995), Ide (1989) and Mao (1994), Evans (2006) work in usage based models of grammar makes the argument that words do not inherently possess meaning; rather, meaning is constructed in use.

PAGE 61

61 entities that determine polite meanings, these variables repr esent a narrow approach to (1992: 176). The variable power is problematic because it is not fixed, but depends upon the interactional context. Similarly, social dis tance is not a reliable way to characterize the relationship between the speaker and the hearer; more helpful is the affective relationship between the interlocutors (Watts 2003: 96). Also, we must consider t he point of Ide et al. (1992) that in some languag es (e.g., Japanese ) politeness is contingent upon specific features of the ongoing social interaction, regardless of power and distance Even more problematic is the variable rank of imposition, since it has been shown to be a function of power and soci al distance, and cannot necessarily be calculated independently of the other variables (Ide et al. 1992, Watts 2003: 96, 112). Thus, the variables are conflated. strategies (e.g off record, bald on record, positive/negative politeness). A foremost critique is that it is incorrect to equate indirectness with politeness (Locher and Watts 2005: 15 16; Blum Kulka 1987). Also, what is their basis for the assignment of certain score s to these strategies? Cross cultural evidence suggests that negative politeness strategies are not necessarily more polite, and in some contexts could be perceived as formal, distant, and insincere (e.g. Garca 1989, 1992, 1999; Flix Brasdefer 2008). T hus, such an assignment of scores is not universal, but at best culture specific. Ninth, Brown and Levinson use culture coterminously with society and group as well as synonymously with social cate gory social population geo political entities and entire languages (cf. 1987: 242

PAGE 62

62 255). According to Eelen (2001), their theory defines culture not explicitly, but only in relation to face threats and FTAs. Since all human beings have face and all c ultures redressed . explicate the problem of culture, a concept that is frequently named yet rarely agreed This has been evidenced above in the discussions of face and the P, D, R, W variables as well as with the politeness hierarchy. politeness unexplored (Watts 2003, Werkhofer 1992). Werkhofer suggests that, like money in a market economy, politene . playing (1990), politeness c an be conceived as a mediator between the individual and the actions sanctioned by society (Werkhofer 1992, cf. Watts 2003: 111). U niversal M odel of ( I m) P oliteness 1 As noted, the essential criticism of the Brown and Levinson model of politeness is t hat it is not what it says it is, namely, a universal model of (im)politeness2. Taking to heart the above criticisms put forth by Werkhofer, Eelen and others, Watts (2003) agrees that in order to develop a valid, scientific theory of (im)politeness2, one must investigate the discursive struggle inherent within the evaluative, normative, and argumentative notions of (im)politeness1. Thus, he meets head on the first two

PAGE 63

63 challenges against Brown and Levinson posed above and proposes a universal model of (im) politeness1 (Watts 2003: 261, 263). ways of recognizing when a linguistic utterance might be open to interpretation by a priori politeness value to any linguistic expression or strategy (2003: 143). In this he corresponds with Fraser nce is heard as being polite is totally in evaluations and perceptions of all the participants are important speakers, hearers, third parties, etc. Since in real life exchan ge, these evaluations and perceptions figure into the ongoing verbal interaction, the development of emergent networks, and the provide space for this phenomena and ex plain how this is done. To do this, Watts builds on the distinction he made in earlier work between politic and polite behavior, that someone is being polite this is the norm but rather that the speaker is violating the [conversational contract] 4 behavior, then, is the marked behavior considered by the participant(s) to be in excess of what is expected, an idea which I will develop below. First, however, it is necessary 4 each party brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will (Placencia and Garca 2007: 6).

PAGE 64

64 of social practice. Watts proposes a usage based, discursive model that holds at its core of social practice. This theory holds that at the site of all social opus operatum and the modus operandi modes of behaviours w hich individuals have gained through previous interaction (not interaction based on the opus operatum latent network corresponds to op us operatum while that of emergent network corresponds to modus operandi. Whereas latent networks are structures produced by historical practice, an emergent network is a dynamic process that unfolds among participants in the course of ongoing intera networks can only develop in social practice . on the basis of previously determined modus operandi depends upon the opus operatum Situated within this di habitus The habitus system of structured, structuring dispositions . w hich is constituted in practice and is past, prese nt, and future oriented. The concept of habitus because it intimately relates to the concept of politic behavior. Indeed, the habitus is responsible for constructing politic behavior

PAGE 65

65 objective regularities, and which are likely to be positively sanctioned because they are objectively adjusted to the logic characteristic of a particular field . 1990: 55 56). Thus, the habitus d ispositions to act in certain [ reasonable, common sense] ways, which generates cognitive and bodily practices in the i To the extent that o thers share a similar set of dispositions or habitus it can be argued that these ind ividuals belong to a culture. T he concepts of field and capital help to gain a better understanding of social and linguistic practice. Per the theory of practice, s ocial practice exists and takes place material (e.g., money, goods), cultural (e.g., educ ation), social (e.g., relationships and their quality) and social marketplaces. Note that these marketplaces are never solely material, cultural, and social in nature. F or example, the workplace, schools and friendship groups are essentially fields in the material, cultural, and social marketplaces, respectively; however, friendship groups exist at school and at work; business is conducted among friends, etc. (The idea o f fields in a marketplace corresponds to the that makes up domain ( Fishman incorporation of resources, which become par habitus habitus (e.g. incorporated resources and skills), and 3) the objectified social structures (e.g.

PAGE 66

66 power hierarchies) of the field (i.e. situation within a domain) in which one interacts: [(habitus)(capital)] + field = practice (Watts 2003, 150, 256) J ust as the practices of a field are not confined to any one marketplace, neither is the capital involved. The crucial point for lan guage is this: because language ( one kind of cultural capital) is a fundamental part of all social interaction, it transcends marketplace boundaries. Thus, language constitutes capital at stake in all fields of interaction, not merely those comprising th linguistic practice: [(linguistic habitus)(linguistic capital)] + linguistic field = linguistic practice Hence, linguistic p internalized by the individual as her/his linguistic habitus multiplied by the linguistic capital the individual has gained in the marketplace are combined with the objectified linguistic struct ures o The discursive model that Watts proposes assigns a value (cf. money (Werkhofer 1992)) to the linguistic resources (e.g. fluency in different language varieties and registers) that comprise linguistic capital. Thus, linguistic resources can be thought of as currency linguistic politeness as a form of extr that the values assigned to linguistic resources are not fixed, but, like money, change over time. They are also negotiated by the interactants participating in the exchange. A to change the value of a network link, or to change some part of a

PAGE 67

67 latent network structure (e.g., act outside the realm of politic behavior), is an attempt to The amount capital, and indicative of the options and possibilities available. The exercise of power is particularly significant for the development of an em ergent network, which is constructed in ongoing social interaction (Watts 2003: acce pt the desirab then A has persuaded B. If not, then A has coerced B. The extent to which A will take pains not to make B feel as though she or he has been coerced resides in the rea lm of facework, the notion to which I now turn. effectively claims for himself by the line 5 others assume he has taken during a particular is body, but rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter . discursively. Also, if face is temporarily on loan to the individual from society, it is 5 of think

PAGE 68

68 equally true that the individual participates in lending face to others (Goffman 1967: 10). Hence, the necessity of taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face. Facework serves t that is, events whose effective symbolic implications threaten the biased light of appropriate, polite and face threat mitiga tion behavior, Locher and Watts (2005) propose a more comprehensive view of facework. This view has resulted in what they term relational work (so as to avoid confusion with Brown and Levinson ), invest in negotiating relationships with others . encompassing both appropriate and inappropriate forms of their graphic (reproduced in Figure 2 1) they make the distinction between politi c and polite b ehavior as put forth in Watts (2003), and show how the (im)politeness continuum maps onto this conceptualization. A general truth underlying the theory of relational work is that all polite behavior is politic, but not all politic behavior is polite. Wa tts points out that much of what has non polite politic linguistic behavior that the participants construct as being appropriat 144). In the sense that it is expected behavior, i.e. part of the habitus it is non polite

PAGE 69

69 With regard to positively and negatively marked excess, t wo scenarios illustrate When my one year old son says to stage, I expect him to say this and may oblige his request/demand without thinking that anything is necessarily missing from his utterance. 6 However, on the occasions that he add his utte persuasive power such that I may change my mind about not giving him the milk or get him the milk more quickly. In a crowded bus, however, if someone obliviously steps on me and I say to that pe likely constitute politic (expected ) behavior. It is probable that the person would excuse her or himself while stepping off resolving the situation O n the other hand, if I were to say, conventionalized indirectness the more formal language and the addition of the so called politeness marker as over polite and n egative ly marked Its value exceeds what the situation requires; however, its force is not that of a sincere request but of a sarca stic rebuke T he foot stepper may feel coerced and this evaluation may result in opposition rather than resolution. Thus Watt model of (im)politeness1 is one that appropriately allows for different interpretations of what (im)politeness1 is. It is not an explanatory or descriptive from first order to second order politeness, but one that holds fast to the investigation of (im)politeness1. Neither does it attempt to predict where politeness should occur, nor does it make claims about the de 6 Note that my son would be excluded from the Brown and Levinson Model Person precisely because of y, he is capable of exercising power with its use and persuading me. Both his exercise of power and my perceptions as the hearer are unaccounted for in Brown and Levinson (1987).

PAGE 70

70 facto politeness of an utterance. The latter example above, for instance, supports the argument against indexing polite impolite linguistic behavior with indirect direct speech. It illustrates how politeness is not inherent to any language specific expression, but is discursively constructed, being shaped by the habitus The chal what constitutes politic behavior, and 2) how to identify (im) politeness1. Upon analyzing lines 7 the faces th at they have been or wish to be assigned (i.e. how they are or wish to be perceived by interlocutors), and the politic behavior likely to determine t he discourse behavior (2003 ). These steps imply an in depth knowledge of the situational context, familia rity with the speakers and with the system of symbolic resources ( experiences and beliefs ) that shape their understanding of the world However, Watts does not develop a methodology for the non native researcher to analyze linguistic data from other speec h communities For this I turn t o Speech Act Theory and the analytical frameworks established by speech act based research to better understand what people do with words, being careful not to assign them a priori values of (im) politeness. Scollon and Scollon propose two aspects of face, involvement and 7 ch he expresses his view of the should emigrate to Australia, or A believes that she and B should emigrate (cf. Locher and Watts 2005).

PAGE 71

71 positive and negative face (and, therefore, do not escape the criticisms highlighted above). However, their conceptualization of face is presented more in line with Goffman and Watts in that it is individual Whereas Brown ce is concerned always with the standing of oneself in relation to others (i.e., that one be approved of, but not imposed upon), reflects a two way street: as the discourse unfolds one show s appreciation and approval of others (not just receiv es it), and yet maintain s some degree of individuality degree to which either of these aspects made manifest varies making this model less pron e to complaints of Eurocentric bias a nd irrelevancy. On this view, the i nvolvement aspect of face is (Scollon and Scollon 2001: 46). It i s responsible for s how ing interest in others and in group membership; it emphasizes commonalities and shared viewpoints with others. The i ndependence aspect right not to be completely dominated (47). This is the side that attends to the need for some degree of autonomy for one self and others. These two aspects of face are in tension all the time. The extent to which they are held in balance (or not) is conditioned b y the speakers and the speech situation (Hymes 1972).

PAGE 72

72 Scollon and Scollon claim that there are certain l inguistic strategies that reflect one side of the face dialectic moreso than the other. Strategies of involvement would include but are not limited to the following examples (2001: 50 51) : noticing or expressing concern for addressee; exaggerating interest in, approval of or sympathy for addressee; claiming in group membership with addressee; claiming common points of view, opinions, attitudes kno wledge, etc.; being optimistic; assuming or asserting reciprocity; using less formal terms of address (first names, nicknames, endearment terms); being voluble talkative ; spea S trategies of independence on the other hand, illustrate a desire or need to maintain distance for the purposes of the other or oneself. Strategies illustrative of this side of face might include (2001: 51): giving the addressee options; using language that minimizes impositions to addressee; apologizing; being pessimistic (not assuming addressee wants what you want); using language that distances/dissoci ates the interlocutors from an imposition; stating a general rule (another dissociative strategy); using more formal terms of address (last names, titles); being taciturn ; reserved in speech; lect (despite options). These aspects of face, along with the aforementioned variables of power and social distance c omprise three politeness systems: deference, solidarity and hierarchy. The deference politeness system is characterized by symmetrical power relationships ( P) and more social distance (+ D) (e.g., homologues from different universities that gather for a meeting); in this system we would expect the participants in a conversation to use relatively more independence strategies. The solida rity politeness system

PAGE 73

73 epitomizes close, symmetrical relationships ( P, D) (e.g., good friends for whom status is irrelevant). In this politeness system we would expect a high level of involvement strategies. The hierarchical politeness system involve s asymmetrical relationships (+ P) in which one participant is i nvested with power over another (e.g., employer employee, parent child), but for which social distance is less significant (+/ D). We would expect the participants to reflect their status re lative to the other via different linguistic strategies: those in superordinate positions would use a greater proportion of involvement strategies, while those in subordinate positions would display sensitivity to status differences by using relatively mo re independence strategies. In addition the rank of an imposition can affect the relative use of face strategies. For any system, as the severity of the imposition increases, we would expect relatively more displays of independence strategies; conversel y, for low ranking impositions we would expect more involvement strategies. This has implications for how researchers perceive and describe the linguistic behavior of linguistic groups In the case of Spanish speaking communities, scholars such as Garca Flix Brasdefer, Mrquez Reiter and Placencia have made claims based on the involvement/independence dichotomy or like theories. In the case of Uruguay Spanish and other varieties Mrquez Reiter and Placencia conclude that: in some varieties of Spanish (e.g., Argentinean [Buenos Aires], Peninsular Spanish, Uruguayan [Montevideo], Venezuelan [Caracas]) politeness appears to have more of an orientation towards positive politeness or expressing solidarity, interdependence, affiliatio n towards the interlocu tor. [This] does not necessarily imply that negative politeness or the expression of deference, independence or autonomy is not present. The findings appear to suggest that . when there is a social distance between the interlocutors, Spanish speakers are more likely to make use of negative politeness o r express deference . . If we were to place the different studies reported on the politeness continuum, we would find the

PAGE 74

74 Argentineans, Spaniards and Venezuelans . sitting a t one end of the spect rum, followed by the Chileans and Uruguayans in the middle and the Mexicans, Ecuadorians and Peruvians . towards the negative end of the continuum (2005: 190). is a hypothesis that I test using (cf. Chapters 4 and 7) Speech Act Theory The founders of Speech Act Theory, John Austin (1962) and John Searle (1969), thing (i.e. act) at a time. The hypothesis upon which they base d their work, and for which Searle b elieves he provides evidence (based on his own intuitions) language is engaging in a rule : 22) L inguists espousing a functionalist, rather than a formalist, view of language would counter this hypothesis, arguing for usage based models based on natural data that reveal patterns Watts being one of these scholars. How ever, speech act analysis based on th e general tenet of the Theory than just relay information offers much in the way of an interpretation of discourse. Central to Speech Act Theory is the speech act, comprised of a locut ionary act (the propositional meaning of what is said), an illocutionary act (what is meant by what is said), and a perlocutionary act (what is understood by what is said) (Austin 1962; locutionary verbs and (1977) proposes a speech act taxonomy in which there are essentially five types: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. An apology, for example, is an expressive speake r emotions and feelings ; a refusal is a commissive that s

PAGE 75

75 For a speech act to be successful, Searle proposes that it must meet a set of ely sufficient for such a : 56). Each of these rules focuses on a different aspect of the utterance, including its textual content (propositional content rule), the background ychological state (sincerity rule) and the point of the utterance (essential rule) (Searle 1969, 63). In other words, the speaker is expected to express some proposition or act in an utterance, which must not have been obvious to the hearer before the utt erance (otherwise, what would be the point of saying it) Also, t he speaker must take responsibility for her or his intentions to carry out T his assumes idealized speech under ironies, etc. While the set of Felicity Conditions enable s the performance of a speech act, having fulfilled the m allows one to arrive at illocutionary force. This force is Hence, the idea of the illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) a conventionalized cue used to linguistically achieve a speech act. The IFID (a.k.a. performative) is often a language specific expression generated out of a forms the most direct basis for classifying a speech act. For example, an apology is slixa and perdn direct, Searle later makes the connection between indirectness and politeness, which would be built upon by other scholars such as Brown and Levinson (1987) and Blum

PAGE 76

76 Kulka (1987). While scholars such as Brown and Levinson have equated indirectness with politeness, as discussed above this is not always the case. Certain elements of Speech Act Theory discursive model of (im)politeness. Regarding collision, the mo st notable is a difference in the foundational hypothesis: Searle believes language to be a form of rule based behavior while Watts believes language to be a dynamic system of latent and emergent networks. Searle a philosopher not a linguist depends up o n his own native speaker intuitions and idealized speech circumstances and behaviors for his theory, where as Watts relies on natural discourse emanating from real life speech circumstances. On the coalescent side, both believe that words have the power to do. Whether requesting power far beyond the collective meaning of the words that comprise them. Also, both believe that our individual and shared histories and experi ences shape our utterances elements is always governed by underlying rules (1969: 15). In the study of politic and polite behavior, Se arle based work can assist with first step of determin ing what is politic in order to, secondly, determin e what is getting a sense of the flow of the discursive formats and strategies observable in linguistic practice. In the following s ection, I present previously established analytic al frame work s for analyzing refusals that are commonly cited in the literature. Frameworks for Analyzing Refusals As noted above a refusal is a commissive act that co mmits the speaker to a certain course of action (Searle 1977). It is typically (but not always) a dispreferred

PAGE 77

77 response ( Pomerantz 198 4 ) Refusals most oft en follow some other turn at speaking or initiating act (e.g. a request) T hey can be direct or indirect (conventionally or non conventionally so) and are negotiated in interaction, often instantiating face saving maneuvers (Houck and Gass 1996). Also, they may include adjunct expressions that serve as supportive facework ( Beebe et al. 1990; Flix Brasdefer 2008). Chapter 3 provides more detail as to the scope, identification and coding of refusal s for this study. The present framework for the analy sis of refusal behavior is based on the work of Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss Weltz (1990) and Flix Brasdefer (2008) The major strategies of Beebe et al. are as follows (1990: 72 73) : Where the refusal is direct, we may expect: a) a perf ormative ( I refuse ) b) a nonperformative statement i) No ii) negative willingness / ability ( ) Where the refusal is indirect, we may expect: a) a statement of regret ( I feel terrible ) b) a wish ( I wish I could help you ) c) an excuse, reason, explanation ( My children will be home that night ) d) a statement of alternative ( ) e) a set condition for future or past acceptance ( ) f) a promise of future acceptance ( ) g) a statement of principle ( I never do business with friends )

PAGE 78

78 h) a statement of philosophy ( ) i) an attempt to dissuade the interlocutor i) threat or statement of negative consequences ( be any fun tonight ) ii) guilt trip (waitress refusing to let customers linger: people who just order coffee ) iii) criticize / insult /attack requester ( Who do you think you are? terrible idea! ) iv) request for help, empathy, a nd assistance by dropping or holding the request v) y ) vi) self defense ( ) j) acceptance that functions as a refusal iii) unspecific or indefinite reply iv) lack of enthusiasm k) avoida nce v) non verbal (silence, hesitation, do nothing, leave) vi) verbal (topic switch, joke, repeat part of request, postponement, hedging) Adjuncts to refusals: a) statement of positive opinion / feeling / agreement ( love to ) b) statement of empathy ( ) c) pause fillers ( uhh, well, oh, uhm ) d) gratitude / appreciation Gass and Houck (1999) Flix Brasdefer (2003, 2004, 2008) and others (e.g., Pinto 2003) have used this framework and modi fied it to accommodate the ir data For example, Gass and Houck (1999) added three categories to the framework : confirmations, agreements and clarification/information requests ; Flix Brasdefer (2004)

PAGE 79

79 added two mitigated refusals and, also, clarification requests. Given these modifications and that one of the languages analyzed was Spanish, I gave considerable weight to Flix framework for studying refusals in Mexico and the United States, shown below ( 2008: 72 82): Direct refusals: a) flat "no b) negation of a proposition ( no puedo ; me es imposible ir Indirect refusals: a) apology / regret ( disclpeme, pero . ; me da mucha pena feel really bad b) wish ( ojal pudiera ir c) reason / explanation ( ya tengo planes d) alternative ( qu le parece si nosotros . e) set condition for future or past acceptance ( si consigo quien me d aventn a tu fiesta, llego despus f) promise to comply ( voy a tratar de estar en tu fiesta . your party . g) indefinite reply ( no s si pueda llegar ; ya veremos h) repetition of part of previous discourse i) postponement ( qu posibilidades habra de que pueda posponer la clase? possibility would there be to put the ; voy a pensarlo y luego le digo j) mitigated refusal (expressions internally modified by the conditional mood, impersonal expressions, mental state predicates, adverbs, degree modifiers) k) request for additional information ( dnde va a ser? ; quines van a ir?

PAGE 80

80 l) preparator ( lo que pasa es que ya tengo un compromiso the thing is that I ; sabes qu? no puedo Adjuncts to refusals: a) positive opinion (well wishing, other positive comm ent : es una buena idea felicidades, pero . ) b) agreement ( s pero . yes entiendo perfectamente pero . I understand perfectly ) c) empathy ( es comprensible la situacin en la que nos encontramos de verdad, pero . . . d) gratitude / appreciation ( de antemano le doy las gracias e) willingness ( me encantara ir a celebrarlo, pero . I would love to go and celebrate, but . Internal modification of a refusal sequence: a) mental state predicates ("I think "I believe") b) modal adverbs ("probably "unfortunately") c) degree modifiers ("kind of "sort of " como que ") d) tag questions (" . is that okay?" ; . o s? ") The above coding schemes guided the present study with the added benefit of making it easier to compare to others that have used the same system The advantages of Flix examples of the strategies in Spanish and labeled them, where applicable, as expressing involvement or independence (Scollon and Scollon 2001). However, it was not always possible or feasible to code in exactly the same manner, because of the different t ypes of data used (i.e., experimental verus natural). Table 2 1 shows the framework that emerged for the pr esent study in comparison to those above The differences are further discussed in Chapter s 4 and 7 Complete definitions of all strategies used a nd examples for each are given in the Codebook (Appendix C).

PAGE 81

81 Table 2 1. Comparison of frameworks for classifying refusal strategies Agree Beebe et al. (1990) Flix Brasdefer (2008) Kaiser (2014) I. Where the refusal is direct, we may expect: I. Direct refusals: I. Direct refusals : a) a performative b) a nonperformative statement i) No a) flat "no" a) No ii) negative willingness / ability b) negation of a proposition b) negates proposition c) com mand II. Where the refusal is indirect, we may expect: II. Indirect refusals: II. Indirect refusals:* a) a statement of regret a) apology / regret apology / regret repair b) a wish b) wish c) an excuse, reason, explanation c) reason / explanation reason / explanation appeals to external support or party blames hearer / other claims / implies hardship justify / minimize offense statement of information d) a statement of alternative d) alternativ e alternative counter argument / correction e) a set condition for future or past acceptance e) set condition for future or past acceptance condition f) a promise of future acceptance f) promise to comply (alternative) g) a statem ent of principle statement of principle / philosophy h) a statement of philosophy (statement of principle / philosophy) i) an attempt to dissuade the interlocutor i) threat / statement of negative consequences attacks / threats / warns / ridicules / insults hearer ii) guilt trip i ii ) criticize / insult /attack requester ( attacks / threats / warns / ridicules / insults hearer ) complain rhetorical form sarcasm iv) request help, empath y, assistance

PAGE 82

82 v) let hearer off the hook vi) self defense self defense j) acceptance that functions as a refusal i) unspecific or indefinite reply g) indefinite reply indefinite re ply ii) lack of enthusiasm acceptance/agreement to do X k) avoidance i) n on verbal (silence, hesitation ) delays response / ignores ii) verbal: distracts from offense topic switch topic switc h joke jokes / laughs repeat part of request h) repetition of part of previous discourse repetition / reiteration insists / tries to convince postponement i) postponement postpones hedging j) mitigated refusal * k) request for additional information request for information / confirmation doubts hearer l) preparator preparator III. Adjuncts to refusals: III. Adjuncts to refusals: a) statement of positive opinion / a greement a) positive opinion (well wishing, positive comment) wish / positive feelings compliment b) agreement (partial or weak agreement) confirmation / acknowledgement backchannel claim common ground / display solidarity concess ion / admission / disarmer b) statement of empathy c) empathy comprehension / empathy concern for hearer / other reassures hearer c) pause fillers pause filler d) gratitude / appreciation d) gratitude / appreciation gratitude e ) willingness (wish / positive feelings) emotional expression ( stand alone ) IV. Internal modification of a refusal sequence: III. Internal modification (downgraders / upgraders): a) mental state predicates ("I think", "I believe") hedge / subjectivizer / understater

PAGE 83

83 b) modal adverbs ("probably", "unfortunately") (hedge / subjectivizer / understater) c) degree modifiers ("kind of", "sort of", como que ") (hedge / subjectivizer / understater) d) tag questions o s? ") appealer / cajoler anticipates interlocutor apologetic / empathetic intonation commitment indicator conditional verb forms discourse marker emotional expression ( embedded ) endearment term express ions marked for register ( lamento decirte . . ) impersonal expressions ( no se puede laughter / smile voice loudness / emphatic intonation proper name IV. Other formulas (variou s) post refusal small talk Supportive moves (a.k.a. adjuncts to refusals) can also be comprised of these strategies; ** los guantes no se pueden tocar! ( the gloves can't be touched! ) would be coded a s a negation of the proposition, internally downgraded by the impersonal se, as well as upgr aded by the emphatic final tone; a ( ) indicates agreement with at least one other framework; also, a strategy in parentheses indicates a combined category that has fit a previous slo t.

PAGE 84

84 R E L A T I O N A L W O R K negatively marked unmarked positively marked negatively marked impolite non polite polite over polite non politic/ inappropriate politic/ appropriate politic/ appropriat e non politic/ inappropriate Figure 2 1. Relational work and its polite (shaded) version adapted from Locher and Watts ( 2005: 12 )

PAGE 85

85 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Chapters 1 and 2 reviewed the literature concerning the speech act of refusals and discussed the th eoretical and analytical framework s guiding th e present study T his chapter explains in detail the methodology employed for data collection and analysis and the rationale behind these decisions. It begins with a description of the general procedure: the testing and design of research instruments, information on the chosen speech communities, as well as the selection of participants and their profile. The following sections detail how I collected and transcribed the data, along with the rationale behind the approach. The chapter ends with an in depth look at the procedure for analysis: how the data were coded, the qualitative comparisons made and the statistical tests appropriate for the corpus. General Procedure The core focus of the data collection p rocess was to obtain naturally occurring speech via digital voice recording. While I will explain the procedure for this process in the next section, I begin here with a description of the research instruments that I designed and used to support the voice recordings. Also, in this section I outline the method for recruiting participants and give a brief profile of the group Instrument D esign and T esting Fo r this study I combine d elements of the ethnographic and conversation analytic approach es ( discus sed below) ; the ethnographic approach informed the data collection process while work on conversation analysis informed the transcription procedure Because it was important to be able to analyze extralinguistic features surrounding the talk in conjunctio n with the talk itself it was imperative that I find an

PAGE 86

86 efficient way to record the physical setting, scene, characteristics of participants, mnemonic SPEAKING) (Hymes 1972: 63 64) as unobtrusively as possible. Th us th is project employed three instruments to ful fill Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements and to assist in data collection: an informed consent form (Appendix A), a background information questionnaire a nd a conversation log (Log) (Appendix B). With regard to informed consent, I wrote the form first in English, then in Spanish. Three native Spanish speakers proofread the document and provide d input. The Institutional Review Board also required a back translation comparable to the original English text, which I provided. The other two instruments I designed in Spanish; the English versions are for reference only, since they were not used in the study nor required by the IRB. The first, entitled Informa cin de fondo, collected basic information about the participants, and verified that they were from the community in question and spoke no other languages before Spanish It economic class s ystem and, finally, probed their general thoughts about what it means to be im/polite and asked them to give examples This last request served the purpose perceptions of (im)polite/politic behavior (Spradley 1980) while the questions regarding economic class allowed the participants to shape my local knowledge regarding this topic and to explain to me how they viewed themselves within their own country and community Th regarding their situation and to allow their (emic) perspective to better inform my (etic)

PAGE 87

87 analysis (cf. Harris 1976). Based on native speaker feedback, I chose also to use the t pronom inal and verbal forms for this questionnaire. The second instrument entitled Registro de conversacin ( hereafter, Log), I employed as a tool to keep track of those people with whom the participant interacted during her day. I t record s the time place and purpose of the conversation, interlocutor characteristics ( e.g., name, sex, profession, socioeconomic status relative to the participant), and asks questions regarding their relationship ( e.g., context and frequency of contact, how well they kn e w each other, degree of confidence). Finally, it gives the participant space to describe how she felt about the interaction, if it bothered her in any way (possible areas of non politic/inappropriate behavior), or if it generated good feelings (possible areas o f polite politic behavior). As stated above, the goal of (Harris 1976: 334 335) was to collect data that a) I had no other way to collect, b) would clue me in on key li nguistic exchanges without revealing the specific research goal ( i.e., how refusals are done) and c) would allow me to analyze their linguistic behavior in terms of extralinguistic variables shown to be relevant in previous studies ( e.g., Labov 1972; Wolf ram 2003; Tannen 1990; Wagner 2000 ) I designed the L og as a tool that either the participant or the researcher could fill out quickly after each encounter; due to its informal and quotidian nature, I wrote it using the vos pronominal and verbal forms. Before finalizing these data collection instruments, I corresponded with two Uruguayans (in Uruguay) a nd asked them to proof the documents and give their comments for improvement. This feedback led to the final versions shown in

PAGE 88

88 Appendices A and B. In ad dition, once in Uruguay I conducted a trial run of the data collection process with a contact outside of the targeted community, which led to some minor revisions of the L Participant R ecruitment T en Urugua yan women, ranging from 19 to 61 years of age, provided the data for this study I eschew ed experimental tools such as discourse completion tasks and directed role plays and focuse d instead on collecti ng naturalistic data from spontaneous face to face int eraction. To obtain the participants, I ventured in to t he Centro and Pastoreo areas of residence (Figure 1 1, orange and red arrows, respectively). Having lived in Rosario in the late nineties, I relied on my previously established contacts and the snowb all recruitment method, where one participant led to another and that contact led to another, etc. The women self reported their socioeconomic status as either middle or lower, which corresponded to the C entro/ Pastoreo division. 1 Hence the analys e s prese nted in the following results chapters are based upon the data of ten Uruguayan women, five from the Centro and five from El Pastoreo I obtained i nformed consent (Appendix A ) in writing from all of the women participants and verbally from her interlocutor s. Each woman also completed a background information form (Appendix B, discussed below ) and received modest monetary compensation for her participation. Participant P rofiles A profile of each of the ten participant s is given in Table 3 1 The women from the Centro area ranged from 31 to 61 years of age with an average 11 years of formal 1 classifications from the Centro class, with the majority self

PAGE 89

89 education (including technical training ) ; those from El Pastoreo ranged from 19 to 39 years of age with an average 8.6 years of formal education Regarding profess ion al and socioeconomic status, all of the Centro women were small business owners either personally or by proxy : Rena owned and ran her own shop; Mar ran two branches of the business owned by her and her parents; Isabel, Moqui and Ana were spouses of bu siness owners and were either assist ing ( e.g., Isabel as secretary) or ha d assisted in the family enterprise. As I e xpect ed, all of the participants in the Centro group categorized themselves as some level of middle class ( e.g., media baja clase media media alta In contrast, n one of the participants from El Pastoreo owned or shared in ownership of a business They took part in voluntary capacitation programs ( e.g., homemakers Ela and Lea), 2 provided childcare and food preparation services, bui ldings and grounds services, or had spouses who worked in construction trades Only one of the women in this group, Ari, maintained supervisor y status over a group of subordinates as a coordinator of a government funded worker capacitation program. T hus i t met my expectation that all of the participants in this group categorized themselves in terms such as clase baja and pobre status. With the exception of Mar, all a re mothers, though in different stages: at the time of the study, all of the women from El Pastoreo had primary school age children (or younger) at home For the Centro group, the same was true only for Isabel and Moqui. 2 At the time of the data collection, these women were participating in a culinary workshop that met once to twice a week at the Social Service Center in El Pastoreo. The training was part of a publicly funded initiative aimed at lower income famili es by the Ministerio de Desarrollo Social

PAGE 90

90 Rena and Ana both ha d older children at various stages of independence w ere enrolled in secondary school and the university, requiring comparatively much less though the son happened to be living at home during the research period. Thus I rese rved the for those who either labeled themselves as such or who spent the majority of the day caring for (her own) younger children and attending to business related to the home such as shopping for groceries and other necessities Data Collection Methodological C onsiderations and R ationale behind A pproach Since no speaker is unencumbered by society, and no society could exist without individual speakers (Fishman 1972, 453), I chose an approach that link ed macro and micro socioling uistic issues. An Ethnography of Speaking (ES) (Hymes 1972) diverse codes that fulfill functions within the community (a macro sociolinguistic perspective) . [and] a lso look [ing] at . the way in which community members use various types of speech to fulfill [ the functions of particular speech behaviors ] (a micro sociolinguistic approach) : 12 13). Thus, ES is an appropriate method for the study of fac e to face refusals within domains, because it takes a co ntextual look at the speech act within variables ( e.g., This has implications for data collection in that ES works best with spontaneous speech. ES data typically consist of natural, spontaneous talk audio recorded by a linguistic/pragmatic) with informants of the same speech community. These informants

PAGE 91

91 ir community and the variety of spee ch under analysis Given stretches of talk recorded in the field, for example, they can offer their reactions and insights (Spradley 1979, 1980; Agar 1980). I n fact, i t is via this method of recording, identifying target discourse, and triangulating with a member of the group (also known (Spradley 1980 ; Agar 1980; Johnstone 2000). Thus in order to capture spontaneous speech useful to this study, it was necessary to craft a method for collecting data that 1) was discreet, 2) did not sacrifice sound quality, 3) could be understood in the context of people and places, and 4) would pr knowledge of and reactions to the conversations in which they took part. 3 Recording of D ata A dministration of I nstruments and F ollow U p Given the above methodological considerations, I designed and implemen ted the following procedure, which involved both written and recorded data. On the day that a participant was to begin, I met with her to review the informed consent form, which she then read and signed (Appendix A). I did not tell her that I was studyin g refusals, but that I was interested in linguistic politeness among U ruguayan women and how I could learn from them in order to become a more competent Spanish speaker myself and to better teach students in the United States taking Spanish as a foreign la nguage (as recommended by Jessi Elan a Aaron, personal communication June 3, 2009 ). I answered any questions that she had regarding the study and reiterated that she was free to turn off the recorder at any time ( e.g., during a very private conversation w ith a 3 I had to perform a type of triangulation with my participants that would not betray what I was looking for, since I was still collecting data and did not want to risk other participants finding out by word of mo uth. I was unable to carry out triangulation of the other kind where you play back a recording to another speaker of the same community and gather her/his reaction due to time limitations. Now that I have processed the data and identified refusal sequenc es, this would be a future research step.

PAGE 92

92 spouse, to go to the bathroom), and also that she was under no obligation to complete th e study, should she not desire. Regarding a participant s interlocutors, we obtained verbal consent before, during or after the exchange; I made the consent form available to anyone interested. (My presence made it fairly obvious that something was going on, and the other person would almost always ask about it .) In the case of the participant who worked at the government funded day care a t the social services ce nter, we solicited and received project. In other cases, some participants sought and obtained consent on my behalf before agreeing to make recordings. For relatively imperso nal public transactions, such as buying bread, it wa s accepted practice to let the speakers know that they ha d been recorded after the fact (Adolfo Elizaincn, personal communication April 12, 2009 ); however, in public areas where we happened to catch peo inform these speakers. Once a participant signed the consent form I asked her to fill out the background information form (Appendix B), while I readied my notes and equipment I was available to field any requests for clarifica tion. I would then talk with her about her answers and record this interaction; this would be her first experience with the voice recorder, and an opportunity for me to teach her how to use it and to determine the best position for her to wear it. After c ompleting this initial intake procedure, the participant began recording data, discretely wearing a lapel microphone connected to a digital voice recorder. A trial tons were easily pushed when placed

PAGE 93

93 in a p ocket, so I secured a cell phone holder that prevented most accidental cut offs. Each woman participated in the study for three to four days, roughly eight hours per day, and received modest monetary compensation at the end of each day. T aking the ES ap proach, in which data collection inv olves capturing contextual features such as the physical setting, the psychological scene and participant characteristics I accompanied every woman for the first day in order to get a feel for h er routine and to familia rize myself with the places and people where and with whom she most interacted. During this time, I documented her interactions with others with field notes, including contextual and non verbal cues. For the remaining days, in order to minimize the effec e.g., Labov 1972) and increase the naturalness of the data I generally left the participant on her own, checking in occasionally to ensure that the equipment was working properly, to answer any questions, and to follow up wi th her about the activities of her day. This loosely follows participants to make recordings of their social groups without her present. I explained and left with them copies of the Log (Appendix B) inviting them to use it throughout the day but not requiring it T his was to help them keep track of the people with whom they came in contact and the details of their interactions (time, place, purpose, etc.). At the end of each day I collecte d retrospective verbal reports about each of the people that the women spoke to that day ( e.g., relationship to the interlocutor, their perceptions of him/her, if they noticed anything out of the ordinary about the interaction, etc.) (cf. Agar 1980 ; Flix Brasdefer 2008). I used the Log as a guide for our daily follow up/debriefing session. Indeed, t his approach satisfied the four criteria outlined in

PAGE 94

94 the previous section, allow ing me to make observations and intelligible recordings with minim al intrusion in different domains of interaction: in the home, at social gatherings, in the workplace and during service encounters. Data Transcription Conventions U sed In conjunction with an ES based approach for collecting the data, I took a C onversat ion Analysis based (CA) approach for transcribing the recordings. clearest strength is its demand for the attention to detail in the transcription (Lazaraton 2004 ; Markee 2004 ; Atkinson and Heritage 1984). In C hapter 1 I suggested that more carefull y presented transcriptions would add valuable knowledge and more intricate perspectives regarding the inner workings of a conversation. While details such as intonation and non verbal cues (in the case of video recorded data) may be apparent to the resea rcher, they are not accessible to the audience, unless one makes them so. A nother positive feature of CA is that the attention to phenomena that one had either not noticed prior or had not thought important. In thi s way, the researcher is better able to let the data speak for themselves The caveat is that a full blown CA transcript is extremely time consuming and impractical, especially for large bodies of data. While I agree with the CA tenet that the process of transcription is very much a part of the data analysis, for this project which generated nearly three hundred hours of recorded data the key wa s to strike a balance. The first step was to prioritize the recordings based on instances of refusals that I had witnessed or t hat my participants had told me about during our follow up sessions ; also, I included a recording on my hunch that it was likely to contain refusal

PAGE 95

95 sequences For each of these recordings which totaled approximately eighty hours, I produce d a general transcript ( i.e., the bare bones of who said what and where). Within this general transcript I identified stretches of talk containing refusal sequences and transcribed them in finer detail, according to conventions based predominantly on Jeff (Table 3 2) Identifying Refusal S equences As previously noted, a refusal is a commissive act that commits the speaker to a certain course of action (Searle 1977). It is typically a dispr et al. 1995: 121). For this to the extent that, in some cases, this action could also be des cribed a s a rejection or disagreement. T he propos ed action could be of more explicit nature ( e.g., a request for an item) or more implicit in quality ( e.g., a s tatement of analysis subject to approval). One might think of the latter type of refusal more gener ally as considers for a study on the speech act of refusals; however, in the sense that the participant disallows or contradicts a proposition of another speaker, that disallowance or contradiction is a reject ion of that proposition and, therefore, a refusal of it. That stated, I did focus the analysis on propositions tending toward the explicit side. Re fusals typically follow some other turn at speaking or initiating act ( e.g., a request), can be direct or indirect, and are often negotiated in interaction, frequently instantiating face saving maneuvers (Houck and Gass 1996). These maneuvers may take the form of adjunct expressions that serve as supportive facework (Flix Brasdefer 2008) i.e., mitigating su pportive moves ( Blum Kulka et al. 1989; Spencer Oatey 2000) Other moves, however, serve to increase the impact of the refusal, often ( but not

PAGE 96

96 always ) n egatively, i.e., aggravating supportive moves ( ibid. ) The entirety of this interaction is what I have termed refusal sequence (1999)) D ue to its negotiated and iterative nature, it follows that more than one refusal can occur within a refusal sequence. In Hymesian terms, we might equate the refusal sequence to a speech event and the refusal to a speech act within the event. For this study, a refusal sequence minimally consists of at least one refusal prompted by a mand, i.e., "a type of speech act, the purpose of which is to persuade or force someone to do something, e. g., a command, request, instruction" (Jackson 2007: 64). As noted above, I have expanded this definition to also include propositions that elicit an For this study the following mand types obtained: invitations ( e.g., cundo me vas a invitar a tomar un caf? when are you going to ask me out for coffee? ) instructions / orders / demands ( e.g., dmelo que yo lo llamo. ) requests ( e.g., se puede ir con e l grupo viejo? is it pos s ible to go with the old group? ) offers ( e.g., algo ms, negrita? anything else, dear? ) statements / analyses ( e.g., que yo ya voy a a traer la yerba. yerba ) 4 suggestions ( e.g., no ser esto? ) mands (interlocutor or mand type unclear, but uptake indicates a mand) 4 In Uruguay, yerba or yerba mate is a type of loose tea used throughout the day to drink mate Images and descriptions are found at http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Mate_(beverage) Last accessed on April 23, 2013.

PAGE 97

97 One problem that I have considered is that s ome times mands c an be considered for more than one category For example, the p roposition cundo me vas a invitar a tomar un caf? ( when are you going to ask me out for coffee? ) could be c lassified as a n invitation a request for information or even a suggestion I recognize that an utterance can more perform multiple functions simultaneously and to different degrees. However, for the purposes of this analysis, I classified this mand as an invitation based on the use of the performative (i.e., invit ar to invite ) and based on triangulation with the participant who happened to m ention this exchange (without knowing that I was interested in it) stat ing that the male speaker had effectively asked her out Unfortunately not all mands possess ed such deciding factor s. For these, I based their classification on grammatical and prosod ic clues ( e.g., verb al mood interrogative inflection ) a s well as t he participant ( i.e., the interpretation that her response displays). A dditionally, I discussed some mands w ith a co coder and together we came to a consensus. I ba sed the method for delimiting the boundaries of the refusal sequence on my subjective perceptions of what constituted sufficient contextual information and objective observations of natural breaks (participant movement, topic switches, etc.) in the discou rse. Due to the context specific nature of each sequence, their length and content are not necessarily comparable, ranging from two turns at talk ( e.g., an offer f ollowed by a direct refusal) to ninety (when Ari negotiates her way out of an order to work on her day off). Also, as stated above, some sequences contain more refusals than others ; when the initial mand is negotiated, this tends to generate subsequent refusal acts. If the subsequent act(s) pertain ed to the initial mand, I considered it /them

PAGE 98

98 to be part of the same refusal sequence. The following discourse between Isabel and her partner Milton is an example of a refusal sequence with multiple mands refusals, and supportive moves : (1) Milton requests a tea bag (Isabel 25). REQ = request, REF = refusal, SMM = mitigating supportive move, SMA = aggravating supportive move 1 Milton: (no tens) t de bolsito? ((REQ 1)) 2 Isabel: ((pauses, perhaps looking)) 3 Milton: hay [uno que es digestivo no? ((REQ 2)) [ t 4 Isabel: [no ((REF 1)) [no. 5 Isabel: se: nos termin: @ cuando @ vino a qul que estaba medio resfriado, y no compr ms. ((REF 2)) tengo que ir a buscar la caja. (( SMM )) inished to us): @ when @ that one (masc.) came who had sort of a cold look for/ get the box. ... 6 Milton: y el boldo? no~ ((REQ 3)) and the boldo tea? no ? 7 Isabel: no. ((REF 3)) no/ te digo (que) se terminar on todo. (( SMA )) no. no, I tell you (that) all gone. An analysis of the transcripts for the ten participants revealed 275 refusal sequences between them and other adult interlocutors I obtained another 135 refusal sequences between mothers/car etakers and children (<15 years); however, due to the inherently different nature of adults interacting with children ( as opposed to adults ) I decided along with my supervisory committee to exclude these data from the present study. Additionally, we deci ded to exclude another portion of sequences in which I

PAGE 99

99 participated as the mand giver so as to limit the effect that a non Rosarian could have upon the results. The final count of refusal sequences totaled 243. Data Analysis Methodological C onsideration s and R ationale b ehind A pproach The procedure for data analysis derives from combining elements of ES and CA As a non native Spanish speaker and non resident of the speech community studied, the ES approach was important for gaining insight as to how the participant perceived her interlocutor and, on occasion (when the topic happened to come up during follow up interviews), what constituted a refusal. This information I used to assess social distance and, to a more limited extent, power relationships. A lso, the ethnographic information gleaned from observation and follow up interviews allowed me to accurately assess, for example, the domain of interaction in which a refusal sequence took place and whether or not there was anything that stood out about th e interaction (i.e., if someone was rude, forward, exceptionally polite, etc.). While it would have been ideal to triangulate with the participant and glean her emic perspective on her own refusals (her thought processes, her evaluations of and expectatio ns for the situation, etc.), the need to conceal the fact that I was studying refusals precluded this. To offset this lack, I employed a modified version of CA transcription procedures sal behavior. Markee and Kasper (2004) contend that CA has the power to illuminate language standards and expectations for interaction, due to its detailed, microanalytic approach. Among other things, this methodology allows the researcher to uncover dyn amics of turn 2002: 60). Analyzing talk from a

PAGE 100

100 inter actional competences on the basis of production alone: Specifically, analysis can be generated out of matters observable in the data of interaction. The analyst is thus not required to speculate upon what the interactants hypothetically or imaginably unde rstood . . Instead, analysis can emerge from observation of the conduct of the participants (Heritage and Atkinson 1984: 1). From a CA perspective, an utterance must be analyzed in its local context i.e., as it is situated in the transcript Thus, for the study of a particular speech act, it is in sufficient to only look at utterances construed as that act ; rather, one must consider the turns at talk that precede and follow these utterances as well. Schegloff writes that taking sentences in isolati on is not just a matter of taking [them] . out of the context; but that the very composition, construction, assemblage of the sentences is predicated by their speakers on the place in which it is being produced, and it is through that that a sentence i s context bound (1984: 52). Indeed, t he microanalysis of the structure of talk brings to light how internal structures, such as the turn taking system and sequencing of linguistic stra tegies (see below), reflect the practices for both producing speech be haviors and dealing with those of others (Heritage and Atkinson 1984). L ooking at the text in this way allows one to see ho w constructs like power relations, affective relations and gendered identities are actually oriented to in the course of an interact ion. This is in direct opposition to assuming their type, fixedness and relevance a priori Inherent to the present analysis is the concept of linguistic strategy The i dentification and description of linguistic strategies along with how they we re use d in the discourse, wa s central to the coding process. Linguistic strategies are tactics that a speaker may employ to construct discourse within and negotiate a conversational situation and whose use may be subject to polite or impolite interpretation. W e may

PAGE 101

101 on a particular occasion, and which are recognized by an interlocutor in order to convey of (1) above, Isabel refuses with various strategies. She blam es the hearer/other with the use of the impersonal se and by explicitly referring to her step son ( se: nos termin: @ cuando@ vino aqul que estaba medio resfriado ). She does this while giving an overall reason/explanation ( se: nos termin: . y no compr ms .) in which she also includes an admission of having not bought more ( y no compr ms ). She then distracts from the offense, saying that she has to look for or get the box that the tea came in ( tengo que ir a buscar la caja ). Because I was not at liberty to ask the participant why she chose one or more strategies, attending to the transcript was all the more important. In some instances, the micro analytic approach led to unforeseen ins ights. For example, in (1) there is possible e vidence of priming when the turn final no in line 6 is followed immediately by a turn initial no in line 7. not just its content played a role in the refus al process (see Chapter 4). Also, delayed responses often indicated (impending) refusals, while quick responses typically accompanied agreements (Pomerantz (1984) also claims this). Had I not attended to pauses and delays within and between turns at talk I would have missed this detail. While a CA p erspective claims a l ocal view of context that is independent of participant insights a nd social/extralinguistic variables, th ese are accounted for in the ES framework, which allows for of events/interactions including the conversational setting and ends (Hymes 1972; Schiffrin 1994). On the basis of this

PAGE 102

102 view, I considered, for example, the domain of interaction a composite of place, relationship and purpose; this, in fact, emerged as o ne of the most salient factors influencing refusal behavior (see Chapter 5). Thus, attention to both macro and microlinguistic detail lent to a more well rounded analysis; the combined ES/CA approach shed relatively more light on Uruguayan Spanish speake r norms of interaction, from both a holistic (ES) perspective and a locally contextualized (CA) view. Coding P rocedure T he codebook for this project is presented in Appendix C. P reviously established coding schemes (i.e., Beebe et al. 1990; Flix Brasdefe r 2008) detailed in Chapter 2, provided a starting point for defining i dentifying and coding linguistic strategies. As the coding process progressed, the nature of these data necessitated flexibility, since natural data do not follow a delimited structu re designed by a researcher Recall that the aforementioned studies all dealt with elicited data C odes for linguistic strategies and others required iterative analysis and the application of multiple codes to some portions of text ( e.g., turn 5 of (1)) To assist in this process, I used the program MAXQDA 10 to code the transcripts, organize the coded segments, and perform comparative analyses. Based on Spencer politeness research, I followed a five step coding process when a refusal was evident and the refusal sequence parameters defined: identify the utterance(s) with the intent to mand and those with the intent to refuse and code for mand type ; determine the semantic components involved in these utterance s : alerters, head acts and supportive moves. The head act is defined as that can ( Blum Kulka et al. 1989: 275) while supportive moves are external to the head act and can be mitigating or aggressive ( e.g., positive wishes versus threats ) (288);

PAGE 103

103 code the refusal head act as either direct ( typical examples: no no puedo ¡and! get outta here! ) or indirect ( typical examples: veremos no s I ); code for upgraders ( e.g., i ntensifiers) and downgraders ( e.g., hedges) within the head act s and supportive moves; these can be syntactical, morphological, lexical/phrasal, or ha ving to do with speaker tone; identify the linguistic strategies (illocutionary domain) involved in the ut terances within the refusal sequence ( e.g., requesting information, say ing no, giving an explanation). Coding R efusals: an E xample The following is an example of a coded mand and refusal: 1 R ena: qu puede ser. 2 Clienta: alguna bufanda de ho : mbre o que pueda usar un hombre una ne:gra o algo? 3 Rena: ay no, creo que no me queda nada/ xxx. haba una negra ah ay no, I think that (lit. nothing is left to me). xxx. there was a black one over there Illustrating the first t hree steps of the coding process, l ine 2 constitutes the utterance with the intent to mand, in this case, a request. This utterance in its entirely a direct refusal of the request, flanked by two mitigating supportive moves or SMMs : ay no (head act direct refusal), creo que no me queda nada/ ( out/ (lit. nothing is left to me) ) ( SMM ), haba una negra ah ( there was a black one over there ) ( SMM ). R egard ing step four, upgraders and downgraders, I analyzed where th ese could be interpreted with i n refusal head acts and supportive moves. They could be lexical, morphological, syntactical or tonal in nature Within ay no : the tone of regret with which it was said softens the impact of no (downgrader), while ay is itself an emotional

PAGE 104

104 expression that intensifies degree o f regret (upgrader ) ; cre o que : a subjectivizer (or mental state predicate) mitigate s the reiterat no message (downgrader ) ; no me queda : the use of quedar + [i ndirect object pronoun ] distances Rena from the offense of non compliance 5 (downgrader ) ; nada : intensifies the negation (upgrader); haba una negra ah : (none detected). With respect to step five, linguistic strategies, I coded each utterance according I followed strategy names given in the established literature ; wher e not available I created new ones ( e.g., rhetorical form, e.g., qu quers que haga? whaddya want me to do? ) A clarification might be useful here: w hile the use of s upportive moves, upgrad ers and downgrad ers are also strategies for n egotiating withi n a refusal sequence these are different from linguistic strategies T he former are more over arching or metastrategic; the latter are more utterance specific, coded according to the illocutionary force conveyed The same utterance can carry multiple co des. Line 3 contains the following linguistic strategies (multiple codes separated by a comma) : ay emotional expression ay no no, apology/regret creo que subjectivizer, hedge no me queda nada negates proposition (proposition implied) haba una n egra ah alternativ e Coding for D omain In addition to the above, I also coded for the domain in which each of the refusal sequences occurred. Each received two codes, one concerning the orientation of the 5 I n the expression no me queda the verb acts as a reverse psychological predicate (like gustar) In these constructions the agent (my participant the syntactic subject) is downgraded to the e xperiencer (indirect object), and relinquishes control over the action, thereby lessening the participant's share of responsibility for the "offense." This qualifies it as a syntact ic downgrader.

PAGE 105

105 interaction and one for its physical context (Ta ble 3 3) The first code answered the question as to the nature of the talk: domestic social or business/work oriented This resulted in 1 07 domestic 4 5 social and 91 business/work oriented refusal sequences (n=2 43 ). The second code answered the question as to the physical setting in which the talk took place : domestic, social or business/work This showed that of the 2 43 refusal sequences, 96 occurred in a domestic setting, 33 in a social setting and 11 4 in a business/work setting. These discr epancies are due mostly to the fact that friends and in shops and stores where one of the interlocutors was working. Data considered for the domestic domain included interactions recorded at the in automobiles, and during family oriented outings. Within the category of domestic oriented talk, I distinguished between couples talk and other domestic talk In the social domain, conversations were recorded while visiting friends and attending social events or gatherings ( e.g., a get together among friends, a soccer game setting up for a party ). I also co ded as socially oriented those conversations recorded during work br conducted or discussed In the workplace domain, the data primarily came from the transactionally ended outings. This included talk at work with colleagues, clients, bosses and subordinates, as well as talk in service and institutional encounters. Within this category, I differentiated between service encounters and general work encounters, also taking power relations into account (cf. Codebook, Appendix C).

PAGE 106

106 In cases where one domain overlapped with another ( e.g., talk generated by a couple (domestic) buying clothes assisted by a salesperson ( business/ work)), I coded them on a case by case basis. For example, if the couple was alone in a dressing room with no one present, I cl assified their interaction as domestic ally oriented within the physical context of business/work ; however, if they were discussing aspects of the purchase with the salesperson, then I classified the exchange as business/ work oriented Trickier wa s how to code a couple speaking to each other in public when one c ould no t be sure that they we re alone. For this conundrum I created two codes: couples private and couples public under the domestic domain. In another example, M ar would drive her shuttle route (business/work domain) with her brother (domestic domain) and friend (social domain ). While the van is technically a workplace from which Mar picks up and drops off customers, it is also very much a locus of conversational interaction characteristic of th e social domain and, potentially, family matters. For situations like these where the lines we re unclear, I followed Agar (1980) in conducting informal ethnographic interviews (where I d id not read from a list of questions, but attempt ed a conversation) i n order to glean the perceptions of t he situation In this particular circumstance, Mar reported that she considered these conversations very much social in nature, as opposed to familial or business; for this reason I coded Mar ns in the shuttle bus as socially o riented, unless they related specifically to business (or family) matters Secondary Coding and I nter coder A greement I randomly selected refusal sequences from each participant totaling 25 sequences to be reanalyzed by a second coder. This totaled 10% of the data. We met personally to discuss the codebook and the procedure for coding; I then used MAXQDA

PAGE 107

107 10 to compare the results and calculate a percentage of intercoder agreement. The results indicated agreement of 90% or better for eighteen sequences, 80% or better for six sequences, and 73% agreement for one sequence (Table 3 4) W e then discussed th e instances on which we disagreed and came to a consensus about each. Though this approach was less stringent than cal culating an intercoder reliability coefficient for each code, the agreement ac hieved inspires confidence that another researcher using the same coding method would achieve similar results Qualitative Comparisons and Statistical A nalysis The data analysis software MAXQDA Version 10 ( VERBI Software 201 1 ) provided the platform for coding and making qualitative comparisons. A b enefit of using this program is that it allow s the coder t o assign certain attributes to each refusal sequence ( e.g., participant age education socioeconomic status addressee sex ), and as many codes as desir ed to utterances within sequences ( cf. Codebook, Appendix C). The coder can t hen compare these attributes and codes within and across d ifferent categories (e.g., domain, age, man d type) Various t ools within the software help visualize the relationships between codes : for example, the extent to which they (co) occur in a sequence, are found near each other, and/or overlap These outputs can easily be exported to a spreadsheet (e .g., Microsoft Excel) for further analysis. The data also lent to some quantitative statistical analysis. For this I used SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (IBM Corp 2012) Because exploratory analysis showed that the data were not evenly dist ributed, I conducted non parametric bivariate correlation test s b with two tailed tests of significance, exluding cases pairwise. This analysis allowed me to determine, for example, which were the linguistic strategies that significant ly correlated with the different head act type s and

PAGE 108

108 supportive moves. Based on this type of information, I then conducted non parametric linear regression tests using Statistical Analysis System software (SAS Institute Inc. 2013) t o find out which of the significant predictors ( e.g., linguistic strategies) ac counted for the most variance. For each analysis where applicable, I used the Durbin Watson test to assure that there was no autocorrelation of the residuals and, therefore, no problems with multicoll inearity. Additionally, for nominal variables such as domain, I conducted Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests to compare the means of relevant predictors and find possible significant differences across categories. The results of the analysis will be take n up in the next chapters, organized by research question

PAGE 109

109 Table 3 1. Participant profiles Alias Age Area Job Edurank Classrank Ela 19 Pastoreo homemaker 7 1 Lea 21 Pastoreo homemaker 10 1 Fabiana 31 Pastoreo childcare, homemaker 9 1 Isabel 31 Ce ntro secretary, homemaker 11 2 Ari 33 Pastoreo program coordinator 11 1 Mar 34 Centro shop owner/ chauffeur 8 2 Moqui 35 Centro secretary, homemaker 12 2 Rita 39 Pastoreo janitor/cook, childcare 6 1 Rena 47 Centro shop owner 12 2 Ana 61 Centro direc t sales, homemaker 12 2 is based on se lf classification, where 1=low SES and 2=middle SES.

PAGE 110

110 Table 3 2. Transcription conventions adapted from Atkinson and Heritage ( 1984). Symbol Description Example [ simultaneous or overlapping utterance A: dicen que tena [gripe H1. B : [la A? ] marks end of an overlap ; typically used when there is more than A: sos de Rosario [porque naciste ac pero tus orgenes [son: -B : [del Uruguay.] [no:, soy de Rosario. = contiguous utterance ; does not overla p A: xxx no era la Gripe A.= B : =no era la gripe? : extension of sound or syllable A: dame:: carne picada? s tutter or stammer A: LA la la verdulera me queda a media cuadra / -abrupt cutoff A : la saqu B: no no no stopping fall in tone oft en indicating utterance finality A: qu gripe. continuing intonation, not necessarily phrase final A: cmo ands Isabel, vas a salir a algn lado hoy? level intonation or trailing utterance rising intonatio n A: LA la la verdulera me queda a media cuadra/ \ falling intonation / \ Intonation rises then falls A: si no me lo pags despus/ \ ~ a strong rise fall pattern, typically utterance final A: se puede probar de sta~? ? questioning inflection, not necessarily a question A: eh? animated or exclaimed utterance A: gracias! chau! @ laughter A: chau. @@@ CAPS talk that is louder than surrounding talk A: DE presin? speaker quotes someone or something else, reported talk A: le digo, (0.0) interval between utterances (seconds) A: un camisn le traemos. ya tendr(n). B: (1.5) y unas botas. (unsure) items in doubt A: un camisn le traemos. ya tendr(n). ( A / B / C) item in doubt; possible alternatives separated by a slash A: vos le (comprs / cobrs Tere / cobraste) o yo le compro? ((words)) coder comment A: ((al hijo chiquito)) hiciste? xxx unable to decipher A: xxx hicimos la torta hicimos la yerba tambin. stretch /lines of talk omitted A: vamos Violeta porque estos,

PAGE 111

111 Table 3 3. Refusal sequences by domain: by orientation of talk and physical setting (Domestic, Social, Bus/Work). Domestic oriented Social oriente d Bus/Work oriented Total Domestic 82 77% 7 16% 7 8% 96 40% Social 9 8% 24 53% 33 14% Bus/Work 16 15% 14 31% 84 92% 114 47% Total 107 100% 45 100% 91 100% 243 100% Table 3 4 Intercoder agreement between researcher and cocoder No. Refusal Seq uence Agreement % 1 Fabiana 2 100 2 Moqui 6 100 3 Mar 9 96 4 Ari 9 95 5 Ela 12 95 6 Lea 10 95 7 Ana 3a 94 8 Fabiana 1 94 9 Mar 19 94 10 Rita 16 94 11 Moqui 18 93 12 Rena 3 93 13 Ana 19 92 14 Isabel 52 91 15 Rena 9 91 16 Ela 5 90 17 Lea 5 9 0 18 Rita 5 90 19 Ela 1 89 20 Isabel 36 89 21 Rita 10 89 22 Isabel 25 88 23 Rena 4 87 24 Mar 1 82 25 Fabiana 3 73

PAGE 112

112 CHAPTER 4 REFUSAL STRATEGIES This chapter focuses on the results as they pertain to the first research question: How do female Uruguayan Spanish speakers from Rosario realize the speech act of refusing? The hypotheses are two fold: Hypothesis 1 is that Rosarian refusals will consist of linguistic strategies that have been previously cited in the research on refusals, albeit to different extents; Hypothesis 2 is that, in accordance with Mrquez Reiter and Placencia assertion regarding Uruguayan politeness, Rosarian refusals will exhibit more strategies in line with affiliation tow Taking the data as a whole, I first give a general description of the results. Then, I refusal head act and the most important linguistic strategies th at surfaced, including upgrading and downgrading Also, I show the exten t to which they employed supportive moves adjunct to the head act mitigating and aggravating and the corresponding linguistic strategies that correlated with th ese Finally, I identi fy and discuss the linguistic formulas (i.e., set phrases and templates) that emanated from the data. General Description of Results From e ighty hours of participant recordings I extracted and analyzed some 2 8 3 refusal sequences (herein, sequences) for th is project I discarded forty sequences, due either to interrater discrepancies or because the sequence did not satisfy the criteria for consideration as defined in Chapter 3 leaving 243 sequence s Recall that since the sequences were negotiated in man y instances it was possible for more than

PAGE 113

113 one mand and mand type to be present F or this reason there were 370 mands, corresponding with 3 70 head acts, in the 2 43 sequence s coded. The most frequent mand types that emanated from the data were suggestio ns. situation also emerged as being subject to refusa l, while orders and invitations were present, but the least frequent. A summary of mand types follows: suggestions ( n = 1 1 6 ) statements / analyses (n = 7 4 ) offers (n = 5 6 ) requests (n = 52 ) instructions / orders / demands (n = 3 3 ) invitations (n = 7 ) mands (n = 32) total mands, all types (n = 3 70 ) As was highlighte d in C hapter 3 ( and discussed at length in Chapter 5 ) 1 07 sequences (4 4 %) qualif ied as domestic oriented talk, 4 7 ( 19 %) as social oriented and 89 (3 7 %) as business oriented. public spaces ( e.g., the cen tral plaza) to semi public spaces ( e.g., a social club) to purpose driven gatherings ( e.g., a sporting event, a wake) to businesses and worksites. With re area of residence the Centro group generated 1 41 (5 8 %) sequence s and the Pastoreo group 10 2 ( 42 %) Th ough the cleavages along which the data s ubdivide are un equal I take this issue into account in the following chapters when I discuss the data in terms of these variables To briefly summarize the data present ed in the followi ng sections, I now outline some key figures pertaining to the 3 70 refusal head acts (Figure 4 1) I coded 19 4 (5 2 %) of these as indirect and 17 6 (4 8 %) as direct ; also, I noted 49 linguistic strategies used in these head acts : 4 5 of these were found in in direct head acts and 3 1 in direct

PAGE 114

114 head acts 1 I obtained a similar number 3 72 of supportive moves though heavily stacked on the mitigating side (7 7 %) There were 28 6 m itigating supportive moves ( herein, mitigating moves ) and 8 6 aggravating supportive mo ves (herein, aggravating moves ) in which I identified 5 3 linguistic strategies : 5 0 of these were found in mitigating moves and 3 7 in aggravating move s In addition, head acts and supportive moves were often semantically strengthened and weakened with the use of upgraders and downgraders Participants more frequently downgrade d than upgrade d within indirect head acts and mitigating move s; conversely, they tended to u pgrade rather than downgrade within direct head acts and aggravating move s. (In)Directnes s in the Refusal Head Act refusal head act. I present the frequency of indirect and direct refusal head acts, the extent to which they co occur in refusal sequences, their re lationship to mand type and priming effects, and the extent to which they correlate to supportive moves, upgrading and downgrading. I provide a more detailed analysis of the actual linguistic strategies that compose head acts and supportive moves in the f ollowing section. As noted above, out of 3 70 refusal head acts I coded 52 % as indirect and 4 8 % as direct However, though particpants refused with indirect head acts s lightly more often than with direct ones, this does not necessarily indicate a preferen ce for indirectness. (And I do not make the case for one or the other here but aim to show the extent to which they preferred certain types of head acts relative to certain c ontextual 1 Linguistic strategies do not pertain, necessarily, to any overarching category, e.g., the strategy in supportive moves.

PAGE 115

115 features.) Looking at the data another way, I found that sequence s co ntaining only direct head acts outnumbered those solely with indirect head acts ; a smaller portion exhibited both direct and indirect head acts within the same refusal seq uence (Figure 4 1) So, what are we to make of this seemingly paradoxical situation? A look at certain fea tures of the refusal sequences help to explain this. Feature One: Number of Refusal Turns at T alk per S equence A non parametric test of two or more independent samples rejects the null hypothesis that the distribution of refusal tur ns at talk (herein, refusal turns) is the same across categories of sequence type i.e., indirect only, direct only, or both present (p< 0 .00). P airwise comparisons show significant differences between all possible pair combinations In other words, it is meaningful that the mean number of refusal turns for direct only sequence s was 1.1 6 with a range of two, while the mean number for indirect only was 1.49 with a range of six. The mean for sequences with both head act types was 2.68, with a range of three I n sequence s with only one refusal turn the head act tended to be direct. Also as the number of refusal turns per sequence increased the more likely it was that th e sequence would be of the indirect only type (Figure 4 2) Further s tatistical an alysis confirms that the number of refusal turns significantly correlate s in a positive direction with both indirect (.5 12 p<0.0 0 ) and direct (.2 27 p<0 .01) head acts but much more strongly for indirect 2 The explanation for t h is is apparent from the cr oss tabulation data ( Figures 4 3, 4 4 ) and s upport s the argument of the previous paragraph These data show that as the number of refusal turn s per sequence increase s so do es the use of indirect head acts. The number of indirect 2 b and a two tailed test of s ignificance.

PAGE 116

116 head acts per sequence r ange s from zero to seven (Figure 4 3) while the number of direct head acts per sequence never exceed s three (Figure 4 4) T hese results indicate that as participants negotiate d more ( i.e., generated more head acts per refusal sequence) they were more li kely to employ i ndirect head acts. Se quences containing direct head acts tended to be shorter ( i.e., less head acts per refusal sequence). These differences are significant and add strength to the argument that the longer, more negotiated refusal sequen ces tend to boast indirect head acts, while those with direct head acts (especially direct only) tend to be short and quickly resolved. This leads to the next feature mand type. To what extent d id mand type have to do with the way the participants refuse d? Feature Two: Mand T ype When broken down by mand type, we observe some differences in refusal behavior in terms of (in)directness (Tables 4 1 to 4 4) Orders and i nvitations consistently received more indirect head acts 3 ; both correlated positively wit h the indirect head act type ( 18 2 p<0.01 for orders ; .121, p<0.05 for invitations ). R efusals to offers were more often direct. In many of these instances, the use of overt directness also had to do with structural priming, take n up below. Of note is t hat n o mand type correlated significantly with direct head acts except invitations in the negative direction. Refusals to requests and statements consisted of more or less equal numbers of indirect and direct head acts at the token and case levels ; there was no significant relationship for requests, but a weak correlation between statements and indirect head 3 That is, at both token and case levels of analysis. By token level, I mean that I counted all instances of a variable within each sequence or case; by case level, I mean that I counted if a variable was present or absent in a sequence, rega rdless of how many times it actually occurred, where absence = 0 and presence = 1.

PAGE 117

117 acts (.126, p<0.05) Suggestions produced more indirect refusal head acts at the token level (.153, p<0.01) but, at the case level, direct refusals emerged as more prevalent (meaning that the additional indirect head acts were involved in more negotiated sequences ) As with orders, I claim that the use of overt directness to refuse suggestions also had to do with lexical priming, which I discuss as a third feature. I n terms of sequence type, there is little to add, except with respect to sequences in which both indirect and direct head act s were present. The both present type positively correlated with suggestions and statements and most strongly w ith statements ( suggestions = .124, p<0.05; statements = .26 6 p< 0.00 ). N on parametric test s of two or more independent samples retained the null hypothes i s that the distribution of suggestions wa s t he same across sequence types but rejected it for state ments (p <0.00 ) Fo r statements, there w ere significant difference s between direct only and both present, and between indirect only and both present sequence types (p<0.00 for each). In sum, the strongest evidence, both qualitatively and quantitatively, points to t wo findings : 1) the participants of this study tended to refuse orders and invitations using indirect head act strategies, and 2) they refused statements using both head act types, often within the same refusal sequence T he frequency data sug gest that refusals to offers favored direct strategies though this relationship was not significant Requests and suggestions like statements received both indirect and direct head act strategies but, unlike statements, not as typically within the sam e sequence (Table 4 5) Feature Three: Priming E ffect As mentioned above, there is evidence to suggest that direct refusals to certain mands were influenced by how the mand was linguistically structured. For this reason, I

PAGE 118

118 suggest a third feature p riming effect that would help shed light on the high frequency of direct refusal head acts and why direct only refusal sequences tend to be short er ( i.e., one refusal turn ) and non negotiated. To my knowledge, this is not a feature that is readily pointed out i n the predominant research on refusal speech acts In some instances, an offer, for example, would take the form of algo ms anything else or qu ms what else as in A below. The rejoinder, B, negates the proposition by employing the same structur e, but w ith the negative counterpart nada ( no thing ). Since the participant in B could have just as easily replied no,nada, gracias ( no, nothing, thanks ), her repetition of ms is potentially an example of lexical priming, in which the use of a certain lexical item spurs the subsequent use of the same lexical item ( Travis 2007 ) (( buying produce, Fabiana 2)) A Sales man : qu ms? what else? B Fabiana : nada ms. nothing else. ((sale closes; participant takes leave and departs)) In these types of exc hanges, the refusals are short, non negotiated, direct, and perfectly politic. One g ets the feeling that should an addressee receive an indirect refusal in these types of situations, she or he would find it pragmatically odd. In another example, now dea ling with suggestions, the phrase final tag no? in C is a potential prime for the direct no in D : (( participant with her partner in a shop trying on a pair of jeans Ela 12 )) C Roberto : me queda muy apretado, no ?

PAGE 119

119 ( lit. n o ) ) ? D Ela : no: te queda bien. no: it fits you well. Other options available to the one refusing are present in the data, such as the s + pero [x] template ( e.g., hypothetically, s pero se agranda despus de los usos yes but it [the pair of pants] will stretch out after wearing them ) However, use of no to cap his on no to begin her refusal. Likewise mands structured in terms of yes/no questions with and withou t negatively phrased clauses (E, G), tend to receive no as a refusal response (F, H) : (( Isabel 25)) E Milton: (no tens) t de bolsito? hay [uno que es digestivo no? gestive right ((lit. no))? F Isabel: ((paus e s ; looking? )) [no ((tense pronunciation )) [no (( at a shop, s aleswoman offers to put purchase Moqui 44)) G Saleswoman : te lo anoto aquello?= shall I record it for you?= H Mo qui: =no lo pago. =no Statistical analys is supports these observations convincingly. Before proceeding, I would clarify that priming effect as a feature of refusal behavior was not something that I set out to look for, bu t was a phenomenon that emanated organically from the data; in fact, I did not even notice it until well into the analysis process. At that point, I went back to the data and coded for mands and refusals that exhibited possible and/or likely

PAGE 120

120 effects of st ructural or lexical priming, typically within zero to two clauses of the previous/initial mention. 4 I took into consideration the repetition of lexical forms and syntactic patterns; I did not account for morphological primi ng or the subsequent While a definitive study of this topic is outside the bounds of this research project it presents an area for future research. I tested the following for potential correlations with t he variable for priming effects ( Prim ing ) : indirect and direct head acts, aggravating and mitigating supportive moves, up and downgraders, and sequence types ( Figure 4 5 ) Indeed, Priming positively correlate d with direct head acts and refusal sequences in which only direct head acts we re present, and negatively correla te d with indirect HAs and indirect only RSs. Additionally, there was no significant relationship with supportive moves or up/downgraders, which makes sense, given that 1) direct only refu sal sequences tended to be short er and less negotiated overall 2) in the case of structural priming, repeated patterns of use become conventionalized (Bybee et al. 1994), requiring less explanation or modification and 3) in the case of lexical priming, t he repetition of a previous mention is fair game and likely politic, having been implicitly justified by its use in the turn before and because repetition has been established as a rapport building strategy in an of itself ( Tannen 1987 ) To corroborate the correlation statistics, an independent samples Kruskal Wallis test rejected the null hypothesis that the distribution of Priming is the same across 4 Scholars such as Travis (2007) examine much greater distances (in terms of turns at talk) from the previous mention. Future study with my own data set could revisit the t opic and take into consideration more factors, such as verb class and TAM.

PAGE 121

121 sequence types Pairwise comparisons show that priming effects are significantly different between direc t and indirect only types and between indirect only and both present types (Figure 4 7 ). Table 4 6 demonstrates the extent which Priming was found in head act and sequence types. As this table shows, Priming occurred much more readily in direct head act s and direct only sequence s than in their indirect counterparts. In order to discern whether there could have been interaction between Priming and mand type, I also tested for correlations between these. Table 4 7 demonstrates the frequency of Priming by ma nd type. A su bstantial number of refusals to requests and suggestions displayed a potential priming effect ; b ut only suggestions resulted statistically correlated to Priming ( .15 2 p <0.05 ) (Figure 4 6) Thus, i t appears that the presence or absence of an observed priming effect goes further than mand type in (in)directness in the head act. It may be the case, too, that mands such as suggestions and requests prompted as many direct head acts as they did because of a priming effect that took place between the speaker and the participant. In fact, 42 % of direct refusals to suggestions and 56 % of direct refusals to requests showed evidence of lexical or syntactic priming. S upportive M oves and Head Acts U pgrading and D owngrading The most prevalent supportive move was the mitigating move which appeared in 65 % of refusal sequences and in 38 % of refusal turns Thus, p articipants often soften ed the refusal head act in the immediate turn whether refusing indirectly or d irectly ( e.g., as in D above) Statistically, indirect head acts correlated positively with the variable for supportive moves (.1 4 5 p < 0.0 1 ) ; however, pairwise comparisons did not detect a statistical difference in the distribution of mitigating move s a cross refusal sequence type s And although neither head act type correlated statistically with

PAGE 122

122 downgraders, mitigating move s and downgraders displayed a strong relationship with each other (.37 6 p < 0.0 1 ). Aggravating moves were less frequent, appearin g in 2 6 % of refusal sequences and 1 3 % of refusal turn s The majority of aggravating move s occurred in the domestic sphere of interaction while the greatest portion of mitigating move s presented in the business domain ( this nuance will be further discusse d in Chapter 5 ) Recall that aggravating moves do not necessarily offend or attack the interlocutor, but, by definition, strengthen the refusal head act ( e.g., with repetition or reiteration). While the use of aggravating moves w as not nearly as typical as the use of mitigating move s they correlated positively with direct head acts (.2 83 p < 0.0 1 ) and, not surprisingly, upgraders (.4 81 p < 0.01 ). D irect head acts correlated with upgraders as well (.24 5 p < 0 .00). P airwise comparisons displayed no s tatistical difference in the distribution of aggravating move s or upgraders between indirect and direct only sequence type s ; they did detect differences for each of these types with the both present type In other words, referring to Table 4 8 refusal s equences having both direct and indirect refusal head acts were more likely to contain aggravating move s and upgraders than the ir homogeneous counterparts. The reason for this is unclear, but likely stems from the fact the both present type ha d the larges t mean number of refusal turn s, indicating more opportunities for head act modification. Another possible explanation is that the largest portion of both present sequences ( 18 of 37, 49%) played out in the domestic domain, which is where the majority of a ggravating move s occurred. The following is an example taken from a both present sequence type:

PAGE 123

123 (1) First (direct) refusal from a b oth present sequence type with aggravating move s and upgraders domestic domain, ( Ana 1 5 ) (( Ana and her partner finish ing l unch at home ; Ana prefaces this refusal with two SMAs: an emotional expression and a complaint (underlined) and upgrades throughout ( underlined )) 1 Roger: =vos. ((pauses, mouth full)) (hoy) voy a dormirme esta tarde. = hey ((lit. you)) ((pauses, mouth full)) (today) I take a nap this afternoon. 2 Ana: EH? ((short pause)) AH t engo entonces que ordenar eso el desbarajuste que hay all atrS ((pause, plates clink )) lamento decirte que no vas a tener siesta. EH? ((short pause)) AH so I have to straighten all that up then ((firewood)) that mess back there ((pause, plates clink )) I am sorry to tell you that you will not be having a nap. To summarize, I have found that the participants of this study relied heavily on supportive moves when refusing. Head acts and supportive moves were often semantically strengthened and weakened with the use of upgraders and downgraders, respectively Mitigating moves correlated closely with downgraders as did aggravating move s with upgraders Mitigating moves were much more prevalent than aggravating moves; the former weakly correlated with indirect head acts and the latter more strongly with direct. The use of mitigating move s appear s to have been prevalent across the board, while aggravatin g move s were more contextually constrained How refusals vary according to contextual features is a topic that I will take up in the next chapter s Linguistic Strategies In th e sections to follow, I report on th e linguistic strategies that emanated from the analysis D efinitions and examples of all the strategies for which I coded are found in the codebook (Appendix C). Table 4 9 displays all of the linguistic strategies found in refusal head acts and their frequencies: at the sequence level, as a total number of head acts, as indirect head acts and as direct head acts. Table 4 10 does the same for

PAGE 124

124 mitigating and aggravating moves. Tables 4 11 and 4 12 show the key linguistic strategies for head acts, supportive moves and by mand type. Several of the strateg y codes shown here are combinations of like strategies that, although separate in previous studies, occurred so infrequently that I combined them in order to streamline the codebook and maximize the effect of the variable. For example, subje ctivizers ( e.g., me parece que it seems to me that ) and understaters ( e.g., un poquito a little bit ) ( cf. Blum Kulka et al. 1989) are often used to soften or hedge an utterance; for this r eason I combined hedges, subjectivizers and understaters into o ne variable (i.e., HedgeSU ) 5 The same can be said for the strategies of claim ing common ground and display ing solidarity with the interlocutor (i.e., CCGSolid) since claiming common ground is a type of solidary strategy. I also merged appealers ( e.g., viste? you see? ta? okay? sabs ? you know? ) and cajolers ( e.g., viste (que) you see (that) sabs you know ) into one variable (i.e., AppCaj) given their similar forms and function as hearer engaging speech items (cf. Blum Kulka et al. 1989). Li n guistic S trategies: Head A cts Forty nine linguistic strategies emanated from t he refusal head acts. Ind irect and direct head acts shared 27 strategies ; eighteen were unique to indirect head act s (e.g., Agree, Alternative) and f our to direct head acts (e .g., Negate Proposition, Anticipate) W ith so many possible strategies, it was crucial to better understand the extent to which a certain strategy was indicative (or not) of a head act type. For this I used non parametric statistical analysis (Figure s 4 9 through 4 14) B ivariate correlation analysis 5 Before merging these tokens into one variable, I performed a qualitative analysis to verify that the subjectivizers and understaters included indeed effected a downgrading or he dging force. I did not merge tokens that did not meet this requirement.

PAGE 125

125 ( Figure 4 9 ) show ed that indirect head acts positively correlated with twenty one strategies and negatively correlated with two others ( strategies unique to indirect head acts* ) : Positive: Agree Alternative Appeal to External Support/Party App/Caj Bla me Hearer/Other Claim Hardship, Condition Confirmation/Acknowledgement, Counter Argument/Correction, Delay Response/Ignore, Discourse Marker, Distract from Offense Doubt Hearer 6 HedgeSU, Indefinite Reply Postpone, Reason/Explanation, Reasure Hear er, Request Information/Confirmation Self Defense, Topic Switch ; Negative: N e gate Proposition, No To determine which of these correlated strategies were the most indicative of indirect head act s I performed a non param etric re gression procedure using the correlated head act strategies as the set of predictors to test. Within the model, the parameter estimate (PE) indicates the strength of the relationship to the dependent variable and its direction (po sitive or negative). This model accounted for 69 % of the variance 7 of the variable HAInd. E ight of the correlated strategies from above were significant in the regression model six in the positive direction (Figure 4 10). From strongest to weakest PE, t he predictors showing a correlation in the positive direction were (see Appendix C for full text examples ) : PE > 6 0: Delay Response/Ignore ; PE > 40: Doubt Hearer (e.g., sera yo? Indefinite Reply (e.g., veremos Alternative (e.g., o lo hacemos antes do it [have the get ; PE > 30: Counter Argument/Correction (e.g., pero hay viento all abajo DOS y veinte son TWO twenty ; 6 This factor approached significance (p = 0.061) at the head act level, but was significant at the general (LS) level (p = 0.017). Also, it was significant (p = 0.0001) for the nonp arametric regression test using SAS. 7 Based on R Square (non adjusted).

PAGE 126

126 PE > 20: Request Informa tion/Confirmation (e.g., pero es para todo el pblico en general? 8 S trategies such as claiming hardship, distracting from the offense or giving a reason/explanation were not significant in the regression m odel. For direct refusal head acts, I followed the same procedure Figure 4 9 shows that direct head acts correlated with thir te en linguistic strategies. Seven correlated positively and six strategies correlated negatively (strateg ies unique to direct head acts* ) : Positive: Command, Concession/Disarmer Emotional Expression, Negate Proposition No, Repetition/Reiteration, Rhetorical Form; Negative: Agree, Alternative, Discourse Marker, Indefinite Reply, Reassure, Request Information/Confirmation The regression model acc ounted for 77 % of the variance for HADir and produced nine significant predictors three i n the positive direction (Figure 4 11) From strongest to weakest PE, the se predictors were (see Appendix C for full text examples): PE > 60: No (e.g., no ay no la mesa NO NO /NOT the table ; PE > 40: Negate Proposition (e.g., no puedo nada ms Command (e.g., dejale las pantuflas fijate cualquier cosa ) 9 What is informative about the regression results is that they give almost mutually exclusive lists; no strategy is positively correlated to both indirect and direct head acts It is also important to note that some indirect exclusive strat egies did not make the cut in the regression model, while some strategies that were common to both indirect and 8 The strategies No and Negate Proposition correlated to HAInd in the negative direction. 9 The strategies Agree, Reassure, Request Information/Confirmation, Alternative, Indefinite R eply and Discourse Marker correlated to HADir in the negative direction.

PAGE 127

127 direct head act s ( e.g., Counter argument/Correction, Command) are now shown to be statistically associated with one or the other head act type. Table 4 11 summarizes the most salient linguistic strategies into two tiers. Tier 1 strategies are those that were significant in the regression model (i.e., those listed above) Tier 2 strategies are those that both correlated in the positive direction and were frequently observed ( i.e., present in 5% or more sequences ) but that were not significant in the regression model 10 The Tier 2 strategies for indirect head acts we re : HedgeSU confirming / giving a re ason or explanation, using discourse markers and claiming hardship. The Tier 2 strategies for direct head acts were less varied: repeating and/or reiterating an utterance and using emotional expressions The se Tier 1 and Tier 2 strategies were the most indicative of the refusal head acts for th e data set. Linguistic S trategies: S upportive M oves Supportive moves, be they mitigating or aggravating, also drew upon numerous linguistic strategies. Fifty two strategies emanated from the data : mitigating a nd aggravating moves shared 3 3 strategies ; sixteen were unique to mitigating move s (e.g., R eassure H earer, I ndefinite R eply, C oncede) and three to aggravating moves (i.e., A ttack/ T hreat, Rhetorical Form, S arcasm) (Table 4 10) As in the previous section I employ ed statistical tests in order to better understand the relationships between strategies and supportive moves. Figure 4 9 shows that mitigating move s correlated with thirty linguistic strategies All correlated in the positive direction (strategie s unique to mitigating moves* ): 10 Note that for a strategy to be statistically correlated, it does not have to be among the most frequent.

PAGE 128

128 Positive: Agree Alternative, Apology, AppCaj, Appeal to external party, Blame Hearer/Other, CCGSolid Claim Hardship, Comprehension/Empathy Concede Condition, Confirmation/Acknowledgement, Counter Argument/Correction, Distract f rom Offense Hedge SU Indefinite Reply Insist, Joke/Laugh, Justify/Minimize Offense, Pause Filler, Postpone, Reason/Explanation, Reassure Hearer Repair Repetition/Reiteration, Request Information/Confirmation, Statement of Information, Statement of Principle/Philosophy, Topic Switch Wish/Positive Feelings ; Negative: None The n on parametric regression model, using the above correlated strategies as the set of predictors to test accounted for 59 % of the variance 11 of the variable SMM Nine of the correla ted strat egies from above were significant in the model ( Figure 4 1 2 ) From strongest to weakest PE, these were (see Appendix C for in text examples): PE > 40: Reassure Hearer (e.g., no se preocupe Claim Hardship (e.g., y . n o tengo plata an d . Concede (e.g., es rica la marcela pero ; PE > 30: Appeal to external party (e.g., yo le pregunto a ver qu hacemos ask him [partner] to ) Alterna tive (e.g., hay un treinta y cinco ) ; PE > 20: Reason/Explanation (e.g., porque el tema es el vehculo thing Joke/Laugh (e.g., as mejor porque entonces la patea y no pica. @@@ way anyway because then [ when ] he kicks it it Indefinite Reply (e.g., en cualquier momento capaz que s /possibly ) ; PE > 10: Confirmation/Acknowledgement (e.g., s y bueno claro O ther strategies were not significan t in the regression model, though some ( e.g., Hedge SU ) occurred rather frequ ently in mitigating moves. 11 Based on R Square (non adjusted).

PAGE 129

129 For aggravating moves, I followed the same procedure. Figure 4 9 shows that aggravating moves correlated with seven teen linguistic strategies all in the positive direction (strategies unique to aggravating moves ): Positive: Attack /Threat Comm and, Comprehension/Empathy Complain Counter Argument/Correction, Discourse Marker, Emotional Expression, Endearment Term, Joke/Laugh, Negate Proposition, No, Reason/Explanation, Repetition/Reiteration, Rhetorical Form Sarcasm Self Defense, Statement of Information. Negative: None The regression model accounted for 52 % of the variance of the variable SMA and produced nine significant pre dictors ( Figure 4 1 3 ) From strongest to weakest PE, these were (see Appendix C for in text examples): PE > 8 0: Attack /Threat (e.g., no sabs nada ; PE > 6 0: Command (e.g., par par bueno, pagsela him ) ; PE > 3 0: Negate Proposition (e.g., no puedo Emotional Expression (e.g., hoh! ay TS ) Counter Argument/Correction (e.g., lleva tiempo cario ) ; PE > 20: No (e.g., no no no ) Joke/Laugh (e.g., ni lo repito@ . porque no digo disparate . be stuff Endearment Term (e.g., cario ! ; PE > 10: Complain (e.g., es una llenada de huevos ay qu zanahorias gr andes T he remaining strategies were not significant in the regression model despite relatively high frequencies, e.g., Repetition/Reiteration and Reason/Explanation. T hough these were among the most frequent strategies for a ggravating moves, the y were also common to mitigating move s As with head acts, the regression results are highly informative in that they give almost mutually exclusive lists; only Joke/Laugh was a significant factor in both regression models. S ome stra tegies unique to either mitigating

PAGE 130

130 or aggravating moves did not show significant p values in the regression models, while o ther strategies common to both did, for one or the other. Table 4 11 shows the strategies most indicative of supportive moves in t erms of Tier 1 and Tier 2 strategies. Tier 1 strategies are those listed above; Tier 2 strategies for mitigating moves included Repetition/Reiteration, HedgeSU, CCGSolid, Counter argument/Correction, Distract and Justify/Minimize offense. Tier 2 strategi es for aggravating moves were more limited in number: Repetition/Reiteration, Reason/Explanation, Statement of information and Discourse marker. They best characterize the mitigating and aggravating supportive moves present in these data The fact that we find some of the same strategies in both mitigating and aggravating moves (e.g., Joke/Laugh, Reason/Explanation) reiterates the viewpoint from Chapter 2 that linguistic expressions cannot be evaluated a priori as inherently polite or impolite with stati c, pre construction and negotiation of (im)politeness (Watts 2003:25). A t risk of falling into a simi lar trap the reader will notice that I have categorized most of the linguistic st rategies in Table 4 11 either as involvement (+) or independence ( This was, primarily, a means by which to evaluate Hypothesis 2 : that Uruguayans tend to express solidarity, interdependence and aff iliation towards interlocutors. Admittedly, th e involvement/independence framework stems from positive and negative politeness and, by extension, their concepts of positive and negative face, which have been criticized as b eing irrelevant to certain language groups and e urocentrically biased (cf. Chapter 2). However, with this classification paradigm I

PAGE 131

131 am not suggesting that a particular strategy is more or less polite or even more or less politic. I am suggesting, in line with Scollon and Scollon that a certai n strategy tends to reflect a momentarily expressed emphasis one or another aspect of face individuality or commonality regardless of whether the face being projected represents a more individualistic or a more colle A lso I re cogniz e that such a paradigm is vulnerable to exceptions as no strategy is any one thing all the time. 12 That said, as Table 4 11 demonstrates, the participants generally relied on involve ment or affiliative strategies while refusing the exception being with indirect head acts for which independence strategies prevailed. This provides evidence in favor of Hypothesis 2 an argument that I will take up more extensively in the discussion sec tion of Chapter 7. Linguistic Strategies: Mand Type Taking a step further, a break down of the head acts and supportive moves by mand type suggests nuances in refusal behavior. This type of analysis is useful for making comparisons with previous studies, since many of them take one or some of these mand types as their focus Table 4 12 lists the most frequent linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive moves by mand type. It shows, for example, that saying he most frequently used head a ct strategy except for orders and invitations, comprising between 16% and 20% of the total linguistic strategies used in head acts. For orders, the most frequent head act strategy was a counter argument/correction; for invitations, indirect replies garne red the highest percentage. It makes sense, then, t hat 12 In fact, scholars are not always in ag reement as to what constitutes what; for example, Garca (1999) categorizes giving reasons/explanations as reflecting independence, while Flix Brasdefer (2008) views this as involvement.

PAGE 132

132 giving reasons/explanations rank ed as the top (or almost top) supportive move strategy for mands such as suggestions, offers and requests because the formulaic template no (x) + porque [x] ( discussed below ) was highly productive C onfirmation/acknowledgement was the most prevalent supportive move strategy for orders ; this, coupled with counter argument/correction, is indicativ e of the s + pero [x] template (also discussed below). Returning to Hypo thesis 1, which will be discussed at length in Chapter 7, it is apparent that the participants of this study made use of many strategies set forth in the frameworks of Beebe et al. ( 1990 ) and Flix Brasdefer ( 2008). However, other prominent strategies, su ch as counter argument/correction ( cf. Ueda 1972), command and emotional expression ( cf. Blum Kulka et al. 1989) claim common ground/solidarity ( cf. Brown and Levinson 1987) and appeal to an external party ( cf. Rubin 1983), were absent from both of these frameworks. Table 2 1 provides a side by side comparison of the classification schemes of Beebe et al., Flix Brasdefer and the present study, and shows the extent to which they converge It is clear that the former classification schemes served as an ap propriate starting point, but were not sufficiently capable of capturing the complexity of natural data. Recalling Hypothesis 2, also discussed further in Chapter 7, the participants did exhibit more strategies in line with expressing solidarity and affili ation towards the interlocutor as opposed to deference and independence. Referring again to Tables 4 11 and 4 12, strategies typically considered to display involvement and/or positive politeness (Scollon and Scollon 2001; Brown and Levinson 1987) outnum bered those indicative of independence and/or negative politeness (ibid.). The only exception

PAGE 133

133 surfaced when analyzing the data by mand type: refusals to invitations consisted more abundantl y of independence strategies, such as indefinite replies, appeals to an external party, casting blam e distracting from the offense and employing hedges, subjectivizers and understaters. This is an important finding and suggests that the participants we re sensitive to invitations in a way that motivate d them to adjust their linguistic behavior to adopt strategies more in line with deference politeness in an effort to respect the face wants of the involved parties. Formulas This section addresses the extent to which formulas were present in these data By formula I mean either a set phrase or a template illustrative of a cons istent pattern. T he formulaic phrases for which I coded were se es el tema /problema and el tema es ( que ) ( the problem is ( that ) ) lo que pasa es que ( the thing is that ), te p arece? como quiera(s) ( however you prefer ), es lo mismo ( same to me ) and si quers ( if you want ). The former phrases tended to occur in pre head act position and served to prepare the hearer for the refusal to come. The latt er typically formed part of an indirect refusal and were coded as indefinite replies. The formulaic templates that emerged from the analysis were, primarily, s + pero [x] ( yes + but [x] ) where s counts as a mitigating move and pero [x] equals an ind irect head act, and no (x) + porque [x] ( no (x) + because [x] ) where no equals a direct head act (x) an optional verb al phrase and porque [x] a mitigating move Secondary patterns, which I deemed in many cases to be alternate versions to the above, in cluded no + pero [x] in some instances and no + si [x] where si and

PAGE 134

134 Formulaic P hrases The frequency of formulaic phrases in the refusal sequences studi ed here was low, 2 2 tokens appearing in 7% of refusal sequence s (Table s 4 1 3 4 1 4 ) However, as a participant observer of this speech community my impressionistic view i s that these we re expressions that people from this community frequently use d in the ir day to day talk t hough th e impression may not be bo rne out Nevertheless, I point them out as examples of strat egies that one may employ or encounter when negotiating refusal situations As with the formulaic templates below, these could be taught ea sily to Spanish language learners to increase their pragmalinguistic skills. The first important note of interest is that, while few in number, the majority of these phrases appeared in indirect only refusal sequences. In these instances the participant m ade use of these strategies to avoid giving a definite answer or to hedge an otherwise indirect strategy. Formulaic phrases that exclusively appeared with or as indirect head acts were: como quiera(s) (however you prefer) (n = 7 ); es lo mismo same to me) (n = 4); si quers (if you want) (n = 1) The following example s illustrate their s tand alone and simultaneous usage : ( 2 ) F ormulaic phrase as an indirect head act (Ela 17) purchase which she declines to give )) 1 Roberto: te te parece? 2 Ela: cmo quiera(s). however you prefer.

PAGE 135

135 3 Roberto: si quer(s) comprate una de esa(s) if you want buy yourself one of those ( 3 ) F ormulaic phrases as an indirect head act and a hedge within a mitigating move (Rita 12) ((At work, two colleagues: Dona announces to Rita that she will bring the yerba mate as they have run out ; Rita counters this statement with an offer to bring it herself )) 1 Dona: q ue yo ya voy a a [traer la yerba. just uh [bring the yerba 2 Rit a: [ como vos quieras Dona si vos quers traer yerba tra si no traigo yo es lo mismo .= [ however you ((emph.)) prefer Dona if you want to bring the yerba bring i .= 3 Dona: =a m me da igual.= =it makes no difference to me ((emph.)).= Conversely, the expression te parece ? ( y ou think? /are you kidding? ) occurred once as a refusal and in a direct only sequence. In this particu lar situation, the participant refus e s this attacking, rhetorical . upgrade the phrase with a vos ( you (emph .) ) set a confrontational tone. ( 4 ) F ormulaic phrase coded as a direct head act, non politic/impolite ( Isabel 56 ) (( : Estevana is having a severe panic attack and requests a sleeping pill; her daughter Isabel refuses and bolsters the refusal with aggravating move s reprimanding her i.e., attacking the hearer ; Hilda friend happened to be visiting her when the panic attack started )) 1 Estevana: xxx una pastilla o algo que me quede dormida hasta maana.= xxx a pill or so mething to make me sleep until morning.= 2 Isabel: =a vos te parece? no sabs si tens preSI"N, baja preSI"N, las papil las palpitaciones, no sabs nada. are you ((emph.)) kidding? Essure, low blood PREssure the palp 3 Hilda: (a ver) xx.

PAGE 136

136 4 Isabel: ((a Estevana)) as que no pods este, ah vos no sos mdico. you ((emph.)) are not a doctor. Under these circumsta nces, t h e utterance a vos te parece? packs a critical and non politic punch, subject to an impolite interpretation (cf. non marked usage of te parece in line 1 of (2)) This interaction is characteristic of situations of low social distance and /or when on e is unconcerned with maintain ing face needs as in an emergent situation Expressions with tema/problema and lo que pasa mitigated both indirect and direct refusals (Table 4 1 3 ) Formulaic phrases with tema/problema were the most versatile in that they were the only ones to figure in all three sequence types. The observed versi ons of these phrases were : se es el tema (n = 2); se es el problema (n = 2); el tema es ( que ) (the problem is ( that ) ) (n = 3); lo que pasa es que (the thing is that ) (n = 2) 13 T he first two a re independent phrases that serve d as supportive moves in post head act position ( e.g., s pero yo voy a las nueve a Barker . se es el problema yeah but I go at nine to Barker . e problem ) (Mar 2 ) ) T he latter two o c curred in pre position, paving the way for the head act core The head acts could be either direct or indirect for example : direct, negates proposition: r . the thin g is that to El Pastoreo I cannot go (Fabiana 3)) ; indirect concession + counter argument : lo que pasa (es) que podra dejarlo pero . the thing is that I could leave him but (Ari 28)). 13 The independent phrase es o es lo que pasa s imilar to se es el tema/problema is another possible version that I have witnessed, though not present in these data.

PAGE 137

137 Th e pre expression ha d a downgrading effect in t hat it hinted at a hardship beyond the the listener for the refusal to come. Formulaic T emplates The formulaic templates that emerged from the data were more numerous than the routinized expressions cited above (Tables 4 1 3 4 1 4 ) T here were 62 tokens of these templates, occurring in 22 % of refusal sequence s. The s + pero [x] was the most frequent, followed by no (x) + porque [x] In general, the former fell into the indirect only sequence type, given that pero [x] the h ead act, was typically a counter argument (an indirect strategy) Th e latter, with no as the first element, was largely restricted to direct only and both present sequence types ; an exception was when the no came not as a refusal, but as a n agreement with what the interlocutor had said: ( 5 ) indirect refusal to s tatement (Moqui 21) (( whether one should go outside without a jacket)) 1 Tuli: no est tan fro afuera che ahora. t so cold outside che ((solidarity marker)) now. 2 Moqui: no, pero hay viento all abajo. no (( implied)) The secondary templates, no + si [x] and no + pero [x], also fell am ong the direct only and both present sequence types, but presented fewer tokens overall Statistical analysis (Figure 4 14) confirms that the s + pero [x] template positively correlated with indirect head act s, indirect only sequences supportive moves and downgraders, and negatively correlated with direct head acts and direct only sequence s. T he other templates oriented more to direct strategies, especially no (x) +

PAGE 138

138 porque [x] T he no (x) + porque [x] template positively correlated with direct head ac t s, direct only sequence s and mitigating moves ; it display ed a negative statistical relationship with indirect only sequence s. The no + si [x] formula did not significantly correlate with any, most likely due to very few tokens H owever, given that it is essentially a version of the latt er, we can assume that it would follow a similar pattern as no (x) + porque [x], which it does upon inspecti ng the data. Finally, the no + pero [x] template correlat e d weakly to direct head acts, but more strongly to the both present sequence type The following examples of these formulaic templates demonstrate these tendencies : ( 6 ) Formula s + pero [x] indirect refusal to suggestion with SMM and downgrade r (Ari 28) ((At work : she will have to work on her pre planned vacation day; here, she suggests that she can take her day off at another time)) 1 Triza: pero lo vas a tener en otro momento. 2 Ari: s s s yo s lo que me decs, pero digo que, ya porque, ah yo ya haba comunicado maana Ab u se va a Montevideo hoy y l maana no hay na no estaba porque [se: > yo tena] libre y ta bueno ta. I mean, now because, ah I had already told (( to whom unclear )) tomorrow Abu is going to Montevideo of nephew)) because [I had] off and ok well ok. 3 Triza: [s s est bien s] [yeah y ( 7 ) Formula no (x) + porque [x] direct refusal to offer with SMM and downgrader (Mar 13) directly refuses Berta, the herb peddler 11.5 minutes into the interaction )) 1 Berta: quers que te deje: do you want me to leave you : 2 Mar: NO no

PAGE 139

139 3 Berta: eso que quera tu padre? that ((the herbs)) that your father wanted? 4 Mar: no, llevalo porque l no s, cundo va a venir y entonces no no lo tengo, no s si lo va a querer a eso. no, take it because he I ( 8 ) Formula no + si [x] direct refusal to suggestion with SMM (Moqui 15) ((at a soccer game, after waiting awhile for a friend to show up a suggests that their friend has tak en a wrong or more roundabout way)) 1 Josefa: capaz que agarra xx x maybe she takes/i s taking xx x down here, xxx. 2 Moqui: no, si sabe donde queda. no, ((lit. if)) she knows where it is. ( 9 ) Form ula no + pero [x] direct refusal to statement with SMA and upgrader ( Ari 13) (( early morning at work, Ari dis putes her coworker Eliana office is closed and he has yet to arrive )) 1 Eliana: est cerrado obvio. 14 ((the office)) closed obviously. 2 Ari: no est abierto?= 3 Eliana: =(si viene a) las nueve. =( ((lit. if)) he gets here at) nine. 4 Ari: no pero l viene a las [ocho~! no but he gets here at [eight! The point of this discussion is to show how formul aic templates serve a purpose to the Rosarian speaker, based on whether she is refusing directly or indirectly. Of 14 refuses indirectly by requesting m ore information and doubting the hearer. Ari directly refuses the second mand (also a statement) with the template ( no + pero + counter argument/correction) in line 4.

PAGE 140

140 course, Uruguayans are not the only ones known for using such formulas; anecdotally, one source writes of the prevalen ce of s pero no as a polite refusal strategy among Costa Ricans in their cultural guidebook for that country ( Biesanz et al. 1999 : 7 ). Bardovi and relatively more successful way to preface rejectio n by native and non native speakers of English during advising sessions (1991: 46). Also, Pomerantz (1984) refers to this formula as a way to manage a dispreferred turn structu re i.e., disagreement Another question regarding formulaic templates is if, and to what extent, mand type matter ed. B ivariate correlation reveal ed t wo positive relationships: s + pero [x] with suggestions ( as in ( 6 ) ) and no + pero [x] with statements (as in ( 9 ) ) (Figure 4 14) Curiously, the no (x) + porque [x] template did n ot obtain any statistically significant relationship one explanation being its versatility in that occurences of it were spread out over many mand types i.e., suggestions, offers, requests and statements To summarize, th e participants of this study at times relied on formulaic, set expressions to assist them in negotiating the path of refusal. More often, though, they adjusted routinized templates to fit their needs at the time of the interaction. The analysis suggests that the choice of template is dependent to some degree upon mand type ( e.g., s + pero [x] with suggestions no + pero [x] with statements) and priming with respect to the structural and lexical qualities of the mand ( e.g., phrasing the mand as a yes/no question, the use of no in the m and). Many of the formulas presented here were oriented to the production of indirect refusals However some templates (i.e., no + porque [x] no + si [x] no + pero [x] ) emerged as routinized patterns of directness It is precisely through this routin ization lost its bald on record

PAGE 141

141 force in that the focus rtive move (reason/explanation, etc.). an example ) as hav ing undergone a process of pragmaticalization ; on this view, in serves as an epistemic fragment. Summary The participants of this study refused various types of mands: suggestions, statements/an alyses, offers, requests, orders/demands, invitations and mands (non specified). Overall the average refusal sequence contained 1.52 refusal turn s. For the three sequence types (direct only, indirect only, both present ) the average number of refusal tu rn s per sequence was significantly different, with direct only sequences averaging the lowest, followed by indirect only and both present. Over fifty linguistic strategies made up the various semantic parts of the refusals, that is, the head acts (indirec t and direct) and supportive moves (aggravating and mitigating). For this reason, it was necessary to conduct non parametric statistical tests in order to determine which of these strategies were the most important to each of these parts. In addition, up graders and downgraders strengthened and weakened, respectively, both head acts and supportive moves. With regard to (in)directness in the refusal head act, though I observed more indirect than direct head acts for this subset of data (selected more or l ess at random from a large body of recordings) I also found that sequence s containing only direct head acts outnumbered those featuring only indirect head acts T hree features helped to explain this juxtaposition: the number of refusal turns per sequenc e, mand type and the effect of priming. First, a s the number of refusal turn s per sequence increase d so d id the use of indirect head acts. The longer, more negotiated refusal sequences

PAGE 142

1 42 tended to boast indirect head acts, while those with direct head act s were shorter and more quickly resolved. Second, i n terms of mand type, refusals to offers were more often direct, while those to invitations and orders, indirect. This finding was most convincing because statistical analysis revealed a positive correl ation with indirectness as well as a negative correlation with directness. Requests, statements and suggestions were very much divided between direct and indirect head acts; in fact, statements and suggestions positive ly correlat ed to the both present seq uence type. Third, priming also had a significant impact on the refusal and the extent to which participants refused with direct strategies. It was strongly evidenced that both structural and lexical priming in the mand contributed to the way in whi ch the participant then formed her response; often, she would reply with synonymous structure or word choice, despite pragmalinguistically acceptable alternatives. Priming positively correlated with direct head acts and direct only refusal sequences, and, moreover, displayed a statistically negative relationship with their indirect counterparts. Additionally, there was no significant relationship with supportive moves or up/downgraders, which makes sense for a number of reasons, particularly because direc t only refusal sequences tended to be shorter and less negotiated overall. More study is needed to determine the extent to which priming was present in these data, according to a series of factors not considered here, and to which it conflated with other variables, such as mand type. T he most salient linguistic strategies for head acts w ere not only the most frequent, but also those that survived multiple statistical tests (Table 4 11) Indirect

PAGE 143

143 head acts displayed a wide range of strategies, including de laying, doubting, replying indefinitely, presenting counter arguments and giving reasons. Direct head acts were concentrated among fewer strategies issuing a command. Commands have not been cited previou sly in the literature as a strategy for refusing; this is likely due to the type of data (elicited/experimental) typically analyzed and points to the benefits of natural data for discovering the richness and unexpectedness of linguistic behavior. T he parti cipants also relied heavily on supportive moves when refusing. Mitigating m oves were the most prevalent, modifying refusals nearly three times as often aggravating moves ( 65 % versus 2 6 % ) Supportive moves (as well as head acts) were often semantically st rengthened and weakened with the use of upgraders and downgraders. Mitigating moves exhibited a strong statistical relationship with downgraders as did aggravating move s with upgraders. Mitigating moves positively correlated with indirect refusal head ac ts, and aggravating moves with direct. The use of mitigating move s was prevalent across many concei vable categories, while th at of aggravating move s was more contextually constrained. In addition to demonstrating a preference for certain strategies, this chapter also reported on the extent to which formulas as routinized phrases or templates emananted from the data. Formulaic phrases obtained lower frequencies than did templates, but were strongly associated with indirect refusals (with some crossover) Participants used como quiera(s) es lo mismo and si quers most often to avoid a def init iv e reply, either as a stand alone head act or in conjunction with other strategies.

PAGE 144

144 E xpressions with tema/problema and lo que pasa served to mitigate refusal head ac ts, both direct and indirect either in ad junct position or as internal downgraders M ore often, though, the participants adjusted formulaic templates to fit their needs at the time of the interaction. The s + pero [x] was the most frequent, followed by no (x) + porque [x]. The former coalesced with the indirect only sequence type, and the latter with direct only and both present types. The secondary templates, no + si [x] and no + pero [x], patterned similarly to no (x) + porque [x] but presented few er tokens. The analysis suggests that t he choice of template is dependent to some degree upon mand type ( e.g., s + pero [x] with suggestions, no + pero [x] with statements) and prim ing with respect to the structural and lexical qualities of the mand ( e.g ., phrasing the mand as a yes/no question, the use of no in the mand) Not surprisingly participants generally showed themselves to be concerned with maintaining face wants and needs throughout the interactions with their interlocutors; to this effect, they employed a gamut of strategies and formulas that oriented to a greater or lesser degree with mitigation, intensification and (in)directness Recalling the hypotheses stated at the outset of the chapter, in general, both were confirmed. With respect to Hypothesis 1, the participants employed most of the previously cited refusal strategies, though they displayed a wider range of linguistic tactics than the earlier indepen dence/involvement dichotomy revealed a tendency towards expressions of involvement and affiliation, in line with Hypothesis 2. These claims will be taken up further in the discussion of Chapter 7.

PAGE 145

145 Table 4 1. Mand type by (in)directness (Token Lev el) HAInd HADir Total Suggestion 61 5 3 % 5 5 4 7 % 11 6 100% Statement 36 49% 3 8 51% 7 4 100% Offer 24 4 3 % 32 5 7 % 5 6 100% Request 25 48% 27 52% 52 100% Order 23 70% 10 30% 33 100% Invitation 6 86 % 1 14 % 7 100% Mand 19 59% 13 41% 32 100% Total 194 5 2 % 17 6 4 8 % 3 70 100% Table 4 2. Mand type by (in)directness (Case Level) HAInd HADir Total Suggestion 48 52% 52 57% 92 100% Statement 32 52% 3 6 5 9 % 61 100% Offer 18 4 1 % 2 7 6 1 % 4 4 100% Request 25 54% 25 54% 46 100% Order 16 67% 9 38% 24 100% Invitation 5 83 % 1 17 % 6 100% Mand 13 62% 12 57% 21 100% Total 157 54% 16 2 55% 294 100% Table 4 3. Mand type by refusal sequence type (Token Level) Ind irect only Dir ect only Both Total Suggestion 47 4 1 % 42 36% 2 7 2 3 % 11 6 100% Statement 23 3 1 % 22 30% 2 9 3 9 % 7 4 100% Offer 21 3 7 % 2 9 5 2 % 6 11% 5 6 100% Request 20 38% 20 38% 12 23% 52 100% Order 19 58% 5 15% 9 27% 33 100% Invitation 6 86 % 1 14 % 7 100% Mand 8 25% 8 25% 16 50% 32 100% Total 144 39% 12 7 34% 99 27% 370 100% Table 4 4. Man d type by refusal sequence type (Case Level) Ind irect only Dir ect only Both Total Suggestion 35 38% 39 42% 18 20% 92 100% Statement 21 34% 22 36% 18 30% 61 100% Offer 16 3 6 % 2 5 5 7 % 3 7% 4 4 100% Request 20 43% 19 41% 7 15% 46 100% Order 13 54% 5 21% 6 25% 24 100% Invitation 5 83 % 1 17 % 6 100% Mand 6 29% 8 38% 7 33% 21 100% Total 116 40% 11 9 40% 59 20% 294 100%

PAGE 146

146 Table 4 5. Mand type by observed ( ) and statistical (*) tendency Ind only D ir only Both Suggestion Statement * Offer Request Order Invitation * Mand n/a n/a n/a Table 4 6. Priming (Pr) by head act ( HA ) and sequence ( RS ) types Pr = 0 Pr = 1 Pr = 2 Total % Pr HAInd 1 80 14 194 7 % HADir 1 22 5 0 2 17 6 3 1 % Total 302 64 2 3 70 1 8% RS Ind only 8 4 13 9 7 1 3 % RS Dir only 7 1 37 1 1 09 3 5 % RS Both 22 13 2 37 41 % Total 177 63 3 243 27% Table 4 7 Priming (Pr) by mand type Pr = 0 Pr = 1 Pr = 2 Total % Pr Suggestion 87 27 1 116 25 % Statement 66 8 74 1 1% Offer 47 9 56 16 % Reque st 34 16 1 52 3 5 % Order 31 2 33 6 % Invitation 5 2 7 29% Mand 32 32 Total 3 0 2 64 2 370 1 8% Table 4 8. Supportive moves (SMA, SMM) and down/ upgraders (DnG, UpG) as a percentage of sequence ( RS ) type and refusal turns ( RTTs ) SMA SMM DnG UpG n, RS RS Dir only 2 6 2 4 % 67 61% 43 39% 41 38% 109 RS Ind only 14 14% 65 67% 39 40% 30 3 1 % 97 RS Both 22 59% 27 73% 21 57% 23 62% 37 Total 6 2 2 6 % 159 65% 103 42% 9 4 3 9 % 243 n, RTT RTT 49 1 3 % 1 39 38 % 106 2 9 % 100 2 7 % 370 This table reads, e .g., SMAs were present in 2 6 or 2 4 % of direct only refusal sequences. Percentages are based on the frequenc y divided by the n (last column).

PAGE 147

147 Table 4 9. Frequency of linguistic strategies in head acts LS RS HA HAInd LS% HADir LS% 1 No 101 116 2 0% 114 34% 2 RepReit 68 75 20 5% 55 16% 3 Counter 52 62 46 11% 16 5% 4 IndefRep 45 58 58 14% 5 NegProp 44 48 0% 48 14% 6 HedgeSU 33 42 31 7% 11 3% 7 Command 27 30 7 2% 23 7% 8 DelayIgn 24 28 26 6% 2 1% 9 Alt 20 21 21 5% 10 EmotExp 20 21 9 2% 12 4% 11 PropName 19 20 12 3% 8 2% 12 Reason 16 17 14 3% 3 1% 13 Confirm 15 17 15 4% 2 1% 14 DiscMkr 14 22 21 5% 1 0% 15 ClaimHard 13 13 11 3% 2 1% 16 Joke 12 13 8 2% 5 1% 17 Apology 10 10 3 1% 7 2% 18 RequInfo 9 11 11 3% 19 EndearTerm 9 10 7 1% 3 1% 20 AttaxThrts 9 10 5 2% 5 1% 21 Postpone 8 8 7 2% 1 0% 22 RhetForm 8 8 3 1% 5 1% 23 AppealX 7 8 8 2% 24 Blame 7 8 8 2% 25 Cond 7 8 8 2% 26 DoubtH 7 8 8 2% 27 Insist 7 8 6 1% 2 1% 28 Reassure 7 7 6 1% 1 0% 29 StmtInfo 7 7 4 1% 3 1% 30 Dist ract 5 5 5 1% 31 LetHoff 4 5 4 1% 1 0% 32 SelfD 4 4 4 1% 33 AppCaj 3 4 4 1% 34 PauseFill 3 4 2 0% 2 1% 35 Agree 3 3 3 1% 36 CCGSolid 3 3 2 0% 1 0% 37 Concede 3 3 3 1% 38 Sarcasm 3 3 2 0% 1 0% 39 TopicSwx 3 3 3 1% 40 CompEmp 2 2 2 1 % 41 Complain 1 2 1 0% 1 0% 42 Preparator 1 2 1 0% 1 0% 43 AdjStance 1 1 1 0% 44 Anticipate 1 1 1 0% 45 Backch 1 1 1 0% 46 CommitIndic 1 1 1 0% 47 Concern 1 1 1 0% 48 Gratitude 1 1 1 0% 49 Justify 1 1 1 0% Total 670 764 424 100% 340 100% LS=linguistic strateg y ; RS=refusal sequence ( i.e., the number of sequences in which the strategy was present within at least one head act); HA=head acts (total); HAInd=indirect head act; HADir=direct head act ; LS%=percentage of total linguistic s trategies for the respective semantic component.

PAGE 148

148 Table 4 10. Frequency of linguistic strategies in supportive moves LS RS SM SMM LS% SMA LS% 1 Reason 63 79 65 10% 14 9% 2 RepReit 62 71 52 8% 19 12% 3 Confirm 37 58 56 8% 2 1% 4 HedgeSU 36 51 49 7% 2 1% 5 CCGSolid 28 32 31 5% 1 1% 6 Counter 27 30 16 2% 14 9% 7 StmtInfo 27 28 22 3% 6 4% 8 Alt 26 26 24 4% 2 1% 9 Reassure 24 29 29 4% 10 Justify 20 23 20 3% 3 2% 11 Concede 19 19 19 3% 12 IndefRep 18 20 20 3% 13 Distract 17 20 20 3% 1 4 ClaimHard 16 17 15 2% 2 1% 15 AppCaj 15 23 21 3% 2 1% 16 Blame 15 16 14 2% 2 1% 17 Command 14 15 9 1% 6 4% 18 EmotExp 14 15 6 1% 9 6% 19 Joke 14 15 11 2% 4 2% 20 RequInfo 14 14 10 1% 4 2% 21 Apology 12 15 13 2% 2 1% 22 Complain 11 15 4 1% 11 7% 23 Agree 11 14 14 2% 24 AppealX 11 12 10 1% 2 1% 25 Cond 10 14 12 2% 2 1% 26 Repair 9 10 10 1% 27 AttaxThrts 9 9 9 6% 28 PauseFill 8 14 13 2% 1 1% 29 DiscMkr 8 13 9 1% 4 2% 30 Postpone 8 10 9 1% 1 1% 31 StmtPrinc 8 10 7 1% 3 2% 32 No 8 9 3 0% 6 4% 33 Insist 8 8 5 1% 3 2% 34 NegProp 8 8 3 0% 5 3% 35 EndearTerm 7 14 7 1% 7 4% 36 CompEmp 7 8 8 1% 37 Concern 7 8 7 1% 1 1% 38 AdjStance 7 7 6 1% 1 1% 39 LetHoff 6 6 6 1% 40 PropName 5 5 2 0% 3 2%

PAGE 149

149 Table 4 10. Continued LS RS S M SMM LS% SMA LS% 41 CommitIndic 4 4 4 1% 42 SelfD 4 4 1 0% 3 2% 43 DelayIgn 3 3 3 0% 44 DoubtH 3 3 1 0% 2 1% 45 TopicSwx 3 3 3 0% 46 Wish 3 3 3 0% 47 RhetForm 2 3 3 2% 48 Gratitude 2 2 2 0% 49 Sarcasm 2 2 2 1% 50 Anticipat e 1 1 1 0% 51 Compliment 1 1 1 0% 52 Preparator 1 1 1 0% Total 703 840 677 100% 163 100% LS=linguistic s trategy; RS=refusal sequence ( i.e., the number of sequences in which the strategy was present within at least one supportive move ); SM=sup portive moves (total); SMM=mitigating move; SMA=aggravating move ; LS%= percentage of total linguistic strategies for the respective semantic component. Table 4 11. Key linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive moves in descending order of parame ter estimate strength (Tier 1) and frequency (Tier 2) HAInd HADir SMM SMA Tier 1 Delay/ignore (61.3) + No (62.8) + Reassure (46.7) + Attack/threat (89.9) Doubt hearer (47.8) + Negate prop (47.8) + Claim hardship (46.4) + Command (60.4) Indefini te reply (47.7) + Command (47.4) + Concede (45.4) + Negate prop (38.0) + Alternative (44.7) Appeal ext party (34.8) + Emot exp (36.3) + Counter arg (36.6) + Alternative (34.7) + Counter arg (35.3) +/ Request info (23.1) + Reason (27.5) + No ( 29.7 ) + Joke/laugh (26.3) + Joke/laugh ( 24.1 ) Indefinite reply (25.2) + Endear term ( 21.3 ) + Confirm (15.7) + Complain ( 19.8 ) Tier 2 Hedge SU (12%) +/ Repeat/reit (28%) +/ Repeat/reit (16%) +/ Repeat/reit (20%) + Confirm (7%) + E mot exp (7%) Hedge SU (12%) + Reason (16%) + Reason (7%) + CCGSolid (9%) + Statement info (6%) Discourse mkr (7%) + Statement info (8%) Discourse mkr (5%) + Claim hardship (6%) + Counter arg (6%) Distract (6%) Justify offens e (6%) + App C aj (5%) Blame (5%) The (n%) is RS%: the percentage of refusal sequences in which strategy is found; ( ) considered an independence/negative politeness strategy; (+) considered an involvement/positive politeness strategy; (+/ ) a strategy that could be either (Brown and Levinson 1987; Scollon and Scollon 2001; Garca 1992; Flix Brasdefer 2008)

PAGE 150

150 Table 4 1 2 Key linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive moves by mand type where LS % > 4% Suggestions LS % Statements LS % Offers LS % HA (LS=228) (LS=141) (LS=116) + No 20 + No 16 + No 16 +/ Repeat/reiterate 13 + Counter arg /corr 16 +/ Repeat/reiterate 16 + Counter arg /corr 11 + Negate proposition 9 + Command 9 Delay/ignore 6 +/ Repeat/reiterate 9 Indef inite reply 9 + Negate proposition 6 Indefinite reply 6 + Negate proposition 6 Hedge SU 6 + Command 5 Discourse marker 5 Indefinite reply 5 Delay/ignore 4 + Alternative 4 + Alternative 4 + Emotional expr 4 + Counter arg /corr 4 + Confi rm 4 + Proper name 4 + Reason 4 Hedge SU 4 + Condition 4 SM (LS=145) LS% (LS=83) LS% (LS=77) LS% + Confirm 13 + Counter arg /corr 16 + Reason 20 +/ Repeat/reiterate 13 + Emotional expr 8 +/ Repeat/reiterate 16 + Reason 10 + Sta tement of info 8 Hedge SU 9 + Counter arg /corr 9 + Confirm 7 + Command 7 Hedge SU 7 + Reason 7 Justify 7 + Alternative 5 + CCGSolid 5 + Alternative 5 + Reassure 5 + Concede 5 Appeal to ext party 5 + Concede 4 + Reassure 5 + Concede 5 +/ Repeat/reiterate 5 + Confirm 5 Distract from offense 5 Requests LS% Orders LS% Invitations LS% HA (LS=109) (LS=59) (LS=13) + No 16 + Counter arg /corr 10 Indefinite reply 23 Indefinite reply 15 + Joke/laugh 8 + No 15 +/ Repeat/reiterate 10 + Command 7 Appeal to ext party 8 Apology 7 Hedge SU 7 Blame 8 Hedge SU 7 Indefinite reply 7 + Condition 8 + Emotional expr 6 + No 7 Distract from offense 8 + Negate proposition 6 +/ Repeat/reiterate 5 Hed ge SU 8 + Proper name 4 + Reason 8 +/ Repeat/reiterate 8 +/ Request info 8 SM (LS=55) LS% (LS=25) LS% (LS=13) LS% + Reason 15 + Confirm 9 + CCGSolid 15 +/ Repeat/reiterate 12 +/ Repeat/reiterate 9 Hedge SU 15 Hedge SU 10 Discourse marker 6 Appeal to ext party 8 + Alternative 8 Justify 6 + Claim hardship 8 + Statement of info 8 + Confirm 8 Blame 6 Gratitude 8 + Claim hardship 4 Indefinite reply 8 + Confirm 4 + Joke/laugh 8 Pause f iller 4 + Reason 8 + Repair 4 + Reassure 8 ( ) typically an independence/negative politeness strategy; ( + ) typically an involvement/positive politeness strategy; (+/ ) a strategy that could be either (Brown and Levinson 1987; Scollon and Scollon 2001; Garca 1992; Flix Brasdefer 2008) ; LS%=percentage of total linguistic strategies for the respective head act.

PAGE 151

151 Table 4 1 3 Formulaic phrases and templates by sequence type (Token Level) Ind only Dir only Both Total Phrase \ como quiera 7 7 Phrase \ tema problema 2 3 2 7 Phrase \ es lo mismo 4 4 Phrase \ lo que pasa 1 1 2 Phrase \ si quers 1 1 Phrase \ te parece 1 1 Total 15 4 3 22 Template \ s + pero 25 4 29 Template \ no + porque 11 5 16 Template \ no + pero 2 5 6 13 Template \ no + si 3 1 4 Total 27 19 16 62 Table 4 1 4 Formulaic phrases and templates by sequence (RS) type (Case Level) Ind only Dir only Both Total % RS Phrase \ como quiera 5 5 Phrase \ tema problema 2 2 1 5 Phrase \ es lo mismo 2 2 Phrase \ lo que pasa 1 1 2 Phrase \ si quers 1 1 Phrase \ te parece 1 1 Total 11 3 2 16 7% Template \ s + pero 18 3 21 Template \ no + porque 11 5 16 Template \ no + pero 2 5 6 13 Template \ no + si 3 1 4 Total 20 19 15 54 22%

PAGE 152

152 Ind only Dir only Both Total RS 97 40% 109 45% 37 15% 243 100% Ind Dir Total HA 194 5 2 % 17 6 4 8 % 3 70 100% LS 45 9 2 % 3 1 63 % 49 SMM SM A Total SM 28 6 77% 8 6 23% 3 72 100% LS 49 94% 3 6 69 % 5 2 DnG UpG Total RS 103 42% 9 4 3 9 % 243 HAInd 59 6 3 % 3 4 3 7 % 9 3 100% HADir 3 5 3 7 % 5 9 6 3 % 94 100% SMM 69 80% 17 20% 86 100% SMA 10 2 2 % 3 6 7 8 % 4 6 100% Figure 4 1. General description of results pertai ning to refusal sequence (RS) type, head act (HA) type, supportive move (SM) type, linguistic strategies (LS) and the frequency of downgraders (DnG) and up graders (UpG) relative to these

PAGE 153

153 RTT RS Crosstabulation RS Total Both DIR IND R TT 1 Count 95 6 8 164 % within RTT 5 8 3 % 4 1.7 % 100.0% 2 Count 20 1 2 18 49 % within RTT 40. 0 % 2 4 0 % 36. 0 % 100.0% 3 Count 11 3 5 19 % within RTT 57.9% 15.8% 26.3% 100.0% 4 Count 4 3 7 % within RTT 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% 5 Count 2 1 3 % within RTT 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 7 Count 1 1 % within RTT 100.0% 100.0% Total Count 37 1 10 9 6 243 % within RTT 15.2% 4 5 3 % 39. 5 % 100.0% Figure 4 2. Crosstabulation of refusal sequence ( RS ) type by ref usal turns (RTT) per sequenc e

PAGE 154

154 RTT HAInd Crosstabulation HAInd Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 RTT 1 Count 94 69 163 % within RTT 57.7% 42.3% 100.0% 2 Count 12 20 18 50 % within RTT 24.0% 40.0% 36.0% 100.0% 3 Count 3 7 4 5 19 % within RTT 15.8% 36.8% 21.1% 26.3% 100.0% 4 Count 1 2 1 3 7 % within RTT 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9% 100.0% 5 Count 1 1 1 3 % within RTT 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 7 Count 1 1 % within RTT 100.0% 100.0% Total Count 109 97 24 7 4 1 1 243 % within RTT 44.9% 39.9% 9.9% 2.9% 1.6% 0.4% 0.4% 100.0% Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T b Approx. Sig. Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau b .5 12 .049 8. 377 .000 N of Valid Cases 243 F igure 4 3. Crosstabulat ion of indirect head acts (HAInd) by refusal turns (RTT) per sequence For example, in sequences with two RTTs (n = 49), twenty con tained one indirect head act

PAGE 155

155 RTT HADir Crosstabulation HADir Total 0 1 2 3 RTT 1 Count 69 9 4 16 3 % within RT T 42. 3 % 57. 7 % 100.0% 2 Count 18 20 1 2 50 % within RTT 36. 0 % 40. 0 % 24 .0 % 100.0% 3 Count 5 4 7 3 19 % within RTT 26.3% 21.1% 36.8% 15.8% 100.0% 4 Count 3 1 2 1 7 % within RTT 42.9% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% 5 Count 1 1 1 3 % within RT T 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 7 Count 1 1 % within RTT 100.0% 100.0% Total Count 97 12 0 2 2 4 243 % within RTT 39.9% 49. 4 % 9.1 % 1.6% 100.0% Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T b Approx. Sig. Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau b .2 27 .066 3. 302 .00 1 N of Valid Cases 243 Figure 4 4. Crosstabulation of direct head acts (HADir) by refusal turns ( RTT) per sequence For example, in sequence s with one RTT (n = 164 ), in 95 cases the head act was direct

PAGE 156

156 Priming Kendall's tau_b Priming Correl ation Coefficient 1.000 Sig. (2 tailed) N 243 HAInd Correlation Coefficient .150 Sig. (2 tailed) .013 N 243 HADir Correlation Coefficient .2 42 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .000 N 243 SMA Correlation Coefficient .002 Sig. (2 tailed) .97 1 N 243 SMM Correlation Coefficient .058 Sig. (2 tailed) .328 N 243 DnG Correlation Coefficient .074 Sig. (2 tailed) .223 N 243 UpG Correlation Coefficient .056 Sig. (2 tailed) .357 N 243 RS_DIRonly Correlation Coefficient .15 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .018 N 243 RS_INDonly Correlation Coefficient .253 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .000 N 243 RS_Both Correlation Coefficient .136 Sig. (2 tailed) .034 N 243 Figure 4 5. Correlations between priming and semantic components, down and upgraders, and sequence (RS) types. One asterisk (*) = correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed); two asterisks (**) = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 157

157 Priming Kendall's tau_b Priming Correlation Coef ficient 1.000 Sig. (2 tailed) N 243 Invite Correlation Coefficient .0 20 Sig. (2 tailed) 7 55 N 243 Order Correlation Coefficient .039 Sig. (2 tailed) .542 N 243 Stmt Correlation Coefficient .074 Sig. (2 tailed) .2 35 N 243 Requ Correlation Coefficient .121 Sig. (2 tailed) .056 N 243 Offer Correlation Coefficient .0 47 Sig. (2 tailed) 4 56 N 243 Sugg Correlation Coefficient .15 2 Sig. (2 tailed) .014 N 243 Figure 4 6. Correlations between priming an d mand type. One asterisk (*) = correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed); two asterisks (**) = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 158

158 Figure 4 7. Pairwise comparisons of sequence t ypes as a function of the distributio n of Priming.

PAGE 159

159 Kendall's tau_b HAInd HADir SMA SMM DnG UpG HAInd Corr. Coeff. 1.000 .563 ** .049 .14 5 ** .086 .011 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .404 .0 10 .140 .856 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 HADir Corr. Coeff. .563 ** 1.000 .2 83 ** .032 .042 .24 4 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 .579 .478 .000 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 SMA Corr. Coeff. .049 .2 83 ** 1.000 .046 .026 .4 81 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .404 .000 .424 .656 .000 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 SMM Corr. Coeff. .14 5 ** .032 .046 1.000 .376 ** .0 28 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 10 .579 .424 .000 .618 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 DnG Corr. Coeff. .086 .042 .026 .376 ** 1.000 .008 Sig. (2 tailed) .140 .478 .656 .000 .885 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 UpG Corr. Coeff. .011 .24 4 ** .4 81 ** .028 .008 1.000 Sig. (2 tailed) .856 .000 .000 .618 .885 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 Figure 4 8. Correlations between head act type (indirect, direct) supportive moves (aggravating, mitigating) downgrading and upgrading Two asterisks (**) = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 160

160 Figure 4 9. Correlations between head act t ype (indirect, direct), supportive move type (aggravating, mitigating) and the linguistic strategies found in each One asterisk (*) = correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed); two asterisks (**) = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 161

161 Kendall's tau_b HAInd HADir Kendall's tau_b SMA SMM HAInd Corr. Coeff. 1.000 .563 ** SMA Corr. Coeff. 1.000 .046 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .424 N 243 243 N 243 243 HADir Corr. Coeff. .563 ** 1.000 SMM Corr. Coeff. .046 1.000 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .424 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAdjStance Corr. Coeff. .063 .035 SMAdjStance Corr. Coeff. .027 .100 Sig. (2 tailed) .299 .569 Sig. (2 tailed) .669 .093 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAgree Corr. Coeff. .147 .124 SMAgree Corr. Coeff. .053 .263 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .016 .045 Sig. (2 tailed) .397 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAlt Corr. Coeff. .257 ** .19 3 ** SMAlt C orr. Coeff. .085 .25 4 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .002 Sig. (2 tailed) .172 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAnticipate Corr. Coeff. .063 .035 SMAnticipate Corr. Coeff. .035 .069 Sig. (2 tailed) .299 .569 Sig. (2 tailed) .570 .245 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAApology Corr. Coeff. .047 .116 SMApology Corr. Coeff. .091 .23 9 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .439 .061 Sig. (2 tailed) .143 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAppCaj Corr. Coeff. .147 .022 SMAppCaj Corr. Coeff. .034 .236 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .016 .727 Sig. (2 tai led) .580 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAppealX Corr. Coeff. .171 ** .06 1 SMAppealX Corr. Coeff. .029 .188 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .005 .32 5 Sig. (2 tailed) .643 .002 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAAttax Corr. Coeff. .020 .100 SMAttax Corr. Coeff. .3 57 ** .104 Sig. (2 tailed) .739 .105 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .080 N 243 243 N 243 243 HABackch Corr. Coeff. .111 .035 SMBlame Corr. Coeff. .105 .21 5 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .068 .569 Sig. (2 tailed) .092 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HABlame Corr. Coeff. .17 7 ** .041 SMCCGSolid Corr. Coeff. .030 .3 75 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .00 4 .50 4 Sig. (2 tailed) .625 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HACCGSolid Corr. Coeff. .003 .062 SMClaimHard Corr. Coeff. .042 276 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .964 .313 Sig. (2 tailed) .502 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAClaimHard Corr. Coeff. .186 ** .031 SMCommand Corr. Coeff. .2 35 ** .075

PAGE 162

162 Sig. (2 tailed) .002 .611 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .206 N 243 243 N 243 243 HACommand Corr. Coeff. .049 .18 1 ** SMCommitIndic Corr. Coeff. .015 .099 Sig. (2 tailed) .4 16 .003 Sig. (2 tailed) .814 .097 N 243 243 N 243 243 HACommitIndic Corr. Coeff. .114 .071 SMCompEmp Corr. Coeff. .19 5 ** .201 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .061 .248 Sig. (2 tailed) .00 2 .001 N 243 243 N 243 243 HACompEmp Corr. Coeff. .090 .099 SMComplai n Corr. Coeff. .33 3 ** .010 Sig. (2 tailed) .141 .109 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .864 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAComplain Corr. Coeff. .091 .105 SMCompliment Corr. Coeff. .035 .069 Sig. (2 tailed) .135 .091 Sig. (2 tailed) .570 .245 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAConcede Corr. Coeff. .092 .14 1 SMConcede Corr. Coeff. .1 01 .2 50 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .130 .02 3 Sig. (2 tailed) 10 7 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAConcern Corr. Coeff. .106 .071 SMConcern Corr. Coeff. .057 .078 Sig. (2 tailed) .082 .248 Sig. (2 tai led) .360 .187 N 243 243 N 243 243 HACond Corr. Coeff. .206 ** .043 SMCond Corr. Coeff. .076 .206 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .001 .488 Sig. (2 tailed) .221 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAConfirm Corr. Coeff. .265 ** .012 SMConfirm Corr. Coeff. .069 .357 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .847 Sig. (2 tailed) .258 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HACounter Corr. Coeff. 29 0 ** .106 SMCounter Corr. Coeff. 28 5 ** .122 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .083 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .039 N 243 243 N 243 243 HADelayIgn Corr. Coeff. .297 ** .004 SMDelayIgn Corr. Coeff. .034 .085 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .946 Sig. (2 tailed) .584 .150 N 243 243 N 243 243 HADiscMkr Corr. Coeff. .237 ** .168 ** SMDiscMkr Corr. Coeff. .17 2 ** .107 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .006 Sig. (2 tailed) .00 6 .070 N 24 3 243 N 243 243 HADistract Corr. Coeff. .160 ** .034 SMDistract Corr. Coeff. .024 .307 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .008 .588 Sig. (2 tailed) .699 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 Figure 4 9 Continued

PAGE 163

163 HADoubtH Corr. Coeff. .114 .110 SMDoubtH Corr. Coeff. .091 .0 64 Sig. (2 tailed) .061 .075 Sig. (2 tailed) .145 .280 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAEmotExp Corr. Coeff. .057 .18 0 ** SMEmotExp Corr. Coeff. .27 3 ** .075 Sig. (2 tailed) .348 .00 4 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .208 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAEndearTerm Corr. Coeff. .055 .050 SMEndearTerm Corr. Coeff. .24 0 ** .102 Sig. (2 tailed) .369 .422 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .084 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAGratitude Corr. Coeff. .034 .071 SMGratitude Corr. Coeff. .050 .056 Sig. (2 tailed) .577 .248 Sig. (2 tailed) .421 .350 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAHedgeSU Corr. Coeff. .164 ** .119 SMHedgeSU Corr. Coeff. .011 .33 4 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .006 .052 Sig. (2 tailed) .855 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAIndefRep Corr. Coeff. .483 ** .310 ** SMIndefRep Corr. Coeff. .049 .211 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .431 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAInsist Corr. Coeff. .091 .043 SMInsist Corr. Coeff. .099 .137 Sig. (2 tailed) .136 .488 Sig. (2 tailed) .112 .021 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAJoke Corr. Coeff. .095 .073 SMJoke Corr. Coeff. .1 6 6 .118 Sig. (2 tailed) .118 .234 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 08 .047 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAJustify Corr. Coeff. .034 .071 SMJustify Corr. Coeff. .028 .1 65 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .577 .248 Sig. (2 tailed) .654 .00 5 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAL etHoff Corr. Coeff. .056 .090 SMLetHoff Corr. Coeff. .033 .116 Sig. (2 tailed) .355 .144 Sig. (2 tailed) .593 .051 N 243 243 N 243 243 HANegProp Corr. Coeff. .2 32 ** .41 4 SMNegProp Corr. Coeff. .2 17 ** .075 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 Sig. (2 tai led) .000 .206 N 243 243 N 243 243 HANo Corr. Coeff. .376 ** .67 9 ** SMNo Corr. Coeff. .17 1 ** .029 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .00 6 .622 N 243 243 N 243 243 Figure 4 9 Continued

PAGE 164

164 HAPauseFill Corr. Coeff. .053 .039 SMPauseFill Cor r. Coeff. .069 .1 81 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .383 .527 Sig. (2 tailed) .267 .002 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAPostpone Corr. Coeff. .138 .104 SMPostpone Corr. Coeff. .053 .165 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .024 .094 Sig. (2 tailed) .396 .005 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAPr eparator Corr. Coeff. .106 .105 SMPreparator Corr. Coeff. .035 .092 Sig. (2 tailed) .082 .091 Sig. (2 tailed) .570 .122 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAPropName Corr. Coeff. .072 .001 SMPropName Corr. Coeff. .084 .058 Sig. (2 tailed) .237 .983 Sig. (2 ta iled) .180 .328 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAReason Corr. Coeff. .177 ** .091 SMReason Corr. Coeff. .124 39 6 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .004 .139 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 44 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAReassure Corr. Coeff. .134 .15 0 SMReassure Corr. Coeff. .007 .31 5 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .028 .015 Sig. (2 tailed) .916 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HARepReit Corr. Coeff. .054 .22 3 ** SMRepair Corr. Coeff. .037 .20 4 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .367 .000 Sig. (2 tailed) .557 .001 N 243 243 N 243 243 HARequInfo Corr. Coef f. .174 ** .18 1 ** SMRepReit Corr. Coeff. .16 0 ** .3 54 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .004 .003 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 10 .000 N 243 243 N 243 243 HARhetForm Corr. Coeff. .016 .13 6 SMRequInfo Corr. Coeff. .075 .140 Sig. (2 tailed) .789 .02 8 Sig. (2 tailed) .227 018 N 243 243 N 243 243 HASarcasm Corr. Coeff. .104 .022 SMRhetForm Corr. Coeff. .1 58 .044 Sig. (2 tailed) .088 .721 Sig. (2 tailed) .01 1 .458 N 243 243 N 243 243 HASelfD Corr. Coeff. 143 .040 SMSarcasm Corr. Coeff. .18 2 ** .002 Sig. (2 t ailed) .0 19 .521 Sig. (2 tailed) .00 4 .979 N 243 243 N 243 243 HAStmtInfo Corr. Coeff. .021 .013 SMSelfD Corr. Coeff. .1 58 .078 Sig. (2 tailed) .735 .837 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 11 .190 N 243 243 N 243 243 HATopicSwx Corr. Coeff. .134 .022 SMStmt Info Corr. Coeff. .1 5 0 .1 75 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .028 .721 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 16 .00 3 N 243 243 N 243 243 Figure 4 9 Continued

PAGE 165

165 SMStmtPrinc Corr. Coeff. .055 .16 3 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .380 .006 N 243 243 SMTopicSwx Corr. Coeff. .015 .155 * Sig. (2 tailed) .814 .009 N 243 243 SMWish Corr. Coeff. .111 .163 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .077 .006 N 243 243 Figure 4 9 Continued

PAGE 166

166 Y=HAInd; X=HAvars Corr The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: rAdHAInd Rank for Variable HAInd Number of Observations Read 243 Number of Observations Used 243 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 22 693 573 31526 21.93 <.0001 Error 220 316338 1437.90170 Corrected Total 242 1009912 Root MSE 37.91967 R Square 0.6868 De pendent Mean 122.00000 Adj R Sq 0.6554 Coeff Var 31.08170 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable Labe l DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept Intercept 1 96.45408 4.26515 22.61 <.0001 HABlame HABlame 1 12.43969 15.33972 0.81 0.4183 HAClaimHard HAClaimHard 1 0.97556 12.43299 0.08 0.9375 HACond HACond 1 8.30732 14.82645 0.56 0.5758 HAConfirm HAConfirm 1 11.5 5138 11.18149 1.03 0.3027 HACounter HACounter 1 36.64578 5.29348 6.92 <.0001 HADelayIgn HADelayIgn 1 61.29197 7.12744 8.60 <.0001 HADiscMkr HADiscMkr 1 3.17808 6.81519 0.47 0.6414 HADistract HADistract 1 18.45951 23.91849 0.77 0.4411 HADoubtH HADoubtH 1 47.83830 13.25937 3.61 0.00 04 HAHedgeSU HAHedgeSU 1 4.50700 5.77909 0.78 0.4363 HAIndefRep HAIndefRep 1 47.68741 5.43927 8.77 <.0001 HANegProp HANegProp 1 14.79261 5.80598 2.55 0.0115 HANo HANo 1 22.74503 4.21490 5.40 <.0001 HAPostpone HAPostpone 1 27.17185 16.70969 1.63 0.1054 HAReason HAReason 1 19.00735 11.52122 1.65 0.1004 HAReassure HAReassure 1 13.55821 15.87550 0.85 0.3940 HARequInfo HARequInfo 1 23.11196 10.49500 2.20 0.0287 HATo picSwx HATopicSwx 1 20.18800 32.25963 0.63 0.5321 HAAppealX HAAppealX 1 7.47804 14.51731 0.52 0.6070 HAAppCaj HAAppCaj 1 0.38098 19.365 86 0.02 0.9843 HAAlt HAAlt 1 44.73263 9.19128 4.87 <.0001 HAAgree HAAgree 1 12.51846 28.32114 0.44 0.6589 Figure 4 1 0 Results of non parametric r egression using SAS where Y = HAInd and X = all linguistic strategies that correlated with head acts

PAGE 167

167 Y=HADir; X=HAvars Corr The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: rAdHADir Rank for Variable HADir Number of Observations Read 243 Number of Observations Used 243 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 15 744713 49648 50.04 <.0001 Error 227 225204 992.08745 Corrected Total 242 969917 Root MSE 31.49742 R Square 0.7678 Dependent Mean 122.00000 Adj R Sq 0.7525 Coeff Var 25.81756 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable Label DF Estimate Error t V alue Pr > |t| Intercept Intercept 1 84.69417 3.37064 25.13 <.0001 HAAttax HAAttax 1 40.04930 12.68626 3.16 0.0018 HACommand HACommand 1 4 7.36678 5.86412 8.08 <.0001 HAConcede HAConcede 1 34.21979 21.04604 1.63 0.1053 HADiscMkr HADiscMkr 1 10.97629 5.28262 2.08 0.0389 HAEmotExp HAEmotExp 1 4.19086 7.27926 0.58 0.5654 HAHedgeSU HAHedgeSU 1 6.87780 4.29256 1.60 0.1105 HAIndefRep HAIndefRep 1 13.99792 4.12349 3.39 0.0008 HANegProp HANegProp 1 47.77634 4.83475 9.88 <.0001 HANo HANo 1 62.76128 3.92626 15.98 <.0001 HAReassure HAReassure 1 27.51085 12. 57987 2.19 0.0298 HARepReit HARepReit 1 1.69389 4.30208 0.39 0.6941 HARequInfo HARequInfo 1 23.93607 7.88470 3.04 0.0027 HARhetForm HARhetForm 1 11.98518 14.10385 0.85 0.3963 HAAlt HAAlt 1 19.13324 7.16941 2.67 0.0082 HAAgree HAAgree 1 41.10946 19.86648 2.07 0.0397 Figure 4 1 1 Results of non parametric regression using SAS where Y = HADir and X = all linguistic strategies that correlated with head acts

PAGE 168

168 Y=SMM; X=SMvars Corr The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: rSMM Rank for Variable SMM Number of Observations Read 243 Number of Observations Used 243 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 30 627956 20932 10.07 <.0001 Error 212 440698 2078.76615 Corrected Total 242 1068655 Root MSE 45.59349 R Square 0.5876 Dependent Mean 122.00000 Adj R Sq 0.5293 Coeff Var 37.37171 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable La bel DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept Intercept 1 79.51981 3.98197 19.97 <.0001 SMAgree SMAgree 1 23.59695 15.02448 1 .57 0.1178 SMAlt SMAlt 1 34.71959 11.57996 3.00 0.0030 SMApology SMApology 1 15.39757 14.28677 1.08 0.2824 SMAppCaj SMAppCaj 1 13.37100 9.74087 1.37 0.1713 SMAppealX SMAppealX 1 34.82081 15.62631 2.23 0.0269 SMBlame SMBlame 1 9.16400 13.92250 0.66 0.5111 SMCCGSolid S MCCGSolid 1 17.67484 10.59280 1.67 0.0967 SMClaimHard SMClaimHard 1 46.42823 14.00022 3.32 0.0011 SMCompEmp SMCompEmp 1 4.49216 19.80755 0 .23 0.8208 SMConcede SMConcede 1 45.37499 12.99987 3.49 0.0006 SMCond SMCond 1 4.98139 14.23314 0.35 0.7267 SMConfirm SMConfirm 1 15.66981 6.34624 2.47 0.0143 SMCounter SMCounter 1 13.38620 9.07963 1.47 0.1419 SMDistract SMDistract 1 12.30663 13.39048 0.92 0.3591 SMHedgeSU S MHedgeSU 1 7.98552 6.39530 1.25 0.2132 SMIndefRep SMIndefRep 1 25.20524 12.46923 2.02 0.0445 SMInsist SMInsist 1 27.29801 18.18836 1 .50 0.1349 SMJoke SMJoke 1 26.26516 12.20658 2.15 0.0325 SMJustify SMJustify 1 6.14513 10.99163 0.56 0.5767 SMPauseFill SMPauseFill 1 5.79846 12.30687 0.47 0.6380 SMPostpone SMPostpone 1 25.96082 15.51312 1.67 0.0957 SMReason SMReason 1 27.48755 5.97303 4.60 <.0001 SMReassure S MReassure 1 46.72801 9.31681 5.02 <.0001 SMRepair SMRepair 1 18.48897 18.51492 1.00 0.3191 SMRepReit SMRepReit 1 7.29314 7.32592 1 .00 0.3206 SMRequInfo SMRequInfo 1 24.39789 14.90926 1.64 0.1032 SMStmtInfo SMStmtInfo 1 8.92672 10.16498 0.88 0.3808 SMStmtPrinc SMStmtPrinc 1 18.57519 14.45697 1.28 0.2002 SMTopicSwx SMTopicSwx 1 42.96526 33.75736 1.27 0.2045 SMWish SMWish 1 37.22427 39.99959 0.93 0.3531 Figure 4 1 2 Results of non parametric regression using SAS where Y = SMM and X = all linguistic strategies that correlated with supportive moves

PAGE 169

169 Y=SMA; X=SMvars Corr The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: rSMA Rank for Variable SMA Number of Observations Read 243 Number of Observations Used 24 3 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 19 345733 18196 12.47 <.0001 Error 223 325531 1459.77899 Corrected Total 242 671264 Root MSE 38.20705 R Square 0.5150 Dependent Mean 122.00000 Adj R Sq 0.4737 Coeff Var 31.31726 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable Label DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept Intercept 1 99.23275 3.20589 30.95 <.0001 SMAttax SMAttax 1 89.92941 15.82467 5.68 <.0001 SMCommand SMCommand 1 60.40201 10.01034 6.03 <.0001 SMCompEmp SMCompEmp 1 4.49536 14.72313 0.31 0.7604 SMComplain SMComplain 1 19.80926 9.31488 2.13 0.0346 SMConcede SMConcede 1 11.08521 10.19680 1.09 0.2782 SMCounter SMCounter 1 35.27496 8.09795 4.36 <.0001 SMDiscMkr SMDiscMkr 1 2.14664 9.47662 0.23 0.8210 SMEmotExp SMEmotExp 1 36.27011 11.49970 3.15 0.0018 SMEndearTerm SMEndearTerm 1 21.32928 6.30832 3.38 0.0009 SMGrounder SMGrounder 1 22.26020 18.27787 1.22 0.2246 SMJoke SMJoke 1 24.14192 10.06190 2.40 0.0172 SMNegProp SMNegProp 1 37.96171 14.44245 2.63 0.0092 SMNo SMNo 1 29.68394 12.75223 2.33 0.0208 SMReason SMReason 1 2.34426 4.43285 0.53 0.5974 SMRepReit SMRepReit 1 0.20227 5.25357 0.04 0.9693 SMRhetForm SMRhetForm 1 15.25053 18.74595 0.81 0.4168 SMSarcasm SMSarcasm 1 41.66301 29.86571 1.40 0.1644 SMSelfD SMSelfD 1 1.26372 29.13098 0.04 0.9654 SMStmtInfo SMStmtInfo 1 7.77961 8.20197 0.95 0.3439 Figure 4 1 3 Results of non parametric regression using SAS where Y = SMA and X = all linguistic strateg ies that correlated with supportive moves

PAGE 170

170 Figure 4 14. Correlations between formulaic templates and head act type, supportive move type, up/downgraders, sequence type and mand type. One asterisk (*) = correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 t ailed); two asterisks (**) = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 171

171 Kendall's tau_b s_pero no_porque no_si no_pero HAInd Corr. Coeff. .314 ** .069 .078 .020 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .256 .198 .744 N 243 243 243 243 HADir Corr. Coeff .234 ** .23 6 ** .071 .12 7 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 .252 .0 40 N 243 243 243 243 SMA Corr. Coeff. .12 2 .036 .061 .004 Sig. (2 tailed) .0 4 8 .568 .327 .953 N 243 243 243 243 SMM Corr. Coeff. .25 0 ** .21 1 ** .008 .113 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 .8 88 .058 N 243 243 243 243 DnG Corr. Coeff. .140 .112 .001 .093 Sig. (2 tailed) .021 .066 .981 .127 N 243 243 243 243 UpG Corr. Coeff. .023 .047 .014 .022 Sig. (2 tailed) .703 .440 .823 .725 N 243 243 243 243 RS_DIRonly Corr. Coeff. .275 ** .1 28 .078 .031 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .047 .223 .634 N 243 243 243 243 RS_INDonly Corr. Coeff. .284 ** .216 ** .105 .119 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .001 .101 .064 N 243 243 243 243 RS_Both Corr. Coeff. .007 .118 .035 .205 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .909 .065 .584 .001 N 243 243 243 243

PAGE 172

172 s_pero no_porque no_si no_pero HARefInvite Corr. Coeff. .055 .046 .0 21 .037 Sig. (2 tailed) .387 .477 749 .560 N 243 243 243 243 HARefOrder Corr. Coeff. .090 .025 .042 .007 Sig. (2 tailed) .153 .693 .506 .909 N 243 243 243 243 HARefStmt Corr. Coeff. .090 .105 .066 .2 8 7 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .149 .096 .296 .000 N 243 243 243 243 HARefRequ Corr. Coeff. .116 .004 .062 .055 Sig. (2 tailed) .067 .953 .332 .387 N 243 243 243 243 HARefOffer Corr. Co eff. .064 .014 .058 .098 Sig. (2 tailed) .309 .823 .359 .122 N 243 243 243 243 HARefSugg Corr. Coeff. .12 3 .006 .020 .045 Sig. (2 tailed) .047 .921 .744 .475 N 243 243 243 243 Figure.4 14. Continued

PAGE 173

173 CHAPTER 5 DOMAIN S OF INTERACTION Cha pter 4 described how the participants of this study refused various types of propositions in terms of in/directness, supportive moves, linguistic strategies, routinized phrases and formulaic patterns. T his and subsequent chapter s take a detailed look at t he contextual features that define each encounter. I divide these features, or variables, into three part s : domain s of interaction, participant characteristics addressee characteristics and relationship T h is chapter deal s with two aspects pertaining t o the domain of interaction : the orientation of the talk (domestic, social, workplace/business) and the physical setting ( home club, transport etc. ) The results of this chapter show evidence supporting the importance of domain as an extralinguistic v ariable, though the divide between one domain and an other is not always clearly defined. Domains, which mesh speaker ends, interlocutor relationship and physical setting, demonstrate various tendencies with regard to 1) the length of the refusal sequence, 2) semantic strategies ( i.e., head acts, supportive moves, up/downgraders) 3) linguistic strategies ( e.g., attacking the hearer joking and/or laughing saying no ) and 4) post refusal small talk. T he data suggest that the orientation of the talk trump s the physical setting in which it takes place; however, physical setting displays certain statistically significant differences between categories that could be attributed to aspects such as privacy ( i.e., ( e.g., one that is or iented to specific activities, such as buying and selling ). As we will see in the coming sections, some refusal behaviors, such as the use of aggravating moves and the engaging in post refusal schmoozing were constrained by domain.

PAGE 174

174 Domain From Chapter 1, we recall that t he concept of domain 1972: 452) r . to general institutions and spheres of activity . (Fishman 1972: 435 436). in which verbal and non While the notion of domain based behavioral rules, I think, comes across as inflexible and prescriptive, the ide a that I espouse is that there exist some underlying regularities that seem to (Escandell Vidal 2004: 347). In the sense that domains, and the non finite set of contexts/scenes/fields that they circumscribe, are said to enable us to understand that language choice and topic are . related to widespread socio cultural : 4 ; Fishman 1972: 441), they are useful for helping to understand the way in which community members use language to fulfill par ticular functions (Boxer 2002 ) Based on the above, we may hypothesize that there will be differences in the linguistic behavior of the participants of this (or any) linguistic study, according to the domain of interaction. The question for this chapte r, then, is to what extent refusal behavior, i.e., the type of head act (indirect or direct), the use of supportive moves (mitigating or aggravating), the use of internal modifications (downgraders and upgraders), and the use of linguistic strategies and f ormulas are dependent upon the domain of interaction in which the conversation occurs. In this section I attend to two facets of interactional domain, 1) the orientation (purposes) of the talk and 2) the physical setting (Hymes 1972) W hile the two correlate, the y do not always coincide ; f or example, a participant can conduct business

PAGE 175

175 in her home as well as attend to personal matters in a shop or store. In fact, the orientation of the talk and physical setting did not coincide for 21 % of these data. Th e orientation of the talk is admittedly based on a conflation of goals/ends and participant addressee relationship 1 I classified each refusal sequence into one of three categories domestic, social, workplace/business (herein, business ) in line with Boxer (2002) it circumscribes talk with partners, parents, children and other family members. For this study, it can also include oth ers who form an integral part of the household or have a stake in family affairs (e.g., domestic help caretakers and long term guests ). The social domain includes interactions with individuals that fall along various points of the social distance continu to face interaction with people we are getting to know, people we already know and with whom we have a 5). In this domain, the ends are often interactional (as opposed to transactional) (Brown and Yule 1983) and involve small talk ( Schneider 1988; Coupland 2000) The service encounte rs, institutional encounters and workplace encounters. The talk is typically transactional and embodies specific roles (e.g., agent client, superior subordinate) for which scripts curtail uncertainty within the exchange The physical setting of the talk was more varied, but, in general, fell in line with similar categories (domestic, social, work, service) For instance, refusals that took place I classified as having occurred in a domestic setting ; refusals that 1 For example, a couple talking about dinner plans I classified as domestic, but friend s talking about dinner plans I classified as social.

PAGE 176

176 took place in the stands at a sporting event I considered to be a social setting ; refusals that took place in store were part of a service setting and so on. I give the full breakdown and classification of facets 1) and 2) in Table s 5 1 and 5 2 While the above discussion points t o the academically held ( and logical ) notion that people behave differently based on where they are and what they are talking about or doing there were no t clear divides in these data distinguishing one domain from another. What I found were t endencies o f certain varables to be more or less distributed with one or two domains differently than they were with another For example, the participants tended to laugh and joke more in the social domain (though not to the total exclusion of the others ); or, they would say no to an addressee in the business and domestic domain s but not so much in the social domain. One potential reason for the lack of clear division is that the domains represented here were not vastly different in terms of formality (linguistic or otherwise), or with respect to social structure ; with few exceptions, relationships among participants and addressee s tended to track horizontal ly rather than vertical ly Als o, people are who they are, and, typically, do not change drastically from on e setting to another; it is more likely that they make certain adjustments consciously or unconsciously based on their embedded cultural experiences and their on the spot assessments of the current situation (cf. Escandell Vidal 2004). Nevertheless there did emerge differences in refusal behavior that point ed to the need to take domain into account. Orientation of Talk Of the 243 refusal sequences analyzed, there were 107 domestic 4 7 social and 89 workplace/business oriented instances of talk. I looke d at each of these in terms of the following variables: the number of refusa l turns at talk per sequence, indirect and

PAGE 177

177 direct head acts, mitigating and aggravating supportive moves ( herein, mitigating and aggravating moves ) upgraders and downgraders, and the linguistic strategies as set out in the previous chapters, including the use of post refusal small talk. I first look at domain as a function of the social orientation of talk in general i.e., domestic, social, business I then distinguish between t ypes of domestic and business oriented talk. Of the variables mentioned above, at the general level, there was no significant difference in the distribution across categories of domain for the number of refusals per sequence the use of direct head ac ts or the use of upgraders There were, however, significant differences in the use of indirect head acts, mitigating moves and downgraders between some domains of interaction: between business and social for indirect head acts (favoring social) and bet ween business and domestic for mitigating moves and downgraders (favoring business) Also, there were detectable differences for certain linguistic strategies and post refusal sm all talk Semantic strategies ( general ) For head acts and refusal sequen ces as a whole, the participants demonstrated a marked preference for indirect strategies in the social domain, compared to domestic and business. As shown in Tables 5 3 and 5 4, social oriented talk is the only type that showed a majority percentage of i ndirect head acts (at token and case levels ) and a majority percentage of indirect only refusal sequences. The participants refused indirectly more often in the social domain than any other and this difference was significant between the social and busin ess domains (p < .05). The refusals in (1) and (3) were produced by the same participant with men older than her but, contrasting ly, in different domains: business and social. (1) Direct refusal of suggestions during business oriented talk, service sett ing (Moqui 39)

PAGE 178

178 ((Moqui finalizes an office supply bill with Torquato, a male shop keeper ; in discussing in whose that the person for whom she works is also the director of a school )) 1 Torqua to: @ ((pausa)) la directora del colegio? @ ((pause)) the director of the school? 2 Moqui: no:, este:: no:, uh:: 3 Torquato: Antonia?= 4 Moqui: =Antonia.= 5 Torquato: =ah, Antonia por eso. 6 Moqui: no, pero no es la direcTOra. la directora es LuAna. no, but she is not the diRECtor. the director is LuAna. 7 Torquato: LuAna es la directora/ y Antonia qu es entonces, LuAna is the director/ and 8 Moqui: [s] [yes] 9 Torquato: pens que [xx I thought that xx 10 Moqui: [es la: que lleva, la plata[@@ 11 Torquato: [ahh 12 Torquato: ah la directora es Lu Ana ? yo pens que era a l revs, [que la directora era Antonia.= ah the director is LuAna? I thought that it was the other way around, that the director was Antonia.= 13 Moqui: [no no no. 14 Moqui: =no, [no

PAGE 179

179 15 Torquato: [ah mir. [ah well th en. ((lit. look)) (2) Indirect refusal of suggestions during social oriented talk, social setting (Moqui 32) ((Moqui converses with Ruperto, an older acquaintance, at a wake; in discussing the last time ion that it was she who went to his house to borrow an outfit )) 1 R uperto: vos estuviste en casa. (eso ) no s qu [ (creo que:) te te you were at my home. (that (I think) to to you 2 Moqui: [a dejar [to leave 3 Moqui: a dejar una tarjeta de: Carina. la hija de Lucho y Mireya. to leave a card from: Carina. the daughter of Lucho and Mireya. 4 Ruperto: ((paus ita)) pero hace aos te estoy hablando, que hace como seis siete aos capa(z). yes you were/, and after that for another thing, you ((emph.)) were there for for a pericn s been like six seven years maybe. 5 Moqui: a:h. no s, puede ser. (de) eso no me acuerdo. a:h. 6 Ruperto: no te acords?= 7 Moqui: =no. sera yo? =no. was it me? ((doubtful)) 8 Ruperto: yo pens s, que eras vos, que xx la hija de J s, que eras vos s. tengo la idea que estoy casi seguro que eras vos. I thoug the idea was you. 9 Moqui: o la [sobrina. or the niece.

PAGE 180

180 10 Ruperto: [o yo [or I 11 Moqui: o la sobrina que or the niece that 12 Ruperto: eh capaz que fue la sobrina [vos. eh maybe it was the niece [ you ((emph.)) 13 Moqui: [que la que estaba en el almacn de frente. o L que es sobrina de xx [that the one that was en the store across the 14 Ruperto: s, s, s. (s / si) yo no me acuerdo m'hija, yo no (me / ms) xx (tot almente) que eras que eras vos me pareca,= xx (totally) that it was that it was you it seemed to me,= 15 Moqui: =mm::= 16 Ruperto: =pero no, no me acuerdo. 17 Moqui: (ac), si corren entran. (here), there coming in in droves ((referring to guests at wake)) (( buzz of voices of those at tending the wake )) 1 8 Ruperto: s, e un ((toz fu yes, th 19 Moqui: [puede ser s. [could be yes. 2 0 Ruperto: [no me acuerdo vos, no me acuerdo bien. (( buzz of voices of those at tending the wake))

PAGE 181

181 In the above examples, in (1) Moqui unre servedly clai ms her identity as expert on the topic of who is charge of what in her work sphere; however, in (2), she is far less assertive and eventually acquiesces to his insistence with an indefinite reply of confirmation in line 19 As far as an explanation for th is behavior, one reason that the participants demonstrated this prefe 1988 ): given the higher ambiguity of the social sphere, in which people at times are unsure of their role and relationship with respect to anot her, more face saving maneuvers such as not responding bald on to a proposition may ensue. This is opposed to domains, precisely such as the domestic or work oriented, where relationships and roles are more clearly defined. This is not to say, however, that indirect strategies are categorically more polite than direct ones they are not ( e.g., Fabiana buying produce in (7) displays that directness can be just as polite ), but that they were a politic option chosen by the participants in the moment as the e xchange played out. Shifting focus to mitigating moves and downgraders, domestic oriented talk stand s out. As can be seen in Tables 5 6 and 5 7 mitigating moves and downgraders were least frequent for this type of talk compared to social and business. For example, looking at the adjust ed number of tokens of mitigating moves (weighted by indexing the number of refusal sequences per domain to 100), very few occurred in domestic oriented talk relative to social and business (79 versus 123 and 162) L ikew ise mitigating moves appeared in 58 % of domestic oriented sequences (which, note, is still the majority) as opposed to 7 2 % and 7 1 % of social and business oriented sequences, respectively. Th is difference between the domestic and business oriented talk types

PAGE 182

182 w as statistically significant (p = .01) 2 Examples (3) and (4) below demonstrate mitigated/downgraded refusal behavior as opposed to non mitigated/non downgraded behavior by the same participant; the situations are similar in that they both entail rejecting something being offered to her by an older addressee (3) Mitigated refusal during business oriented talk service setting (Mar 11, 13) (( then she refuses to let Berta leave the herbs that she 1 Berta: vos sabs que ayer me compraron dos, dos bolsitas mir a veinte. you know that yesterday they bought two, two bags from me you see for twenty. 2 Mar: a veinte pesos. for twenty p esos. 3 Berta: all en la peluquera de, de F la conocs a la muchacha? you know that girl? 4 Mar: ah s, de F ah yes, de F. 5 Berta: Fernanda F. no se llama? 6 Mar: Fernanda, Ferna nda F. es tan simptica. ah de: ((pausita)) Fernanda, Fernanda F. ((short pause)) 7 Mar: bueno otro da pas porque la verdad que no tengo plata si no te compraba una bolsita. well alright pass by again another day becaus if not ((if I did)) I would by a bag from you. 8 Berta: ah bueno. ah okay. 9 Mar: chau, otro da 2 Kruskal Wallis 1 way ANOVA

PAGE 183

183 bye, another day 10 Berta: I want to make, (money / plants) you kn ((217 lines of tal k omitted, 10 minutes pass)) 1 1 Berta: quers que te deje: do you want me to leave you: 1 2 Mar: NO no 1 3 Berta: eso que quera tu padre? what your father wanted? 1 4 Mar: no, llevalo porque l no s, cundo va a venir y entonces no no lo tengo, no s si lo va a querer a eso. no, take it 1 5 Berta: ahh. 1 6 Mar: ta:? okay:? 1 7 Berta: si no te dejaba yo si if not I could leave it for you if 1 8 Mar: no, vos pas ahora el, despus cuando cobre: no, you ((emph.)) pass by later, after I get paid: 1 9 Berta: = despus de los cobros. =after pay day. 2 0 Mar: ah est que yo te compr o algo. [ta? 2 1 Berta: [bueno, es la semana que viene. 2 2 Mar: la semana que viene. ta?

PAGE 184

184 next week. okay? 2 3 Berta: bueno. okay. ( 4 ) Non mitigated r efusal during domestic oriented talk, domestic setting (Mar 2 1) (( Mar she substitute store bought milk with fresh (non pasteurized) milk .)) 1 Mar: vos compraste eh leche~? did you buy eh milk~? 2 Pad re : no/ ahh 3 Mar: no/, para maana \ ((dice tomando)) no/, for tomorrow \ ((she says while drinking)) 4 Pad re : h ay leche de vaca xxx= 5 Mar: =no/ \ A similar trend obtain ed with downgraders. Adjust ed token scores show a large difference between domestic and business oriented talk ( 50 versus 10 8 ), though not between domestic and social (50 versus 51 down graders ). However, when considering downgrading strategies as equal to the percentage of refusal sequences in which they appeared the differences we re more pronounced, with the domestic and business domains at the extremes : 33% dom estic; 44% soc ial; 53% bus iness. The difference between domestic and business was highly significant (p < 01) The examples above dem onstrate the presence of downgraders during a business oriented exchange ( e.g., appealers in lines 16, 20, 22 in ( 3 ) ) and the absence of the same during a domestic oriented refusal ( e.g., line 5 in ( 4 ) ).

PAGE 185

185 As we will see, relationships characterized by lo w social distance and high levels of affiliation help explain these differences While domestic oriented talk did not positively correlate with the use of direct head acts as I would have expected, the relative lack of mitigating moves and internal softenin g devices makes sense along the with those with whom one is close, or, at least, with whom face issues are not a pressing concern ( e.g., as in (5) below lines 2, 4, 10) (1988) further discussed in Chapters 6 and 7) To further th is point Tables 5 6 and 5 7 show that the participants produced the most aggravating supportive moves within domestic oriented talk as well as the most upgrade rs overall Though these differences between orientation types were not significant, they do support the idea that as intimacy increases, so does the tendency to speak with less constraint. Semantic strategies ( sub types ) This section concerns trends reg arding the number of refusals per sequence, head acts supportive moves, upgraders and downgraders as a function of sub typ es. Only the domestic (DOM) and business (BUS) domains were broken down in this way The n umber of refusal sequences per sub type i s given in parentheses : DOM: couples talk (public and private) (n = 41) DOM: other domestic talk (n = 66) BUS: service encounter, participant as the agent (n = 12) BUS: service encounter, participant as the client (n = 26) BUS: participant speaking t o subordinate (n = 26) BUS: participant and addressee equal status (n = 23) BUS: participant speaking to a superior (n = 2) 3 3 Because of the relative lack of refusal sequences in this category, for the purposes of the analysis, I remarkable differences in behavior between the two categories.

PAGE 186

186 The results revealed telling correlations for some sub typ es (Figure 5 1) Couples talk, for example, positively correlated with aggravating moves (.225, p < .01) and upgraders (.150, p < .05). At the same time, they negatively correlated with mitigating moves ( .145, p < .05) and downgraders ( .186, p < .01). In other words, regardless of whether the refusal head act was di rect or indirect and they were nearly equal in number the level of tentativeness tended to be low or non existent. B oxer the relationships and therefore do less of th An example of this behavior is illustrated in (5), below (aggravating moves and upgraders are underline d ). (5) Aggravated refusal during couples talk, social setting (Lea 6) (( While Lea is helping to set up for a q uinceaera at the neighborhood social club, partner, approaches and asks her for change, which she does not have.)) 1 Pablo: qu llenura me he agarrado. eh @ ((pausita)) tens monedas ah? man I am so full. eh @ ((short pause)) you have c oins on you? 2 Lea: ((otras voces)) no tengo monedas ac. no tengo cambio yo [mhijo! oins here. son 3 Pablo: [ah:: 4 Lea: pa' qu quers monedas change for. 5 Pablo: pa comprar cigarros m hija estoy sin fumar desde hoy al medioda estoy como loco all en la casa. the house. 6 Lea: bueno, ta. fijate en el caj n si no hay monedas?

PAGE 187

187 7 Pablo: ah! x 8 Lea: ((recordando)) HAY DIEZ PEsos Pablo ah arriba. Pablo there on top. 9 Pablo: (te ngo que) ir hasta la casa de vuelta? (I have to) go back to the house again? 10 Lea: y bueno si yo no tengo la plata, est aLL mhijo:! well yeah 11 Pablo: OH! 12 Lea: tom ((la llave de la c asa?)) manda(la) a la nena. take this. ((housekey?)) send the girl. ((their daughter)) ther domestic talk did not significantly correlate with any of the above variables How e ver, tests of analysis of variance did attest to significant differences b etween couples talk, other domestic talk and non domestic talk for supportive moves, upgraders, downgraders and post refusal small talk (at the .05 level or better) Other domestic talk included post refusal small talk significantly less than non domesti c talk (Figure 5 5) and aggravating moves and upgraders significantly less than couples talk These results affirm the rationale and support the findings of studies ( e.g., Fishman 1983; Alberts 1990; De Francisco 1991; Boxer 2002) that analyze couples ta lk apart from other kinds of talk and as its own category. Participants in the role of client in a business exchange formed the only sub category that correlated with direct head acts (data provided by five of ten participants) In this case the cor tendency to say during service encounters (.183, p < .01) when confronted with offers, suggestions and requests. And while the direct (the direct strategy used most) was non tentative, the nature of the mand determined whether the participant

PAGE 188

188 would follow it with any mitigating moves. For example, they would mitigate refusals to requests ( e.g., with some sort of tactic, typically an apology or reason/explanation. This was in contrast to refusals to offers, typically of additional merchandise, in which the participant client refused directly and moved on with little, if any, downgrading or supportive moves Note the differing refusal styes in two examples by the same participant, Fabiana : (6) Direct refusal to a request with mitigation participant as client service setting ( Fabiana 1 ) (( At a kiosk inside a small supermarket, Fabiana desires to check th e balance of her calling card, but is unable to fulfill the female .)) 1 Fabiana: ((approaching counter )) buenos das. (( men conversing )) good morning. 2 Clerk (f) : seora. 3 Fabiana: hola mi negr a no me pods decir cunto me queda, saber ms o menos? ((en su tarjeta para hacer llamadas)) hi my dear less? ((how much she has left on her calling card)) 4 Clerk : tiene el papelito? do you ((formal)) have the little paper? 5 Fabiana: jah. (( expression indicating that she does not have it )) 6 Clerk : de la ltima vez? from the last time? 7 Fabiana: no ((en voz chiquita)) no ((quiet voice)) 8 Clerk : no? (dame la cdula). (si empre) guardando el papelito, ya sabs no? (give me your ID). (always) keeping the little paper now you know

PAGE 189

189 9 Fabiana: s, no no no, vos sabs que ((pausa)) cuando vine xxx bien con eso lo romp todo y no ((pausita)) sinceramente viste, vos disculp la yeah, no no no, you know that ((pause)) when I came xxx okay with that I ((emph.)) pardon th e imprudence but 10 Clerk : ya te digo en seguida. you ((informal )) know in just a moment. 11 Fabiana: te agradezco/. I thank you/. (( expression of gratitude marked for register )) (7) Direct refusal to an offer without mitigation participant as client service setting (Fabiana 2) (( Fabiana at a c orner market buying produce ; she is attended by a male clerk. )) 1 Clerk (m) : seora? 2 Fabiana: un kilo de papas/. a kilo of potatoes/. 3 Clerk : de cul? of which? 4 Fabiana: give me th e one for fourteen ((pesos per kilo)), it seems to me that they are not ((orders using informal command form)) 5 Clerk : qu ms. what else. ((offer)) 6 Fabiana: dos cebollas/. (( paus a )) y:: un morrn verde porque debe los tiene q que son grandes. two onions/. ((pause)) an::d a green pepper because it should you have ((stuttering effect)) pretty big ones. ((accepts offer; places product order)) (( beeps of the cash register buttons ))

PAGE 190

190 7 Fabiana: srvase. there you are. ((giving him the money; pays using formal command form )) 8 Clerk : qu ms? what else? ((offer)) 9 Fabiana: nada ms. nothing else. ((refuses offer; ends transaction)) (( various seconds pass )) 10 Fa biana: muy bien. graciaS! very well. thank y ou: (( unmarked expression of gratitude)) This dynamic changed, however, in the context of participant as agent. Four of the ten participants provided the data for this sub type which correlated not with a ny head act type, but with longer refusal sequences (.138, p < .05), more mitigating moves and downgraders (.239 and .251, respectively, p < .01). In fact, the average number of refusals per sequence was 2.42, the highest of all sub types (Table 5 5) Th ese statistical relationships are stronger than the ones for participant as client above, and accommodate her or him. For instance, Rena demonstrates this with a woma n seeking to buy a scarf in ( 8): (8) Long refusal sequence with mitigation, participant as agent, service setting (Rena 2) (( A female client enters )) 1 Rena: hola cmo ands? hi how are you? 2 Mujer2: ands bien? you doing well? 3 Rena: bien, vos?

PAGE 191

191 4 Mujer2: bie:n. goo:d. 5 Rena: qu puede ser? what can I help you with? ((lit. what could it be?)) 6 Mujer2: alguna bufanda de hombre o que pueda usar un hombre una ne:gra o algo? som or that a man could use a bla:ck one or something? 7 ay no, creo que no me queda nada/. xxx. haba una negra ah ((SMM)) [((pausa))] ah ah pero capaz que para hombre no. a : xxx there was a black one over there ((SMM)) ((pause)) there ah but may be not for a man. 8 Violeta: [hay una negra.] [there is a black one.] 9 Rena: (( mira la bufanda y verifica )) no no no. no. sa no es para hombre. ((looks at the scarf and verifies)) 10 Mujer2: xxx 11 Re na: ((se re)) no, no me queda ninguna! single one left! ((SMA mitigated by laughter)) 12 Mujer2: no te queda nada. you have nothing left. ((verifying)) 13 no. no [me queda 14 Mujer2: [marrn o algo xxx [brown or something xxx 15 ningun ninguna ninguna ninguna. not a not a one, not a one, not a one. 16 Mujer2: pero qu cosa [xxx

PAGE 192

192 unbelievable xxx ((lit. bu t what a thing)) 17 Rena: [se me terminaron. ((SMM)) s? no hay? [they ran out on me. 18 Mujer2: ay no, en ningn lado. ay no, nowhere. 19 Rena: ahh! 20 Mujer2: bueno, [gracias. well, [thank you. 21 Rena: [yo tengo que ir a Montevideo pero hace mucho fro. 22 Mujer2: s y el fro no da ganas de ir tampoco. 23 Rena: ((ris ita)) chau. ((short laugh)) bye. 24 Mujer2: qu pases bien. (( sale )) have a good day ((lit. that you pass (the time/day) well)) ((client leaves)) In this sequence, Rena has no qualms with delivering direct refusals in lines 7, 13 and 15; however, s he is careful to soften them with apologetic tones, displays of empathy, laughter, other supportive moves and small talk Th e first (line 7), for example, is internally downgraded the lengthened vowel in a : y n o imparts an apologetic tone while the negatio n of the implied proposition ( tens? no tengo no me queda ) is softened with a subjectivizer ( creo que ) and mitigated syntactically with its form as a reverse psychological predicate. 4 After visually verifying that there is nothing 4 I n the expression no me queda the verb acts as a reverse psychological predicate (like gustar) In these constructions the agent (my participant/th e syntactic subject) is downgraded to the experiencer (indirect object), and relinquishes control over the action, thereby lessening the participant's share of responsibility for the "offense." This qualifies it as a syntact ic downgrader.

PAGE 193

193 in stock, the two en ter into an exchange of small talk (beginning in line 16). Here, the This indicates that the two ; b y the end of the interaction, rapport has been maintained and equilibrium restored. In workplace encounters, there are trends worth mentioning when examining the relationship of the se variable s with refusals to status equals/superiors, compared with refusals to subordinate s Five participants produced the refusals to status equals/superiors (n=25), but o nly one participant (Ari, Pastoreo group) produced the refusals to subordinates (n=26), tho ugh with various addressees Refusals to status equals/superiors correlate d with mitigating moves (.162, p < .01) though not as strong ly as th e participant as agent sub type Most of the following examples are refusals to mands that have a similar (less er) rank of imposition (R) R efusals more serious in nature (+ R) ( e.g., work meeting ) incurred lengthy negotiation sequences; because of this, I only include part of one here, though the increased rank of imposition makes this example less comparable. 5 Supportive, rapport building and downgrading moves are underlined. (9) Refusal sequence between colleagues of equal status with mitigation, work setting (Rita 14) (( In the kitchen of the Center where Rit a works, Velchi/Velita, a teacher, attempts to help herself to the dessert that Rita has made for the staff and children, but Rita refuses. )) 1 Velchi: ah no, como ( otro / un) poquito de postre. 2 Rita : muy bien. 5 In selecting e xamples, my goal was to choose those with as many commonalities as possible, save the variable in question.

PAGE 194

194 very well. 3 Velchi: xxx (( going to serve herself )) 4 Rita: ah yo lo saco si quers. ahora yo yo te lo saco, no te hagas problema. now I 5 Velchi: esto. this. 6 Velchi: ay con kiwi y todo. ay with kiwi and everthing. 7 Rita: ah no, esto es con TODO. qu servicio! ((pausa)) (pues no s si sabs) que tenemos fondos Velchi. @@ t know if you know) but we have funds Velchi. @@ ((joking about the Center having money in the budget)) (( clinks from Rita serving Velchi )) (10) Refusal sequence between colleagues of equal status with mitigation, work setting (Ari 30) (( Ari blows off h er co the voice recorder; Vilma issues an order with which Ari refuses to comply .)) 1 Vilma: decile [a la tell [the 2 Ari: [no importa! al! 3 Vilma: a la no! decile the no! tell her 4 Ari: (no / ni) se dan cuenta que yo lo tengo puesto. that I have it ((the mic)) on. 5 Vilma: ((silbidos)) no, pero vos decile a la norteamericana que venga que yo le explico despus lo que es eso. ((whistles)) no, but you ((emph.)) explain to her later what that means.

PAGE 195

195 6 Ari: ayer le explicaban yesterday they were explaining to her (( laughter, unintelli g ible voices )) 7 Ari: no importa (( various people talking at once )) 8 Ari: no importa! ((silbidos)) ayer le explicaban todas las formas de usar pedo. ((whistles)) yesterday they were explaining to her all the way s ((fart)). ( 11 ) Refusal sequence to a superior with mitigation, + R, work setting (Ari 28) (( Ari is approached by a superior colleague Triza, who informs her that she will have to come in to work on her scheduled day off. )) 1 Tri za: maana, maana tens que ir a la escuela porque, xxxcito/ tomorrow, tomorrow you have to go to the school because, xxx ((dim. suffix))/ 2 Ari: pero, digo: no pueden hacerme esto (pues digo) = pero, I mean: (you plural / they) (well I mean) = 3 Triza: =y a m tampoco. =and to me either. 4 Ari: ((pausa)) pero le digo hace veinte das me dijeron, (tom) el da libre, yo xxx ((pause)) but I tell you ((formal)), twenty days ago (you plural / they) told me, (take) the day of f, I xxx 5 Triza: es que yo te, yo te, yo te te comprendo perfectamente. I understand you ((informal)) perfectly. 6 Ari: ta digo vengo. [pero: -bu:t 7 Triza: [pero lo vas a tener en otro momento.

PAGE 196

196 8 Ari: s s s yo s lo que me decs pero digo que ya porque, ah yo ya haba comunicado maana A se va a Montevideo hoy y l maana no hay na no estaba, porque [se: yo tena] libr e y ta bueno ta ah I had already let (them) know tomorrow A ((her partner)) is going to Montevideo today and he tomorrow there is no ((no one to babysit her nephew, which s and okay fine okay 9 Triza: [s s est bien s] ((n egotiat ion continues f or another fifty turns)) Thus r efusals to status equals and superiors often generated sequences with multiple refusals that were often mitigated in some way. This was in contrast to the refusal behavior of the participant Ari, speaking to various subordinates W hile participants (including Ari) felt the need to attenuate and negotiate refusals to colleagues and superiors Ari the workers that she managed were shorter, generating significantly fewer refusals (averaging 1.12 refusals per sequence, the lowest of all sub types), and favored direct ness Examples (12) and (13) illustrate. (12) Refusal sequence without mitigation, participant to subordinate, work setting (Ari 2) (( A male worker states that he will accompany Ari and Vilma to a meeting with their boss to discuss an issue about which all of the worke rs are concerned.)) 1 A ri : (( a unos trabajadores )) nosotros vamos a hablar con este hombre? ((to a group of workers)) we ((emph.)) are going to speak with this man? 2 V ilma : (( a los mismos )) vamos a ver con (Dardito) a ver si vino ((to the same workers ((omit 4 lines)) 3 Worker : yo voy con ustedes, xxx. I am going with you, xxx.

PAGE 197

197 4 A ri : no. no. 5 V ilma : no mi amor. te agradezco. no my dear. I thank you. (1 3 ) R efusal sequence with some degree of mitigation, participant to subordinate, work setting (Ari 8) (( During the issuing of work regulation footwear, a female worker requests a lighter shoe as stance.)) 1 Susana: ( che ) pero, no habr un treinta y siete ms liviano como el de aquella? (hey ((affiliative))) but, might there not be a ((size)) thirty like 2 Ari: NO no no. NO no no. 3 Worker : son todos as S usana. (( unintelli g ible voices )) 4 Ari: s e ve que un nmero viene bota, el treinta y siete viene bota it looks like one number comes in a boot, size thirty seven comes in a boot. Linguistic strategies and post refusal small talk Now focus ing on the way in which the orientation of talk related to specific linguistic strategies, I found that fifteen differed significantly across some categor y or categor ies of domain such as saying delaying response/ignoring hearer and j oking/laughing For each of these strategies, Table s 5 8 and 5 9 show the raw token number, the adjuste d token number, and the percentage of refusal sequences in which the strategy appear ed (RS%) Also, the code name listed indicates if a particular stra tegy was different as a feature of head acts (HA), supportive moves (SM), refusal

PAGE 198

198 t urns at talk (RTT) or in general, th roughout the entire refusal sequence Figure 5 2 displays the strategies and how they arrange around the different orientations of talk. A striking observation is the degree to which business oriented talk diverged from the other domains. Out of the fifteen strategies in which I found significant differences, b usiness talk was salient in fourteen of them. The exception was giving an in definite reply ( e.g., no s puede ser ; voy a ver qu hago maana ), which was most prevalent in the social oriented talk and differed significantly from the domestic domain. Also, business and social oriented talk shared the making of solidary claims ( e.g., sabs que, viste, che ) (CCGSolid in Fig. 5 2 ) as opposed to domestic oriented talk T he re were various differences between business oriented talk on the one hand, and other types of ta lk on the other Participants postponed ( e.g., la semana que viene pas ) and offered conditions ( e.g., si me la si me la pudieran traer s, si no no pue:do ) as supportive moves more than in d omestic or social talk They also tended to apologize ( e.g., s inceramente viste, vos disculp la imprudencia ) and say much more than in social oriented talk; for this difference was significant at several levels of analysis ( i.e., HA, RTT and RS). Conversely, in social oriented talk, the part icipants tended to insist ( e.g., no! no \ vamos . ya que vamos, vamos \ ) and make jokes / laugh more than in business oriented talk. B usiness and domestic oriented talk did not differ significantly where was concerned. This could be for several possible reasons : not only might this be an example supportive of Bulge t heory (1988), which I have referenced before,

PAGE 199

199 but also a result of the co occurrence of low social distance in the d omestic domain ( e.g., couples talk) and the politic nature of refusing with in the business domain The latter can be viewed as a function of power defined roles in the workplace ( e.g., Ari to subordinates) and ty in service encounters ( e.g., algo ms? no, nada ms .) (cf. Watts 2003 and Grice 1975 ). Between the business and domestic domains, additional differences obtained. I n addition to making solidaritious claims, participants agreed more ( e.g., bueno tra s porque . ) repeated/reiterated ( e.g., par par ) claimed hardships beyond their control ( e.g., sabs qu no tengo plata porque no estoy muy ducha con la com putadora ) and hedged ( e.g., capaz que un ratito ) more often. Conversely, during domesic oriented exchanges participants were more likely to attack the hearer in some way ( e.g., a vos te parece? ) ignore or delay their response to the hearer, and address the hearer with endearment terms ( e.g., amor cario ) ( often sarcastically or showing frustration within an aggravating move). Comparing social oriented and domestic oriented talk strategies correlating with indirect refusal s and mitigating moves figured more prominently in social talk. S trategies correlating with direct refusals and aggravating moves had a greater presence in d omestic talk During social oriented refusals, p articipants replied indefinitely joked /laughed and made solidary claims moreso than in domestic ones The only strategy that significantly favored domestic talk was the use of endearment terms ( which cor related with aggravating move s and was highly significant); however,

PAGE 200

200 t he participants attacked, delayed their response/ignored the hearer, failed to agree and used more frequently, though these difference s w ere not significant. In addition to the li propensity to engage in small talk following the refusal turn proved to be salient. The sequences in (14) and (15) woman to man and woman to woman in the social sphere, exemplify occurences of pos t refusal small talk (underlined) (14) R efusal to invitation followed by small talk social oriented talk social setting (Mar 3) (( In the plaza, Mar and Santi run into each other. After some interaction, Santi (indirectly) invites her to go out for co ffee, which she refuses with an indefinite reply ; Santi recovers with small talk.)) 1 Santi: =cundo me vas a invitar a tomar un caf.= =when are you going to invite me out for coffee.= 2 Mar: =en cualquier [momento. @@@ =anytime @@@ 3 Santi: [eh bueno. [eh okay. 4 Mar: @@ en cualquier momento, en cualquier momento. ((voz risuena)) @@ anytime, anytime ((smile voice)). 5 Santi: entonces, la la, este:: la invito yo primero.= so then, you ((formal)) you, uh:: I ((emph.)) wi ll invite you first.= 6 Mar: =bueno. vamos a ver entonces. [nos vem -((voz risuena)) =okay. [see yo ((smile voice)) 7 Santi: [ bueno che y hay algo de las elecciones? [so che ((affiliative alerter)) and any news about the elections? 8 Mar: todo ah tranquilo qued.=

PAGE 201

201 9 Santi: =tranquilo, se muri todo ya. 10 Mar: se muri todo. 11 Santi: xxx 12 Mar: no, pero todos lo s comits, todo se sacaron. y bueno. quedamos. ((fades)) s (been disbanded?) it is. ((voice trails)) 13 Santi: bueno, vamos a ver qu es lo que pasa de aqu a octubre (a ver). 14 Mar: nos vemos! hasta luego! see you! see y ou later! (1 5 ) Refusal to advice (suggestions) followed by small talk, social oriented talk, domestic setting (Lea 1) (( before parting: Violeta suggests that Lea not worry about going back to the social club for party set up since her daughter, Celeste, is not feeling well Lea ascents in non committal fashion ( and goes back to the club anyway ) .)) 1 Violeta: p ero no te sientas mal si quers de cirles que no vayas para para cuidarla a ella. porque hay bastantes manos [ all haciendo las cosas y: to take care of her. because there are enough hands over there doing everything a:nd 2 Lea: [ s : [ye:s 3 Lea: yo ahora cuando (vuelvo) lleve las mesas, le digo. In a bit when (I go back) to take 4 Celeste: NO [ ma(ma). 5 Lea: [Celeste, shh. 6 Violeta: acordate de lo que hablamos, te [ acords? remember what we talked about, remember?

PAGE 202

202 7 Lea: [s [yes 8 Violeta: todo lo que hablamos durante el almuerzo? everything that we talked about during lunch? 9 Lea: ((pausa)) ahora tens baja da, Viole. no tens que subir el repecho. @@ ((pause)) @@ 10 Violeta: s, menos mal. yeah, thank goodness ( ( lit. less bad)). 11 Lea: bue no, nos vemos esta noche Viole. ((be so ; luego a Celeste )) dale un beso a Violeta okay, see you tonight Viole. ((kisses cheek; then to Celeste)) give Violeta a kiss. The use of post refusal small talk was significantly different across all possible category p airings (dom soc, dom bus, soc bus) the only strategy to do so (Table 5 10 Figure 5 4 ). It is notable, then, that the participants engaged in post refusal small talk most during social oriented and least during domestic oriented exchanges This corroborates work on small talk which maintains that small talk serves to build rapport among speakers and, in so doing, serves to restore or maintain harmonic relations ( Schneider 1988; Coupland 2000 ; Boxer 2002 ) In the social sphere, where relationships may be ambiguous or tenuous, it is then logical that speakers would engage in small talk more, because of that uncertainty. In the domestic sphere, where relationships are more well defined, established and stronger, face saving and rapport maintaining manouevers are not so necessary and a re, perhaps, even superfluous in some situations (cf. Boxer 2002) In the business spher e w h ere post refusal small talk was more frequent than in domestic sequences, but less prevalent than in social ones this reasoning could go

PAGE 203

203 either way. On the one h and, in a business transaction, both parties typically understand their roles as agent, client, etc. and the actions that they must take to complete the business at hand in a politic fashion ; in this vein, approach would render small talk less necessary and, therefore, less prevalent On the other, potentially obtain ing a more felicitous result. Moreover, a pleasant exchange in which good feelings are g enerated ensures a more positive business or work experience and, perhaps, a repeat customer or stronger social relations. Boxer found included service encounters) e ngaged in complaint establishing some kind of commonality, albeit brief, that makes encounters more Consider the exchange in (1 6 ) Post refusal small talk, initiated by the participant, Isabel, in line 5 does just this : (1 6 ) Refusal to offer followed by small talk, participant as client, service setting (Isa 7a) ((At a small produce shop, Isabel completes her purchase with a male clerk by refusing a final offer of product; she then launches into s mall talk with the shop owner, with whom her partner does business.)) 1 Clerk : nada ms Isabel?= nothing else Isabel?= 2 Isabel: =no ((tenso)). =no ((tens e vowel )). ((paus e )) 3 Isabel: no nada ms ((relajado)). no nothing else ((relaxed vowel) ). 4 Clerk : muy bien.= very well.=

PAGE 204

204 5 Isabel: =ta? ((al dueo del almacn)) tu nena Juan? =okay? ((to shop owner standing by)) your daughter Juan? 6 Juan: bien de bien. fine just fine. 7 Isabel: bien? bueno, me alegro. A s the above depicts, in a small town such as th e one in which the data were collected it was rare that the participants ever dealt with total strangers; often they did business or worked with people that they either knew outside of that context and/ or enco untered on a regular basis within that context (cf. (198 0 ) discussion of multiplex social networks in which people are linked to others in multiple capacities ) In this respect there is overlap between the business and social domains. Physica l S etting As set forth at the beginning of this chapter, the second facet of domain is that of the physical setting, which I now analyze in a similar fashion. Recalling Table 5 1, t he participants realized refusals in various physical settings D omestic, work place (herein work) and service settings comprised the majority. Domestic settings were the and also Work settings were those in which the participant participated as an employee within a hie rarchical structure ( i.e., with superiors, equal status colleagues, subordinates). These include d program headquarters, project work sites and facilities, such as kitchens and classrooms. Service settings were primarily shops and stores, including the pa applicable), and the refreshment kiosk at a soccer field. Other settings in which refusal sequences occurred were : a social club, in public ( e.g., on the plaza, in the street), a

PAGE 205

205 sporting event ( i.e., soccer game), institutional ( i .e., hospital), transport ( i.e., taxi, shuttle van) and a vigil/wake. In all, there were nine physical setting classifications, which I then grouped into four categories: domestic, work, service and social (Table 5 1 ) The rationale behind this step wa s to deter mine if, by grouping them, significant differences could be obtained. The domestic and work setting s comprised their own categor ies (n = 94 and 56 sequences respectively ) while service included service and institutional settings (n = 56 ). 6 Fo r the social setting, I grouped together social club, public, transport, sporting event and vigil/wake (n = 37). As Table 5 2 shows, the physical setting and the orientation of the talk were usually commensurate (79% of the time) but not always. For exa mple, over a quarter of the talk occurring in a social setting was domestic oriented ( e.g., Lea refusing Pablo at the social club in (5)) while the service setting was home to both domestic and social oriented talk, which made up a third of the activity in this setting. The question is whether the physical setting in itself had any bearing on the way in which these women refused. obviously dependent upon place ( e.g., shouting in soccer stands versus wh ispering at the funeral parlor ), s tatistical analysis at various levels revealed few significant differences between one setting and another. In the following paragraphs, I will refer to Tables 5 11 through 5 1 6 to highlight the major trends and significa nt differences. 6 sequences and the often transactional natu re of hospital encounters in this data set, I included these domain.

PAGE 206

206 Refusals and semantic strategies The first finding of interest concern s the number of refusal turns at talk by setting category. 7 In Table 5 11 we see that the refusal sequences carried out i n the social setting averaged the highest number of refusal turn s (1.86), while the work setting averaged the lowest (1.27). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and suggests more negotiation in social settings and less in work setting s (e.g., Mar in (14) compared to Ari in (12)) Th e overall average for the number of refusal turns per sequence was 1.52, similar to th ose obtained for the domestic and service settings. Secondly, the social setting also generated the highest proportion of indirect refusals compared to the others, and the highest percentage of presence within refusal sequences (68%) (Table 5 1 2 ). 8 The domestic setting followed, while the work and service settings demonstrated the least number of indirect head acts and the least percentage of presence within refusal se quences. One reason that the domestic setting boasted higher number s of indirect head acts as opposed to the lower frequency for domestic oriented talk shown in the previous section is because participants at times engaged in business related phone conver sations while at home. Thus the nature of the talk, the medium of communication and the participant addressee relationship had more to do with the prefe rence for indirect head acts than th e physical setting An example is the exchange between Ana and Isa z, a female work colleague of equal power status, which is negotiated for several minutes and generates six refusal 7 No significant difference was obtained without grouping the settings into cate gories. 8 number of refusal sequences in that category to 100. For example, there were 37 refusal sequences in the social setting. Dividing 100 by 37 y head acts in the social setting) by the weight equals 114.

PAGE 207

207 head acts. All a re indirect ( lines 9, 16, 22, 38 ) except for two ( lines 24, 30 ) that surfac e toward the end after some degree of insistenc e on the part of Isaz that Ana become an active member again of their direct sales group. ( 17 ) Business related refusal in the d omestic setting favoring indirect head acts (Ana 16 18) ((While at home, Isaz unexpectedly calls Ana on the telephone )) 1 An a: s HOLA: yes HELLO: 2 Isaz: xxx 3 Ana: quin habla. 4 Isaz: xxx 5 Ana: ISAZ, cmo ests! ISAZ, how are you! 6 Isaz: xxx 7 Ana: yo estoy bien. estaba estaba: resolviendo cosas para llamar para: dar una respuesta. este: andan bien ustedes? I wa:s figuring things out to call to: give an answer. you all doing well? 8 Isaz: xxx he recibido los mensajes s, l as promociones, todo eso lo hemos recibido. este:, pero: estoy en otras, en otr os proyectos y este: como que est medio suspendido todo. todo en el aire tengo. por eso no he querido, ni siquiera: mm, hacerme or porque no s qu:, no s todava las respuesta que les ten les tengo para dar. uh:, bu:t not eve:n mm, to make myself heard because yet what answer I can give you ((plural)). 10 Isaz: xxx

PAGE 208

208 11 Ana: claro. lo que me interesara/, cuando vuelva a haber un: este:, un:: cmo se llama? of course. what would interest me/, when that ((course)) comes arou nd again 12 Isaz: xxx 13 Ana: el curso (de) esteticista integral de nuevo/, completar ese ciclo. eso S me gustara hacerlo/ mm the complete estetician course/, complete that series. that I WOULD like to do/ mm 14 Ana: pero si ustedes dan a dan de nuevo el ciclo, lo hago den lo hag lo completo para no estar molesTANdo a RosArio. but if you all give that series again, I will do I will do BOTHering Rosario ((the sales leader)). 15 Isaz: xxx porque ahora en este momento me hace se me hace un poco difcil ir. 17 Isaz: xxx 18 Ana: y de qu. and of what. 19 Isaz: xxx 20 Ana: AH: mir. AH: no kidding ((lit look)). 21 Isaz: xxx AH de pronto, las cuando vayan a hacer las evaluaciones/, me pongo al da con los temas/ AH maybe, the speed on the topics / 23 Isaz: xxx

PAGE 209

209 AH est, pero no no. yo no, no, no puedo. EXACTly, 25 Isaz: xxx 26 Ana: claro, proba nos mantenemos en contacto entonces yo tengo el telfono de Rosario, y yo la voy a llamar. pero no quise, porque tambin quiero mandarle:: este mi:: mi mail que todava no lo tengo registrado. her. because) I still d 27 Isaz: xxx 28 Ana: pero eso es semanal? ((pausa)) o acumulativo. but is that weekly? ((pause)) or accumulative. 29 Isaz: xxx AH no. s s s, pero no. ya hoy no no (da) porque no:, ya te digo estoy TO tal @@ tengo todo. y estoy bajando: toda la:: la parte del catlogo que lo quiero tener encarpe tado. eso no cambia excepto alguna pr omocin. AH no. yeah yeah yeah, but no. now t oday does tal ly almost out @@ of the loop for now, nloadi:ng the:: whole catalogue part because I want to have it some promotion. 31 Isaz: xxx 32 Ana: por este mes. for this month. 33 Isaz: xxx 34 Ana: bueno, pero yo despus ya lo voy a poder ir este: voy a poder ir interiorizando con la computadora. okay, but the computer. 35 Isaz: xxx 36 Ana: claro. (( suena el timbre )) porque:

PAGE 210

210 right. ((doorbell rings)) beca u:se 37 Isaz: xxx s, porque si hay alguna variacin/, entonces c yo lo porque no estoy muy a ducha con la computadora, no estoy nada ducha entonces yo tengo que esperar que est mi hijo para que me, me ayude. ange/, then w I ((stutters)) because son to be here for him to to help me. Just a s the heightened use of indirect head acts in the domestic setting was likely due no t to the physical setting, but to other factor s as we have just seen so was the elevated number of direct head acts for the social setting (second only to service) This had to do with the fact that participants refused mands issued by their partner and other family members in th ese setting s often with bald on tactics In fact, though the data show that direct head acts occurred in 59 % of refusal sequences in social settings (Table 5 12) domestic oriented talk contributed most of these T he work and service settings displayed instances of in directness more commensurate with their respective activities As shown in Table 5 1 2 the se settings produced results similar to each other with the lowest adjusted counts and per sequence percentages. When ta ken together, the difference in the distribution of indirect head acts between the work/service settings and the social setting approached statistical significance (p = 0.067) For direct head acts, there was no such finding at any level (setting, setting category or joint category) for any setting or category. So while the service setting exhibited the highest percentage of presence of direct head acts in refusal sequences (68%), this was not significantly different than the 57% obtained in the work and domestic settings. It is of interest to note, however, that direct head acts figured in over half of the refusal sequences for all settings, supporting the

PAGE 211

211 idea that there was not one setting that favored the use of direct refusals over another. W hile th ere might have been signs of some significant differences in the distribution of indirect head acts among setting categories, these were weak and for direct head acts, non existent. It is, therefore likely that the physical setting in itself did not pla y a significant role in the realization of (in) directness in these data. I come to a similar conclusion with respect to the use of downgraders and upgraders in refusal sequences. The adjusted counts of Table 5 14 show that the use of downgraders wa s simi lar for the domestic, social and work settings ( n = 61 70) ; also, all of these figure d in less than half of their respective refusal sequences (35 49%). The service setting boasted the most downgraders (n = 96, adjusted) and the highest percentage (50%), but th e extent to which it differed from other physical settings was not significant. For upgraders, the domestic and social settings produced like adjusted counts (n = 72, 76) and percentages (43%, 49%), while the work and service setti ngs performed simi larly (n = 41 ; 34%, 29%). Still, these differences in upgrader distribution were not significant e ven between the social and service settings ( i.e., 49% versus 29%) Thus, while the participants used downgraders and upgraders in every setting, they used them to a lesser extent across setting types than, for example, mitigating moves (as shown below), and did not display a preference or dispreference for their use that was convincingly dependent upon their physical surroundings. The findings regarding agg ravating moves tell a different story. At several levels of analysis, the distribution s of agg ravating moves across certain categories of physical setting were significantly different : namely, the work social and work d omestic comparisons P articipants employed aggravating moves in the work setting significantly

PAGE 212

212 less than in the social setting ( in 9% of sequences versus 4 1 % p > 0.05) and in the domestic setting (9% versus 30% p > 0.05 ) (Table 5 15 ). Despite significant differences, I would caution a conclusion of causation. It is more likely that the lack of overlap of domestic oriented talk in the work setting had more to do with this result. As shown in Table 5 2, d omestic talk, which made up 87% of the refusal sequences in the domes t ic setting, c omprised over a quarter of th ose in the social and service setting s but was largely absent in the work setting Recall for example, that couples talk a sub type of domestic oriented talk, correlated convincingly with aggravating moves (.230, p < 0.01) I t is likely that the significant differences in aggravating moves across setting s have also to do with the orien tation of the talk A final point is that mitigating moves were prevalent in all settings. Unlike aggravating moves, downgraders and upgrade rs, only mitigating moves achieved a majority percentage of presence in refusal sequences for every single setting category (64 70%) (Table 5 15 ). N one of the other strategie s achieved a majority in any setting. So while we may not be able to distinguish significant distributional differences among settings, this finding does corroborate the view that these participants favored the use of mitigating moves, more than other semantic strategies, whilst refusing an addressee Linguistic strategies and post refusal small talk In answer to the question of which, if any, linguistic strategies showed a tendency to appear in one setting over another Table 5 16 summariz es the key strategies most worthy of mention. For head act strategies, four strategies obtaine d significant distributional differences : alternative ( e.g., si no, ponemos otro da ) confirmation/ acknowledgement ( e.g., s pero no no yes ) jokes / laughs ( e.g., estoy TO tal @@ en este tema

PAGE 213

213 tal ly almost out of the loop @@ ) and For RTT strategies, that is, strategies appearing anywhere within a refusal turn at talk, there were also four: alternative jokes/l aughs, no and statement of information for example: A Jenifer: . tiene fro ella, pon la estufa. . she ((emph.)) is cold, turn the heater on. B Isabel: est abajo la estufa@= the heater ((emph.)) is downstairs@= In addition to statements of information, apologizing ( e.g., pero no lo hice, perdneme/ [yet] ) and attacking the hearer ( e.g., TS. ((scolding)) tens que ir a la hora que empiece ou have to go when [the party] starts ) achieved significance at the level of the refusal sequence. No supportive move strategies displayed significant differences by setting nor was the distribution of post refusal small talk significantly different between any setting categories Based on pairwise comparisons in whi ch significant differences obtained an d the frequencies given in Table 5 16 the social and service settings exhibited the most tendencies regarding certain linguistic strateg ies Figure 5 3 de picts this graphically. Employing confirmation/ackno wledgement ( e.g., Moqui in (2)) jokes/laughter ( e.g., Mar in (14)) and statements of information ( e.g., Lea in (5)) happened significantly more in the social setting than in the others, especially more than in t he domestic setting, where all occurred sig nificantly less. Giving an alternative apologizing and saying were indicative of the service setting ( e.g., F abiana in (6), Rena in (2)) Ela exemplifies all three of these strategies in the exchange shown in (18) below The key utterances are und erlined with comments in double parentheses :

PAGE 214

214 (18) L inguistic strategies : alternative, apology and no ; participant as client, service setting (Ela 6, 21) ((In a clothing store with her partner Roberto Ela forgets to bring the receipt that the saleswoman (S.woman) requests; later, she is unable to provide a number to a land line requested by the cashier .)) 1 S.woman : vos trajiste el bol el did you ((emph.)) bring the rec the 2 Ela: el the 3 S.woman : recibito? little reciept? 4 Ela: AY el ltimo no. (( AY con tono de lamento )) AY the last one no. ((AY said with lamenting/apologetic tone)) 5 S.woman : (( exhales )) 6 Roberto: [no lo trajiste? 7 Ela: [me olvid. me olvid (d)el ltimo recibo / = [I forgot I forgot the last receipt /= ((reason/excuse subject to apologetic interpretation)) 8 S.woman: =cundo lo pagaste negrita / =when did you pay it dear/. (( Ela is able to conti nue without the receipt; after she and Roberto mak e their selections, they return to the counter to pay with credit)) 9 Ca shier : ((por tel fono)) hola, buenas tarde(s). ((pausa)) crdito? . ((a E la ? )) telfono fijo ten (s )? ((on telephone)) hello, good afternoon. ((pause)) for a credit ? . (( to E la, probably)) do you have ((emph.)) a landline? 10 Ela: [no. 1 1 Roberto: [no.

PAGE 215

215 1 2 Ca shier : (( reporting back on tele )) no. 1 3 Roberto: no no 1 4 Ca shier : ((a E la y /o R obe rto )) y de algn familiar, el del traba de algn trabajo, algo? ((to Ela and/or Roberto)) of a family member, a work num from a job, anything? 1 5 Ela: ((a Roberto)) n el del C EN tro dale. ((to Robert)) n the number of the CENtro give her. ((alternative)) In terms of statistical significance, participants refused with alternatives more in the service than in the domestic and work settings. Also, the service setting fostered the use of apologies to a gre ater extent than in social settings. In contrast, the domestic setting was home to increased use of attacking utterances ( though this use differed significan tly only from the work setting) 9 in th e service setting at t he level of both head acts and refusal turns ; also, i t appeared in over half of the refusal sequences for this category This was significantly different from the social setting in which strategy occurred the least. The frequencies of in th e domestic and work settings were intermediate and not significantly different from the service or social settings. These trends are not to say however, that the physical setting was the factor that most influenced the use of these strategies. S ocial oriented talk also aligned with joking/laughter, just as business oriented refusals produced the most So, while it seems that the orientation and the physical setting mutually affect ed each other, I believe that the data lea n m ore toward the orientation of the talk as having the greater explanatory power of the two. That said, it also makes perfect sense for there to 9 An explanation for this is that domestic oriented talk occurred in all settings; however, it occurred in the work setting the least (i.e., least amount of overlap).

PAGE 216

216 be more face enhancing maneuvers such as joking, laughter and confirming the hearer in the social setting, where interactio ns are more public and varied, and for there to be a propensity for face threatening acts ( e.g., attacking the hearer) in the domestic setting, a private space typically reserved for intimates. Also, it is logical for there to be more alternative proposin g and in service setting s where people are constantly choosing one item over another, suggesting solutions and refusing offers of product, among other possibilities. Summary The results from this chapter demonstrate that the variable of domain, as a mesh of physical place, addressee relationship 10 and speaker ends, is important to the study of speech act and pragmatic research. Though the data did not show clear cut divisions between one domain and another this is not surprising given that social interaction is riends show up at the shop, work colleagues who might also be family members call at home and couples hash out conflicts in public spaces. Nonetheless, it app ears that there exists a uniquely positioned variable called domain that while fuzzy around its metaphorical edges is different from power, social distance, rank of the offense (Brown and Levinson 1987) and transactional talk versus interactional talk ( Bro wn and Yule 1983 ). Because, in addition to these concepts, there is something more that brings it all together: speaker ends or goals filtered through the lens of past experiences and a working knowledge of what the current situation requires. This is do main and the habitus embodied within it 10 Interlocutor relationship is a key object of analysis in the next chapter.

PAGE 217

217 The data have shown that while nuanced, the domain of interaction is indeed a relevant factor for consideration In the case of refusals in Uruguay, domains displa y ed significant tendencies with regard to the le ngth of refusal sequence s certain semantic and linguistic strategies as well as post refusal small talk I have shown statistically and with transcribed dialogue that lengthier sequences (read more refusal turns) occurred in social settings and at a hig her than average rate in social ly oriented talk while the work setting and certain types of business oriented exchanges produce d the least. It should not go unnoticed that, in terms of sub types, the great est and only significant difference in refusal se quence length was between participant as agent and participant to subordinate, the former favoring longer sequences and latter favoring shorter This was likely due to a combination of perceived face needs, speaker ends and differing degrees of role certa inty The semantic strategies that obtained significant differences were indirect head acts, mitigating moves, aggravating moves and downgraders, though only the findings for aggravating moves complemented each other in terms of both the orientation of t he talk and the physical setting. Socially oriented talk favored indirect head acts, while their use was disfavored in business oriented refusals. Business talk, on the other hand, showed more mitigating moves and attenuat ion with downgraders than in dom estic talk. This leads to the most convincing empirical findings those regarding aggravating moves. For this data set, aggravating moves we re most indicative of the domestic domain and, specifically, to the sub type of couples talk Couples talk employe d aggravating strategies significantly more than participants speaking to subordinates and even m ore than non oriented talk A nalysis of the

PAGE 218

218 physical setting showed work settings as the least likely place for aggravating moves, while dom estic and social settings were the most likely. Since social settings were often loci for couples talk, this makes sense Of the many possible l inguistic strategies that the participants could have used (and did ), a handfu l proved to be identifyin g features of a domain with respect to at least one other. These concern the alignment of the orientation of talk with the physical setting. For the domestic domain, it was attacking the hearer; for the social it was joking and/or laughter. For the busi ness domain (work setting) it was to not attack the hearer, while for the business domain ( service setting) saying and apologizing were characteristic strategies. This is not to say that the participants did not employ other strategies (giving a rea son, repeating/reiterating, confirming/acknowledging, etc.) in abundance, or even that these strategies were absent in the othe r domains W hat I am speaking of are tendencies that clearly favored one domain over another post refusal small talk being a cl ear example. P ost refusal small talk present in all domains thrived in the social domain, but was least favored in the domestic. These findings lead to two working conclusions: 1) that the data point to the orientation of the talk as trump ing the physical s etting in which it takes place and 2) that the Bulge theory is still relevant to a certain extent I come to the first conclusion based on findings such as those with post refusal small talk: the differences were only significant when comparing small talk use across categories of talk orientation; there were no differences across categories of physical setting. This is not to say th at the physical setting does not influence the nature or flow of the talk; setting creates an atmosphere and provides th e place for things to happen. Aspects of privacy, for

PAGE 219

219 example, and the orientation to certain activities such as buying and selling, event set up and the like are relevant to the exchange. A shortcoming of this research is that I was unable to control fo r many variables, which, had it been possible, might have allowed me to hone in on the physical setting and investigate this notion further Bulge theory provided explanatory power in many instances along the way. The finding s on small talk and aggravating moves for example, can be explained easily with this theory: it is with those with whom our relationship is less certain that we do the most work ; conversely, we feel free to eschew the dance of negot iation and facework with our intimates Of course, her theory was based upon her observations of middle class America. It is interesting that Uruguay is often characterized as having one of the largest middle classes in Latin America; anecdotally, Urugua yans are known for and celebrate their informality both in physical aspect and manner as well as speech that fosters an atmosphere of solidarity and less social division. 11 Based on my interactions in this community, I would say that this observation gener ally holds. Nevertheless, her theory is not watertight as Boxer has pointed out, whose studies on complaints contradict the work we do with strangers. T aking domain into consideration can help reconcile these two points of view ; I dis cuss this at length in Chapter 7. Some last observations to end this chapter are also two fold. First, studies such as this one demonstrate how mixing methods of analysis can prove useful. Quantitative methods inform qualitative research and vice versa. The use of both tools helps to tease out nuances from the data. Second, and finally, this study show s the value of 11 http: //abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/uruguay president jose pepe mujicas frugal vacation viral/story?id=18239957 accessed on January 24, 2013.

PAGE 220

220 studying the spontaneous interactions of the same speaker in different contexts. As postulated at the beginning, people do not drastically change, typically, from one social encounter to the next; they adjust. These data, which include transcribed dialogue from the same participant operating under varying conditions, help uncover with greater certainty the underlying regularities that tend to govern linguistic use among women in Rosario, Uruguay.

PAGE 221

221 Table 5 1. Physical setting by setting category (in number of refusal sequences) Domestic Social Work Service Total Domestic 94 94 100% 39% Club 13 13 35% 5% Public 11 11 30% 4% Sports event 4 4 11% 2% Transport 5 5 14% 2% Vigil 4 4 11% 2% Work 56 56 100% 23% Hospital 5 5 9% 2% Service 51 51 91% 21% Total 94 37 56 56 243 39% 15% 23% 23% 100% Table 5 2. Physical setting by orientation of talk (in number of refusal sequences) Orientation of talk: Physical setting dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented Total Domestic 82 7 5 94 87% 7% 5% 99% Social 10 27 37 27% 73% 100% Work 1 8 47 56 2% 14% 84% 100% Service 14 5 37 56 25% 9% 66% 100% Total 107 47 89 243 44% 19% 37% 100% Setting = Orient. 82 27 84 193 79%

PAGE 222

222 Table 5 3. Head act type by orientation of talk (token level, adjusted, percentage of refusal sequences (RS) in which present) dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented Total Indirect 77 53 64 194 Indirect (adj) 82 25 57 Indirect RS% 56% 70% 46% Direct 76 27 73 176 Direct (adj) 81 13 65 Direct RS% 61% 45% 67% Total 370 *adjusted score achieved by indexing number of sequen ces per category to 100 ; RS% based on case level counts (not shown) Table 5 4. Refusal sequence type by orientation of talk dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented Total RS_INDonly 42 26 29 97 39% 55% 33% 40% RS_DIRonly 47 14 48 109 44% 30% 54% 45 % RS_Both 18 7 12 37 17% 15% 13% 15% Total 107 47 89 243 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 5 5. O rientation of talk (incl. sub types) by refusal turns (RTT) a nd mean RTT RTT RS Mean RTT Orientation of talk: Dom oriented 153 107 1.43 Couples 61 41 1 .49 Other dom. 92 66 1.39 Soc oriented 80 47 1.70 Bus oriented 137 89 1.54 Part. as agent 29 12 2.42 Part. as client 39 26 1.50 Part. equal/as SUB 40 25 1.60 Part. to SUB 29 26 1.12 Total 370 243 1.52

PAGE 223

223 Table 5 6. Aggravating and mitigating suppo rtive moves by orientation of talk token level dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented Total SMA 48 16 21 85 SMA (adj)* 45 34 24 SMA RS% 31% 28% 17% SMM 84 58 144 286 SMM (adj) 79 123 162 SMM RS% 58% 72% 71% *achieved by indexing number of seque nces (RS) per category to 100 ; RS% based on case level counts (not shown) Table 5 7. Downgraders and upgraders by orientation of talk token level dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented Total DnG 53 24 96 173 DnG (adj)* 50 51 108 DnG RS% 33% 45% 53% UpG 75 26 41 142 UpG (adj)* 70 55 46 UpG RS% 39% 40% 36% *achieved by indexing number of sequences (RS) per category to 100 ; RS% based on case level counts (not shown)

PAGE 224

224 Table 5 8. Linguistic strategies (I)* by orientation of talk dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented HADelayIgn 20 4 4 HADelayIgn (adj) 21 2 4 HADelayIgn RS% 17% 6% 3% HAInsist 3 5 HAInsist (adj) 3 2 HAInsist RS% 3% 9% HAJoke 7 6 HAJoke (adj) 7 3 HAJoke RS% 6% 13% HANo 51 12 53 HANo (adj) 55 6 47 HANo RS % 42% 23% 51% SMAgree 1 2 11 SMAgree (adj) 1 1 10 SMAgree RS% 1% 4% 9% SMCCGSolid 6 8 18 SMCCGSolid (adj) 6 4 16 SMCCGSolid RS% 5% 17% 17% SMCond 2 12 SMCond (adj) 2 11 SMCond RS% 2% 9% SMJoke 9 6 SMJoke (adj) 4 5 SMJoke RS% 17 % 7% SMPostpone 1 9 SMPostpone (adj) 1 8 SMPostpone RS% 1% 8% SMRepReit 19 16 36 SMRepReit (adj) 20 8 32 SMRepReit RS% 18% 30% 33% *HA = head act (a count of the strategy in HAs only); SM = supportive move (a count of the strategy in SMs onl y); RTT = refusal turn at talk (a coun t of the strategy within entire RTT )

PAGE 225

225 Table 5 8. Continued dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented RTTDelayIgn 23 6 6 RTTDelayIgn (adj) 25 3 5 RTTDelayIgn RS% 20% 11% 6% RTTEndearTerm 19 2 RTTEndearTerm (adj) 20 2 RTTEndearTerm RS% 11% 2% RTTHedgeSU 20 12 40 RTTHedgeSU (adj) 21 6 36 RTTHedgeSU RS% 15% 21% 28% RTTJoke 7 10 2 RTTJoke (adj) 7 5 2 RTTJoke RS% 6% 21% 2% RTTNo 52 13 54 RTTNo (adj) 56 6 48 RTTNo RS% 42% 23% 51% *HA = head ac t (a count of the strategy in HAs only); SM = supportive move (a count of the strategy in SMs only); RTT = refusal turn at talk (a count of the strategy within entire RTT )

PAGE 226

226 Table 5 9. Linguistic strategies (II)* by orientation of talk dom orient ed soc oriented bus oriented Agree 1 6 15 Agree (adj) 1 3 13 Agree RS% 1% 11% 12% Apology 7 17 Apology (adj) 7 15 Apology RS% 6% 12% Attax 13 2 3 Attax (adj) 14 1 3 Attax RS% 9% 4% 1% CCGSolid 8 10 23 CCGSolid (adj) 9 5 20 CCGSoli d RS% 6% 21% 20% ClaimHard 5 8 19 ClaimHard (adj) 5 4 17 ClaimHard RS% 4% 15% 15% DelayIgn 23 6 7 DelayIgn (adj) 25 3 6 DelayIgn RS% 20% 11% 7% EndearTerm 24 2 EndearTerm (adj) 26 2 EndearTerm RS% 11% 2% IndefRep 22 28 28 IndefRep ( adj) 24 13 25 IndefRep RS% 17% 34% 22% Insist 7 6 1 Insist (adj) 7 3 1 Insist RS% 6% 11% 1% Joke 10 14 8 Joke (adj) 11 7 7 Joke RS% 7% 28% 9% No 53 14 55 No (adj) 57 7 49 No RS% 42% 26% 49% RepReit 46 32 73 RepReit (adj) 49 15 65 RepReit RS% 34% 51% 51% This table displays the count of each strategy within the entire refusal sequence (includes H A s, SMs, RTTs).

PAGE 227

22 7 Table 5 10. Post refusal small talk by orientation of talk dom oriented soc oriented bus oriented Small talk 22 27 3 2 Small talk RS% 21% 57% 36% Table 5 11. Physical setting by refusal turns (RTT) sequences and mean RTT Physical setting RTT RS Mean RTT Domestic 142 94 1.51 Social 69 37 1.86 Work 71 56 1.27 Service 88 56 1.57 Total 370 243 1.52 Table 5 12. Physical setting by head act type (token level, adjusted count, percentage of presence in refusal sequences) H ead act type: Physical setting indirect adjusted RS% direct adjusted RS% Domestic 76 81 60 66 70 57 Social 42 114 68 27 73 59 Work 38 68 50 33 59 57 Service 38 68 45 50 89 68 Total 194 176 *adjusted count achieved by indexing number of sequences (RS) per category to 100 ; RS% based on case level counts (not shown) Table 5 13. Refusal sequence type by physical setting Domestic Soc ial Work Service Total RS_INDonly 40 15 24 18 97 43% 41% 43% 32% 40% RS_DIRonly 38 12 28 31 109 40% 32% 50% 55% 45% RS_Both 16 10 4 7 37 17% 27% 7% 13% 15% Total 94 37 56 56 243 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 228

228 Table 5 14. Downgraders and upgraders by physical setting Down/upg rading internal to head act : Physical setting downgraders adjusted* RS% upgraders adjusted RS% Domestic 57 61 35 68 72 43 Social 23 62 49 28 76 49 Work 39 70 43 23 41 34 Service 54 96 50 23 41 29 Total 173 142 *ad justed count achieved by indexing number of sequences (RS) per category to 100 ; RS% based on case level counts (not shown) Table 5 15. Aggravating and mitigating supportive moves by physical setting Supportive moves adjunct to head act Physical sett ing SMM adjusted RS% SMA adjusted RS% Domestic 108 115 64 37 39 30 Social 36 97 65 22 59 41 Work 69 123 64 7 12 9 Service 73 130 70 19 34 23 Total 286 85 *adjusted count achieved by indexing number of sequences (RS) per category to 100 ; RS% base d on case level counts (not shown)

PAGE 229

229 Table 5 16. Linguistic strategies by physical setting category Domestic Social Work Service HAAlt 4 3 2 12 HAAlt (adj) 4 8 4 21 HAAlt RS% 4% 8% 4% 20% HAConfirm 6 8 1 2 HAConfirm (adj) 6 22 2 4 HAConfirm RS% 5% 1 9% 2% 4% HAJoke 3 7 2 1 HAJoke (adj) 3 19 4 2 HAJoke RS% 3% 16% 4% 2% HANo 48 10 21 37 HANo (adj) 51 27 37 66 HANo RS% 44% 27% 36% 54% RTTAlt 11 5 5 15 RTTAlt (adj) 12 14 9 27 RTTAlt RS% 12% 14% 7% 25% RTTJoke 4 8 4 3 RTTJoke (adj) 4 22 7 5 RTT Joke RS% 4% 19% 7% 5% RTTNo 49 10 21 39 RTTNo (adj) 52 27 37 70 RTTNo RS% 44% 27% 36% 54% RTTStmtInfo 8 10 7 1 RTTStmtInfo (adj) 9 27 12 2 RTTStmtInfo RS% 9% 24% 13% 2% Apology 9 2 13 Apology (adj) 10 4 23 Apology RS% 7% 4% 14% Attax 13 1 4 Attax (adj) 14 3 7 Attax RS% 11% 3% 4% StmtInfo 12 12 8 7 StmtInfo (adj) 13 32 14 12 StmtInfo RS% 11% 30% 14% 13% HA = head act (a count of this strategy in HAs only); RTT = refusal turn at talk (a count of this strategy within entire RTT); strategi es without a prefix display the count within the entire refusal sequence

PAGE 230

230 Kendall's tau_b Couples Other dom Part as client Part as agent Part equal Part as SUB Part to SUB RTT Corr. Coeff. .023 .064 .039 .138 .033 .055 .158 Sig. (2 tailed) .705 301 .524 .025 .594 .368 .010 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 HAInd Corr. Coeff. .001 .021 .084 .019 .048 .034 .127 Sig. (2 tailed) .993 .731 .170 .757 .426 .579 .036 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 HADir Corr. Coeff. .012 .015 .127 .118 .050 026 .011 Sig. (2 tailed) .841 .803 .040 .055 .417 .675 .857 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 SMA Corr. Coeff. .225 ** .057 .009 .040 .094 .066 .105 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .363 .885 .526 .131 .289 .094 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 SMM Corr. Coeff. .145 .085 .031 .239 ** .162 ** .082 .095 Sig. (2 tailed) .015 .153 .602 .000 .006 .168 .108 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 DnG Corr. Coeff. .186 ** .038 .053 .251 ** .099 .047 .039 Sig. (2 tailed) .002 .539 .389 .000 .104 .442 .528 N 243 243 2 43 243 243 243 243 UpG Corr. Coeff. .150 .075 .112 .083 .001 .067 .014 Sig. (2 tailed) .014 .221 .069 .176 .983 .277 .816 N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 Figure 5 1. Correlations between domain sub types, refusal turns and semantic strategies. "Dom" = domestic; "Part" = participant; "SUB" = subordinate. One asterisk (*) = correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed); two asterisks (**) = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 231

231 Figure 5 2. Domains according to the orientation of talk and the linguistic strategies associated with them. All were significant at the .05 level or better. HA=head act, as occurring in head acts; SM=supportive move, as occurring in supportive moves; RTT=refusal turn at talk, as occurr ing in refusal turns at talk; RS=refusal sequence; as occurring in the (entire) refusal sequence. An example of how to read this figure is: in socially oriented talk, participants tended to joke and laugh in SMs, RTTs and RSs more than any other domain; a lso, they tended to joke/laugh in the HA more than in business oriented talk.

PAGE 232

232 Figure 5 3. Domains according to the physical setting and the linguistic strategies associated with them All were significant at the .05 level or better. HA=head act, as occurring in head acts; RTT=refusal turn at talk, as occurring in refusal turns at talk; RS=refusal sequence; as occurring in the (entire) refusal sequence. An example of how to read this figure is: in service settings, participants tended to give an alternative in the refusal HA more than in work and domestic settings; also, they tended to give alternatives in some part of the RTT more than in work settings.

PAGE 233

233 Figure 5 4 Pairwise comparisons of domain types ( orientation of talk) as a f unction of the distribution of post refusal Small Talk (Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis Test)

PAGE 234

234 F igure 5 5 Pairwise comparisons of talk orientation sub types as a f unction of the distribution of post refusal Small Talk where 1=couples, 2=other domestic, 3=n on domestic talk (Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis Test)

PAGE 235

235 CHAPTER 6 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES Chapter 5 dealt with the relevance of domain as an extralinguistic variable and described how the participants of this study ref used according to the domain of interaction in which the exchange took place T his chapter shifts the focus of the discussion from domains to the personal characteristics of the speakers. I divide these characteristics or social variables, by type into t wo sections, which provide the overall structure to the chapter. T he first section deal s with variables pertaining to the participant : age, years of formal education, socioeconomic status and neighborhood of residence T he second section examine s soc ial variables as they pertain to the a ddressee and the relationship of this person with the participant: sex, age, education, socioeconomic status, power r ole ( e.g., p arent, sibling, friend), frequency of contact, level of familiarity (i.e., how well the y kn e w each other) level of trust, and the number of contexts in which they have contact. Participant C haracteristics This section consider s the extent to which participant characteristics contribute d to how the participants refused. The characteristic s examine d are: age, years of formal education, socioeconomic status and neighborhood of residence of which the first two had a greater effect on strategy choice. Participant A ge As stated in Chapter 3 the partic i pants ranged in age from 19 to 61 year s (Table 3 1). Without a hard and fast rule for classifying different age groups/generations (cf. Silva Corvaln 2001), the method for delineating the age groups was based first, on

PAGE 236

236 sorting the participants by age decades (twenties, thirties, forties, e tc.), and then on comparisons with other studies that took age in to account. The groups based on ag e decade c losely corresponded with those of Chapman et al (1983 cited in Silva Corvaln 2001: 259 ) who studied yesmo i n Covarrubias : 25 and under, 26 to 40, 41 to 60 and 61 and over. 1 Given that only one participant fit in the last category ( Ana, 61 years), I reduced the categories to three: 25 and under, 26 to 40, 41 to 61. I will refer to these categories as younger, middle and older, respectively. Table 6 1 d etails the number of participants and refusal sequences per age category. The majority of the data (68%) come from women in the middle range (26 to 40), with the rest equally distributed between the younge r and olde r g rou ps. T h is section reveal s how the data compare d across age groups for refusals per sequence, s emantic components, down/upgrading and linguistic strategies. Because a ge has proven to be a salient extralinguistic factor ( e.g., Labov 1972; Wolfram 2003; Mil roy 1980; Silva Corvaln 2001) t he question here is t o what extent the selection of refusal strategies can be attributed to participant age. Bi variate correlation analysis and the Kruskal Wallis one way ANOVA test aided in locating significant differences in the distribution of direct head acts, supportive moves and downgraders between some categories of age. There were no significant differences regarding refusals pe r sequence, indirect head acts or upgraders. For head act type two complementary trends emerge d that held up in differing degrees to analysis by domain (Table 6 2 Figure 6 1 ) First, as age increase d indirect only refusal sequences decrease d (44% 28%); also, the percentage of refusal 1 Source cited as: Chapman, P., A. Dubra, F. Martnez Gil and D. Tritica. 1983. El yesmo en Covarrubias Non published manuscript University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

PAGE 237

237 sequences containing an indirect head act decrease d (6 2% 50%). S econd as age increase d direct only refusal sequences increase d (38% 50%); likewise, the percentage of refusal sequences containing a direct head act increased (56% 73%). This last difference was significant between the older and middle groups (p < 0.0 5 ) Thus, the older group favored the use of direct head acts, while the younger groups tended toward indirect. Also when making intra age group compari sons ( i.e., reading Table 6 2 vertically, rather than horizontally) the younger alwa ys displaye d greater proportions of indirect ness; the middle about the same for indirect and directness ; and the older more directness This is not to say that all groups did not use both direct and indirect strategies in fact, the data show that both he ad act types achieved at least 50% presence in the refusal sequences of every age group but that the above trend was confirmed Though these trends were salient at the general level the y were not always consistent once the domain of interaction was consid ered O n average, the younger group realized more refusal sequences per participant in the social domain relative to the middle and older groups, while the middle and older groups interacted much more within the business domain (Figure 6 2 ) We recall fr om Chapter 5 that socially oriented talk aligned more with indirect head acts, while business oriented exchanges disfavored indirectness in the head act As can be seen in Figures 6 3 and 6 4 only refusals made in the domestic domain exhibit ed the patter n described above. While this domain accounts for a large portion ( 44 % ) of the data, we still must recognize that 56 % distributed differently in some respects For instance, i n the social domain the middle

PAGE 238

238 age group used more indirect and fewer direct he ad acts than expected In the business domain, the percentage of indirect strategies for the older age group was oddly high since by all other accounts they typically used relatively fewer indirect strategies; conversely, all age groups employed direct st rategies ( in 66% to 73% of refusal sequences ), with little difference between them We can see how the distribution of head acts by age and the orientation of talk len t to non significant differences across age groups for indirect head acts and to signif icant differences for direct head acts between the middle and older groups. Figure 6 3 shows that patterns across age groups for indirect head acts are inconsistent In Figure 6 4 however, we see that the older age group employed direct head acts more o ften than the middle group across every category of domain. Let us take some examples from the data: (1) Direct refusal to offer; older age group, Centro domestic domain (Ana 9) (( mate .)) 1 : este Ana (vas a tomar) uh Ana (are you going to drink) 2 A na : no mam no tomo ms. ((pausa con m. de coser)) es la segunda vez que se apronta hoy. a m me gusta tomarlo en seguida que..que termino de de desayunar. ((m. coser)) drinking a nymore. ((pauses while sewing machine runs)) to drink it right after that..that I finish ea eating breakfast. ((sewing machine)) (2) Indirect refusal to offer; middle age group, Centro, domestic domain (Mar 4) (( suggestion of lunch.)) 1 Ma : n o vas a comer?

PAGE 239

239 you going to eat? 2 Mar: s mam, pero no me da el tiempo para comer. y a son la una y pico. eat. The above examples (1) and (2) illustrate this pattern in the domestic domain. The orientation of talk, setting, participant addressee relationship and conversational topic are the same/similar, but ages of the participants are different. Ana is 61 while Mar is 34 at the time of data collection. Syntactically, both mothers arguably prime their could hypothesize that the mand in (2), which includes the negative particle n o might exert an even stronger influence toward a no response; however, this is not the case. Even with such a leading question, Mar answers her mother with the s + pero [x] formula Ana, on the other hand, responds with a direct no followed by a nega tion of the proposition ( no tomo ms ). Both downgrade the refusal with the endearment term mam and follow it with mitigating moves, in both cases, reasons/explanations. Regarding mitigating moves and downgraders, t he middle group used both of these stra tegies more than the younger group (p < 0.0 5 ) (Table 6 2, Figure 6 5 ) This finding was corroborated by bivariate correlation analysis, which showed significant correlations in the positive direction for mitigating moves (.142, p < 0.01) and downgraders ( .128, p < 0.05) as age increased. An examination of the data by domain ( i.e., orientation of talk) shows that this pattern holds across all domains of interaction for both variables (Figures 6 7 6 8 ). In other words, no matter what the orientation of th e talk, the figures show that the middle group always mitigated and downgraded their refusals more than the younger group. The same can almost be said for the younger

PAGE 240

240 spa rse use of down graders in the social domain. The following examples (3) and (4) illustrate these findings: (3) Mitigated refusal s to offer s ; middle age group, Centro, business domain (Moqui 43) (( In a clothing store in the Centro Moqui declines a se lection of coats presented by a saleswoman.)) 1 Vendedora: algo ms? anything else? 2 Moqui: ((sonidito)) y despus me mostrs precios de camperas como para Zaqueo ((noise)) and after [this] you can ((omit 6 l ines)) 3 Moqui: mm! ((s orprendida)) en la vidriera hay una pero debe ser chica. mm! ((surprised at the lack of selection)) must be small. ((pause 6 seconds, voices heard but unintelligible)) 4 Moqui: s y tie sale [trescientos yes and it ha costs three hundred 5 Vendedora: [no, diez y seis ((talle)) [no, sixteen ((referring to the size)) 6 Moqui: a ver dej que la voy a mirar de [ac/ take a look at it from here/ 7 Vendedora: [(sale) tres diez contados. [(it costs) three hundred and ten ((pesos)) cash. 8 Vendedora: [xxx, grande. [xxx, big. 9 Moqui: [sa no es reversible, no? 10 Vendedora: no.

PAGE 241

241 11 Othe r fem.: no. ((Moqui gives no verbal response; she seems to be waiting ; breathing is heard as well as sounds in general from within the store)) (( after several seconds, the saleswoman returns with two? coats to show Moqui ; one is from the display )) 12 Moqu i: sta es? this is the one? 13 Vendedora : sa ah. that one there. 14 Moqui: qu talle ? ((pausita)) [diez y seis? what size ? ((short pause)) sixteen? 15 Vendedora: [xx diez y seis. [xx sixteen. 16 Vendedora: diez y seis, pero no es el di ez y seis diez y seis. sixteen sixteen)). 17 Moqui: S:. porque te iba a decir que no le queda muy grande esto. 18 Vendedora: no, sta es como [(para xx grandes) no, this one is like (for big xx) 19 Moqui: [y esto se debe enganchar fcil tal vez, no? ((pausita)) pensar que yo tengo una que tena chiquitita xx cuando estaba en lo Reina/. y me ha durado, la tiene sanita, y l a usa. ta, voy a ver tres diez entonces.= [and this must hook/zip easily maybe, right? ((short pause)) to think that I have one that I had really small xx when I was working for Rena/. and it has lasted me, he has it in good shape, and he uses it. ten then.= 20 Vendedora: =tres diez.= =three ten.= 21 Moqui: =ta. (me) voy a ver, que lo tengo [que traer.

PAGE 242

242 22 Vendedora: [(tens / tiene) que traer y probrsela. [you have to bring ((him)) and try it on him. 23 Moqui: mm. s. cosa que le quede grande. ((referring to offer of c oat #2)) 24 Moqui: y sta as no tiene capucha. y no, es finita tambin. and this one d 25 Vendedora: es finita. ((pausa)) es fin a a little 26 Moqui: ta, sera sa entonces [ como y aqulla es/ con rojo. = ok, it would be that one then like and that on e is/ with red.= 27 Vendedora: [sa =con rojo. [that one =with red. 28 Moqui: ta. ok. 29 Vendedora: es igu es la misma/, pe el mismo talle y todo/. distinto: la combinacin. the same size and everythi ng/. different combination. 30 Moqui: bueno. ta. entonces, eh aquello te pago. okay. fine. other thing ((declines the coats and procedes to the register to pay an installment from other purchases)) (4) Less mitigated refusa l s to offer s ; younger age group, Pastoreo, business domain ( Ela 15 16 ) (( In a clothing store in the Centro (different from (3)) Ela declines a selection of coats presented by a saleswoman.)) 1 Ela: ((a Roberto)) voy a vichar las camperas. ((to Robert)) take a look at the coats.

PAGE 243

243 2 Roberto: ((a la vendedora)) una campera de mujer. ((to the saleswoman)) a coat for a woman. (( footsteps )) 3 Vendedora: stas son largas. these are long. 4 Ela: s, sas no. yeah, those no. 5 Ela: [@@ 6 Vendedora: [@@ 7 Vendedora: no te ves con sas? 8 Ela: no.= 9 Vendedora: =despus stas/ =then these/ 10 Ela: (( non verbal refusal ; shakes her head )) 11 Vendedora: preparate por ah p orque : es lo que tengo en campera(s) porque no va quedando nada de nada de nada. xxx anything anything is left. xxx (( pause 3 seconds; voices of others in the store are heard )) 12 Vendedora: n o s si viste algUna m(s) en vidriera / window display / 13 Ela: n o, no mir mucho las vidrieraS. ((paus a )) no. ((tenso)) iation)) ((Robert asks Ela a question about what she wants to buy and they begin to discuss)) In (3) and (4), both Moqui and Ela are in the market for coats, but refuse to buy the ones presented to them buy their respective female sales associates. In th e case of

PAGE 244

244 Moqui, the sales associate is roughly the same age as she, but with Ela the sales associate is relatively older. Both Moqui and Ela have had previous contact with the it may be that there is less social distance between them, compared to Ela and her counterpart. In these situations, Moqui is from the Centro and is operating within her area of residence, while Ela, from the Pastoreo, is not. While these contextual fe atures might have had an effect at the individual level at the aggregate level there were no significant differences residence the relative age of the addressee or the number of contexts in w hich the two reportedly interact (to be taken up further in subsequent sections) more and varied strategies than Ela, who displays a preference for shorter, direct responses. In lines 9 and 14 Moqui requests information about the products, and in line 17 she employs strategies of agreement, giving a reason/explanation and, in doing so, claims common ground and solidarity with the saleswoman. In line 19, am ong other strategies, sh e compli ments aspects of the coat and enters into small talk to a degree (reminiscing about another coat), before refusing indirectly with an indefinite reply ( voy a ver tres diez entonces ). Lines 20 30 demonstrate a similar gamut of strategies while refu sing a second coat culminating in line 26 with a statement of conditional acceptance ( ta, sera sa entonces ) 2 Ela, on the other hand, refuses directly with no in line 4, reiterates with no 8) ( cod ed as an aggravating move, downgraded with laughter), and refuses another offer 2 I also coded the use of the conditional mood ( sera ) as a downgrader, in that is a head act internal way

PAGE 245

245 with a non verbal shake of the head in line 10. 3 Unlike Moqui, s he does not ask questions, engage in small talk re turn to the display to see if there is anything else that mi ght please her (lines 12 13) or use any tactic to otherwise lessen her commitment to her displayed stance A ggravating moves showed the opposite trend. T he younger participants produced more of these compared to any other age group, both in terms of adju sted counts and percentage of presence within refusal sequences (Table 6 2). T he difference between the younger and middle group s was significan t (p < 0.05) and the younger participants consistently achieved higher percentages of aggravating moves across domains (Figure 6 6) no s in lines 8 and 13 of (4), above, are two examples of aggravating moves produced by a younger participant in the business domain The example below recalled from Chapter 5 shows additional instances of aggravating moves in the domestic sphere of interaction. (5) Aggravated refusal during couples talk, younger age group, social setting (Lea 6) (( While Lea is helping to set up for a quinceaera at the neighborhood social club, partner, approaches and ask s her for change, which she does not have.)) 1 Pablo: eh @ ((pausita)) tens monedas ah? eh @ ((short pause)) you have coins on you? 2 Lea: ((otras voces)) no tengo monedas ac. no tengo cambio yo [mhijo! oins here. boy! 9 Pablo: (tengo que) ir hasta la casa de vuelta? (I have to) go back to the house again? 3 This was reported as such by the participant in a follow up interview with me.

PAGE 246

246 10 Lea: y bueno si yo no tengo la plata, est aLL mhijo:! well yeah if there son! Though in general the younger group also employed aggravating moves to a greater extent than the oldest group, no significance obtained ; as Figure 6 6 shows, in the business domain, it was the older participants who produced the most aggravating moves. Rena provides two examples in lines 4 and 6 of (6). The same figure attests to the reluctance of the middle age group to use aggravating moves, except in the domestic domain (e.g., (7)) where the levels of tentativeness are lowest (cf. Chapter 5) (6) Aggravated refusal to offer older age group, business domain ( Rena 10 ) (( In a fabric store in the Centro, Rena declines a cotton fabric presented by a saleswoman. )) 1 Vendedora: ta. no, porque hay un algodn xxx pero es para nena. ok. no, bec 2 Rena: a ver? puedo ver si qu tens. what do you have. 3 Vendedora: doscientos diez (sale). (it costs) two hundred ten. 4 Rena : QU? WHAT? 5 Vendedora : doscientos diez = two hundred ten= 6 Rena: =AH no! yo le estoy buscando algo barato y me mostrs =AH no! ((smile voice?)) (7) Aggravated refusal during couples talk middle age group, domestic domain ( Isabel 25 ) (( researcher requests for tea bags .))

PAGE 247

247 1 Milton: (no tens) t de bolsito? ((pause Isabel perhaps looking)) 3 Milton: hay [uno que es diges tivo no? 4 Isabel: [no. 5 Isabel: se: nos termin: @ cuando@ vino aqul que estaba medio resfriado @ when@ that one came who had sort of a cold 6 Milton: y el boldo? no~ and the boldo tea? no? 7 Isabel: no. no/ te digo (que) se terminaron todo. no. no / A ge also showed some significant effects with regard to the se lection of specific linguistic strategies. These are explaine d below, listed in Table 6 3 and shown in Figure 6 9 The younger participants showed a propensity to use the addressee name during exchanges, along with endearment terms and utterance s that attacked the hearer in some way. These strategies are indicative of relationships characterized by low social distance between the participant and her interlocutor. A cross tabulation of relationship measures with age groups reveals that the young er age group achieved the highest percentage of refusal sequences in the following areas : contact with the addressee everyday or multiple times a day (72%), knowing her or him well to very well (72%), trusting the addressee quite a bit to very much (59%) and interacting with her or him in three or more contexts (74%). What this means is that the association of using

PAGE 248

248 proper names endearment terms and attacking utterances is not solely linked to age, but also tied to the fact that the se refusal sequences w er e products of close r knit relationships moreso than those of the other groups. Also, as the section on the effect of socioeconomic status will show the more frequent use of proper names also has to do with socioeconomic class. The use of hedges, sub jectivizers and understaters (HedgeSU) was the only strategy characteristic of the middle age group. This coincides with the finding above that those of the middle group used supportive moves and, specifically, downgraders to a greater extent than those o f the younger group. Silva Corvaln (2001) suggests that people in their professional /social status establishing years are more cautious or tentative in their speech, because they have more to gain through successful interactions and more to lose should a n exchange be deemed infelicitous. While this hypothesis would need to be tested more rigorously, it is the case that the refusal sequences of the middle age group occurred least in the domestic domain, relative to the younger and older groups, and the mo st in the business domain. It is likely, then, that there wa s some interaction between age and domain categories an issue taken up further in Chapter 7 The older age group had t he most linguistic strategies significantly associated with it The use of no emotional expressions ( e.g., ah ay ) pause fillers ( e.g., eh, este ) and displays of comprehension/empathy w ere indicative of this age category. Within refusal turns, the older participants employed alternatives ( e.g., o si no . lo hacemos ante s ) significantly more than the younger ones, and likewise with p ostponements ( e.g., cuando vayan a hacer las evaluaciones )

PAGE 249

249 within whole sequences The use of no is not surprising given that the older age group was a lso associated with direct head acts, as shown above. Again, domain likely plays a part in this result as the older participants operated principally in the domestic (47%) and business related realms (38%), both of which were more conducive to the u se of direct refusal strategies. This was in contrast to the social sphere (15%), where indirect refusal strategies were the most prevalent. But regarding d isplays of comprehension/empathy and postponements these were produced by only one participant each ( t he former by Rena and the latter by Ana). This, therefore could simply be a product of their individual personality and idiolect. In contrast, however is the fact that there were no recorded instances of comprehension/empathy or postponement in the dat a for the younge st participants This could either also be a product of idiolect or indicative of a behavior that is acquired over time. Four participants in their thirties used these strategies, though each to a lesser extent than the two oldest partici pants. With respect to emotional expressions ( as occurring in head acts ) and pause fillers ( as occurring in supportive moves ) these were present in all age categories. However, they occurred much more often in the data of the older group given the relative number of refusal sequences While this could also have to do with the conversational style of the older participants, it is less likely that these types of strategies which are not typically freestanding princip al components of head acts or supportive moves are as d ependent on contextual variables ( e.g., d omain ) In this sense, they could be markers indicative of an older generation, but fu r ther study is needed in order to make such a claim.

PAGE 250

250 Participant Years of Formal E ducation Compared with age, t he number of years of formal education yielded fewer significant differences in terms of the overarching strategies (head act type, etc.) but more in the way of other linguistic strategies Recalling from Table 3 1 the partic i pants ranged fro m having completed six to twelve years of for mal education The method for delineating the education groups was based on milestones in the Uruguayan educational system. The end result corresponded with three categories : primary school completed, but no t ciclo bsico ( i.e., six to nine years); ciclo bsico completed, but not secondary school or specialized training ( i.e., UTU) ( i.e., ten to eleven years); and secondary school or specialized training completed ( i.e., twelve or more years). I refer to the se categories as primary mid range and secondary respectively. Table 6 1 details the number of participants and refusal sequences per education category. The majority of the data ( 40 %) come from women in the primary range, with the rest equally distrib uted between the mid range and secondary groups (30% each) This section deals with how the data compare by education groups in terms of overarching refusal strategies and the more specific linguistic strategies. We know that previous studies have found education level to be an important extralinguistic factor in the area s of phonetics and phonology ( e.g., Labov 1972; Fontanella de Weinberg 1979; Silva Corvaln 2001 ). The question here is to what extent the selection of refusal strategies can be attribu ted to participant education level One hypothesis is that there w ould be little to no difference between groups because this analysis does not take into consideration issues typically correlated to years of formal education, such as prescriptive versus non prescriptive grammatical constructions or the realization (or not) of certain phonological features (e.g., /s/ in coda position).

PAGE 251

251 In terms of overarching semantic categories, this hypothesis was, for the most part, confirmed. T he Kruskal Wallis one wa y ANOVA test resulted in only one significant difference : the distribution of mitigating moves was greater for the primary education group than for the mid range group There were n o significant differences for education level for the number of refusals per sequence, head act types aggravating moves, downgraders or upgraders Table 6 4 reveals how similar frequencies obtained for these strategies. On the other hand examining the data by education level revealed significant differences in the distribut ion of post refusal small talk the s + pero [x] formula and several other linguistic strategies (discussed below), only two of which were also significant for age : pause fillers and emotional expressions. Concerning mitigating moves, we saw above that a s participant age increased, so did the use of this strategy, the one exception being in the social domain where the mid dle age group garnered the highest percentage In fact, the middle age group always used mitigating moves more than the younger group. What we find among categories of education level however, is different. The mid range group always used mitigating moves the least even when controlled for the domain of interaction ( Table 6 4, Figure s 6 10, 6 11 ) The difference was significant betwe en the mid range and primary groups. I t is relevant to ask the question whether participant age or years of formal education better explain the use of mitigating moves since both revealed significant differences between categories. A first point is t hat it is difficult to tell, because the categories for age and years of formal education are strongly correlated (.544, p=0.00). Specifically, there was considerable overlap in the participant make up of age and

PAGE 252

252 education level groups. (For example, m os t of the participants in the younger and older categories remained in the least and most educated groups, respectively ) However, a closer look suggests that participant age makes the stronger argument. Table 6 5 show s how mitigating moves are distribute d according to a cross tabulation of age and education groups Holding education level constant, the percentage of refusal sequences in whic h mitigating moves were present always increase d as age increase d Conversely, holding participant age constant, t he mid range education group still display ed the lowest RS percentages for mitigating moves but with less margin and comparable by fewer categories of age. Thus, while neither case is rock solid, participant age is the more convincing metric, until furth er study can fill in the gaps for which there were no data. Nevertheless, organizing the data by years of formal education does prove useful on other counts. The s + pero [x] formula proved to be most salient among those of the primary education group. N otably, the mid range group employed this formula the least overall ( Table 6 4, Figure 6 10 ) and neither the mid range nor the secondary group employed it in the social domain (Figure 6 12 ). The fact that the primary group employed this formula more than the mid range group was significant (p = 0.01), and corresponds with the association of this category with the Confirmation/Acknowledgement and Counter Argument/Correction strategies (discussed below). The most cogent finding has to do with how t he data were distribute d for post refusal small talk by education and domain. As Figure 6 13 so neatly illustrates, small talk maintains the general trend on both counts. In other words, not only did the

PAGE 253

253 participants (across all education groups) engage in small talk the most in the social domain and the least in the domestic domain (as shown in Chapter 5 ), but also the pattern for education groups held across all categories of domain. The primary group always engaged in post refusal small talk the most; the mid range group always engaged in it the least. According to the Kruskal Wallis one way ANOVA, the differences between the mid range group and the primary and secondary groups were both significant (p < 0.01). Th ese finding s suggest that the use of post refusal small talk wa s both domain and education level sensitive for the participants of this study. The l inguistic strategies that showed a possible sensitivity to participant education level totaled eighteen ; these demonstrated significant differenc es across categories at one or more levels ( i.e., head act, supportive move, refusal turn, whole sequence) (Table 6 6 ). Eight of these (Insist and Statement of Information at the HA level ; Agree, Doubt Hearer and Proper Name at the SM level ; Pause Filler at the RTT level ; Adjust Stance and Backchannel at the level of the whole sequence ) occurred very infrequently and did not appear in more than 9% of refusal sequences for any category of education These include the two strategies that also exhibited sign ificant differences across age groups and, as we will see below, socioeconomic status/neighborhood of residence: Pause Filler and Proper Name. Tables 6 3, 6 6 and 6 8 suggest that these two strategies were most sensitive to socioeconomic status I will discuss these further in the next section. The remaining six were not significant strategies for age or socioeconomic status and their infrequency suggests that they were less prominent features of refusals for these speakers.

PAGE 254

254 The other strategies w ere predominantly associated with one education group or another. T he primary group claimed common ground/made solidary utterances more than either of the other two, and employed c onfirmation/ a cknowledgement, c ounter a rgument/ c orrection, a ppealer/ c ajoler and r eason/ e xplanation s trategies the most as well, but significantly more so than the mid range group. The propensity to confirm/acknowledge and respond with counter arguments correspond s with the finding, presented above, that the primary group most consiste ntly used the s + pero [x] formula, where s represents confirmation/acknowledgement and pero [x] the counter argument. The mid range group, in turn, delayed response to/ignored the hearer significantly more than the primary and secondary groups. The use of this strategy contributed strongly to th RS percent age for indirect head acts out of the three (Table 6 4 ). Also, the mid range participants issued commands and repeated/reiterated moreso than either group, but only the di fference with the secondary group was significant These two strategies were salient features of the direct head acts produced by the mid range group. The secondary group resulted in the least number of associated linguistic strategies: emotional expres sions (in head acts), requests for information /confirmation and statements of information ( both in supportive moves). Though they employed these strategies to a greater extent than the other two groups, significance was detected with only one or the other Thus, the most educated participants requested information /confirmation in the course of a refusal significantly more than the least

PAGE 255

255 educated; while their heightened use of emotional expressions and statements of information differed significantly from the mid range group. T aking strategies into account that do not obtain significance in any other contextual area but education such as requesting information (secondary group) and claiming common ground (primary group) beg s the question as to whether t he ir use is indicative of a certain education level, or if there are other factors at play. I have chosen these two strategies as examples, because they exhibited a consistently increasing or decreasing pattern across categories as education level respect ively increased or decreased. It is apparent from Figures 6 14 and 6 15 that certain patterns hold even when controlling for domain. Requesting information /confirmation as a supportive move was always used most by the most educated participants This oc curred most strikingly in the business domain though in the domestic and social domains, there was not much difference in usage between the most educated and mid range groups There were no example s of this strategy at all for the primary group in these domains. Thus, th ese results suggest that that requesting information during a refusal is possibly both education and domain sensitive. Regarding claim ing common ground/solidarit y this strategy also appears to be education level and domain sensitive. As Figure 6 15 shows, the least educated participants used this strategy the most in all domains with the downward stair step pattern occurring in the domestic and business domains. The social domain was the only domain that saw the mid range group pro duce less tokens than the secondary group. In terms of domain sensitivity, the primary and secondary groups employed this strategy the most in the social domain (36% and 20% of the respective seque nces),

PAGE 256

256 while all groups dispref e r red the use of this strat egy in the domestic domain (under 10% for every category of education). Par t icipant Socioeconomic S tatus and Neighborhood of R esidence The women participating in the study reported their socioeconomic status (SES) as either middle or lower, which c orresponded to the Centro/Pastoreo division with five in each group For this reason, I evaluate the participa SES and neighborhood of residence as the same measure. With this I do not mean that the two measures are, in reality, equivalent, but that the one to one correspondence is an artifact of those who participated in the study and their evaluations of themselves. I will refer to them in this section as belonging to either the Centro or Pastoreo group. Table 6 1 gives the number of refusal seque nces per neighborhood of residence. The majority of the data (58%) come from women from the Centro, with the rest (42%) from the Pastoreo. This section compare s the data by SES/neighborhood of residence in terms of overarching semantic and specific ling uistic strategies. P revious studies have found SES to be an important extralinguistic factor for phon etic variation ( e.g., Labov 1972; Cedergren 1973; Samper Padilla 1990; Silva Corvaln 2001 ; Carvalho 2004 ). The question, then, is to what extent the sel ection of refusal strategies can be attributed to a lower or middle SES background. The hypothesis is that there would be clear differences in refusal behavior based on SES, indicative of two speech communities: those from the Pastoreo, with lower SES and denser network ties due in part to financial limitations (Milroy 1980), would display relatively more affiliative/involvement strategies including directness ; those from the Centro with higher SES and less dense network ties due in part to financial mob ility (ibid.) would employ relatively more deferent/independence strategies, including indirectness.

PAGE 257

257 Compared with participant age and education level SES/ neighborhood of residence stood out, not in the differences, but in the similarities between the two groups ; thus, overall, th e above hypothesis was rejected A look at Table 6 7 reveals how similar the figures were for the mean length of refusal sequences, refusal sequence types, head act types, supportive moves, downgraders, upgraders and small tal k. In fact, no significant differences obtained for these variables, despite the fact that age, education level and neighborhood of residence all strongly correlated with each other (tau b > .500, p < 0.001). However, seven linguistic strategies did pro ve to be salient at certain levels of an alysis (Table 6 8 Figure 6 17 ). Using bivariate correlations and the Kruskal Wallis one way ANOVA test, I located significant differences in the distribution of the following: delay response to/ignor e hearer, no us e defense, distract from the offense, pause filler and request information/confirmation. 4 Utter a nces defending oneself ( Pastoreo ), distracting from the offense and pause fillers ( Centro ) occurred so infrequently that they di d not account for even 10% of the refusal sequences in either group; however, the strategy of pause fillers presents a somewhat special case. The use of pause fillers at the level of the refusal turn at talk proved significant for different categories of age, education level and SES/neighborhood of residence. While the older age group garnered the highes t R S percentage for this strategy (13%), the difference was not categorical as it was with SES/neighborhood of residence : a ll of the partic i pants who int erspersed their refusals with pause fillers were 4 Request information/confirmation was significant at the level of the whole refusal sequence only. This is in contrast to education level, which also achieved significant differenc es with this variable at the (more rigorous) level of supportive moves.

PAGE 258

258 from the Cent ro. Looking at this strategy by neighborhood and by age, I found that four of the five Centro participants produced pause fillers in their refusal turns at talk, the majority of the tokens (ten of thirteen, 77%) by the two olde st participants, and t he rest (three of thirteen, 23%) by two participants in their thirties. (Recall that there were no participants from the younger age group from the Centro .) In terms of education level, three of the four participants were among the most educated (eleven of thirteen tokens, 85%), while the other was from the mid range group (two of thirteen, 15%). M ost instances of pause fillers occurred in business oriented talk (eight of thirteen), with the others distributed almost equally between the social (three) and domestic (two) domains. This finding, if borne out with further study, would indicate a slightly increased air of tentativeness in the refusals on the part of more educated, perhaps older, middle c lass Centro women Nevertheless, I would classify a strategy such as this that appears in only 3% of refusal sequences as less characteristic of Rosarian refusals, but as indicating a need on the part of the speaker to buy time to think phrase and/or rep hrase her argument while maintaining the floor. What was striking about this wa s, from my own impressions from having spent time in these areas, that pause fillers seem ed ubiquitious in face to face interaction. An actual evaluation of their talk, howeve r, proved otherwise, at least where refusals were concerned. With regard to the more prominent linguist ic strategies that obtained significant differences saying delaying response/ignoring the hearer and request ing information/confirmation all were a ssociated with the Centro group (Figure 6 17) N o and d elaying/ignoring were indicative of direct and in direct head acts, respectively. While n o was the preferred direct strategy for both neighborhoods of residence (as

PAGE 259

259 opposed to negating the proposition and issuing commands) it won out even more strongly in the Centro group Most o ccurred in domestic oriented talk (37 of 64 refusal sequences with no 58%), and over a third in business oriented talk (20 of 64 refusal sequences 31%) where this strategy was employed significantly more than in social oriented exchanges Instances of delaying/ignoring the hearer were provided by three of the five Centro participants, but the majority w as contributed by one woman in her thirties particularly when dealing with her mother and younger sister. Thus, it is not surprising that this strategy presented primarily during domestic oriented talk ; only once did it occur in social oriented talk and not at all in business oriented interactions. Despite the domain imba lance, it was one of the most frequent indirect head act strategies for the Centro women; c ounter arguments/corrections were the only strateg y that compared in frequency for indirect head acts ( though not significantly more relative to the Pastoreo group ) Requesting information/confirmation was more prevalent a mong Centro participants a t the lev el of the whole refusal sequence, with no significant differences with respect to domain. As far as strategies associated with the Pastoreo group, only one prov ed salient that of using the addressee course, to use her or his proper name, the speaker had to know name, which indicates some degree of familiarity between the m As shown in the previous secti on on age, the younger participants ( both from the Pastoreo ) showed a propensity to use their addressee well. A similar comparison based on the distribution of proper names in the head act

PAGE 260

260 by SES /neighborhood of residence and domain, reveals more convincing results. Figure 6 1 8 demonstrates that both Centro and Pastoreo participants utilized this strategy in the domestic domain (where one finds the most intimate relationships), but also that o nly the Pastoreo participants realized this strategy in the social and business domains. This lends to the argument that the extended use of proper names in refusals ( i.e., in domains other than domestic) is potentially a marker for SES and/or neighborhoo d of residence for the participants of this study. Th e paragraphs above expounded upon the differences detected between the Pastoreo and Centro groups. What follows below is a comparison of two refusal sequences one from each group that are remarkably similar in terms of strategy selection to illustrate the major point of this section: SES/neighborhood of residence was not a strong predictor for the types of refusal behaviors encountered. ( 8 ) Refusing to babysit, business domain, Pastoreo (Fabiana 3 ) 5 (While at home, Fabiana Tesina asking her to babysit a little girl (relationship unknown)) ((cell phone ringing)) 1 Fabiana: hola? hello? 2 Tesina: xxx 3 Fabiana: cmo anda Tesina. (( usted fo rm)) how are you ((f )) Tesina. 4 Tesina: xxx no la encontraba find you ((f )). 5 f. = formal address, inf. = informal address

PAGE 261

261 5 Fabiana: CLAro, porque no ve (( usted )) que me llama al nmero que no es. que )) see that you call me at the wrong number. what 6 Tesina: xxx ((inquires as to what Fabiana is doing?)) 7 Fabiana: eeh, yo estoy trabajando/. eeh, I am working/. 8 Tesina: xxx ((mand coded as a REQUEST )) 9 Fabiana: [ mmm, 10 Tesina: [xxx 11 Fabiana: no, no puedo no, si me la si me la pudieran traer s, si no no pue:do Tesina. she to me t Tesina. 12 Tesina: (y cualquier cosa) vos hasta qu hora trabajs? (and just in case ) you ((inf )) until what time do you work? 13 Fabiana: eh yo trabajo hasta la una porque llevo a la nena al jardn. eh I work until one because I take the girl to school. 14 Tesina: ah y despus que hacs. ah and what are you ((inf.)) doing after that. 15 Fabiana: y claro estoy ando caminando adems. ((implies hardship)) 16 Tesina: ah no (despus) te la llevo. (no trabajs ms?) ah no ( afterwards ((that day)) ?) 17 Fab iana: eh no, hasta el otro da no. eh no, not until the next day no. 18 Tesina: xxx ((MAND, possible offer )) 19 Fabiana: AAH est, yo veo cmo me organizo y si no cualquier cosa le mando un mensaje, sabs Tesina? porque laa ((combines usted and vos forms)) send you ((f.)) a message, you ((inf.)) know Tesina?

PAGE 262

262 20 Tesina: xxx que trabajar xxx ((MAND)) xxx to work xxx aah est. lo que pasa es que pa ( (formula)) the:re you go. the thing is that to 22 Tesina: xxx daughter )) andaba con FI EBRE. la tengo que dejar solita yo ac a Heln, o becaus e Heln has been with a FEVER. I ((emph.)) would have to leave her, Heln, all by herself 24 Tesina: a cul, a Heln? who, Heln? 25 Fabiana: seGUro andaba con cantidad de fiebre y todo no sabe usted. ha pasado re mal. exACTly she had a re ally high fever and everything you ((f. emph.)) have no idea. having a really tough time. 26 Tesina: xxx 27 Fabiana: ese es el tema. ((formula)) 28 Tesina: [ xxx 29 Fabiana: [cmo anda Yasmine ahora porque el otro da la cuid yo pues y estaba re congestionada pobreCI: ta. [how is Yasmine doing now because the other day I watched her and she was super congested poor THI: ng. (( both proceed with small talk eight turns omitted )) 30 Fabiana: pobreCI: ta, s el otro da me la trajeron temprano a m. este poor THI:ng, yeah the other day they brought her to me ((emph.)) early. uh 31 Tesina: xxx ((MAND)) 32 Fabiana: CLAro que el tema es que se me complica hoy para ir para all arriba. porque (la Cona) no tiene en que andar! because

PAGE 263

263 33 Tesina: (no no!) x xx 34 Fabiana: AY seguro. ah est. AY exactly. there you go. 36 F abiana: S: s s. YE:s yes yes. 37 Tesina: xxx seguro s si no me pega el grito a m y veo como hago, ta~? (( usted form)) exactly yes if not give ((inf.)) me ((emph. )) okay~? 39 Tesina: xxx 40 Fabiana: bueno Tesi, un BESO. ((pre close, first attempt)) alright then Tesi, a KISS. 41 Tesina: xxx ((MAND)) claro, ((rpido)) ah ta yo cualquier cosa veo cmo hago, ta? ((r aised)) right see what I can do, okay? 43 Tesina: xxx 44 Fabiana: bueno Tesi ((second attempt)) alright Tesi 45 Tesina: xxx te pods quedar ah ((possible offer, not coded)) xxx you ((inf.)) can stay there 46 Fabiana: seguro s right y 47 Tesina: xxx ((asks about a male family member)) 48 Fabiana: no: no est porque tambin anda atacado del pecho horrible del asma. asthma. 49 Tesina: xxx

PAGE 264

264 50 Fabiana: AY es que este tiempo Tesina/ anda horrible todo. ((alternates between shortened and longer forms of her name, Tesi/Tesina)) 51 Tesina: xxx 52 Fabiana: imponente. bueno Tesi, un beso chau chau. ((third attempt, close)) unbelievable. alright Tesi, a kiss bye bye. ( 9 ) Refusing to return to the sales team, business domain, Centro (Ana 16 18) (While at home, Ana receives a phone call from her (former) colleague Isaz, aski ng her to return to their direct sales team that deals with skin care products and training) 1 Ana: ((answers phone)) S HOLA: Yes HELLO: 2 Ana: ISA Z cmo ests! ISAZ, how are you! 3 Isaz: xxx 4 Ana: yo estoy bien. estaba estaba: resol viendo cosas para llamar para: dar una respuesta. este: andan bien ustedes? I was figuring things out in order to call to: give an answer. uh: you all doing well? 5 Isaz: xxx ((MAND)) he recibido lo s mensajes s, las promociones, todo eso lo hemos recibido. este:, pero: estoy en otras, en otros proyectos y este: como que est medio suspendido todo. todo en el aire tengo. por eso no he querido, ni siquiera: mm, hacerme o r porque no s qu:, no s todava la respuesta que les ten les tengo para dar. gotten the messages yes, the promotions, all of that we have received. u:h, of up in t eve:n mm, 7 Isaz: xxx

PAGE 265

265 8 Ana: claro. lo que me interesara/, cuand o vuelva a haber un: este:, un:: cmo se llama? of course. what would interest me/, when again 9 Isaz: xxx 10 Ana: el curso (de) esteticista integral de nuevo/, completar ese ciclo. eso S me gustara hacerlo/ mm the comp rehensive esthetician course again/, complete that cycle. that I WOULD like to do/ mm . 11 Ana: solamente eso. pero me gustara darlas. pero only that. but I would like to give them ((in the sense of taking an exam or rendering a final evaluation of some sort)). but 12 Isaz: xxx ((possibly mand related)) 13 Ana: s pero no lo(s) queran para enviar todos juntos a Mxico? ey want them to send all of them together to Mexico? 14 Isaz: xxx ((MAND)) pero si ustedes dan a dan de nuevo el ciclo, lo hago den lo hag lo completo para no estar molesTANdo a RosArio. as not to be BOTHering RosArio. 1 6 Isaz: xxx porque ahora en este momento me hace se me hace un poco difcil ir. because right now at this time for me 18 Isaz: xxx ((MAND)) AH de pronto, las cuando vayan a hacer l as evaluaciones/, me pongo al da con los temas/ AH maybe, the the material / 20 Isaz: xxx

PAGE 266

266 ((background voices)) 21 Ana: s s. es el integral el que yo ehensive one that I 22 Isaz: xxx ((MAND)) AH est, pero no no. yo no, no, no puedo. THERE you go, but no no. 24 Isaz: xxx 25 Ana: claro, proba nos mantenemos en contacto entonces yo tengo el telfono de Rosario, y yo la voy a llamar pero no quise, porque tambin quiero mandarle:: este mi:: mi mail que todava no lo tengo registrado. of course, proba so se also I want to 26 Isaz: xxx 27 Ana: CLAro, porque RIght, because 28 Isaz: xxx 29 Ana: ah est. exactly. 30 Isaz: xxx ((MAND)) pero eso es semanal? ((pausa)) o acumulativo. but is that weekly? ((pause)) or accumulative. 32 Isaz: xxx AH no. s s s, pero no. ya hoy no no (da) porque no:, ya te digo estoy TO tal mente casi desvinculada @@ en este tengo todo. y estoy bajando: toda la:: la parte del catlogo que lo quiero tener encarpetado. eso no cambia excepto alguna promocin.

PAGE 267

267 AH no. yeah yeah yeah, but no. t tel l you now that I am TO tal ly almost out of the loop @@ on this for now, 34 Isaz: xxx 35 Ana: por este mes. for this month. 36 Isaz: xxx ((MAND? not coded)) bueno, pero yo despus ya lo voy a poder ir este: voy a poder ir interiorizando con la computadora. internalize ((the information)) with the computer. 38 Isaz: xxx 39 Ana: c laro. ((timbre )) porque: right. ((doorbell rings)) becau:se 40 Isaz: xxx ((MAND)) s, porque si hay alguna variacin/, entonces c yo lo porque no estoy muy a ducha con la computadora, no estoy nada ducha entonces yo tengo que esperar que est mi hijo para que me, me ayude. pero recin lleg:, o me la trajeron de la que habamos encargado a la:, a nuestra: este:, a a la chica que est:, ac ahora haciendo una tesis/, que convivi con nosotros hace unos aos y ahora volv volvi para hacer la tesis. es de este:: mm nd of variation/, then w I it because be here so he can, can help me. but just recently it ar ri:ved, or they brought it to me from here now doing a thesis/, that lived with us some years ago and now retur returned to do her thesis. 42 Isaz: xxx 43 Ana: s:: de mm solamente con mm lo va a hacer con doce mujeres de ac de Rosario entonces, te pods imaginar. con este convocar gente para arriba y para abajO: como que: nos llevA: prcticamente todo el da. it with twelve women from here from Rosario so, you ((inf.)) can imagine. with uh recruiting people all over the PLA:ce

PAGE 268

268 44 Isaz: xxx 45 Ana: por favor! porque me interesa tambin, y quiero hacer el el, quiero este terminar con la carpeta tambin para: poder este:, para poder tener mm algo para mostrAR, porque viste que no tengo ahora mucho material. please! because it interests me too, and I want to make the the, I want uh to finish with the file as well in order: to be able to u:h, to be able to have mm 46 Isaz: xxx= 47 Ana: =BUEno. un beso. chau chau. saludos a todas las muchachas por ah. (pre close, first attemp t)) =OKAY well. a kiss. bye bye. say hi to all the girls for me. 48 Isaz: xxx bueno. ((second attempt, then adds)) de mir que no fue:: mala:: por, es que es que quera tener una respuesta: que ahora qued en el aire todava. alright then. de h 50 Isaz: xxx 51 Ana: @@ chau, chau. ((closes)) @@ bye, bye. The above refusals are different in certain respects ( e.g., the order in which in/ direct head acts first appear, simultaneous use of usted and vos forms and repeated use of the addressee ( but not Ana ) mand related requests for information/confirmation and pause fillers by Ana ( but not Fabiana ) ) And while it has been a goal for this research to point out diff erences between the groups that could be attributed to SES/neighborhood of residence, the general conclusion is that, for the most part, their refusal behavior wa s very similar. T he above conversations illustrate this point well. They are surprisingly si milar in terms of contextual and social features, semantic strategies, internal modification and some linguistic strategies B oth exchanges occurred when the participant received a phone call while at home ; both

PAGE 269

269 were with women who were quite persistent i n their transactional goals ; both were with women of the same relative coercive power 6 and socioeconomic background ; neither of the addressee s were particularly close in terms of most of the social distance factors ; and both conversational partners were li mited to what they could hear only, so they had to make their words count. In terms of refusal behaviors, e ach conversation illustrated many of the most frequent (and some less frequent) linguistic strategies for head acts and supportive moves ( recalling Tables 4 9 and 4 10) Both sequences contained direct and indirect refusals, up and downgraders as well as supportive moves within and outside of the refusal turn at talk. Taking head acts f or example, though they differed in when they took the direct approach, both employed no and negation of the proposition ( no puedo ) with repetition/reiteration : 11 Fabiana: no, no puedo no si me la si me la pudieran traer s, si no no pue:do Tesina. if she to me if they could bring her to me ye s, if not Tesina. 23 Ana: AH est, pero no no yo no, no, no puedo THERE you go, but no no . Additionally, with indirect head acts, they both impl ied or claim ed hardship as a reason for not comply ing with their addressee While Fabiana favored the use of formulas such as el tema es que and lo que pasa es que to engage the hearer and soften the refusal ( while Ana did not), both displayed instances of downgrading claims of hardship with the use of the impersonal se : 6 undesireable tasks) that another (Spencer Oatey 2009: 35). Both Fabiana and Ana are on equal terms with Tesina and Isaz in this based on role/status, between Ana and Isaz. See also the section on Relative Power, where this is further explained.

PAGE 270

270 32 Fabiana: CLAro que el tema es que se me complica hoy para ir para all arriba. porque (la Cona) no tiene en que andar! RI:ght the thing is that today to go up there. because nsportation! 17 Ana: porque ahora en este momento me hace se me hace un poco difcil ir. because right now at this time for me a little difficult for me to go. In addition both Fabiana and Ana referred to other people and their situations i n order to appeal to the benevolent understanding and empathy of the hearer T he next examples of dialogue show this and also how the participants made use of appealers/cajolers ( no sabe usted, te pods imaginar ) to decrease social distance and get the he : 23 Fabiana: porque Heln ((daughter)) andaba con FIEBRE la tengo que dejar solita yo ac a Heln e Heln has been with a FEVER I ((emph.)) would have to leave her, Heln, all by herself, 24 Tesina: a cul, a Heln? who, Heln? 25 Fabiana: seGUro andaba con cantidad de fiebre y todo no sabe usted ha pasado re mal. exACTly she had a really high fever and every thing you ((f. emph.)) have no idea 41 Ana: a a la chica que est:, ac ahora haciendo una tesis/, que convivi con nosotros hace unos aos y ahora volv volvi para hacer la tesis es de este:: mm the th ago and now retur returned to do her thesis 42 Isaz: xxx 43 Ana: s:: de mm solamente con mm lo va a hacer con doce mujeres de ac de Rosario entonces, te pods imaginar con este convocar gente para arriba y para abajO: como que: nos llevA: prcticamente todo el da. Rosario so, you ((inf.)) can imagine with uh recruit ing people all over the

PAGE 271

271 In several instances, both participants confirm ed /acknowledge d the hearer as the first step of the refusal process ( e.g., s, claro, seguro, ah est ): 42 Fabiana: claro ((rpido)) ah ta yo cualquier cosa veo cmo hago, ta? ((raised)) right see what I can do, okay? 27 Ana: CLAro porque RIght because T hey also warded off the imposition of the addressee by giving indirect replies with va gue references to future actions ( e.g., calling someone, sending someone a text message): 25 Ana: claro proba nos mantenemos en contacto entonces yo tengo el telfono de Rosario, y yo la voy a llamar of course proba so I ha am going to call her 19 Fabiana: AAH est yo veo cmo me organizo y si no cualquier cosa le mando un mensaje sabs Tesina? and if not whatever happens send you ((f.)) a message you ((inf.)) know Tesina? Another similarity was that both parti ci pants engaged in small talk (Fabiana, lines 29 30; Ana, lines 41 45) While it is tempting to overlook these lines as unnecessary chit chat (I did, in fact, omit the se lines for the sake of space), important work is being done. Not only did this allow the participants and addressees space to talk about something else ( i.e., distract from the offense), but also it gave them a n opportunity display agreement on common t opics, and to do relational work in general, greasing the wheels of interaction. Finally, the pre close and closing rituals were comparable in which the discourse marker bueno signalled the move. As we saw in both conversations, this could be subverted by either of the addressee s in which case the conversation would continue

PAGE 272

272 until the next attempt at wrapping up. The close was, in both cases, with a beso and chau though Ana also sent greetings and Fabiana addressed her interlocutor by name (which she often did throughout, unlike Ana). 47 Ana: = BUEno un beso. chau chau saludos a todas las muchachas por ah. =OKAY well. a kiss. bye bye say hi to all the girls for me. 40 Fabiana: bueno Tesi un BESO ((pre close, first attempt)) al right then Tesi a KISS 52 Fabiana: bueno Tesi un beso chau chau ((third attempt, close)) alright Tesi a kiss bye bye Th e above examples lend to a qualitative analysis that emphasizes the similarities, rather than the differences, between the Centro and Pastoreo groups. This, in turn, supports the general lack of significant differences between groups for refusal strategies purported by the quantitative tests. On the other hand, the above conversations exemplify some of the tendencies toward certain linguistic strateg ies b y the Pastoreo and Centro speakers. Fabiana, from the Pastoreo, demonstrated use of the addressee while Ana made requests for information and interspersed her utterances with p ause fillers, which were two strategies characteristic of the Centro participant s Addressee C haracteristics This section takes into account the characteristics of the various addressee s with whom the participants interacted and the ir affect on refusal str ategy selection. There were a total of 96 unique participant addressee pairs. The characteristics that I examine are: the sex of the addressee the relative age, education level and socioeconomic status of the addressee compared with the participant, th e power

PAGE 273

273 relationship between the two (business domain only) and factors pertaining to social distance: their relationship (sibling, parent, friend, etc.), frequency of contact, level of familiarity level of trust and contexts of contact. The general fin dings are that for these data, the sex of the addressee and factors relating to social distance (various, and in different ways) most affected the selection of refusal strategies. Addressee S ex Table 6 9 shows that o ut of the 243 refusal sequences analyze d for this study, 144 were refusals to women, 98 were refusals to men and one was a refusal to a mixed group consisting of both women and men. For the purposes of this section, I excluded the latter refusal sequence from the analysis. Regarding refusals to women, these 144 sequences were produced by 5 7 distinct female female dyads. Likewise, the 98 refusals to men were generated by 37 female male dyads The number of times that a participant engaged in a refusal sequence with the same addressee ranged f rom one to 26 times ( i.e., Isabel with her sister Jenifer ) ; after this, the most frequent pairing occurred twelve times ( i.e., between Moqui and her partner Andrs ) ( Table 6 1 0 ) 7 The majority of participants engaged in a refus al sequence with an addres see only once : the median and mode were both one per dyad T he mean number of refusal sequences with any given addressee was 2. 5 5 This section seeks to reveal how refusals to women may have differed from refusals to men. Much research to date has shown that speakers relate differently to 7 Concerning this range, I randomly sa mpled the data set using SPSS, selecting 80% of all cases; the results of the statistical analysis returned the same significant differences as with the whole data set. Also, I tried the analysis after excluding thirteen randomly selected refusal sequence s between Isabel and her sister (which reduced count from 26 to 12 sequences); again, the results were nearly the same as with the whole data set, except that the use of downgraders with women became even more pronounced (gaining significance) and post ref usal small talk with women became more equal to that with men (losing significance among Centro participants).

PAGE 274

274 members of the same and opposite sex ( e.g., Labov 1972; Tannen 1990; Holmes 1989, 1995; Wagner 2000; Silva Corvaln 2001). The question here is to what extent the selection of refusal strategies can be attrib uted to the sex of the addressee The frequencies of the major semantic strategies by addressee sex are given in Table 6 11 Overall, woman to woman refusals were characterized by the presence of indirect head acts, mitigating moves and downgraders. Woma n to man refusals boasted more direct head acts, aggravating moves, upgraders and post refusal small talk. T he Kruskal Wallis one way ANOVA test located significant differences only in the distribution of mitigating and aggravating moves : t he participant s us ed mitigating moves significantly more with other women ( p<0 .0 1 ) and aggravating moves significantly more with m en (p<0.01 ) Looking at the data by the extralinguistic variables of domain and SES/neighborhood of residence other pattern s emerged bu t generally follow ed the trends above Examining the data in this fashion reduces the risk that these differences are merely idiosyncratic. Let us take each major strategy in turn The p ercentages indicate the RS % ( Table s 6 11, 6 12 ) with significant p values in parentheses. Participants tended to employ more indirect head acts when refusing women during business oriented talk ( p<0.05 ), domestic oriented talk and within the Centro group. In the social domain and in the Pastoreo group a greater percen tage of refusals to men contained indirect head acts ; however, the percentage was high for both women and men (64% versus 79% in the social domain; 54% versus 61% in the Pastoreo group). Regarding direct head acts, though no significant differences obtain ed, these were always directed more toward men, except in the Pastoreo group where the

PAGE 275

275 percentages were nearly equal (59% with women versus 58% with men). Ari provides examples of direct refusals to men and indirect refusal s to wom e n in the workplace. ( 10) Direct refusals to men at work, a subordinate and superior Pastoreo (Ari 2, 6) (While at work, Ari refuses a male Vilma to a meeting with their boss Edgar; then, Ari refuses a statement by her bos s insinuating a potentially poor management of building materials. ) 1 a Male Wrkr: yo voy con ustedes, xxx. 2 a A ri : no. no. 3 a V ilma : no mi amor. te agradezco. no my dear. thank you. 1 b E dgar : xxx (pueden ser cien y me llev an) setenta. xxx (there could be a hundred and they take from me) seventy ((blocks)) 2 b Ari : no, no (no) no, no (no) (11) Indirect refusals to wom e n at work, a subordinate and superior Pastoreo (Ari 10, 28) (While at w ork, Ari refuses a female subordin and a coworker of superior status who informs her that she will need to work on her day off ) 1 a Terisa : (yo) ped treinta y seis, no hay ni treinta y siete/ 2 a Ari: (2.0) no veo nada, no viene mi vid a (dice con) algunos nmeros. it says in) some sizes. 1 b Triza: pero lo vas a tener en otro momento.

PAGE 276

276 2 b Ari: s s s yo s lo que me decs, pero digo que, ya porque, ah yo ya haba comunicado ... but I mean, now because, ah I had already told ... 3 b Triza: vos te pods organizar igual? o: are you gonna be able to figure it out? or: 4 b Ari: v er lo organizar pero ta. digo no no out. but ok. I mean no no From these examples it is apparent that in the case of the refusals to men, the propositions za or as sensitive, even, as having to deny Terisa the work shoes in her size for which she had been anxiously waiting. Thus, it may be in this case that what looks like an effect of gender is more an artifact of the circumstances surrounding the refusal, in that the participants engaged in more sensitive topics with women than with men. Turning now to supportive moves, the data consistently follow ed the overall pattern of aggravating moves with men, mitigating moves with women Aggravating moves were more present in refusals to men in the business domain, even though they were not used very much in this domain with either women or men. In the domestic domain, the use of aggravating moves toward men was most prominent, and the difference between group s was highly significant (p<0.01 ). Aggravating moves were also used more toward men in the social domain, the Centro group (p<0.01 ) and the Pastoreo group. Mitigating moves showed the opposite trend; these were almost always employed more so when refus ing wome n This difference was significant in the business domain (p<0.05 ) and for the Pastoreo group (p<0.05 ). The social domain was

PAGE 277

277 exceptional: here, the RS% for mitigating moves was so high for both sexes, that there was little difference between the t wo groups (71% with women versus 74% with men) (12) Aggravated refusal of food to adult son, domestic domain, Centro (Ana 14b) (While at home g tongue, which was the second of fer ) 1 Ana: [y voy a probar 2 Dario: [xxx hicimos xxx (( ofreciendo lengua )) [xxx we made xxx ((offe ring the marinated tongue )) 3 Ana: el sufl. no quise Dario, no quise. ((pausa)) lo prob all y nada mS:. the souffl. I I tried it over there ((at their butcher shop)) and no moRE (13) Mitigated refusal of drink to adult daughter domestic domain, Centro (Ana 5) ( At home in the morning, sewing and drinking mate Ana r efuses mate served by Violeta, who ) 1 Violeta : (( offers mate to Ana)) 2 Ana : s. este:m no me d s ms, mate porque, ya estoy satisfecha y Este rcita ? yes. e:hm mate t and Estercita? As with aggravating moves, the participant s modified their refusals with upgraders more often w ith men ( e.g., no quise Dario no quise from line 3 of (12)) This pattern held most significantly in the domestic do main ( p< 0.0 1 ), and also in both Centro and Pastoreo groups. Upgraders were not found so much in business oriented refusals, where slightly more were directed toward women (37% with women versus 32% with men). However, they did occur in half the social or iented refusals to women (50% with women versus 26% with men), though this difference was not statistically significant. Conversely, similar to mitigating moves, the participants downgraded their

PAGE 278

278 refusals to women moreso than to men ( e.g., mi vida and per o ta. digo in line s 2a and 4 b of (11)). This pattern bore out in the business and domestic domains, and in the Centro and Pastoreo groups ( p<0.05 for the latter ) Again, i n the social domain the opposite occurred (39% with women versus 53% with men), bu t was not significant Post refusal small talk, the last strategy examine d in this section tended to be more present in refusals to men (Table 6 12) This was true for domestic and social oriented talk, and for the Centro group. More small talk wit h men for the Centro participants obtained significance (p<0.05 ) ; however, it was lost after rerunning the analysis with a reduced number of sequences between Isabel and her sister 8 But even with this adjustment, the Centro participants still engaged in post refusal small talk more often with men ( 43% versus 30% ). One aspect of this trend is that men would often initiate the small talk with the participant. In the social and domestic refusals of the Centro group, two thirds of the small talk (8 out of 1 2 sequences ) w as in i tiated by the male addressee. 9 T his tendency did not hold in the business domain or with the Pastoreo group; in both cases small talk with men and women was nearly equal To sum up this section on the potential effects of the sex of t he addressee, t he strongest and most convincing results were those pertaining to aggravating and mitigating moves. The fact that, for example, the participants always employed aggravating moves moreso with men, regardless of domain and SES/neighborhood of Likewise with mitigating moves: save the social domain, in which the use of mitigating 8 Choosing the even numbered sequences between Isabel and Jenifer reduced the number of sequences for this pair from 26 to 12. Another dyad, M oqui Andres, a woman to man pair, also had 12 sequences in the domestic domain. In this way, the two pairings balanced each other out in terms of number and sex. 9 This figure was 56% (9 out of 16) with female addressees.

PAGE 279

279 moves exceeded 70% for both sexes (a possible ceiling effect), the participants always used this strategy more with women. The weakest tendency had to do with post refusal small talk. Even though small talk with men was generally more frequent, t he fact that the frequencies fell consistently within the 30 to 40% range, except for ce rtain domains regardless of addressee sex ( low for domestic high for social ) with virtually no significant differences between groups, signals a greater effect of the domain rather than if the addressee was a man or a woman. Of moderate s trength were the fin dings on indirect and direct head acts, upgraders and downgraders. T he effects of other factors were also evident, such as domain (particularly social oriented talk that often defied overall patterns), and the extent to which the refusal was personal to the participant or regarding sensitive matters. I t is not clear if SES/neighborhood of residence had an effect, given that the Pastoreo data ran contrary to the Centro (and overall) data for head act type However the relatively consistent patterns f or male and female addressees coupled with the significant differences obtained in certain categories, indicate that the addressee sex play ed a role in the selection of these strategies, suggesting a correlation between women, indirect head acts and downg raders on the one hand, and men, direct head acts and upgraders on the other. Relative A ge Relative age refers to whether the participant perceived her interlocutor to be older younger or of the same age This section deals with the extent to which the selection of refusal strategies can be attributed to the relative age of the addressee. One hypothesis is that the interactions w ill depict a kind of hierarchical politeness system in which the older addressee considered superordinate will use involvem ent

PAGE 280

280 strategies to speak to the younger addressee; the younger addressee, with subordinate status, will use independence strategies in speaking to the older addressee. Relative age information was gleaned for 213 refusal sequences, with data missing for t hirty sequences. Sixty (2 8 %) were with addressee s deemed younger, 37 (17%) with addressees considered the same age and 116 (54%) with people perceived as older. The respective num bers of addresse s were 17, 16 and 38, totaling 71 (Table 6 9 ). The range and mode were the same as for addressee sex: 25 and one The median was two and the mean number of refusal sequences per dyad was three The frequencies of the major semantic strategies by relative age are show n in Table 6 13 T here were no significan t differences between age groups for any of these strategies although aggravating moves and post refusal small talk maintained certain (Table 6 14) Aggravating moves, fo r example, were the most frequent with addressees of the same age in all domains and for both the Centro and Pastoreo areas. In all but the social domain, aggravating moves were the least frequent with relatively younger addressees. These differences app roached significance for the domestic domain ( p=0 .059). Post refusal small talk patterned the same occur r ing most with addressee s of the same age, and least with those deemed younger. These differences approached significance for the overall data set ( p =0 .053), and achieved significance for the refusal sequences of the Centro group : small talk with younger addressee s was significantly less than with same aged ( p<0.01 ) and older addressees (p<0.01) The Pastoreo group was the only subse t to produce a di ssimilar pattern. Participants from the Pastoreo

PAGE 281

281 engaged in post refusal small talk most with younger addressees followed by those of the same age and, lastly, with those older than them. I ndirect head acts, supportive moves and downgraders produced th e least consistent results. This suggests that, for these strategies, the relative age of the addressee was not a key predictor of refusal strategy selection. Direct hea d acts and upgraders, however, were almost always used least with those perceived as younger the only exception being with upgraders in the social domain. Because this pattern wa s so consistent, it is difficult to ignore B ut looking at Table 6 14 we see that the difference is not as pronounced between the relative age categories for so me subsections as it is for others. Taking direct head acts for example, the difference between the younger and same relative age groups never exceeds 7% in the business, domestic and Centro subsections, but within the social domain and Pastoreo group, th e differences range between 27 % and 40% These more drastic differences are found in subse ts with the least number of representative refusal sequences, making them more suscepti b le to the idiosyncra s ies of a few interactional exchanges. What the se data d o point to is a level of certainty among participants and addressee s of the same age and often of older age that permitted them to refuse more frankly in the case of direct head acts, and more intensely in the case of upgraders. O ne of the noticeable things about the data set is that, even though the addressees are split into older, younger and same groups, there were only a few instances in which the age discrepancy was very large, i.e., with a much younger person or with a much older person. This w as especially the case outside of the domestic sphere (the domestic sphere being inherently different because of the

PAGE 282

282 familiarity involved). It is probable that s tarker divisions in age would have lent a clearer picture of the effect of this factor on refu sal behavior. Nine refusal se quences with three much older addressee s (three sequences per each) speak to this possibility : Moqui with Ruperto (intermediate social distance, social domain), Rena with a retired female client, and Mar with Berta ( high soc ial distance business domain). T wo characteristics stand out in a ll of these exchanges: more formal/less familiar forms of address ( i.e., usted forms) on the part of the younger participants (not vice versa) and the tolerance that they displayed toward these older addressees who insisting upon their proposition and refusing to leave (Berta), or telling the participant how to do her job (retired client). In all of these situations th ere was an air of respect that permeated the exchange, particularly from the younger participant to the older one Such asymmetrical use of face strategies resembles what would we expect to find in a hierarchical politeness system, as hypothesized above. Also, looking at the major strategies in comparison with the category of older age for the whole data set, the strategies that are typically more subject to a polite interpretation are emphasized in these nine sequences: comparatively, there were more indirect head acts and less direct head acts ; there were half as many sequences with aggravating moves and over 20% more presence of mitigating moves. Upgraders were relatively less and the percentage of downgraders doubled. The occurrence of post refus al sm all talk almost doubled as well (Table 6 15). Thus, these nine sequences appear to confirm the hypothesis regarding relative age.

PAGE 283

283 The aggregated data however, do not give as clear of a picture of the effect of relative age on the realiza tion of refusals. This is because the categories were not really representative of marked differences in the ages of the interlocutors It was the s elected sequences in which the addressees were known to be much older than the parti ci pant that reveal ed h eightened levels of formality respect and refusal strategies indicative of a hierarchical politeness system Still the data signal some areas that we re possibly affected by addressee age. s the most likely area favoring use with addressees of the same age though this is conflated with the domestic domain (and low social distance) in that a greater relative percentage of partners fell into this category d have also been affected by the relative age of the addressee, though the se results were possibly idiosyncratic and produced no significant differences. Like with aggravating moves, they were employed most often with addressees of the same age and least often with those younger than them. Indirect head acts, mitigating moves and downgraders patterned the most inconsistently by domain and participant neighborhood of residence. For all of these strategies, the effects of domain and, to a lesser extent, ne ighborhood of residence could be seen to exert an influence on the distr ibution of strategy frequencies. More study focused on data with greater age discrepancies would probably reveal clearer patterns than what I have been able to show here Relative E ducation Level Relative education level refers to whether the participant perceived the addressee to be more formally educated, less formally educated or as equally educated as she. The question then, is whether the relative educat i on level of the addr essee

PAGE 284

284 contribute d to the selection of refusal strategies. The hypothesis is that it would have an effect, because the more educated one is, the more expert power one might be perceived to have over a less educated individual (Spencer Oatey 2009) causing the lower status interlocutor to display more deference/ independence and/or attenuation, and the higher status person to be more assertive and/ or less tentative This information was gleaned for 220 refusal sequences, with data missing for 23 sequences (Ta ble 6 9) Eighty four (38%) were with addressees deemed less educated, 49 (22%) were with same level addressees, and 87 (40%) were with people perceived as more educated. The respective numbers of addresses were 45, 14 and 22 totaling 8 1 The range and mode for refusal sequences per addressee were 25 and one. The median was two and the mean number of sequences per dyad was 2.72 The frequencies of the major semantic strategies by relative education level are shown in Table 6 1 6 There were no signif icant differences between groups for any of these strategies, indicating that relative education level was not a strong predictor for refusal behavior. In fact, during follow up interviews, it was often difficult for the parti cipants to answer questions r egarding the education level A common response was a quizzical look and the phrase ni idea ( no idea ). At least on the surface, the relative education level of the addressee was not something that these women took notice of. Looking more closely, however, the distribution of indirect head acts, mitigating mo ves and post refusal small talk consistently oriented to specific patterns even when The patterns for head acts and mitigating moves were supportive of the hypothesis stated at the

PAGE 285

285 outset. For example, i ndirect head acts ( often reflective of deference/ independence) were more frequent when refusing an addressee perceived to be more educat ed ; this pattern obtained fo r all five subse ts (business, domestic, social, Centro, Pastoreo) The incidence of mitigating moves (frequently attenuating) also rose as relative education level increased, with the exception of the Centro group where they plotted like a T h at is, th e RS% for the l ess and more educated groups was 66% while the equally educat ed group achieved 78%. But n ote that the percentage of presence of mitigating moves was high for all relative education levels This was not only true for the Centro grou p, but for the other subse t s as well: over 50% for all categories of relative education level for every subse t Thus, it is more likely that the participants employed mitigating moves in spite of relative education levels rather than because of them. On e possible exception is that the residents of the Pastoreo used mitigating moves to a much greater extent with more educated address e es (77%) than with less educated addressee s (53%) a difference which approached significance ( p=0 .051). With respect to p ost refusal small talk, the tendency was to engage in this more with equally educated addressees The Centro group, for example, resorted to small talk with those of equal education moreso than with those of higher education status ( p<0 .0 1 ). The only sub se t for which this was not true was the social domain, in which post refusal small talk with those of equal education status oc c urred least. However, this is not to say that it rarely took place; in fact, the RS% for all education categories in the social domain exceeded 50% with a range of just 6% (Table 6 17 ). Thus, this discrepancy can easily be attributed to the influence of domain, recalling that post refusal small talk in the social domain was significantly more common.

PAGE 286

286 The conclusion regarding re lative education level is that it demonstrate d possibilities for having influenced refusal behavior, with some patterns in line with what we would expect for asymmetric status relationships, but that it wa s a weak predictor for these data overall Fewer c onsistent patterns among sub sets (relative to other extralinguistic factors) and no significant differences (save for post refusal small talk) provide the rationale for this analysis. Also relevant is that participants generally had a difficult time descr ibing the level of education of the addressee s relative to theirs. A more targeted analysis aimed at studying this variable might yield different results, especially in academic settings where those with superior levels of formal education leverage expert power and status over others with in a hierarchically structured environment that is based on degrees earned. Relative S ocioeconomic S tatus Relative socioeconomic status (SES) refers to whether the participant perceived her interlocutor to be of the same, lower or higher economic class. Because in the background information form all participants indicated the existence of economic classes in their country, this question tapped their tacit understanding of class and how they viewed themselves in relation to others with whom they came into contact. This section, therefore, deals with the extent to which the relative SES of the addressee affected the selection of refusal strategies. I obtained this information for 2 2 5 refusal sequences, with data missing for eight een sequences. Table 6 9 shows that the great majority of refusal sequences were with addressees considered to be of the same SES: 203 (90%) were with addressees considered to be of the same status; e ight ( 4%) were with addressees perceived to be of a lower economic status and fourteen ( 6 %) of a higher status The

PAGE 287

287 respective numbers of addresses were 7 2 5 and 7 totaling 8 4 10 Thus, it is apparent that, overall, the relative SES of the addressee could not have played a major role in the selection of refusal strategy choice because very few addressee s were deemed to be of a different SES Even wh residence, the percentage of same SES addressees equaled 85 % or more The frequencies of the major s emantic strategies by relative SES are shown in Table 6 18. Despite the pronounced differences in the number of cases per group the RS% for many strategies was nearly equal across SES categories. The biggest differences between groups concerned mitigati ng moves, downgraders and post refusal small talk. For all three categories, the participants used these strategies to a significantly greater extent with those perceived to be of a lower SES ( p<0 .0 5, p<0.01 p<0.01 respectively). In the case of small t alk, the participants also engaged in this more with higher SES addressees than with those of the same SES (p<0.05 ). T able 6 19 breaks down the distribution further. The majority (103 out of 203) of same SES sequences took place in the domestic domain, fo llowed by the business (65) and social domains (35). For the domestic domain, there were only same SES addressees. The social domain showed very little distribution over the three SES groups, with only one instance of a lower SES addressee and four of a higher SES. In the business domain there is the most possibility for inter SES comparisons: the percentage of same SES addressees is the lowest (79%), and there are seven to ten sequences in each of the other SES categories. 10 The range and mode were 25 and one; the median was one and the mean number of refusal sequences per addressee was 2.68.

PAGE 288

288 The patterns of frequency i n the business domain mirrored the overall patterns for all strategies (Table 6 19). Likewise, they obtained significance between groups for downgraders and post refusal small talk. That is, in business related exchanges the participants downgraded their refusals to a greater extent with those perceived to be of lower SES, and tended to engage in post refusal small talk with those not of their same SES. Nevertheless, a qualitative examination of the refusal sequences of those of a lower SES (there were o nly eight) does not lend to an interpretation of class influenced refusal behavior for mitigating moves and downgraders. Exceptions exchanges with Berta, the low income herb peddler of advanced age referenced in the previous section T here I mentio ned that Mar exhibited patience with Berta, whose lengthy and somewhat bothersome What was salient in the se exchanges was the is sue of money: how much things cost the lack of money and ways to make it (lines 7 11, 14 15, 16 19, 22 28) (14) Mitigated refusals to lower SES addressee, business domain, Centro (Mar 11) (At her shop, Mar is visited by an herb peddler of advanced age The issue of money is a salient topic Mitigating moves are underlined. ) 11 1 Berta: a vos te gusta la marcela? 12 do you ((emph.)) like marcela ((a medicinal plant used in tea ))? 2 Mar: es rica la marcela pero n:o tomo yo mucho mate de yuyo. marcela is good but I ((emph.) ) drink much herbal tea. 11 The exchange began several lines before with Mar intitially greeting Berta with the usted form of address. At this point in the conversation a rapport has bee n established with Berta having referred to Mar as her amiga and the two are mutually using the colloquial vos forms of address. 12 About this herb, which does not seem to have an English translation except for its scientific name: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achyrocline_satureioides accessed on December 22, 2013.

PAGE 289

289 3 Berta: ah. ((pausita)) tengo un poquito de cedrn ac tambin. ah. ((short pause)) I have a little bit of verbena here too. 4 Mar: s pero yes but 5 Berta: escassimo, no hay. very rare, 6 Mar: este / uh/ 7 Berta: sabs cunto sale la planta esa? do you know how much that plant goes for? 8 Mar: cunto sale? how much is it? 9 Berta: de cedrn? verbena? 10 Mar: [ cunto? [how much? 11 Berta: [que es lo que compraron a setenta y cinco pesos. seventy five pesos ((about $3.50)) 12 Mar: ahh. y dnde hay plantas de cedrn? ahh. and where are there verbena plants? 13 Berta: eh en la en lo de en lo de cmo es Ardio la ah donde han puesto plantas. eh in the in plants ((for sale)). 14 Mar: AHH. mir vos. setenta y cinco pesos sale una planta de cedrn? AHH. look at that. seventy five pesos is what a verbena plant goes for? 15 Berta: s:. ye:s.

PAGE 290

290 16 Berta: vos sabs que ayer me compraron dos, dos bolsitas mir a veinte. you know yesterday they bought two from me, two baggies you see, at twenty. 17 Mar: a veinte pesos. twenty pesos. 18 Berta : all en la peluquera de, de F la conocs a la muchacha? over there in the saln of, of F. do you know her the girl ((who owns it))? 19 Mar: Fernanda, Fernanda F. es tan simptica. ah de: ((pausita)) bueno otro da pas porque la verdad que n o tengo plata si no te compraba una bolsita Fernanda, Fernanda F. ah o:f ((short pause)) well come back another day money if not ((if that 20 Berta: ah bueno. ah okay. 21 Mar: chau, otro [ da bye, another [day 22 Berta: [ para comprarle s, ese:, esa planta de cedrn. [I want to make (money / plants) you know what fo r? to buy you yes, tha:t, that verbena plant. 23 Mar: esa planta pa that plant fo 24 Berta: para tener vos, para vender. so you can have it, to sell. 25 Mar: claro. of course. 26 Berta: pa pa para ganar setenta y cinco tambin. to to to e arn seventy five too.

PAGE 291

291 27 Mar: bueno pero tens que pasar ms cerca de, de despus del primero. la semana que viene porque ahora/ \ nadie ha cobrado, nadie tiene plata. okay but you have to come by closer to, to after the first. next week because now/ \ 28 Berta: nadie ha cobrado. ((pausita)) nosotros cobramos ya el, el el, el sbado es primero ya. on Saturday is the first already. 29 Mar: =por eso. (despus de / puede) la semana que viene pas, que yo te voy a comprar algo. =exactly. (after / perhaps) this coming week stop by, because something from you In the end Mar from Berta after the next pay period (line 29) T his does not mean that just because money is a salient topic, that this qualifies the sequence as one influenced by relative SES. What it shows is that buy somet from her. I t is evident from this and subsequent interaction that Mar sympathizes with preserve The linguistic strategies that Mar used to mitigate her re fusals were numerous and include d making concessions, confirming and acknowledging the hearer, postponing with a future promise to comply, giving a condition of past acceptance, giving reasons, claiming hardship and reassuring the hearer. Thus it is reaso nable to presume that the relative SES of the addressee affected the way Mar refused. Ano ther difference worthy of mention concerns post refusal small talk. A review however the refusal sequences with Berta did contain instances of post refusal small

PAGE 292

292 talk ( e.g., lines 7 19) which, as mentioned above, arguably exhibited an SES effect. I n most non equal SES cases in which small talk occurred, there were other noticeable fact ors at play: power, social distance and the nature of the topic. Power and social distance will be taken up in the next sections. Regarding the nature of the topic, it was salient that in nearly all of the non domestic refusals involving money specifica lly, requiring money from the participant there was post refusal small talk (or mid refusal small talk as a delaying tactic) Mar with Berta was one example but Moqui Rena (Centro group) Ela and Rita (Pastoreo group) produced this behavior as well. T ake, f or example, the exchange between Fancy (the school psychologist), Rita and her sister Martola (both auxiliary staff). Fancy arrives at the kitchen where Rita and Martola are working and inform s them that she has bought birthday gifts for two of the ir colleagues and what their share of the cost is They are both taken off guard and, after some confusion about the cost (lines 9 11), Rita offers an alternative (line 12) and concedes that she is unprepared to pay her what she is asking (line 14): (15) Post refusal small talk to higher SES addressee, social oriented talk in work setting, Pastoreo (Rita 4) ( In the kitchen of the educational center where they work, Rita and Martola (co workers and sisters) are confronted by Fancy (higher educational level and SES, equal power status) who has bought gifts and expects payment. Rita is not prepared and refuses with an alternative. Post refusal small talk is underlined.) 1 Fancy: buenos das, cmo andan chicas. andan bien? ((besos)) good morning, how are you girls doing. doing well? ((kisses)) 2 Martola: bien y vos? good and you? 3 Fancy: bien. ((beso)) good. ((kiss)) 4 Fancy: chiquilinas yo ya les compr a: Laurana el regalo y a em [Catalina.

PAGE 293

293 girls I already bought the: gift for Laurana and u h Catalina. 5 Martola: [para Catalina. [for Catalina. 6 Fancy: ya est. compr. un buzo cada una/, uno negro para Laurana y un o celeste con (unos prolijitos) a Catalina (ir bonito con el pelo). I bought. a sweater for each/, a black one for Laurana and a sky blue one with ( some adornments) for Catalina (that will go well with her hair). 7 Martola: s. ok. ((lit. yes)) 8 Fancy: ciento: cuatro cada uno. one hundre:d four each one. 9 Martola: ((pausi ta)) ciento cuatro pesos?= ((incrdula)) ((short pause)) a hundred and four pesos?= ((incredulous)) 10 Fancy: =ciento cuatro cada uno. no! los dos regalos. =a hundred and four for each one ((of you)). no! for both gifts. 11 Martola: ahh! ((comp rendiendo)) ahh! ((comprehending)) 12 Rita: o yo tengo cien pesos ah ahora no te doy despus te doy cuatro porque no tengo later I will give you 13 Fancy: ta! ok! 14 Rita: =yo no te haba trado porqu e me acord justo hoy y ya digo ya. now I mean 15 Fancy: ya est. [ya

PAGE 294

294 1 6 Rita: [ya queda pronto. 17 Fancy: porque yo le llamo a Dona y yo, < yo voy a (estar) a la vuelta hoy.> ah! xxx ((justificando su compra de los regalos)) ere ((where getting the gifts)). > ah! xxx ((justifying her getting the gifts)) 18 Martola: s Fancy no te hagas problema ahora xxx yes ((I understand)) 19 Rita: =mejor m ejor! as ya queda solucionado viste. Thus, the nature of the proposition Fancy informing them of and expecting their immediate payment (lines 6, 8) caused an awkward situation among the women. T he fact that Fancy wa s of a higher SES relative to Rita (in addition to being older and more educated) likely compounded the discomfort. It is reasonable to believe that this awkwardness triggered the ensuing small talk (lines 17 19) once the transactional talk was over in an effo rt to reestablish equilibrium between the interlocutors. When v iewing the data by neighborhood of residence one notices a split : within the Centro group only same and lower SES levels can be compared ; within the Pastoreo group, only s ame and higher SES levels can be compared This indicates that the participants of this study either generally operated within same class networks l ived in a town in which class distinction s were not very ES to be a salient factor despite the existence of class differences It was clear from the follow up interviews that there were instanc es in which a participant considered her addressee to be more or less financially

PAGE 295

295 well off, but great class discrepanc ies were largely absent. In the case of the Pastoreo, the addressee s of a higher SES were almost always work colleagues, some in a position of authority. For the Centro participants, the addressee s of a lower SES typically worked in the service sector ( e .g., the bread counter in a local supermarket) or were people of retirement age who worked in some capacity to supplement their sparse income ( e.g., Berta and the retired female client mentioned in the section on relative age) This is not to say that not able socioeconomic discrepancies are absent in U ruguay certainly, they exist ; i t is just that these data from a small er town in the southwest region did not reflect these divisions It is difficult to compare the data within the participa d of residence because of the split described above. If we were to plot the relative SES data on a curve for each semantic strategy, the left half of the curve (representing lower to same SES) would always only reflect Centro data, and the right half (re presenting same to higher SES) would always only reflect Pastoreo data. Thus, the statistical significance reported above pertaining to the overall patterns actually represents p those from the Centro used mitigating moves, downgraders and post refusal small talk more with those from a lower SES ( p<0 .0 1 for all three factors ), while t hose from the Pastoreo tended to engage in post refusal small talk with those from a higher SES ( p< 0 .01). The only point of comparison between the two area s of residence is the data for the same SES category. The RS% for each strategy reveals strikingly similar results, with all respective percentages being within five points of each other The only

PAGE 296

296 e xception was the use of mitigating moves The Centro group used 11% more mitigating moves than the Pastoreo with same SES addressees. To conclude regarding relative SES, the data demonstrate some possibilities for it having influenced refusal behavi or in cases of unequal status The selection and use of mitigating moves, downgraders and post refusal small talk show ed signs of sensi tivity to relative SES but also to other factors such as power, social distance and the nature of the topic T he data are largely reflective of the neighborhood of residence of the participant, in that the relative SES categories are co correlated with this variable. Also, the fact that 90% of the data as a whole were generated with people of the same relative SES preclu des this social factor from having had anything but a marginal effect on the way the participants refused overall More data are needed from different relative so cioeconomic classes to make further claims about the impact of this factor. Relative Power Relative power (a.k.a. status) refers to whether the participant was in a position of same, lower or higher power than her interlocutor. According to Brown and Gilman, con trol the behavior of the other. Power is a relationship between at least two persons, and it is nonreciprocal in the sense that both cannot have power in the same area of : 225 ). Various studies in politeness and speech act literature poin t to the importance of this variable for explaining certain types of linguistic behavior (e.g., pronoun choice, the wording of requests, apology strategy choic e, refusal strategy choice ) (Brown and Gilman 1960; Brown and Levinson 1987; Blum Kulka et al. 19 85; Olshtain 1989; Holmes 1990; Flix Brasdefer 2008)

PAGE 297

297 In this section I deal with power as it pertains to the workplace and, thus, the business domain. It was for this domain that I was able to collect data most consistently. This kind of power encomp asses various types of power, such as reward power (control over positive outcomes), coercive power (control over negative outcom es), expert power (knowledge or expertise that another wants) and legitimate power (the power to expect certain things of anoth (French and Raven 1959). Th e question, therefore, is to what extent the relative power of the addressee affect ed the selection of refusal strategies in the business domain I obtained this information for 8 5 refusal sequen ces, with data missing for four sequences. In the workplace, placement into one of the three categories depended on the organi za generally placed into the equal power category, given that the power of the agent to agent with business. There were exceptions to this in certain circumstances where a client needed the agent to go outside of the nor mal protocol; thus, the agent wielde d a kind of reward power over the client. Table 6 9 shows that the majority of refusal sequences were with addressees considered to be of the same relative power and that very few were refusals to superiors : 52 ( 61 %) with addressees of equal power ; 28 ( 33 %) with addressees of lower power and f ive (6%) with addressees of highe r power The respective numbers of addresses were 23 24 and 5 totaling 52 with the majority of the sequences (69%) being generated by those f rom the Pastoreo 13 Given the very low number of refusal 13 The range and mode were 5 and one; the median was one and the mean number of refusal sequences per addressee was 1.63.

PAGE 298

298 sequences with those in a higher power position, the data do not lend to robust comparisons of the different power levels; however, some observations can be made. From a frequency standpoint (Table 6 20 ) as relative power decreased, the percentage of sequences containing direct head acts increa sed. As relative power increased, so did indirect head acts the mean number of refusals per sequence mitigating moves and post refusal small talk The inc rease in refusals per sequence was statistically significant between the lower and same power groups ( p<0 .01) and the lower and higher power groups ( p<0 .0 1 ). Also, mitigating moves increased significantly between the lower and same power groups (p<0.05) The reason for these trends was due in part to the nature and topic of the refusal. T wo participants, Ari and Moqui, produced refusals to addressees of lower power. In general, these exchanges were perfunctory and maximally transactional as when Ari re plies with no and Moqui responds with todava no. demoran un ratito ( ) to Sequences with t hose of refusal sequence with a sales associate of equal power as she deliberated on coats in regarding money y interaction with a colleague of superior power concerning a highly face threatening issue in (11). The increased social distance possibly contributed to the shortened sequences with subordinates as well. It seems logical that longer refusal sequences w ould allow for greater opportunity for more and various refusal strategies and that more involved, less perfunctory situations would lend themselves to participation in small talk, especially if

PAGE 299

299 there wa s some motivation to maintain and build rapport ( e.g ., maintaining good client greasing the wheels of interaction with someone who has power over a desired good 14 ). Surprisingly, aggravating moves also increased as relative power increased though the differences between groups were not significant. Because the total number of refusal sequences to superiors wa s so small, the RS% seem s large at 40% but it is only representing presence in two out of five sequences ( the use of aggravating moves in the other power levels was under 20% ) A qualitative analysis o f the data shows that in neither sequence did the aggravating moves take a non politic turn with the easoning process (as opposed to an attack on the hearer) For instance, in the sequence between Ari and Triza in which Triza informs her that she will have to work on her planned day off, Ari follows up her indirect refusal ( pero, digo:, no pueden hacerme esto ) with the intensifying ( i.e., aggravating) self defending counter argument, pero le digo, hace veinte das me dijeron, (tom) el da libre twenty days ago they told me, (take) the day of ( es que yo te, yo te, yo te te comprendo perfectamente ) rather than offense, allowing a Likewise, Mar debates with her bos s (also her father) about how to allocate their business vehicles, one of which is not working. He suggests that he take a smaller truck so that they can get the larger vehicle running that she would then use. She 14 project, which had been cancelled due to protocol issues; following the hashing out of this issue, they engaged in post refusal small talk.

PAGE 300

300 indirectly refuses this with a counter a rgument ( y pero si ahora no lo (preciss vos / precisamos) pap : ), and immediately follows with a second intensifying counter argument ( i.e., aggravating move) : YO: tengo que llevar una sola a Barquer, por qu quiero el micro person to Barquer, why do I want the van Her reasoning expresses concern about using too large a vehicle for the required task and, by implication, the risk and expense incurred. From a business standpo int this makes sense and her superior/father eventually agrees with her ( ah bueno ). Noting the non tentative manner with which Mar voice s her p osition this likely had to do with the highly affiliative relationship/low social distance relationsh ip between her and her father, and is an example of how domains of interaction can and do overlap. Downgraders and upgraders were anomalous in the sense that they did not follow a steady progression of increase or decrease Table 6 20 shows that, in general, the participants used downgraders more often than upgraders, regardless of relative power A lso they tended to use downgraders with addressee s of equal power (56% equal power sequences), and upgraders across the board (35 40% all categorie s ) The most c ommon downgraders with same power addressees included hedges/subjectivizer/understaters with capaz que the adverbial no ms and digo as the most frequent instantiations and the no fault se ( e.g., no me queda se me complica ). Diminutive forms, laughter, softening emotional expressions, appealers/cajolers ( e.g., viste ta ? ) and various softening tones ( e.g., relaxed and/or elon gated vowels) appeared repeatedly as well. In contrast to the se

PAGE 301

301 downgraders, a different downgrading strateg y emerged with those of unequal (lower) status: an endearment term ( e.g., mi vida ). Thus, th is type of downgrading could pos sibly be reflective of power differences between the interlocutors. Upgraders were fewer in occurrence and in type With equal power addressees, six types stood out: intensifying emotional expressions ( e.g., AY ) a raised voice, repetition/reiteratio n, marked emphasis on certain syllables ( e.g., TO tal mente tal ), intensifying lexical items and phrases ( e.g., la verdad que sinceramente ) and lexical items that could be viewed as insulting ( e.g., esto es espantoso With non equal status addressees, th is last category of upgraders was absent and points to a potential effect of power and/or social distance: more forthright linguistic behavior is often indicative of a more affiliative relatio nship in which power or status is less salient. In addition, s everal linguistic strategies found in head acts and supportive moves showed possible sensitivity to relative power For instance, giving alternatives and the use of discourse markers increased in h ead act s as relative power increased Neither was present in the refusal head acts to addressees of inferior power. W ithin supportive moves strategies that correlated (al so positively ) were agreements, apologies, confirmations/acknowledgements, coun ter arguments and repetition/reiteration. Of these, only one instance of confirmation/acknowledgement and two of repe titi on/reiteration were found in sequences with lower status addressees The re maining tokens of were found mostly with those of the same power group (not surprising, given that the majority of the refusal sequences fell into this category), but also in sequences with higher status addressees

PAGE 302

302 Of particular interest are apologies because in established coding paradigms ( e.g., Beebe et al 1990 ) apologies figure in as a prominent refusal strategy. But, in these data they did not. In the 89 refusals in the business domain, there were just seventeen utterances coded as apologies anywhere in the sequence. In only two of them were there an y kind of apologetic performatives ( pero no lo hice, perdneme/ forgive me (Rena 4 ); sinceramente viste, vos disculp la imprudencia pero pardon the imprudence but abiana 1)) The rest were subject to i nterpretation based on coding schemes from apology speech act research ( e.g., Olshtain and Cohen 198 3 ). Thirteen of the seventeen tokens were produced during service encounters including the two cited above. Within supportive moves, there were ten token s, seven of which were with same power addressees, one with an addressee of higher power and two for which the relative power data were missing. Besides the performatives mentioned, the rest were primarily acknowledgements of responsibility ( e.g., me olvi d me olvid del ultimo recibo I forgot the last (Ela 6)) and explanations or accounts ( e.g., mir . e s que quera tener una respuesta: (Ana 18)). The overall lack of ap ologies in these data both for the business domain and as a whole was surprising and points to a potential pragmatic difference between these speakers and those of other speech communities and language groups The major conclusion of this section is that the data support Brown and (1987) theory of polit eness regarding power and (in)directness. Where the participant was in a power position over the addressee there was more direct ( i.e., bald on record) refusal head acts, fewer mitigating moves less post refusal small talk

PAGE 303

303 and, therefore, shorter refusal sequences Where the participant was in a position of equal or less power, the opposite was true: we found more indirect, less bald on record refusals, more mitigating moves, downgraders, pos t refusal small talk and, as a result, lengthier refusal sequences. fluctuates relative to the status of the interlocutor, so does the risk involved regarding the prerogatives of the power holder (rew ards, consequences, etc.) The riskier the situation, the more a speaker will resort to tactics th at mitigate face threats, in this case rejection. Such tactics can be realized by indirectness as well as external and internal modifiers that downgrade the in an effort to preserve face. The data were also politeness system : those of superior power us ed language expressing involvement (e.g., direct speech, fewer distancing strategies) and those in subordinate positions us ed language expressing independence (e.g., indirect speech, attenuation). A dditionally, it was noted that the (non)tentativeness with which a refusal wa s delive red was not equivalent to (in)direc tness and that t he degree of tentativeness c ould be influenced by the participant addressee relationship, the level of trust and contexts of contact. These and other facets of social distance are the focus of the next section. Social Distance This sect ion deals with to what extent the selection of refusal strategies can be attributed to the social distance between the participant and her addressee. There are many points to make about this variable; first, a definition is in order: social distance is a dimension of variation relating to the level of intimacy between participants in an

PAGE 304

304 that the more intimate the relationship, the greater the degree of solidarity, as opposed to power or status, between interlocutors (Jackson 2007). Second, as is evident from the above definition, from a theoretical standpoint, social distance is a key factor for determining the linguistic strategies one will employ in any given e xchange Brown and Levinson (1987) brought this to the forefront with their theory of politeness in which distance power ranking was said to determine the weightiness of an imposition, and therefore the strategic path that an inte rlocutor w ould take to negotiate a particular situation Th e notion of social distance has been taken up in subsequent works ( e.g., Milroy 1980; Herbert 1986; Wolfson 1988 ; Boxer 1993; Holmes 1995 ; Scollon and Scollon 2001 ) and incorporated in the methodo logical design of many experimental studies ( e.g., Blum Kulka et al. 1984; Mir 1992; Garca 1999; Wagner 1999; Mrquez Reiter 2000; Flix Brasdefer 2008 ). It is fully accepted that social distance plays a n important role in conversational interaction; the question is how and to what extent for any given group of people. Third, however, is the problem of operationalizing th is construct into a measurable quantity. (The same can also be said for relative power.) In experimental studies, this is less o f a problem, because the relationships are controlled if not contrived (another issue altogether). But in everyday spontaneous face to face interactions in which people co mmunicate with others with whom they share varied and nuanced relationships, it is a challenge not only to categorize these relationships, but also to score them in terms of social distance. In the literature, t ypical operationalizations of social distance include range s of categories such as : intimates,

PAGE 305

305 status equal friends, co wo rkers, acquaintances, status unequals, 15 strangers (Wolfson 1988; 1989); intimates, friends, strangers (Boxer 1993); and + Distant, Distant (Flix Brasdefer 2008). While these categorizations seem objective enough they are simplistic and lack the abilit y to accommodate nuance. By simplistic I do not necessarily mean that the researchers should add more categories to their scheme all research requires a certain reduction of data to be manageable but that they are simplistic in their underlying assumption s. In the above categorization schemes, it is assumed that 1) all friends, for example, are equally trustworthy and therefore meritorious of the same confid e nce, and 2) that there is an inherent and, by implication, universal order to these categories in terms of less to more social distance, without actually measuring them by alternate means to see if this is so. Fourth, noting the necessity of taking social distance into account and the problems associated with doing so, I have given my best attemp t in approaching this multi faceted variable. In the follow up sessions with the participants, I asked them to characterize their relationship with each of their various addressees in terms of five measures: role (partner, friend, boss, colleague, etc.), frequency of contact, level of familiarity (knowing) level of trust and the number of contexts in which the two interacted. 16 Answers to the first question resulted in eleven categories listed in Table 6 21 For the questions pertainin g to contact, know ing and trusting the addressee, I employed a Likert scale to gather participant input, while for the question concerning contexts of interaction I allowed a free response (Appendix B). 15 Note the con flation of power and social distance in the categories of status equal friends and status unequals. 16 networks.

PAGE 306

306 After compiling and examining the results for all participant addressee dyads, I reduced the responses to each of the latter four questions into one of three categories, ranging from a least score of 1 (little to no contact, not knowing the addressee well or at all, little to no trust, one context of interaction ) to a most sc ore of 3 (daily contact to multiple interactions a day, knowing the addressee very well/intimately, very much trust, three or more contexts of interaction ). The score of 2 included intermediate responses such as some contact, knowing the addressee more or less well, trusting the addressee some to quite, and two contexts of interaction. Given that I was trying to construct five measures with the plan to study them both independently and together, my goal was to reduce the data in a way that would maintain important differences, while being manageable. (A binary ( i.e., +/ ) system would have been too reductionist, while more categories would have made comparisons unwieldy.) After several attempts to effectively combine all five measures, I developed the fol lowing variables : 1) a composite social distance score (min. 4, max. 12) derived from adding the scores of the latter four questions, 17 2) an average distance intimacy score, which average d the composite social distance score for each of the eleven categor ies of role ( based on a cross tabulation that revealed the role and score for each refusal sequence ) 18 and 3) a role distance measure, which round ed the average distance intimacy score to the nearest whole number in order to create three categories that c ou ld be compared by a non parametric independent samples test (Tables 6 22 6 23 ) 17 stem for social networks. 18 I then divided this average by four (for the four questions) in order to replicate the three part scale of each of the social distance variables: contact, know, trust, contexts.

PAGE 307

307 These three categories parallel the categories for the four social distance measures, where 1 corresponds to m ost distance and 3 to most intimacy Table s 6 23 and 6 24 show how the various roles divided into the categories 1 through 3 and the number of refusal sequences per each Agents, workplace subordinates and other business related addressees ( e.g., clients, superiors) fell into the least intimate category. Acquain tances, equal status work colleagues and I as the researcher classified as mid range in terms of distance /intimacy Friends, surprisingly, garnered the second highest average score placing this role just below that of partner as most intimate, followed b y other family, parents and siblings. 19 In this way, I established a replicable more rigorous basis for ordering the roles along the social distance continuum (more distant to more intimate) Tables 6 25 through 6 31 give the results for the five indi vidual social distance measures and the composite role distance measure. Individually, each obtained some significant differences for one or more semantic strategies. For addressee relationship (a.k.a. role), participants employed mitigating moves signif icantly more with those in other business roles than with partners ( 93% versus 52%, p<0 .0 1 ) or workplace subordinates ( 93% versus 50%, p<0.01 ) T he same was true for downgraders between other business addressees and partners ( 67% versus 21%, p<0.05 ). Also, they engaged in post refusal small talk to a significantly greater extent with acquaintances moreso than with siblings ( 70% versus 15%, p<0.01 ) but not significantly more with friends (70% versus 55%) These findings corroborate the notion that in creased social 19 Based on qualitative evaluation, the category of subordinate (1.5) was rounded down to one and the category of sibling (2.5) up to three.

PAGE 308

308 distance triggers increased efforts to attend to face needs but that the type of relationship must also be taken into account Regarding frequency of contact, participants used more downgraders when refusing those with whom they interacte d the least ( 63% versus 38%, p<0.01 ) ; this was also the case with those whom they trusted the least ( 52% versus 31%, p<0.05 ). T he table for contact (Tables 6 26) reveal s view of social distance where the re is an expect at ion of more potentially face saving strategies ( e.g., indirect head acts mitigating moves and downgraders ) with those of less contact and, by implication, greater social distance; and, conversely, more potentially non face saving strategi es ( e.g., bald on rejections aggravating moves and upgraders ) with those of more contact/less social distance. For trust (Table 6 28) the data fell theory This theory predicts more potentially face saving strategie s with those of intermediate levels of trust and, by implication, the greatest levels of uncertainty in the relationship; and, conversely, more potentially non face saving strategies with those on the ext reme ends of the trust spectrum, which are represent ative of the most certain relationships. Contexts of contact revealed little by way of significant differences, except that refusals to addressees with whom the participant shared two interactional contexts more often contained indirect head acts than thos e with whom the participant shared only one ( 63% versus 47% p<0.05 ). This seems counterintuitive, except that the roles most often categorized as sharing one context ( e.g., subordinates, agents ) were all pertinent to the business domain We recall that in the business domain there was a tendency to disfavor indirect head acts, especially with workplace subordinates and in

PAGE 309

309 service encounters. In this way, the domain of interaction and the relative power of the addressee played into this result. The data (Table 6 29) displaye d some patterns similar to contact and some similar to trust but were overall less consistent. How well a participant knew her interlocutor appears to have had the greatest singular impact on the selection of refusal strategies and adhered to the theory for four of eight measures (Table 6 27) : mean refusal turns at talk, indirect and direct head acts and mitigating moves 20 Indirect head acts, aggravating moves, downgraders and upgraders all displayed significant diffe rences by categories of know. With those wh om they knew a moderate amount they employed more indirect head acts than with those whom they knew little to not at all ( 65% versus 47%, p<0.05 ). Besides conforming to a pattern, we can attribute a la rge part of this result to the effect of the business domain, in which direct head acts dominate d in service encounters and with subordinates despite lower levels of intimacy. As expected, knowing someone very well/intimately resulted in more aggravating moves ( 36% versus 18% p<0.05 ), more upgraders ( 49% versus 34% p=0.050 ) and fewer downgraders ( 32% versus 55% p<0.05 ) than knowing someone little to not at all In this respect the intimate end of the role distance measure conflate d with the domestic do main in that all roles, except for friend were partners or family members These strategies (aggravating moves, downgraders and, marginally, upgraders) plus post refusal small talk, conformed more of social distance than Bulge. 20 The eight measures were: mean RTT, RS% for indirect head acts, direct head acts, supportive moves (2), downgraders, upgraders and post refusal small talk. The pattern for upgraders was so marginal

PAGE 310

310 While these results shed light on the individual impact that each of the social distance measures had on the realization of refusals a more co mprehensive view of the social distance variables is also warranted For this, I now turn to the average distance intimacy score and the role distance measure to give an overall picture of the effect of social distance on the major refusal strategies. 21 Using the average distance intimacy score assigned to each refusal sequence based on the addresse (Figure 6 19) As distance increased, so did the use of mitigating moves and downgraders ; conversely, as intimacy increased, so did the use of aggravating moves and upgraders. Overall, the average dis tance intimacy score did not correlate with the number of refusals per sequence, the (in)directness of head acts or instances of post refusal small talk. The role distance measure produced corroborative results in terms of category comparisons. Recall th at 1 is most distant, 2 intermediate and 3 most intimate. For (in)directness, the intermediate category boasted more indirect head acts than the most distant category (2>1, p< 0 .01), and vice versa for direct head acts (1>2, p< 0 .05). Again, the effects of the business domain and the certainty of relationships reflected by the lower relative power of many addressees help explain th ese results Supportive moves followed the expected patterns : mitigating moves were more prevalent in higher distance scenari os and a ggravating moves in those of greater intimacy. R efusals to intimates displayed fewer mitigating moves than refusals to intermediates (2>3, p< 0 .05) and more aggravating moves (3> 2, p < 0 .05). Post refusal 21 An added benefit is that these two measures reincorporate cases for which data were missing (n=9) by calculating an av erage for the category of interlocutor (using the cases for which no social distance data were missing, n=234) and applying that average to the previously excluded cases, based on their interlocutor category.

PAGE 311

311 more with those of the intermediate role distance category than with those of the other categories (2>1, p < 0 .05 ; 2>3, p< 0 .01). Holding constant the domain of interaction, I detected further correlations and differences between categories For business related refusals the use of direct head acts correlated negatively with the average distance intimacy score ( .196, p< 0 .05) In other words, the use of direct head acts tended to favor a high distance/low in timacy environment in the business domain. We recall this being the case, especially when participants would refuse offers of goods during service encounters. The average distance intimacy scores in the business domain ranged from 1.2 to 2.8, with the ma jority at 1.5 and below (Figure 6 20) I n the domestic domain, the positive correlation s between intimacy, aggravating moves and upgraders w ere stronger than for the overall data set The relationship measured at .271 ( p<0.01 ) for aggravating moves an d .222 (p=0.010 ) for upgraders. The average distance intimacy score for this domain ranged from 1.6 to 3.0, with the majority at 2.5 and higher. While, potentially, there are still nuances to be teased out even among the most intimate relationships, thes e stronger correlations are supportive of the importance of domain for explaining certain linguistic phenomena In the social domain where the average distance intimacy score s were the most evenly distributed between 1.2 and 2.8 the majority f alling be tween 1.6 and 2.6 inclusive ly two notable relationships emerge d: the strongest measure for upgraders at .308 ( p<0 .01) and a stronger, but negatively correlated result for small talk ( 238) that approached significance ( p=0 .053). These findings reitera te what has been posited

PAGE 312

312 before about social distance, particularly in the social domain where relationships can be less certain: the less distance there is between the participants of an exchange, the resulting in, for example, an increased use of upgraders O n the other hand, the more distance there is, the more participants might feel it necessary to engage in face affirming and rapport building acts, such as small talk (Couplan d 2000; Boxer 2002). T he role distance measure did not produce as many significant differences as w ith the average distance intimacy score in terms of domains The only significant difference that held up to this method was for post refusal small talk in the social domain, which underscored the finding of less small talk with intimates (2>3, p< 0 .01). However, this analysis still displayed several patterns of interest, including strong support for the theory ( The frequencies for the majo r semantic strategies by role distance distance measure and domain are shown in Tables 6 30 and 6 31 ) The RS% for the major strategies form the data points for the charts in Figures 6 21 to 6 26 herein referred to as the charts Overall, the d ata based on the role distance measure patterned according to the theory (Figure 6 21). All formed a noticeable bulge at the mid range, except for upgraders and downgraders, Direct head acts, a ggravating moves and upgraders, which often (though not always) indicate d less tentative/mo re aggressive speech, would be less expected theoretically at the mid range. Therefore, the line connecting the data points had to form the inverse shape in order to be considered supportive of the theory.

PAGE 313

313 Business oriented refusals conforme d least to the and not at all to Brown (Figure 6 22) For domestic oriented refusals there were no data for the distant category (Figure 6 23), so only comparisons could be made between the mid range and intimate categories. 22 With the exception of indirect head acts which increased slightly with intimacy rather than decreas ed all strategies can be said to have fulfilled the predictions of either theory, since both predict less relational work with intimates than with those of intermediate social distance. Of note is that even within the domestic domain there we re greater and lesser levels of intimacy. Social oriented refusals, on the other hand, were the most supportive of the theory (Figure 6 24) All strategies p atterned according to which social distance maps linearly, i.e., as intimacy increases, so do strategies more apt to threaten face To illustrate I present the following two examples from the social and domestic domains of interaction Though they differ in certain re spects ( e.g., age and education level of the participant) they give a clear picture of the effects of social distance on refusal b ehavior The first is e xample (14) from Chapter 5 (reprinted for convenience) in which Mar refuses an invitation by a male acquaintance Santi their relationship being one of mid ( i.e., offer) from her husband Roger with whom she shares an intimate relationship. (1 6 ) Refusal to invitation by male acquaintance, mi d range social distance social oriented talk, public setting Centro (Mar 3) 22 long term house guests, generally considered part of the family, domestic help and acquaintances cast in a caretaker role of another family member.

PAGE 314

314 (( In the plaza, Mar and Santi run into eac h other. After some interaction, Santi indirectly invites her for coffee, which she refuses with an indefinite reply. )) 1 Santi: =cundo me vas a invitar a tomar un caf.= =when are you going to invite me out for coffee.= 2 Mar: =en cualquier [momento. @@@ =a nytime @@@ 3 Santi: [eh bueno. [eh okay. 4 Mar: @@ en cualquier momento, en cualquier momento. ((voz risuena)) @@ anytime, anytime ((smile voice)). 5 Santi: entonces, la la, este:: la invito yo primero.= so then, you ((formal)) you, uh:: I ((emph.)) wi ll invite you first.= 6 Mar: =bueno. vamos a ver entonces. [nos vem -((voz risuena)) [see yo ((smile voice)) 7 Santi: [bueno che y hay algo de las elecciones? [so che ((affiliative alerter)) and any news about the elections? 8 Mar: todo ah tranquilo qued.= ((post refusal small talk continues for various lines more)) (17) Refusal to invitation/offer by male partner, intimates, domestic oriented talk, private setting Centro (Ana 19) (( At home, after lunch, Roger and Ana are i n the kitchen. Roger over in the pot from the morning but she refuses directly with repeated no s.)) 1 Roger: vos quers tambin? ((t)) you ((emph.)) want some too? ((tea)) 2 Ana: S/:: \

PAGE 315

315 YE/:: \ S. 3 Roger: ((mirando la tetera)) pero no queda nada. ((t ya hecho)) ((looking in pot)) ((tea already made)) 4 Ana: hay que hervir agua.= ((we)) have to boil wter.= 5 Roger: =yo te invito, te invito [ con esto o vos hacs ms. =I invite you, I invite you with this or are you gonna make more. ((referring to a scant amount left)) 6 Ana: [ no::, no no no:, si mam tambin to : ma y Viole ta l vez tambin. / agregamos agregamos / agua. yo no tengo agua caliente para lavar. = [ no::, no no no:, ((lit if)) mom also will dri : nk some and Viole perhaps too. / s add some / water. have any hot water to wash ((dishes)). (( noise of pots clanking )) 7 Roger: = no calentaste? = a ter))? (( followed by more noise of pots clanking)) In (16) we see the effects of mid range social distance on it casts Mar in the role of the inviter and him as the invitee (lin e 1) also indirect : two indefinite replies involving conventionalized postponements (lines 4, 6), both downgraded by laughter and smile voice, and also mitigated by the vague agreement indicated by the discourse marker bueno (line 6). The uncertainty of the relationship is underscored by the engagement in small talk launched with a topic shift immediately following the second refusal (lines 7 8). The refusal and subsequent interaction in (17) is quite different. proposit ions (lines 1, 5) are direct to the point of using a performative ( yo te invito

PAGE 316

316 invite Though direct, the formalized style of the performative is open to polite Ana re fuses this second proposition w ith a bald on no upgraded by vowel elongation and repetition (line 6). But more vague mitigation tactics, Ana mitigates by giving specific reasons ( si mam tambin to : ma and justifying her insist e nc e upon boiling additional water by claiming hardship ( yo no tengo agua caliente para lavar I 23 Of final note is the post refusal interaction opic shift into to ask, almost incredulously, if she had not already heated up the water for washing dishes (line 7). To this Ana g ives no audible response. I n ow briefly examine eighborhood of residence Due to the somewhat distinct make up of addressee roles within the Centro and Pastoreo groups, each made unique contributions toward the tendenc ies of certain strategies. ( Note that th is was not as evident when taking the differ ent social distance measures individually. ) As the average distance intimacy score increased, there was a slight tendency for participants from the Pastoreo to use more indirect head acts (.187, p< 0 .05) presumably because of the direct heavy subordinate role found on the more distan t side of the continuum. Also, they were somewhat more likely to use aggravating moves (.175, p< 0 .05) and upgraders (.200, p< 0 .05) as intimacy increased There were no significant differences among role distance categories fo r the Pastoreo group. The Centro group, on the other hand, displayed more relationships correlating in the negative direction. As social distance increased, t hose from the Centro were more 23 My impression of her tone was that it was animated and solidary, rather than aggressive or impatient. Al so for this reason I coded them as mitigating moves.

PAGE 317

317 likely to refus e using mitigating moves ( .185, p< 0 .01) modify wi th downgraders ( .249, p< 0 .01) and participate in post refusal small talk ( .236, p< 0 .01 ). Also various differences between role distance categories obtained significance. ( I n)directness in Centro head acts echoed the pattern of the overall data set at the same levels of significance indicating a pattern M itigating moves were the least prevalent in the most intimate category ( 3<1 and 3<2 p< 0 .05 ) as were downgrading and post refusal small talk ( 3<1 and 3<2 p< 0 .01 ). The charts for t he Pastoreo and Centro groups (Figures 6 25, 6 26) show social distance. The strongest support for the came from the Centro group for which five of the seven strate gies fit the prescribed pattern: indirect and direct head acts, aggravating moves, downgraders (though not as strongly) and post refusal small talk. The remaining two, mitigating moves and upgraders, followed the linear view of social distance. In the P astoreo group four of the seven obtained: dir ect head acts, aggravating/mitigating moves and post refusal small talk. Only upgra ders followed the linear view; in fact, upgraders plotted according to this view in every chart, except for that of th e business domain. To conclude this section, the major point is that social distance played a strong part in how the participants of this study refused. Like many studies before, the present study contrasted distance with intimacy along a simplified conti nuum and plotted out how the major refusal strategies patterned according to various measures. Unlike other studies, however, it attempted to more rigorously and accurately establish the place of relationships/roles along that continuum, instead of solely relying on assumptions a

PAGE 318

318 priori While the role distance measure is not perfectly reflective of the many nuances within a role category a shortcoming t hat can be minimized with more fine tuning but not eradicated it did prove to be a useful tool to guid e the discussion on social distance and to uncover some provocative patterns pertaining to two relevant theories : T he five measures that constituted the role distance aggregate con tributed to the variance in refusal behavior and to our understanding of social distance Viewing the data by role category showed that increased social distance often triggered increased efforts to attend to face needs and interpersonal rapport, but that th is was not independent of relationship type. In other words, as we saw with friends and siblings, two intimate roles could incur the same strategy, but to a different extent. Frequency of contact and level of trust proved somewhat predictive of refusa l strategy behavior, though C ontact followed the pattern predicted by Brown and trust Contexts of contact provided less consistent results and did not seem to be as strong of a predict or as initially hypothesized, likely because of the interaction of this factor with the variables for domain and relative power. The extent to which the participant knew the addr essee was the most salient of the five measures, in terms of correlations and significant differences. Regarding theory, the way in which the data plotted for supported Wolfson to a greater extent than Brown and Levinson. Thus, f or these five measures, role and were the stand out factors when examined individually Examining the refusal patterns within various slices of data pointed primarily to the importance of domain for understanding the inner workings of social distance

PAGE 319

319 Different domains displayed markedly different trends by role measure category. The soci al domain was the most supportive of the theory. All strategies patterned of C hapter 5 in which I posit that taking a domain based approach would help reconcile (taken up further in Chapter 7) Also, further research could investigate the extent to which the refus al strategies themselves are sensitive to the distance intimacy continuum Summary This chapter has covered much ground with regard to the many extralinguistic and social factors that could be predicted to play a role in the realization of refusal behavior The characteristics of the participant, those of the addressee and the relationship between the two all affected how the various refusal sequences played out. Because factors conflate d e.g., age and education level, socioeconomic status and power) it wa s not always possible to isolate one or the other and tell how that factor specifically affected the linguistic outcome. For this reason, I took a mixed methods approach to signal trends least likely to be idiosyncratic and most likely to be attributab le to particular characteristic (s ). In the first section, I deal t with variables pertaining to the participant: age, years of formal education and socioeconomic status / neighborhood of residence In the second section, I examine d social variables pertain i ng to the addressee and the relationship of this person with the participant sex, relative age, education level and socioeconomic status, relative power (business domain only) and factors relating to social distance. These factors includ

PAGE 320

320 to the participant, frequency of contact, level of familiarity level of trust, and the number of contexts in which they interacted The general findings a re that age and education level were significantl y related to refusal behavior, and that age was the stronger predictor of the two Age was seen to covar y with head act type, supportive moves, downgraders and specific linguistic strategies. Education level was most significantly linked to the distribut ion of post refusal small talk, and other linguistic strategies such as requesting information and claiming common ground. S ocioeconomic status/neighborhood of residence was not a strong predictor for the types of refusal behaviors encountered, although s ome linguistic strategies stood out, like the use of proper names for the lower SES The extended use of proper names in refusals ( i.e., in domains other than domestic) was considered to be a potential marker for SES and/or neighborhood of residence for t he participants of this study. Though the reported patterns for a ge, education level and SES/neighborhood of residence were consistent across domains, the effects of domain and social distance were still evident. Regarding addressee characteristics, the analysis suggest s that factors pertaining to social distance and the sex of the addressee accounted for the most variance in refusal behavior. T he next most influential factor was arguably, relative power (as analyzed within the business domain), followe d by relative age, education level and socioeconomic status. For the latter four factors, there were gaps in the data for some categories that made it difficult to ascertain pattern s across groups, though qualitative analyses of highlighted refusal sequen ces revealed potential effects ( e.g., But, as was frequently mentioned over the course of

PAGE 321

321 the chapter the domain of interaction was frequently salient as were other social variables For instance, the way the data wo uld pattern for one variable ( e.g., relative age ) would point to the concomitant effects of another ( e.g., social distance ) Re calling diffe rences potentially caused by distinct orientation s to male and female addressees it was noteworthy that female ad dressees received a greater relative percentage of tactics typically associated with face watching (my term) ( i.e., indirect head acts, mitigating moves and downgraders), while male addressees received a greater relative portion of utterances often consi dered to be face threatening or, at least, unconcerned with face needs ( i.e., direct head acts, aggravating moves and upgraders). Of course, I reject the notion that these strategies are inherently one or the other: F or example, not every upgrader was as when Fabiana intensified her apology with sinceramente which was quite face concerned. But to speak of trends regarding women, men and politeness, devices also suggest that women would And, by implication, that women are generally more polite when refusing women than with men? T hough these data might lend themselves in part to this interpretation, further research is in order. I discuss this question further in Chapter 7. Regarding social distance, my attempt to unpack this variable led to an investigation of the role category, frequency of contact, level of trust, level of familiarity and number of interactional contexts shared with each addressee. Examining the various role categories in conjunction with the other factors proved most insightful in two

PAGE 322

322 respects: 1) for the dev elopment of a measure of social distance that project ed fewer preconceived assumptions regarding distance/intimacy onto a particular role and 2) for comparing the extent to which the data upheld either of two established theoretical views of social distanc e, i.e., Bulge (1988) and Brown and Levinson (1987) linear view In the first case, this measure was quite useful for honing in on significant patterns in a manageable way, though more fine tuning is in order to better incorporate relational Bulge was applicable more by both the domain of interaction and t he refusal strategy itself Thus, examining refusal patterns along various lines underscored the importance of domain for understanding the inner workings of social distance, and also pointed to the need to investigate the extent to which individual refusal strategies are sensitive to distance, intimacy and the space in between.

PAGE 323

323 Table 6 1. Age, formal education and socioeconomic status of participants by number of participants and refusal sequences (RS) Participants R Ss Age 18 to 25 2 20% 39 16.0% 26 to 40 6 60% 164 67.5% 41 to 61 2 20% 40 16.5% Total 10 100% 243 10 0% Education (years) 6 to 9 4 40% 65 26.7% 10 to 11 3 30% 104 42.8% 12+ 3 30% 74 30.5% Total 10 100% 243 100% SES/Barrio 1/Pastoreo 5 50% 102 42% 2/Centro 5 50% 141 58% Total 10 100% 243 100%

PAGE 324

324 Table 6 2. Refusal turns, sequences, seque nce types and strategies by participant age group 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 RTT 61 244 65 RS 39 164 40 Mean RTT 1.56 1.49 1.63 RS_INDonly 17 69 11 44% 42% 28% RS_DIRonly 15 74 20 38% 45% 50% RS_Both 7 21 9 18% 13% 23% HAInd 32 137 25 HAInd (adj) 82 84 63 HAInd RS% 62% 55% 50% HADir 29 107 40 HADir (adj) 74 65 100 HADir RS% 56% 58% 73% SMA 24 42 20 SMA (adj) 62 26 50 SMA RS% 41% 21% 30% SMM 26 208 52 SMM (adj) 67 127 130 SMM RS% 51% 67% 73% DnG 12 129 32 DnG (adj) 31 79 80 DnG RS % 26% 46% 43% UpG 28 83 31 UpG (adj) 72 51 78 UpG RS% 41% 36% 45% Small talk 8 72 16 Small talk RS% 21% 44% 40%

PAGE 325

325 Table 6 3. Linguistic strategies by participant age group 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 HAAttax 4 3 2 HAAttax (adj) 10 2 5 HAAttax RS% 10% 2% 3% HAEmotExp 2 10 9 HAEmotExp (adj) 5 6 23 HAEmotExp RS% 3% 6% 23% HAEndearTerm 4 4 2 HAEndearTerm (adj) 10 2 5 HAEndearTerm RS% 10% 2% 5% HANo 11 75 30 HANo (adj) 28 46 75 HANo RS% 28% 41% 58% HAPropName 7 12 1 HAPropName (adj) 18 7 3 HAPropName RS% 18% 7% 3% SMCompEmp 4 4 SMCompEmp (adj) 2 10 SMCompEmp RS% 2% 10% SMPauseFill 1 2 11 SMPauseFill (adj) 3 1 28 SMPauseFill RS% 3% 1% 13% SMPropName 3 2 SMPropName (adj) 8 1 SMPropName RS% 8% 1% RTTAlt 7 18 11 RTTAlt (adj) 18 1 1 28 RTTAlt RS% 18% 10% 25% RTTEmotExp 5 13 13 RTTEmotExp (adj) 13 8 33 RTTEmotExp RS% 8% 8% 28% RTTNo 11 78 30 RTTNo (adj) 28 48 75 RTTNo RS% 28% 41% 58% RTTPauseFill 3 10 RTTPauseFill (adj) 2 25 RTTPauseFill RS% 2% 13% RTTPropName 8 16 1 R TTPropName (adj) 21 10 3 RTTPropName RS% 21% 9% 3%

PAGE 326

326 Table 6 3. Continued 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 CompEmp 7 7 CompEmp (adj) 4 18 CompEmp RS% 3% 13% EmotExp 7 17 14 EmotExp (adj) 18 10 35 EmotExp RS% 13% 10% 28% HedgeSU 4 74 20 HedgeSU (ad j) 10 45 50 HedgeSU RS% 10% 29% 30% PauseFill 1 4 13 PauseFill (adj) 3 2 33 PauseFill RS% 3% 2% 13% Postpone 12 6 Postpone (adj) 7 15 Postpone RS% 5% 13% PropName 10 16 1 PropName (adj) 26 10 3 PropName RS% 23% 9% 3%

PAGE 327

327 Table 6 4. Refusal tur ns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by years of formal education 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+ RTT 104 158 108 RS 65 104 74 Mean RTT 1.60 1.52 1.46 RS_INDonly 30 41 26 46% 39% 35% RS_DIRonly 28 44 37 43% 42% 50% RS_Both 7 19 11 11% 18% 15% HAI nd 62 84 48 HAInd (adj) 95 81 65 HAInd RS% 57% 58% 50% HADir 42 74 60 HADir (adj) 65 71 81 HADir RS% 54% 61% 65% SMA 18 39 29 SMA (adj) 28 38 39 SMA RS% 22% 27% 27% SMM 105 96 85 SMM (adj) 162 92 115 SMM RS% 71% 59% 70% DnG 66 56 51 DnG (adj) 102 54 69 DnG RS% 48% 37% 46% UpG 37 64 41 UpG (adj) 57 62 55 UpG RS% 40% 38% 36% s + pero [x] 15 7 7 s + pero [x] RS% 17% 4% 8% Small talk 42 20 34 Small talk RS% 65% 19% 46%

PAGE 328

328 Table 6 5. Mitigating moves by participant age and education level Age: Edu level: Total SMM RS (age) Total SMM RS% (age) primary mid range secondary 25 & below RS 21 18 39 25 & below 16 10 25 & below (adj) 76 56 25 & below (case) 12 8 25 & below RS% 57% 44% 51% primary mid range secondary 2 6 to 40 RS 44 86 34 164 26 to 40 89 86 33 26 to 40 (adj) 202 100 97 26 to 40 (case) 34 53 23 26 to 40 RS% 77% 62% 68% 67% primary mid range secondary 41 to 61 RS 40 40 41 to 61 52 41 to 61 (adj) 130 41 to 61 (case) 29 41 to 61 RS% 73% 73% Total RS (edu) 65 104 74 Total RS% (edu) 71% 59% 70%

PAGE 329

329 Table 6 6. Linguistic strategies by years of formal education 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+ HACommand 8 19 3 HACommand (adj) 12 18 4 HACommand RS% 11% 16% 4% HAConfirm 9 2 6 H AConfirm (adj) 14 2 8 HAConfirm RS% 12% 2% 7% HACounter 25 16 21 HACounter (adj) 38 15 28 HACounter RS% 31% 13% 24% HADelayIgn 1 23 4 HADelayIgn (adj) 2 22 5 HADelayIgn RS% 2% 18% 5% HAEmotExp 4 5 12 HAEmotExp (adj) 6 5 16 HAEmotExp RS% 6% 4% 16% HAInsist 6 2 HAInsist (adj) 9 2 HAInsist RS% 8% 2% HARepReit 18 40 17 HARepReit (adj) 28 38 23 HARepReit RS% 28% 36% 18% HAStmtInfo 7 HAStmtInfo (adj) 7 HAStmtInfo RS% 7% SMAgree 7 2 5 SMAgree (adj) 11 2 7 SMAgree RS% 9% 1% 5% SMAppC aj 14 3 6 SMAppCaj (adj) 22 3 8 SMAppCaj RS% 12% 3% 5% SMConfirm 26 15 17 SMConfirm (adj) 40 14 23 SMConfirm RS% 25% 9% 16% SMDoubtH 3 SMDoubtH (adj) 4 SMDoubtH RS% 4% SMPropName 4 1 SMPropName (adj) 6 1 SMPropName RS% 6% 1% SMReason 2 8 22 28 SMReason (adj) 43 21 38 SMReason RS% 35% 18% 28% SMRequInfo 1 4 8 SMRequInfo (adj) 2 4 11 SMRequInfo RS% 2% 4% 11% SMStmtInfo 5 8 14 SMStmtInfo (adj) 8 8 19 SMStmtInfo RS% 8% 7% 19%

PAGE 330

330 Table 6 6. Continued 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+ RTTAlt 12 8 1 6 RTTAlt (adj) 18 8 22 RTTAlt RS% 17% 8% 20% RTTCommand 11 26 5 RTTCommand (adj) 17 25 7 RTTCommand RS% 12% 19% 5% RTTConfirm 28 13 16 RTTConfirm (adj) 43 13 22 RTTConfirm RS% 26% 9% 18% RTTDelayIgn 3 26 6 RTTDelayIgn (adj) 5 25 8 RTTDelayIgn RS % 5% 21% 8% RTTEmotExp 7 8 16 RTTEmotExp (adj) 11 8 22 RTTEmotExp RS% 11% 6% 19% RTTPauseFill 2 11 RTTPauseFill (adj) 2 15 RTTPauseFill RS% 2% 8% AdjStance 2 8 AdjStance (adj) 3 8 AdjStance RS% 3% 8% Backchannel 3 Backchannel (adj) 4 Backchannel RS% 4% CCGSolid 21 12 8 CCGSolid (adj) 32 12 11 CCGSolid RS% 25% 11% 9% Command 13 28 5 Command (adj) 20 27 7 Command RS% 15% 20% 5% Confirm 40 20 24 Confirm (adj) 62 19 32 Confirm RS% 32% 12% 23% DelayIgn 4 26 6 DelayIgn (adj) 6 2 5 8 DelayIgn RS% 6% 21% 8% RequInfo 4 16 21 RequInfo (adj) 6 15 28 RequInfo RS% 5% 13% 22%

PAGE 331

331 Table 6 7. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by socioeconomic status/neighborhood of residence 1/Pastoreo 2/Centro RTT 149 221 RS 102 141 Mean RTT 1.46 1.57 RS_INDonly 43 54 42% 38% RS_DIRonly 44 65 43% 46% RS_Both 15 22 15% 16% HAInd 80 114 HAInd (adj) 78 81 HAInd RS% 57% 54% HADir 69 107 HADir (adj) 68 76 HADir RS% 58% 62% SMA 34 52 SMA (adj) 33 37 SMA RS% 24% 27% SMM 113 173 SMM (adj) 111 123 SMM RS% 61% 69% DnG 70 103 DnG (adj) 69 73 DnG RS% 38% 45% UpG 61 81 UpG (adj) 60 57 UpG RS% 40% 37% Small talk 39 57 Small talk RS% 38% 40%

PAGE 332

332 Table 6 8. Linguistic strategies by socioeconomic status/neighbor hood of residence 1/Pastoreo 2/Centro HADelayIgn 7 21 HADelayIgn (adj) 7 15 HADelayIgn RS% 5% 13% HANo 37 79 HANo (adj) 36 56 HANo RS% 35% 46% HAPropName 13 7 HAPropName (adj) 13 5 HAPropName RS% 13% 4% HASelfD 4 HASelfD (adj) 4 HASelfD RS% 4% RTTDelayIgn 8 27 RTTDelayIgn (adj) 8 19 RTTDelayIgn RS% 6% 18% RTTDistract 2 14 RTTDistract (adj) 2 10 RTTDistract RS% 2% 9% RTTNo 37 82 RTTNo (adj) 36 58 RTTNo RS% 35% 46% RTTPauseFill 13 RTTPauseFill (adj) 9 RTTPauseFill RS% 6% DelayI gn 8 28 DelayIgn (adj) 8 20 DelayIgn RS% 6% 18% Distract 7 24 Distract (adj) 7 17 Distract RS% 6% 14% PropName 17 10 PropName (adj) 17 7 PropName RS% 15% 6% RequInfo 9 32 RequInfo (adj) 9 23 RequInfo RS% 7% 18%

PAGE 333

333 Table 6 9. Addressee character istics by no. of addressees, no. of refusal sequences (RS) and by participant socioeconomic status/ neighborhood of residence Total Total 1/Pastoreo 2/Centro a ddressees RS a ddressees RS a ddressees RS Sex Female 57 58% 144 59.3% 34 65.4% 63 61.8% 23 57.5% 81 57.4% Male 38 41% 98 40.3% 18 34.6% 38 37.3% 20 50.0% 60 42.6% Mixed group 1 1% 1 0.4% 1 1.9% 1 1.0% Total 96 100% 243 100.0% 53 101.9% 102 100.0% 43 107.5% 141 100.0% Missing Relative Age Young er 17 24% 60 28% 6 21% 13 18% 11 26% 47 33% Same 16 23% 37 17% 6 21% 7 10% 10 23% 30 21% Older 38 54% 116 54% 16 57% 52 72% 22 51% 64 45% Total 71 100% 213 100% 28 100% 72 100% 43 100% 141 100% Missing 30 30 Relative Education Lower 45 56% 84 38% 29 63% 43 45% 16 46% 41 33% Same 14 17% 49 22% 4 9% 26 27% 10 29% 23 18% Higher 22 27% 87 40% 13 28% 26 27% 9 26% 61 49% Total 81 100% 220 100% 46 100% 95 100% 35 100% 125 100% Missing 23 7 16 Relative SES Lo wer 5 6% 8 4% 5 14% 8 6% Same 72 86% 203 90% 41 85% 82 85% 31 86% 121 94% Higher 7 8% 14 6% 7 15% 14 15% Total 84 100% 225 100% 48 100% 96 100% 36 100% 129 100% Missing 18 6 12

PAGE 334

334 Table 6 9. Continued Total Total 1/Pastoreo 2/C entro a ddressees RS a ddressees RS a ddressees RS Relative Power (Business domain only) Lower 24 46% 28 33% 22 61% 26 46% 2 13% 2 7% Same 23 44% 52 61% 10 28% 27 47% 13 81% 25 89% Higher 5 10% 5 6% 4 11% 4 7% 1 6% 1 4% Total 52 100% 8 5 100% 36 100% 57 100% 16 100% 28 100% Missing 4 4 Social Distance (Role distance measure) More distant 50 52% 75 31% 31 58% 42 41% 19 44% 33 23% Intermediate 16 17% 33 14% 7 13% 12 12% 9 21% 21 15% More intimate 30 31% 135 56% 15 28% 48 47% 15 35% 87 62% Total 96 100% 243 100% 53 100% 102 100% 43 100% 141 100% Missing

PAGE 335

335 Table 6 10. Addressee's alias and sex Female Male Total Aliana 1 1 Antonella 1 1 Besina 1 1 cajera 1 1 cocinera 1 1 Dependienta 1 1 El iana 1 1 Fancy 1 1 Hilda 1 1 Monica 1 1 Mujer bufanda 1 1 mujer trab10 1 1 mujer trab11 1 1 mujer trab12 1 1 mujer trab2 1 1 mujer trab3 1 1 mujer trab4 1 1 mujer trab5 1 1 mujer trab6 1 1 mujer trab7 1 1 mujer trab8 1 1 mujer trab9 1 1 Pati 1 1 Susana 1 1 Tesina 1 1 Vende telas2 1 1 vendedor/a3 1 1 Violeta 1 1 Violeta 1 1 Zina vende 1 1 Bala 1 1 chico1 1 1 chico2 1 1 Edgar 1 1 hombre 1 1 hombre trab3 1 1 hombre trab4 1 1 hombre trab5 1 1 hombr e trab6 1 1 hombre trab7 1 1 hombre trab8 1 1 Hombre verdul 1 1 Juan dueno 1 1 novio 1 1

PAGE 336

336 Table 6 10. Continued Female Male Total Pablo trab 1 1 Pato 1 1 Penia carni 1 1 taxista 1 1 Tuli 1 1 Besi 2 2 Chunga 2 2 Ela 2 2 Terisa 2 2 Triza 2 2 vendedor/a2 2 2 Violeta 2 2 Cabrera 2 2 Chiano 2 2 hombre trab2 2 2 Negro vende 2 2 Pedro 2 2 Santi 2 2 Victor 2 2 Berta 3 3 cunada 3 3 Enfermera jubilada 3 3 Gisel 3 3 Isaz 3 3 Josefa 3 3 Nivea 3 3 Topo 3 3 Velita 3 3 Violeta 3 3 Violeta 3 3 carnicero2 3 3 hombre trab1 3 3 Pademar 3 3 Ruperto 3 3 Torquato vende 3 3 Dona 4 4 Mademar 4 4 Vende telas 4 4 Dario 4 4 Abuela Ester 5 5 Vilma 5 5 Pademar 5 5 Roger 5 5 Estevana 6 6

PAGE 337

337 Table 6 10. Continued Female Male Total vendedora 6 6 Milton 6 6 Martola 7 7 Pablo 7 7 Roberto 11 11 Andres 12 12 Jenifer 26 26 Total sequences 144 98 242 Total addressees 57 38 95 mean 2.55 median 1 mode 1 range 25

PAGE 338

338 Table 6 11. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by addressee sex Female Male Missing RTT 222 147 RS 144 98 1 Mean RTT 1.54 1.50 RS_INDonly 61 35 42% 36% RS_DIRonly 61 48 42% 49% RS_Both 22 15 15% 15% HAInd 122 71 HAInd (adj) 85 72 HAInd RS% 58% 51% HADir 100 76 HADir (adj) 69 78 HADir RS% 58% 64% SMA 33 53 SMA (adj) 23 54 SMA RS% 19% 36% SMM 202 82 SMM (adj) 140 84 SMM RS% 71% 57% DnG 120 52 DnG (adj) 83 53 D nG RS% 48% 34% UpG 72 70 UpG (adj) 50 71 UpG RS% 33% 45% Small talk 51 45 Small talk RS% 30% 39%

PAGE 339

339 Table 6 12. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for addressee sex by domain and participant neighborhood of residence Female Male Missing Business domain RS 63 25 1 HAInd 33 7 HAInd RS% 52% 28% HADir 41 19 HADir RS% 65% 76% SMA 11 5 SMA RS% 17% 20% SMM 47 15 SMM RS% 75% 60% UpG 23 8 UpG RS% 37% 32% DnG 37 9 DnG RS% 59% 36% Small talk 23 9 Small talk RS% 37% 36% Domestic domain RS 53 54 HAInd 32 28 HAInd RS% 60% 52% HADir 30 35 HADir RS% 57% 65% SMA 9 24 SMA RS% 17% 44% SMM 35 27 SMM RS% 66% 50% UpG 11 31 UpG RS% 21% 57% DnG 21 14 DnG RS% 40% 26% Small talk 6 16 Small talk RS% 11% 30% Social domain RS related \ RS 28 19 HAInd 18 15 HAInd RS% 64% 79% HADir 12 9 HADir RS% 43% 47% SMA 7 6 SMA RS% 25% 32% SMM 20 14 SMM RS% 71% 74%

PAGE 340

340 T able 6 12 Continued Female Male Missing UpG 14 5 UpG RS% 50% 26% DnG 11 10 DnG RS% 39% 53% Small talk 14 13 Small talk RS% 50% 68% Centro RS 81 60 HAInd 49 27 HAInd RS% 60% 45% HADir 46 41 HADir RS% 57% 68% SMA 15 23 SMA RS% 19% 38% SMM 59 38 SMM RS% 73% 63% UpG 26 26 UpG RS % 32% 43% DnG 40 24 DnG RS% 49% 40% Small talk 21 26 Small talk RS% 26% 43% Centro (Jen. =12) RS 67 60 14 SMM 51 38 SMM RS% 76% 63% Small talk 20 26 Small talk RS% 30% 43% Pastoreo RS 63 38 1 HAInd 34 23 HAInd RS% 54% 61% HA Dir 37 22 HADir RS% 59% 58% SMA 12 12 SMA RS% 19% 32% SMM 43 18 SMM RS% 68% 47% UpG 22 18 UpG RS% 35% 47% DnG 29 9 DnG RS% 46% 24% Small talk 22 12 Small talk RS% 35% 32%

PAGE 341

341 Table 6 13. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and s trategies by the relative age of the addressee Relative a ge Younger Same Older Missing RTT 88 61 187 RS 60 37 116 30 Mean RTT 1.47 1.65 1.61 RS_INDonly 28 13 44 47% 35% 38% RS_DIRonly 23 16 54 38% 43% 47% RS_Both 9 8 18 15% 22% 16 % HAInd 48 33 97 HAInd (adj) 80 89 84 HAInd RS% 62% 57% 53% HADir 40 28 90 HADir (adj) 67 76 78 HADir RS% 53% 65% 62% SMA 13 18 50 SMA (adj) 22 49 43 SMA RS% 18% 41% 28% SMM 57 55 148 SMM (adj) 95 149 128 SMM RS% 65% 65% 68% DnG 36 34 87 DnG (adj) 60 92 75 DnG RS% 37% 41% 44% UpG 29 25 76 UpG (adj) 48 68 66 UpG RS% 32% 46% 40% Small talk 15 20 51 Small talk RS% 23% 46% 35%

PAGE 342

342 Table 6 14. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies fo r relative age by domain and participant neighborhood of residence Business domain Younger Same Older Missing RS 10 18 36 30 HAInd 4 12 15 HAInd RS% 40% 67% 42% HADir 6 12 25 HADir RS% 60% 67% 69% SMA 1 6 6 SMA RS% 10% 33% 17% SMM 8 12 29 S MM RS% 80% 67% 81% DnG 5 10 20 DnG RS% 50% 56% 56% UpG 2 9 12 UpG RS% 20% 50% 33% Small talk 4 8 15 Small talk RS% 40% 44% 42% Domestic domain RS 40 13 54 HAInd 27 6 27 HAInd RS% 68% 46% 50% HADir 22 8 35 HADir RS% 55% 62% 65% SMA 7 6 20 SMA RS% 18% 46% 37% SMM 26 7 29 SMM RS% 65% 54% 54% DnG 15 3 17 DnG RS% 38% 23% 31% UpG 12 5 25 UpG RS% 30% 38% 46% Small talk 5 5 12 Small talk RS% 13% 38% 22% Social domain RS 10 6 26 HAInd 6 3 20 HAInd RS% 60% 50% 77% HADir 4 4 12 HADir RS% 40% 67% 46% SMA 3 3 6 SMA RS% 30% 50% 23% SMM 5 5 21 SMM RS% 50% 83% 81% DnG 2 2 14 DnG RS% 20% 33% 54% UpG 5 3 9 UpG RS% 50% 50% 35% Small talk 5 4 14 Small talk RS% 50% 67% 54%

PAGE 343

343 Table 6 14. Continu ed Centro Younger Same Older Missing RS 47 30 64 HAInd 28 15 33 HAInd RS% 60% 50% 52% HADir 28 19 40 HADir RS% 60% 63% 63% SMA 8 11 19 SMA RS% 17% 37% 30% SMM 31 20 46 SMM RS% 66% 67% 72% DnG 19 11 34 DnG RS% 40% 37% 53% UpG 14 11 27 UpG RS% 30% 37% 42% Small talk 7 14 26 Small talk RS% 15% 47% 41% Pastoreo RS 13 7 52 30 HAInd 9 6 29 HAInd RS% 69% 86% 56% HADir 4 5 32 HADir RS% 31% 71% 62% SMA 3 4 13 SMA RS% 23% 57% 25% SMM 8 4 33 SMM RS% 62% 57% 63% DnG 3 4 17 DnG RS% 23% 57% 33% UpG 5 6 19 UpG RS% 38% 86% 37% Small talk 7 3 15 Small talk RS% 54% 43% 29% Table 6 15. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies of much older addressees (n=3 ) compared with overall and Centro data Female Male Total Overall Centro RS 6 3 9 116 64 HAInd 3 3 6 62 33 HAInd RS% 50% 100% 67% 53% 52% HADir 4 1 5 72 40 HADir RS% 67% 33% 56% 62% 63% SMA 1 0 1 32 19 SMA RS% 17% 0% 11% 28% 30% SMM 6 2 8 79 46 SMM RS% 100% 67% 89% 68% 72% DnG 5 3 8 51 34 DnG RS% 83% 100% 89% 44% 53% UpG 3 0 3 46 27 UpG RS% 50% 0% 33% 40% 42% Small talk 3 3 6 41 26 Small talk RS% 50% 100% 67% 35% 41%

PAGE 344

344 Table 6 16. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by the relative education level of the address ee Relative e ducation Lower Same Higher Missing RTT 119 71 135 RS 84 49 87 23 Mean RTT 1.42 1.45 1.55 RS_INDonly 31 18 39 37% 37% 45% RS_DIRonly 44 26 33 52% 53% 38% RS_Both 9 5 15 11% 10% 17% HAInd 57 33 78 HAInd (adj) 68 6 7 90 HAInd RS% 48% 47% 62% HADir 62 38 57 HADir (adj) 74 78 66 HADir RS% 63% 63% 55% SMA 33 21 26 SMA (adj) 39 43 30 SMA RS% 27% 27% 24% SMM 85 57 100 SMM (adj) 101 116 115 SMM RS% 60% 67% 69% DnG 54 39 44 DnG (adj) 64 8 0 51 DnG RS% 44% 45% 33% UpG 60 29 38 UpG (adj) 71 59 44 UpG RS% 44% 37% 31% Small talk 30 24 29 Small talk RS% 31% 41% 28%

PAGE 345

345 Table 6 17. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for relative education level by domain a nd participant neighborhood of residence Business domain Lower Same Higher Missing RS 36 18 20 15 HAInd 13 6 11 HAInd RS% 36% 33% 55% HADir 25 13 13 HADir RS% 69% 72% 65% SMA 6 4 4 SMA RS% 17% 22% 20% SMM 22 14 16 SMM RS% 61% 78% 80% DnG 18 13 7 DnG RS% 50% 72% 35% UpG 15 5 4 UpG RS% 42% 28% 20% Small talk 12 8 7 Small talk RS% 33% 44% 35% Domestic domain RS 33 21 50 3 HAInd 17 11 30 HAInd RS% 52% 52% 60% HADir 22 12 29 HADir RS% 67% 57% 58% SMA 12 6 14 SMA RS% 36% 29% 28% SMM 17 12 31 SMM RS% 52% 57% 62% DnG 11 5 16 DnG RS% 33% 24% 32% UpG 16 10 14 UpG RS% 48% 48% 28% Small talk 6 7 7 Small talk RS% 18% 33% 14% Social domain RS 15 10 17 5 HAInd 10 6 13 HAInd RS% 67% 60% 76% HADir 6 6 6 HADir RS% 40% 60% 35% SMA 5 3 3 SMA RS% 33% 30% 18% SMM 11 7 13 SMM RS% 73% 70% 76% DnG 8 4 6 DnG RS% 53% 40% 35% UpG 6 3 9 UpG RS% 40% 30% 53% Small talk 8 5 10 Small talk RS% 53% 50% 59%

PAGE 346

346 Table 6 17 Continued Centro Lower Sa me Higher Missing RS 41 23 61 16 HAInd 16 10 39 HAInd RS% 39% 43% 64% HADir 27 17 34 HADir RS% 66% 74% 56% SMA 11 8 16 SMA RS% 27% 35% 26% SMM 27 18 40 SMM RS% 66% 78% 66% DnG 20 12 21 DnG RS% 49% 52% 34% UpG 16 11 20 UpG RS% 39% 48 % 33% Small talk 16 13 11 Small talk RS% 39% 57% 18% Pastoreo RS 43 26 26 7 HAInd 24 13 15 HAInd RS% 56% 50% 58% HADir 26 14 14 HADir RS% 60% 54% 54% SMA 12 5 5 SMA RS% 28% 19% 19% SMM 23 15 20 SMM RS% 53% 58% 77% DnG 17 10 8 DnG RS% 40% 38% 31% UpG 21 7 7 UpG RS% 49% 27% 27% Small talk 10 7 13 Small talk RS% 23% 27% 50%

PAGE 347

347 Table 6 18. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by the relative socioeconomic status of the addressee Relative SES Lower Same Higher Missing RTT 17 305 23 RS 8 203 14 18 Mean RTT 2.13 1.50 1.64 RS_INDonly 4 77 6 50% 38% 43% RS_DIRonly 4 92 6 50% 45% 43% RS_Both 34 2 17% 14% HAInd 10 154 13 HAInd (adj) 125 76 93 HAInd RS% 50% 55% 57% HADir 7 151 10 HADir (adj) 88 74 71 HADir RS% 50% 62% 57% SMA 2 80 4 SMA (adj) 25 39 29 SMA RS% 25% 28% 21% SMM 21 216 24 SMM (adj) 263 106 171 SMM RS% 100% 62% 86% DnG 12 137 11 DnG (adj) 150 67 79 DnG RS% 88% 40% 36% UpG 3 129 5 UpG (adj) 38 64 36 UpG RS% 38% 40% 29% Small talk 9 67 11 Small talk RS% 75% 29% 57%

PAGE 348

348 Table 6 19. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for relative socioeconomic status by domain and participant neighborhood of res idence Business domain Lower Same Higher Missing RS 7 65 10 7 HAInd 3 30 5 HAInd RS% 43% 46% 50% HADir 4 45 6 HADir RS% 57% 69% 60% SMA 2 12 2 SMA RS% 29% 18% 20% SMM 7 43 8 SMM RS% 100% 66% 80% DnG 7 32 4 DnG RS% 100% 49% 40% UpG 3 2 5 2 UpG RS% 43% 38% 20% Small talk 6 21 5 Small talk RS% 86% 32% 50% Domestic domain RS 103 4 HAInd 58 HAInd RS% 56% HADir 63 HADir RS% 61% SMA 33 SMA RS% 32% SMM 59 SMM RS% 57% DnG 33 DnG RS% 32% UpG 42 UpG RS% 41% Small talk 20 Small talk RS% 19% Social domain RS 1 35 4 7 HAInd 1 23 3 HAInd RS% 100% 66% 75% HADir 18 2 HADir RS% 51% 50% SMA 12 1 SMA RS% 34% 25% SMM 1 23 4 SMM RS % 100% 66% 100% DnG 17 1 DnG RS% 49% 25% UpG 14 2 UpG RS% 40% 50% Small talk 18 3 Small talk RS% 51% 75%

PAGE 349

349 Table 6 19. Continued Centro Lower Same Higher Missing RS 8 121 12 HAInd 4 65 HAInd RS% 50% 54% HADir 4 78 HADir RS% 50% 64% SMA 2 36 SMA RS% 25% 30% SMM 8 80 SMM RS% 100% 66% DnG 7 51 DnG RS% 88% 42% UpG 3 46 UpG RS% 38% 38% Small talk 6 36 Small talk RS% 75% 30% Pastoreo RS 82 14 6 HAInd 46 8 HAInd RS% 56% 57% HADir 48 8 HADir RS% 59% 57% SMA 21 3 SMA RS% 26% 21% SMM 45 12 SMM RS% 55% 86% DnG 31 5 DnG RS% 38% 36% UpG 35 4 UpG RS% 43% 29% Small talk 23 8 Small talk RS% 28% 57%

PAGE 350

350 Table 6 20. Refusal tur ns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by the relative power of the addressee, business domain Relative power Lower Same Higher Missing RTT 31 83 11 RS 28 52 5 4 Mean RTT 1.11 1.60 2.20 RS_INDonly 8 17 2 29% 33% 40% RS_DIRonly 18 27 1 64% 52% 20% RS_Both 2 8 2 7% 15% 40% HAInd 11 37 8 HAInd (adj) 39 71 160 HAInd RS% 36% 48% 80% HADir 20 46 3 HADir (adj) 71 88 60 HADir RS% 71% 67% 60% SMA 4 14 3 SMA (adj) 14 27 60 SMA RS% 11% 19% 40% SMM 22 95 12 SMM (adj) 79 183 240 SMM RS% 54% 77% 80% DnG 13 70 8 DnG (adj) 46 135 160 DnG RS% 43% 56% 40% UpG 13 25 3 UpG (adj) 46 48 60 UpG RS% 39% 35% 40% Small talk 5 24 4 Small talk RS% 18% 40% 60%

PAGE 351

351 Table 6 21. Addressee's relati onship to the participant by role category Relationship of addressee Role category Total agent aquaint colega friend otherbus otherfam parent partner PI sib subord agente 30 30 amiga/o 4 4 cliente 7 7 colega de trabajo 13 13 colega de trabajo, amiga 7 7 conocida/o 6 6 cunada 3 3 cunada/o 6 6 hermana/o 32 32 hermana/o, colega de trabajo 7 7 hija/o 6 6 madre 18 18 other 2 2 padre 5 5 pareja 42 42 PI 10 10 primo 1 1 sobrina politica 2 2 sobrina/o 1 1 subordinate 30 30 suegra 1 1 superior 3 3 vecina/o 4 4 vendedora ambulante 3 3 Total 30 10 13 11 15 20 23 42 10 39 30 243

PAGE 352

352 Table 6 22. Role category by composite social distan ce (CSD) score Role category Composite social distance (CSD) score: ( Contact + Know + Trust + Contexts ) Total Total CSD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 S core agent 10 14 2 2 1 29 144 otherbus 6 1 4 2 13 69 subord 29 1 30 181 aquaint 4 2 1 3 10 63 colega 3 1 1 5 10 68 PI 5 3 8 62 sib 27 3 9 39 384 parent 6 3 14 23 237 otherfam 2 4 5 8 19 198 friend 1 3 7 11 123 partner 42 42 504 20 18 38 15 11 41 8 3 80 234 2033 Table 6 23. Role category by average distance intimacy (Avg D I) score and role distance measure, w here '1' is most distant and '3' is most intimate Avg D I Avg D I Role Distance Score Score/4 Measure agent 5.0 1.2 1 otherbus 5.3 1.3 1 subord 6.0 1.5 1 aquaint 6.3 1.6 2 colega 6.8 1.7 2 PI 7.8 1.9 2 sib 9.8 2.5 3 parent 10.3 2.6 3 otherfam 10.4 2.6 3 friend 11.2 2.8 3 partner 12.0 3.0 3 Total/median 8.7 2.2 2

PAGE 353

353 Table 6 24. Refusal sequences by role category role distance measure and number of addr essees Role category Role distance measure Total No. of 1 2 3 addressees otherbus 15 15 9 agent 30 30 16 subord 30 30 25 aquaint 10 10 5 PI 10 10 5 colega 13 13 6 friend 11 11 4 otherfam 20 20 10 parent 23 23 5 sib 39 39 5 partner 42 42 6 Total 75 33 135 243 96 No. of addressees 50 1 6 30 96

PAGE 354

354 Table 6 25. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by addressee role Addressee role 1 = agent 2 = otherbus 3 = subord 4 = aquaint 5 = colega 6 = PI 7 = sibling 8 = parent 9 = otherfam 10 = friend 11 = partner RTT 45 30 34 21 20 16 56 29 36 20 63 RS 30 15 30 10 13 10 39 23 20 11 42 Mean RTT 1.50 2.00 1.13 2.10 1.54 1.60 1.44 1.26 1.80 1.82 1.50 RS_INDonly 6 5 11 5 7 8 16 8 8 7 16 20% 33% 37% 50% 54% 80% 41% 35% 40% 64% 38% RS_DIRonly 18 9 17 3 4 2 14 14 8 2 18 60% 60% 57% 30% 31% 20% 36% 61% 40% 18% 43% RS_Both 6 1 2 2 2 9 1 4 2 8 20% 7% 7% 20% 15% 23% 4% 20% 18% 19% HAInd 15 15 15 15 12 14 30 14 18 15 31 HAInd (adj) 50 100 50 150 92 140 77 61 90 136 74 HAInd RS% 40% 40% 43% 70% 69% 80% 64% 39% 60% 82% 57% HA Dir 30 15 19 6 8 2 26 15 18 5 32 HADir (adj) 100 100 63 60 62 20 67 65 90 45 76 HADir RS% 80% 67% 63% 50% 46% 20% 59% 65% 60% 36% 62% SMA 13 5 5 3 2 6 10 10 2 30 SMA (adj) 43 33 17 30 15 15 43 50 18 71 SMA RS% 33% 20% 13% 10% 15% 15% 30% 40% 18% 45% SMM 29 47 22 14 25 18 44 19 24 15 29 SMM (adj) 97 313 73 140 192 180 113 83 120 136 69 SMM RS% 70% 93% 50% 70% 85% 90% 67% 61% 60% 73% 52% DnG 21 33 13 10 10 6 31 12 14 5 18 DnG (adj) 70 220 43 100 77 60 79 52 70 45 43 DnG RS% 50% 67% 43% 70% 46 % 40% 44% 39% 40% 45% 21% UpG 8 9 13 3 9 3 15 18 21 5 39 UpG (adj) 27 60 43 30 69 30 38 78 105 45 93 UpG RS% 20% 47% 37% 30% 54% 20% 28% 35% 60% 36% 52% Small talk 13 12 8 11 7 7 6 6 5 8 13 Small talk RS% 37% 53% 27% 70% 46% 70% 15% 26% 20% 55% 29%

PAGE 355

355 Table 6 26. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by frequency of contact with the addressee Contact Least = 1 Int = 2 Most = 3 Missing RTT 59 101 205 RS 35 61 144 3 Mean RTT in RS 1.69 1.66 1.42 RS_INDonly 19 21 57 54% 34% 40% RS_DIRonly 12 24 71 34% 39% 49% RS_Both 4 16 16 11% 26% 11% HAInd 39 51 102 HAInd (adj) 111 84 71 HAInd RS% 66% 61% 51% HADir 20 50 103 HADir (adj) 57 82 72 HADir RS% 46% 66% 60% SMA 5 21 59 SMA (adj) 14 34 41 SMA RS% 11% 26% 28% SMM 60 78 146 SMM (adj) 171 128 101 SMM RS% 71% 69% 63% DnG 44 48 79 DnG (adj) 126 79 55 DnG RS% 63% 43% 38% UpG 12 32 97 UpG (adj) 34 52 67 UpG RS% 26% 33% 43% Small talk 21 22 53 Small talk RS% 46% 30% 33%

PAGE 356

356 Table 6 27. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by level of familiarity with addressee Know Least = 1 Int = 2 Most = 3 Missing RTT 108 134 121 RS 74 81 84 4 Mean RTT in RS 1.46 1.65 1.44 RS_INDonly 24 38 32 32% 47 % 38% RS_DIRonly 39 28 41 53% 35% 49% RS_Both 11 15 11 15% 19% 13% HAInd 50 79 60 HAInd (adj) 68 98 71 HAInd RS% 47% 65% 51% HADir 58 55 61 HADir (adj) 78 68 73 HADir RS% 68% 53% 62% SMA 17 24 44 SMA (adj) 23 30 52 SMA RS% 18% 22% 36% SMM 96 108 77 SMM (adj) 130 133 92 SMM RS% 64% 73% 60% DnG 61 64 48 DnG (adj) 82 79 57 DnG RS% 55% 43% 32% UpG 30 43 69 UpG (adj) 41 53 82 UpG RS% 34% 32% 49% Small talk 31 35 26 Small talk RS% 35% 32% 3 0%

PAGE 357

357 Table 6 28. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by level of trust toward a ddressee Trust Least = 1 Int = 2 Most = 3 Missing RTT 136 108 117 RS 89 68 80 6 Mean RTT in RS 1.53 1.59 1.46 RS_INDonly 31 31 31 35% 46% 39% RS_DIRonly 46 23 38 52% 34% 48% RS_Both 12 14 11 13% 21% 14% HAInd 67 62 59 HAInd (adj) 75 91 74 HAInd RS% 48% 66% 53% HADir 69 46 58 HADir (adj) 78 68 73 HADir RS% 65% 54% 61% SMA 25 18 42 SMA (adj) 28 26 53 SMA R S% 21% 21% 35% SMM 113 90 74 SMM (adj) 127 132 93 SMM RS% 63% 74% 60% DnG 76 50 44 DnG (adj) 85 74 55 DnG RS% 52% 44% 31% UpG 44 31 66 UpG (adj) 49 46 83 UpG RS% 35% 31% 49% Small talk 40 25 25 Small talk RS% 36% 29% 30%

PAGE 358

358 Table 6 29. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by number of interactional contexts shared with addressee Contexts 1 2 3 + Missing RTT 116 58 185 RS 79 30 126 8 Mean RTT in RS 1.47 1.93 1.47 RS_INDonly 26 15 52 33% 50% 4 1% RS_DIRonly 42 11 52 53% 37% 41% RS_Both 11 4 22 14% 13% 17% HAInd 53 39 96 HAInd (adj) 67 130 76 HAInd RS% 47% 63% 59% HADir 63 19 89 HADir (adj) 80 63 71 HADir RS% 67% 50% 59% SMA 19 14 52 SMA (adj) 24 47 41 SMA RS% 19% 30% 29% SMM 101 56 118 SMM (adj) 128 187 94 SMM RS% 66% 73% 62% DnG 62 36 70 DnG (adj) 78 120 56 DnG RS% 52% 47% 36% UpG 32 23 85 UpG (adj) 41 77 67 UpG RS% 33% 43% 40% Small talk 36 16 38 Small talk RS% 38% 37% 28 %

PAGE 359

359 Table 6 30. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies by role distance measure Role distance measure Distant = 1 Mid = 2 Intimate = 3 Missing RTT 109 57 204 RS 75 33 135 Mean RTT in RS 1.45 1.73 1.51 RS_INDonly 22 20 55 29% 61% 41% RS_DIRonly 44 9 56 59% 27% 41% RS_Both 9 4 24 12% 12% 18% HAInd 45 41 108 HAInd (adj) 60 124 80 HAInd RS% 41% 73% 59% HADir 64 16 96 HADir (adj) 85 48 71 HADir RS% 71% 39% 59% SMA 23 5 58 SMA (adj) 31 15 43 SMA RS% 23% 9% 31% SMM 98 57 131 SMM (adj) 131 173 97 SMM RS% 67% 82% 61% DnG 67 26 80 DnG (adj) 89 79 59 DnG RS% 51% 52% 36% UpG 30 15 98 UpG (adj) 40 45 73 UpG RS% 32% 36% 42% Small talk 33 25 38 Small talk RS% 36% 61 % 25%

PAGE 360

360 Table 6 31. Refusal turns, sequences, sequence types and strategies for role distance measure by domain and participant neighborhood of residence Business domain Distant = 1 Mid = 2 Intimate = 3 Missing RS 64 12 13 HAInd 25 8 8 HAInd RS% 3 9% 67% 62% HADir 47 6 7 HADir RS% 73% 50% 54% SMA 13 2 1 SMA RS% 20% 17% 8% SMM 42 10 11 SMM RS% 66% 83% 85% DnG 33 6 8 DnG RS% 52% 50% 62% UpG 22 6 4 UpG RS% 34% 50% 31% Small talk 20 4 8 Small talk RS% 31% 33% 62% Domestic domai n RS 4 103 HAInd 2 58 HAInd RS% 50% 56% HADir 2 63 HADir RS% 50% 61% SMA 33 SMA RS% 32% SMM 3 59 SMM RS% 75% 57% DnG 2 33 DnG RS% 50% 32% UpG 42 UpG RS% 41% Small talk 2 20 Small talk RS% 50% 19% Social domain RS 11 17 19 HAInd 6 14 13 HAInd RS% 55% 82% 68% HADir 6 5 10 HADir RS% 55% 29% 53% SMA 4 1 8 SMA RS% 36% 6% 42% SMM 8 14 12 SMM RS% 73% 82% 63% DnG 5 9 7 DnG RS% 45% 53% 37% UpG 2 6 11 UpG RS% 18% 35% 58% Small talk 7 14 6 Small talk RS% 64% 82% 32%

PAGE 361

361 Table 6 31. Continued Pastoreo Distant = 1 Mid = 2 Intimate = 3 RS 42 12 48 HAInd 18 8 32 HAInd RS% 43% 67% 67% HADir 28 5 26 HADir RS% 67% 42% 54% SMA 7 1 16 SMA RS% 17% 8% 33% SM M 23 10 29 SMM RS% 55% 83% 60% DnG 18 3 18 DnG RS% 43% 25% 38% UpG 13 4 24 UpG RS% 31% 33% 50% Small talk 10 6 18 Small talk RS% 24% 50% 38% Centro RS 33 21 87 HAInd 13 16 47 HAInd RS% 39% 76% 54% HADir 25 8 54 HADir RS% 76% 38 % 62% SMA 10 2 26 SMA RS% 30% 10% 30% SMM 27 17 53 SMM RS% 82% 81% 61% DnG 20 14 30 DnG RS% 61% 67% 34% UpG 11 8 33 UpG RS% 33% 38% 38% Small talk 17 14 16 Small talk RS% 52% 67% 18%

PAGE 362

362 Figure 6 1. The two trends: the percentage of indirect and direct only refusal sequences (RS Ind only, RS Dir only) and the percentage of refusal sequences containing indirect and direct head acts (HA Ind RS%, HA Dir RS%) by participant age group Figure 6 2. Average number of refusal sequence s per participant by age group and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RS Ind-only HAInd RS% RS Dir-only HADir RS% 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Domestic Social Business 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61

PAGE 363

363 Figure 6 3. Indirect head act RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk Figure 6 4. Direct head act RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic, n=107 Social, n=47 Business, n=89 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61

PAGE 364

364 Figure 6 5. The percen tage of refusal sequences containing aggravating moves (SMA), mitigating moves (SMM) and downgraders (DnG) by participant age group Figure 6 6. SMA RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SMA SMM DnG 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61

PAGE 365

365 Figure 6 7. SMM RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk Figure 6 8. DnG RS% by participant age group and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 18 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 61

PAGE 366

366 Figure 6 9. Participant age groups and the linguistic strategies associated with them. All were significant at the .05 level or better. HA=head act, as occurring in head acts; SM=supportive move, as occurring in supportive moves; RTT=refusal turn at talk, as occurring in refusal turns at talk; RS=refusal sequence; as occurring in the entire refusal sequence. An example of how to read this figure is: Pa rticipants aged 18 to 25 used proper names in supportive moves and refusal sequences in general significantly more than any other age group; they used proper names in head acts and refusal turns at talk more than those aged 41 to 61, and they used endearme nt terms and attack strategies more than those aged 26 to 40.

PAGE 367

367 Figure 6 10. The percentage of refusal sequences containing mitigating moves (SMM), the formula s + pero [x] and post refusal small talk by participant education level Figure 6 11. S MM RS% by participant education level and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SMM s + pero Small talk 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+

PAGE 368

368 Figure 6 12. The formula s + pero RS% by participant education level and orientation of talk Figure 6 13. Small talk RS% by participant education level and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Social Business Domestic 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+

PAGE 369

369 F igure 6 14. Percentage of SM RequInfo in refusal sequences by participant education level and orientation of talk Figure 6 15. Percentage of CCGSolid in refusal sequences by participant education level and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 6 to 9 10 to 11 12+

PAGE 370

370 Figure 6 16 Partici pant education levels and the linguistic strategies associated with them. All were significant at the .05 level or better. HA=head act, as occurring in head acts; SM=supportive move, as occurring in supportive moves; RTT=refusal turn at talk, as occurrin g in refusal turns at talk; RS=refusal sequence; as occurring i n the entire refusal sequence.

PAGE 371

371 Figure 6 17 Participant socioeconomic status/neighborhood s of residence and the linguistic strategies associated with them. All were significant at the .05 level or better. HA=head act, as occurring in head acts; RTT=refusal turn at talk, as occurring in refusal turns at talk; RS=refusal sequence; as occurring i n the entire refusal sequence.

PAGE 372

372 Figure 6 18. Percentage of PropName in refusal sequences by par ticipant SES/neighborhood of residence and orientation of talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Domestic Social Business 1/Pastoreo 2/Centro

PAGE 373

373 Kendall's tau_b Avg distance intimacy score Avg distance intimacy score Correlation Coefficient 1.000 Sig. (2 tailed) N 243 number of refusal turns at talk within refusal sequence Cor relation Coefficient .003 Sig. (2 tailed) .950 N 243 number of indirect head acts within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .081 Sig. (2 tailed) .123 N 243 number of direct head acts within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .062 Sig. (2 tailed) .244 N 243 number of aggravating supportive moves within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .134 Sig. (2 tailed) .013 N 243 number of mitigating supportive moves within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .104 Sig. ( 2 tailed) .044 N 243 number of downgraders within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .163 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .002 N 243 number of upgraders within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .150 ** Sig. (2 tailed) .005 N 243 number of times interlocutors engage in small talk within refusal sequence Correlation Coefficient .101 Sig. (2 tailed) .064 N 243 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). Figure 6 1 9. Bivariate correlation of the Average Distance Intimacy score with refusal turns and major strategies.

PAGE 374

374 orientation of the talk Avg DI score Avg distance intimacy score Total 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 orientation of the talk bus 26 12 26 0 11 1 6 2 5 0 89 dom 0 0 0 1 0 3 30 31 0 42 107 soc 4 3 4 9 2 6 3 10 6 0 47 Total 30 15 30 10 13 10 39 43 11 42 243 participant's n eighborhood of residence Avg DI score Avg distance intimacy score Total 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 participant's neighborhood of residence Centro 21 12 0 10 3 8 28 33 3 23 141 Pastoreo 9 3 30 0 10 2 11 10 8 19 102 Total 30 15 30 10 13 10 39 43 11 42 243 Figure 6 20. Domains and participant neighborhood of residence by Average Distance I ntimacy scores. Figure 6 21. Overall data (n=243): Role distance measures of major semantic strategies and post except upgraders and downgraders. These conform more to Brown and ar view of social distance. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Distant '1' Mid '2' Intimate '3' HA Ind HA Dir SMA SMM DnG UpG Small Talk

PAGE 375

375 Figure 6 22. Business domain (n=89): Role distance measures of major semantic strategies and post refusal small talk. L : only indirect and direct head acts marginally conform. N o confo rmity to view. Figure 6 23. Domestic domain (n=107): Role distance measures of major semantic strategies and post refusal small talk. Excepting indirect head acts, all strategies conform to expectations based on either theory. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Distant '1' Mid '2' Intimate '3' HA Ind HA Dir SMA SMM DnG UpG Small Talk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Distant '1' Mid '2' Intimate '3' HA Ind HA Dir SMA SMM DnG UpG Small Talk

PAGE 376

376 Figure 6 24. Social domain (n=47): Role distance measures of major semantic strategies and post refusal small talk. Except ing upgraders, all conform to the view Figure 6 25. Pastoreo group (n=102): Role distance measures of major semantic strategies and post except indirect head acts (marginal), downgraders and upgraders. Upgraders l distance. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distant Mid Intimate HA Ind HA Dir SMA SMM DnG UpG SmTalk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Distant '1' Mid '2' Intimate '3' HA Ind HA Dir SMA SMM DnG UpG Small Talk

PAGE 377

377 Figure 6 26. Centro group (n=141): Role distance measures of major semantic strategies and post refusal small talk. Indirect, direct head acts and and upgraders c distance. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Distant '1' Mid '2' Intimate '3' HA Ind HA Dir SMA SMM DnG UpG Small Talk

PAGE 378

378 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS Th is study has thus far examined the refusal strategies that the participants of this study produced (Chapter 4) shown the relevance of domain as an extralinguistic vari able (Chapter 5) and an alyzed the refusals in terms of extralinguistic and social variables pertaining to the speakers (Chapter 6). In this discussion, I address the final research question: cultura l norms and expectations for communication within relationships? Discussion of Results and Theoretical Implications Returning to Chapter 1 in which I set out the rationale for the present project, we habitus : a self perpetu at 54 ), which are the product and producer of individual and collective experiences, and re sponsible for reasonable to day behaviors I claimed that t o the extent that others share a similar set of dispositions o r habitus it c ould be argued that these individuals belong to a common speech community A main goal of this research was to learn more about the habitus of one group of Uruguayans from a shared speech community in terms of their linguistic realizations of refusals. What I have been primarily interested in finding out is the extent to which it is possible to identify tendencies of behavior ), through the identification of various strategies (semantic, linguistic, internally modifying) in v a rious situational contexts. The latter dealt with not only where the exchange occurred and the orientation of the talk, but also with the speakers and their relationship. The greater focus of this research has been to establish what the norms of refusing are within the realm of the relationally politic what is appropriate in this

PAGE 379

379 speech community as opposed to emphasiz ing positively marked politic behavior or that which the speakers may consider my view point aligns with Fraser conversational contract approach to politeness: Politeness, on this view, is not a sometime thing. Rational participants are aware that they are to act within the negotiated constraints and g enerally do so. When they do not, however, they are then perceived as being impolite or r ude. Politeness is a state that one expects to exist in every conversation; participan t s note not that someone is being p o lite this is the norm but rather that the speaker is violating the CC [convers ational contract]. Being polite . simply involves getting on with the task at hand in light of the terms and conditions of the CC (Fraser 1990:233). participants handle certain situations under a variety of conditions in a culturally appropriate manner. Not only does this add to what we know about the Spanish of Latin America (e.g., Lipski 2004), but also allows non native learner s (or speakers of other varieties) of Spa nish to benefit from this knowledge, using it to increase their expertise and communicative competence (Gumperz and Hymes 1972) in the language Thus, this research has implications for language teaching; also, it is relevant for those working in the fiel d of second language acquisition that might use the results as a baseline for comparing stages of pragmatic development among non native learners at various levels of proficiency. The first research question regarding how the participants realize the spe ech act of refusing, came with two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 was that their refusals would consist of linguistic strategies that had been previously cited in the research on refusals (e.g., Beebe et al. 1990; Flix Brasdefer 2008), though to different exte nts. In general, this was the case and, thus, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed However, it was challenging to conform these natural data of analysis which were designed for

PAGE 380

380 experimental data. This was especially true in the case of Beeb e et al., whose framework was geared toward English refusals The framework proposed by Flix Brasdefer was more fitting designed to accommodate both English and Spanish refusals though in both cases some categories went virtually unused A lso, to bette r detail the complexity of the refusal sequences, it was necessary to create additional categories of linguistic strategi es such as those also found in Blum Kulka et al. (1989) (e.g., command, repair, blame hearer/other, concession/admission/disarmer, dis play concern for hearer/other, emotional expression, commitment indicator, endearment term and proper name) This has been done before ; Flix Brasdefer ( 2004) added two categories to the existing framework of Beebe et al. (i.e., mitigated refusal and clarifica tion request) as did Gass and Houck (1999) (i.e., confirmations, agreements and, also, clarification/information requests) Strategies common to other refusal coding schemes that did not appear in my data included the performative ( yo rechazo/niego . . . the wish statement ( ojal pudiera ayudarte si no hay nadie ms disponible Other previously established strategies resulting with few tokens (n < 20 and in < 10 sequences, for the whole dataset) were: displays of comp rehension/ emp athy, pause fillers, letting the defense, utterances displaying a willingness to comply or positive feel ings preparators and expressions of gratitude These differences were surprising, first, because the latter strategies seem like common refusal strategies from an anecdotal perspective and second, from having been observed as more abundant in other stud ies One explanation for their prevalence

PAGE 381

381 in other studies s te ms from the nature of experimental data in which participants write or enact what they think they would say in a given situation, rather than what they actually say in spontaneous talk It is also possible that the low frequency of these strategies is an artifact of this data set and that more data might yield different results. Or, perhaps these are areas of cross cultural difference to be attended to. (I will make a case for this in my disc ussion on expressions of gratitude below.) Brasdefer termed This was to alle viate confusi o ed refusal Flix Brasdefer 2008: 74, 81 82). So, a los guantes no se pueden tocar! ( the gloves can't be touched! ) (Ari 18b) Flix Brasdefer but in the present coding scheme as a negation of the proposition internally downgraded by the ( distancing ) impersonal se and upgraded by emphatic intonation While this method had the advantage of being more detailed and versatile, it brought with it the disadvantage of making this research less comparable with Flix Brasdefer (2003; 2008) and Garca (1992; 1999) who ha ve done the most work on refusals in Spanish to date Thus, the existing frameworks found in the lit erature served as a useful point of departure and provide d a n important basis for comparison with other studies. However, none could account for the myriad and sometimes unpredictable strategies that emanated from these refusals produced during spontaneou s, negotiated interaction. As is evident from the most frequent head acts and supportive moves by mand type, several strategies not found in Beebe et al. (1990) and Flix Brasdefer (2008) pro ved to

PAGE 382

382 be some of the most salient : command, counter argument/c orrection, emotional expression, discourse marker and claim hardship Strict adherence to one framework or another would have precluded inclusion of these nuances in the analysis Returning to Hypothesis 1 I claimed that the participants of thi s study would use the same linguistic strategies, but not necessarily to the same extent. Th is held true as well; the fact that many scholars have employed the Beebe et al. framework made this easy to see. For example, Uruguayan refusals differed from Ch inese refusals (Chen et al. 1995) primarily in terms of directness For requests and suggestions, w hereas the most frequent head act for the Uruguayans was the direct refusal the most frequent head act for the Chinese was to give a reason. The dire was also most common for offers among the Uruguayans, but the Chinese preferred to refuse offers by attempting to dissuad e the addressee Refusals to invitations were similar in that both Uruguayan s and Chinese refused predominantly with i ndirect strategies but differed in type ; for example, the Uruguayans most often gave indefinite repl ies while the Chinese gave reason s Refusals to invitations in Peruvian Spanish (Garca 1992), Venezuelan Spanish (Garca 1999) Mexican Spanish (Flix B rasdefer 2008) and American English (Flix Brasdefer 2003) were also similar in that refuse an invitation indirectly but, again, the type of indirect strategy type tended to differ. Indefinite replies were a fr equent strategy among the Venezuelans and the Mexicans, but this was not the most preferred strategy as it was i n the Uruguayan data. In fact, in the Venezuelan data set, indefinite replies were more characteristic of the the women. While this could be a salient area of

PAGE 383

383 cross cultural difference, t he dearth of refusals to invitations in the present data set is a limitation More data are needed both from Uruguayan Spanish and naturalistic data from other varieties of Spa nish to make thorough comparisons. Combining all strategy frequencies for invitations, requests and suggestions, when the Mexican and American data are put side by side with the Uruguayan data for the same speech acts, the Uruguayans were more frequently direct than the Americans, who were more frequently direct than the Mexicans. That is, direct refusals prevail ed in the face to face interaction of Uruguayan women with male and female addressees, but not so in the male only experimental data of the othe r language varieties. Mexican and American males gave reasons most abundantly and to a greater extent than did the Uruguayan women, though giving reasons was also a common strategy for the Uruguayans. While it may be tempting to draw conclusions based on such findings (e.g., between cultures and/or genders) o ne caution is that this comparison of results is a best attempt. The types of data being compared here are inherently different (natural versus elicited) and vary in terms of the number of refusals analyzed, participant characteristics (all female versus all male participants) and situational variables. Hypothesis 2 was that, based on previous research, Rosarian refusals would dependence, [and] T his hypothesis is confirmed as well with a caveat. The theories upon which Mrquez Reiter and Placencia based their analysis all have in common the underl ying face has two sides: On the one hand, in human interactions we have a need to be involved with other participants and to show them our involvement. On the other hand,

PAGE 384

384 we need to maintain some de gree of indepen d ence from other participants and to show them that we respect their independence. These two sides of face, involvement and independence, produce an inherently paradoxical situation in all communications in that both aspects of face must b e projected simultaneously in any communication (2001: 46). 1 Thus, the caveat is that one side of face cannot manifest to the exclusion of the other. That said, it was apparent from these data that the participants regularly selected strategies that, in t he politeness literature, are exemplary of involvement, solidarity and affiliation. This is to say nothing about the conditions under which these strategy selections took place, but is an observation of overall tendency. Referring to Tables 4 9 through 4 1 1, the ten most frequent strategies for both head acts and supportive moves account ed for the majority (58 % ) of the total strategies represented 2 For head acts, the strategies presumed by researchers (Brown and Levinson 1987; Scollon and Scollon 1983; Garca 1992) to display solidarity politeness or involvement we re: (n = 116) ; Counter argument / correction (n = 62) ; Negates proposition (n = 48) ; Command (n = 30) ; Alternative (n = 21) ; Emotional expression (n = 21) ; while those considered indicative of deference politeness or independence we re: Indefinite reply (n = 58); Hedge/subjectivize/understate (n = 42); Delay response / ignore (n =28). 1 Their view of involvement and independence (a.k.a. solidarity and deference politeness (Scollon and r Two) and has been equated to what Lakoff (1990) termed camaraderie and distance/deference politeness (e.g., Garca 1999). 2 HA plus SM strategies totaled 928 out of a possible 1,604.

PAGE 385

385 Depending on its use, t he repetition/reiteration strategy (n =75) could be indic ative of either involvement (i.e., intensifying interest in the addressee) or independence (i.e., used to delay/ avoid response) ; therefore, I did not attribute this strategy to either side T he observation is that 59 % (298 of 501 ) of head act strategies w e re in some way affiliative or oriented toward involvement with the addressee. In contrast, 26 % (128 of 501) we re oriented toward independence and autonomy. Supportive moves present a stronger case for an involvement orientation Of the ten most freque nt strategies, seven we re considered involvement strategies: Reason / explanation (n = 79) ; Confirm / acknowledge (n = 58) ; Claim common ground / solidarity (n = 32) ; Counter argument / correction (n = 30) ; Reassure (n = 29) ; Statement of informat ion (n = 28) ; Alternative (n = 26) ; and two we re examples of independence strategies: Hedge/subjectivize/understate (n = 51) ; Justify / minimize the offense (n = 23) Again, repetition/reiteration was not exclusively an involvement or independenc e strategy but it did contribute to the total strategy count. The result wa s that 64% (256 of 401) of the most frequent supportive moves were linguistic strategies of involvement, while only 18 % (74 of 401) were strategies of independence. This has impli cations for the main discussion question regarding what these data cultural norms and expectations for communication within relationships It would be absurd to s uggest that the Uruguayan women of this study do not car e so much about being respected or maintaining independence from others this cannot be the case because both sides of face are

PAGE 386

386 ever present in every communication, and because the text of the refusal sequences themselves demonstrate that this is not so (cf conversations in Chapter 6 proposition is an opportunity to exert power over another, every re fusal is a denial of that power (cf. Chapter 2 ). It is the extent to whic h the refuser takes pains not to make the addressee feel as though she or he has been horribly rejected or denied that is the object of facework. It is evident from these data that in many contexts it wa the most frequent refusal head ac t for suggestions, statements, offers and requests. But most the most frequent supportive move for offers and requests. The preference for reasons/explanations indicates positive facework or involvement with the interlocutor, in that offering [ reasons ] is a way of implying I can help you or you can help me, and [assumes] cooperation (Brown & Levinson 1987: 128) (Flix Brasdefer 2008: 87). Thus it is evident that these part icipants regularly used affiliative linguistic behaviors as a way of mitigating the blunt force that these regularities represent one norm of speaking, potentially phrased as show involvement This norm would fall into the categ ory of unmarked, non polite politic/appropriate behavior (Locher and Watts 2005). I will take a step further call ing upon the pragmaticalization literature a more speaker based, discourse grammaticalization, semantic pragmatic change is governed by regularities, such as a sequential path ( i.e.,

PAGE 387

387 change appear s in the most favoring contexts and later progressively advances to less favorable contexts, the innovative meaning becoming less and less dependent on the surrounding syntactic and semantic context, and, as a consequence, becoming more abstract and more p 2006 : 97 ). it a candidate for pragmaticalization, in that bald on, direct refusal. Thompson (2002 ) and Thompson and Mulac (1991) make the same argument for the complement shows that, in the great majority of cases, finite indicative complement taking predicate (CTP) (131). An example is as follows in which a group is talking about relightable birthday candles (adapted from Thompson (2002) ): 1 Kevin: I think table. 2 Wendy: (blowing) they [a=re. 3 Kendra: [they are=. 5 Marci: they were, but I think they maybe are=. The argument here is that the main claim is the main claim (i.e. that the candles are relightable), regardless of whether it appears in a main clause or complement clause. The CTPs in lines 1 and 5 are phrases that indicate the epistemic stance of t he speaker toward the primary/main claim; the secondary claim of thinking does not overri line 5. Thompson and Mulac agree that this change is due to a frequency effect, since

PAGE 388

388 the most frequent CTPs ( I think and I guess ) override their CTPs to such an extent that they have been reanalyzed as epistemic parentheticals (Thompson 2002: 134). Flix Brasdefer references this same phenomenon in Spanish by classifying CTPs such as pienso que (I think) and creo que (I believe) as expressions of epistemic mo dality (2008: 81), but this is not the point here. refusing seems to have undergone a similar process of pragmaticalization In refusals such as (2) through (4), this seems to be a fragm ent s epistemic stance. (It might also be appropriate to consider it a discourse marker ) The primary claim is the statement, counter or reason that follows. no + [statement of reassura nce] (Moqui 15) 1 Josefa: maybe she takes/i s taking xx x down here, xxx. 2 Moqui: no si sabe donde queda. no ((lit. if)) she knows where it is. (3) no + [counter argum ent / alternative] (Ela 22) 1 Roberto: vos cobrs la asignacin el nueve tambin . el nueve cobr(s) vo(s) la asignacin? ((pause)) tens que llevarlo al Kevin. you get the supplement [government financial aid] on the ninth too . on the ninth you get the supplement ? ((pause)) 2 Ela: no pero:, puedo cobrarla despus yo. la asignacin. no bu:t, I ((emph.)) can get it later. the supplement (4) no + [reason] (Isabel 41 ) 1 Jenifer: no la podemos mirar en la tele? las fotos? pictures? (( short pause) )

PAGE 389

389 2 I sabel: no porque no trajiste:: no This is reflective of an ongoing process in which speakers can select the potentially discourse options that place more to most emphasis on the main claim My impressions of t cues a n area for further research as I have not fully investigated this feature for these data support th atonic, or unstressed, relative to elements of the ensuing clause. In (3), for examp le, Ela places audible stress on the words pero which immediately follows no and yo The discourse (as an epistemic expression) is thus different from its formal meaning (as a bald on rejection) Further support for this claim come uttered without redress: it is subject to negatively marked, impolite interpretation especially in situations of high social distance For an example of this I now return to expressions of gratitude as a possib le area of cross cultural difference. To take an example from American English, to reject an offer of something, one commonly hears ( Sadler and Erz 2002 ; Sarfo 2011 ). In these data, however, (muchas) g racias (n = 40) was used pri marily when accepting an object or favor and also to reciprocate thanks; more over, it was used to initiate and/ or finalize conversational closings The performative te agradezco once to accept a favor from a clerk, the f ormal l y marked expression likely being reflective of feeling indebted to the favor Thus, the Uruguayans of this study were apt to express gratitude However they were not so apt to do so i n the refusal context. I t is noteworthy that gratitude as an

PAGE 390

390 expressio n of refusal or adjunct to a refusal only occurred in two refusal sequences: in one offer (out of 56) and one invitation (out of 7). The offer was a situation of high social distance (+D), but little power difference ( P) concerning rejection of food at the hospital It was a peculiar situation in the sense that the daughters, Isabel (the participant) and Jenifer, who had taken their mother to the hospital that night seemed to be making a point that she did not know how to r efuse a service appropriately While concerned for their mother, they were also irritated with her departure of the cook), est con las estupideces de siempre obviamente The daughters, cast in a care taking role over their mother step ped in with what they deem ed the situation of gratitude and a justification minimizing the offense ( no tiene ganas por ahora, muchas gracias A ccording to some politeness theories, such as Scollon and Scollon (2001) and Brown and Levinson (198 7) 3 in a situation of high distance and low power differentials a deference politeness system per Scollon and Scollon o ne w ould expect more independence /negative politeness strategies Expressions of gratitude (when uttered sincerely, not sarcastically) and reasons that justify/minimize the offense are instances of this in that they (Brown and Levinson 1987: 3 Scollon and Scollon (2001) base their notions of involvement (prev politeness, respectively.

PAGE 391

391 178) In a symmetrical relationship ( P) these strategies serve to increase or recognize a +D relationship. In this light the behavior of the daughters toward the cook (regardless of their mood toward their mother) is unremarkable they are mitigating the face threatening act of refusing a ser vice which falls in line with what would be expected to maintain the status quo Fr om a relational work perspective ( Watts 200 3 ; Locher and Watts 2005), however, we see the interaction somewhat differently. T he cook and the daughters likely perceived E stevana to have acted outside the bounds of politic/appropriate behavior and within the realm of impolite/non politic/inappropriate behavior. She ha d albeit momentarily, uttered a bald Recalling the idea that linguistic resource s can be thought of as currency (cf. Chapter 2 ) t downgrader), which Isabel and Jenifer then step in to provide. Their compensatory moves expressions of gratitude and a reason justifying the offense in an effort to bring the situation back into equilibrium In fact, t hey overcompensate to the point that they swing the conversational pendulum into the positively marked, polite zone o f the relational work continuum (cf. Figure 2 1). I claim this interpretation, because in the rest of the offers analyzed, no explicit expression of gratitude is used to refuse an object or favor R easons, hedges and repetitions of previous discourse are the preferred supportive moves for refusals to offers a nd, based these refusals do not seem to Also, since we are talking about linguistic practice as part of the habitus we can deduce that what i s most done in everyday, spontaneous discourse is what is expected;

PAGE 392

392 what is expected is unmarked; what is unmarked is politic. For this reason I have examined the refusal strategies as I have: to discover what is most done. So, if refusals to offers are if expressions of gratitude are found in other contexts (i.e., the participants have them in their repertoire and use them ), then it is reasonable to conclude that the use of an expression of gratitude when refusing an offer is a positively marked strategy subject to polite interpretation. On this note, I reference the second and only other example of a refusal accompanied by an expression of gratitude: in la In this case of low distance and equal power, Moqui leads her refusal to stay longer with the intensified expression of gratitude muchas gracias in first position as a pre posed supportive move (Blum Kulka et al. 1989) This is phrasing of the previous line ( no se van a quedar? and a reason that borders on claiming hardship ( yo ten go los pies fr:os This expression of gratitude is curious in that, as a move of deference, it is not so characteristic of solidarity politeness systems, upon which symmetrical relationships of low distance are theoretically based (S collon and Scollon 2001). In the subsequent lines, in which an insistence response offer response exchange is performed Moqui departs from the expression of gratitude in favor of more substantive strategies (see Chen, Ye and Zhang (1995) for the distinct In doing so the flavor of her refusals shifts from independence to greater involvement through the use of solidary agreement, a condition expressing willingness and a shift to more informal terminology

PAGE 393

393 ( i .e., pies patas referring to her feet ) It is apparent that the initial muchas gracias was indicative of a sincere sister in to positively marked/polite interpretation. 4 Th e above examples present a potential area of cross cultural difference between Uruguayan Spanish and, say, American English involving the relative frequency of the familiar templ ates [h ead act ( but ) [ head act ( but ) Overuse of these templates in Spanish could result in negative pragmatic grammatical knowledge . (b) enables non target like pragmatic use, and (c) is used in a way tha t is pragmalinguis ti cally target like but sociopragmatically non target (Kasper and Rose 2002: 8) ( see also Flix Brasdefer ( 2003 ) ). Also, we can see how social distance plays a role in the ex pectations of the linguistic capital. Finally, we have witness ed the use of with and without redress and the effect it has on t he addressees as the discourse unfolds. Overall the women of this study exhibited linguistic practices characteristic of of involvement strategies. In this system participants tend to see themselves as being in equal social position ( P) and both (all) addressees feel at liberty to use strategies indicative of solidarity, interdependence and affiliation. We recall from Chapter 6 that I 4 In our follow o stay any longer was because she felt uncomfortable around her sister in liberty to express this reason, especially with him present. Thus, she opted for politeness (my inference) either because he (+D) coul d hear her or because she really wanted to let her sister in law know how much she appreciated the invite, or both.

PAGE 394

394 was unable to delve very dee p into the issue of hierarchical relationship precisely because of a lack of data in this area; this is a shortcoming and an avenue for further research to see if the predominance of involvement strategies remains, even in +P relationships. For Scollon a nd Scollon th e solidarity politeness system also represents relationships of low social distance ( D) B ut, as we have seen (cf. Chapter 6 ), the interlocutors of this study were not always close and social distance proved to be an important factor that af fected how the participant refused From a relational work perspective, I would suggest that the unmarked, non polite politic behavior for the participants of this study is best described as a collection of linguistic strategies demonstrative of involveme nt ; thus, the habitus of everyday communication is grounded in perception of what the situation requires it is necessary to make adjustments such as when in a chance encou nter, or if someone behaves in a n unexpected manner (Escandell Vidal 2004) One way of doing this would be to select indepen den ce oriented strategies (e.g., expressions of gratitude ) as illustrated above. Chapter 5 regarding domains corroborates many o f the above arguments. Looking again at Figure 5 2, the two sides of face claimed by Scollon and Scollon are represented by the significantly correlated strategies specific to each orientation of talk In business for social ly

PAGE 395

395 but also But what about the argument that the participants of this study were operating out of solidarity politeness system norms regardless of power and distance ? To this I have two answe rs. First, despite the association of domains with certain strategies of independence, the solidarity based system was made manifest by other means. In every domain, involvement strategies were more frequent than independence strategies. For example, wi th the exception of seora (primarily in service encounters, which did lend an air of distance) the noticeable lack of titles and the predominance of first names, endearment terms and vos as forms of address lent an egalitarian sense to the conversations studied. Also, the use of small talk compensated for the independence oriented adjustments, adding an air of camaraderie. Small talk is a quintessential involvement tactic and was most prevalent in the social domain the domain with the highest relative percentage of independence strategies On this n ote I add that volubility (i.e., talking a lot) is recognized by Scollon and Scollon (2001) as an involvement strategy in itself. Th erefore it is relevant to point out that the refusal sequences of the soc ial domain were longer than average. The second answer pertain s to the idea that domains a ct as loci for specific discourse systems These systems like all discourses, within the same culture or community (Scollon and Scollon 2001: 6). In essence, this is a restatement of similar points made in Chapter 2 and in Chapter 5 In Chapter 2 I referred to domains as corresponding to fields within the cultural marketplace and to linguis tic practice as the

PAGE 396

396 product of the linguistic field, linguistic habitus and linguistic capital; in Chapter 5 I claimed that the concept of domain relates specific language choices to general spheres of activity The data presented in Chapter 5 provided evidence for this view in that there proved to be significant differences in refusal behavior bas ed on the domain of interaction: the length of the refusal sequence, certain semantic and linguistic strategies, as well as post refusal small talk. For example, whereas in the social talkative l ess t alkative In the conclusion of that chapter I made a claim for domain as a uniquely positioned variable that i s different from others, such as power and social dis tance, be cause, in addition to these concepts, there is something more that brings it all together: speaker ends or goals filtered through the lens of past experiences and a working knowledge of what the current situation requires. On this view we are faced with at least two possibilities: 1) that there is an overarching normative style (i.e., a solidarity politeness system) grounded in the shared habitus within which many sub styles (i.e., domain disco urse systems) operate with some variance of practices or 2) that there is no overarching normative style, but only some reasonable variability Bourdieu 1990: 54) Both possibilities are provocative and carry with them different implications. And while hashing out an argument for and against each of these possibilities is beyond the scope of this discussion, o ne can see that whatever the case may be, at some level there is a kind of pragmatic Optimality Theory at play. 5 For 5 O.T. is a model claiming that the observed forms of language arise from the interaction between conflicting constraints, the set of whi ch is universal. For more see McCarthy (2001).

PAGE 397

397 instance, if what you know about handling yourself at a business meeting in some setting A clashes with what you know about conducting you rself with circus clowns in some setting B how then do you conduct yourself at a business meeting with all circus clowns in some setting C ? Because your experiences are at odds, you will have to make some adjustments contrary to one or both latent networ ks (i.e., structures produced by historical practices) and you will involve yourself in the co construction of course of ongoing interaction) (Watts 2003: 153) in which one strategy might because you perceive it to violate fewe r norms than another. Or, to put it another way, you might settle on a course of action, not because it is the most appropriate (after all, you are not sure), but because it seems to you the least inappropriate. In the same way, whe n a speaker is faced with competing discourse norms due to specifications of a sub style that do not match the overarching style (possibility 1) or to overlap ping /intersectin g domain discourse styles (possibility 2 ), she will have to account in some way for any clash of underlying regularities assuming she notices them and desires to maintain a politic manner Similarly, if she is faced with a novel situation or uncertainty in a relationship, she will likewise inv olve herself in the co construction of an emergent network This, then, would help explain behavior as she simultaneously deal t with family members and hospital personnel, and tactics while refusing her sister in law with whom she reported having confianza but with her brother in law present with whom she did not. In sum the data indicate that the underlying regularities of the different domains can be described in term s of

PAGE 398

3 98 domestic domain most strongly mirrored the solidarity politeness system ( P, D) with some deferential elements (e.g., the use of the usted pronoun and verbal system when speaking to an older addressee). The social domain also reflected the solidarity p oliteness system with more intimate addressees, though the participants resorted to tactics characteristic of a deferential politeness system ( P, +D) when managing interactions with those whom the relationship was less certain. Efforts were made via stra tegies such as small talk to reinforce the latent network rooted in the solidarity politeness system Likewise, i n the work setting/ business d omain the hierarchical politeness system (+P, +/ D) was often eschewed in favor of the solidarity politeness sys tem though, as I have already mentioned, more data comparing different power relationships is needed to make any substantive claims. However, in the service setting/business domain, the norms of the solidarity politeness system were found to be in most te nsion with those of a deferential politeness system. Still, involvement strategies were more frequent than independence strategies when considering all of the strategies used in this domain. Now recalling Chapter 6 it is apparent that participant chara cteristics, coupled with those of the addressee, in conjunction with the relationship shared in terms of role socio cultural norms and expectations for com munication within relationship s. In light of the above, one of the most salient conclusions is the reinforcement of the notion of cross cutting, intersecting discourse systems. Within domains, defined by a specific set of regularly occurring practices, there is variation. This varia experiences (e.g., of being of a certain generation (age), of having obtained a certain

PAGE 399

399 level of education, of being from a certain part of town) and their position relative to the addressee (e.g., same/different sex older/younger, more/less educated, richer/poorer, subordinate/superordinate, more/less intimate). This presents infinite interactional combinations all of which I could not hope to analyze for this study. However, i n Chapter 6 I was able to show that several characteristics rendered salient linguistic tendencies ; the most important of these were : participant age, addressee sex and social distance. Age was seen to covar y with head act type, supportive moves, downgraders and specific linguistic strategi es. A s age increased, the number of indirect refusal s decreased and the number of direct refusals increased. This is not to say that all groups did not use both direct and indirect strategies b ut, relative to each other, the younger tended toward indir ect head act strategies, while the older group favored direct. This seemed neat and clear, but was complicated by interaction with the domain variable. T he younger group realized more refusal sequences per participant in the social domain (Figure 6 2) w here two of the norms that emerged talkative decrease bald on tactics with non interacted much more within the business domain, where I noted the following underlying interactions : less talkative requires Thus, it is difficult to be sure if the patterns of (in)directness were more representative of age differences or the underlying norms of the domains. Patterns regarding s upportive moves and downgraders however, transcended domains. N o matter what the orientation of the talk, the middle and older group s employed mitigating moves and downgrade rs more than the younger group. The use of

PAGE 400

400 hedges, subjectivizers and understaters was most characteristic of t he middle age group, while the older group tended to give alternatives, display comprehension/empathy and use pause fillers in addition to hedging Conversely, the younger participants produced more aggravating moves compared to any other age group cons istently achiev ing the highest percentages across domains. Other than using proper names and endearment terms there were not specific strategies associated with aggravating moves of the younger group; though reasons, statements of information, repeated/r aggravating moves. Additionally, e motional expressions (as occurring in head acts) were present in all age categories but occurred most with the older group I t is less likely that these which are n ot typically freestanding are as dependent on contextual variables such as domain The above shows that the younger and older women oriented more toward involvement strategies, i.e., endearment terms and proper names, alternatives, displays of comprehen sion/empathy emotional expressions Only the middle group was associated solely with strategies of independence: hedging, subjectivizing and understating (taken as one variable). This suggests another cross cutting discourse system, that of middle age women (defined as 26 to 40). One reason for this variation may be that people in their professional/social status establishing years are more cautious or tentative in their speech, because they have more to gain through successful interactions and more to lose should an exchange be deemed infelicitous (Silva Corvaln 2001) If this were to indeed be the case, the implication is that these as they age.

PAGE 401

401 Regarding differences potentially caused by distinct orientations to male versus female addressees, I claimed in Chapter 6 that female addressees received a greater percentage of tactics typically associated with ace watching (i.e., indirect head acts, supportive moves and downgraders), while male addressees received a greater portion of utterances largely c onsidered to be less concerned with face needs or at least less deferent (i.e., direct head acts, aggravating moves and upgraders). I rejected the notion that any of these strategies was i but I did not go into further detail about the linguistic strategies used that made up these categories. The impression that the above synopsis gives is that the participants used more independence strategies with other w omen relative to men, and that they used more involvement strategies with men relative to women. This proved to be true, with one exception: in the social domain. Gender based comparisons in t he social domain showed a higher percentage of independence s trategies toward male addressees. This was true for head act (23% versus 29%) as well as supportive move strategies (22% versus 38%) The areas tested were head acts overall and by domain, supportive moves overall and by domain, head acts by socioeconomi c status (SES) supportive moves by SES mitigating moves (overall) and aggravating moves (overall) for a total of fourteen tests T he percentages of independence strategies never accounted for the majority ranging from 10 % ( aggravating moves to males o verall ) to 38 % ( supportive moves to males in the social domain) which means that participants maintained an outward orientation toward involvement T he se trend s suggest the following underlying tendency: in general, show involvement; as the situation r equires show independence with other women, but moreso with

PAGE 402

402 In Chapter 6 New Zealand women tended to use hedging and boosting devices more often than men ( 1995: 113). I then posed the question : Do women? For these data, the answer was yes to hedges and no to boosters/upgraders. variable participants used more hedges/subjectivizers/understaters (herein hedges) with women than with men. The tests compared hedges to women and to men in head acts, supportive moves, total up and downgraders, across domains and across participant SES. In all cross sections except for one (i.e., supportive moves in the domestic domain a difference of 1%), women used more hedges with other women. Because hedges often serve to mitigate impositions to addressees thereby show ing respect for their independence this fi in general, show involvement; as the situation requires, show independence with other women The findings for boosters/upgraders posed more intricacies, but on the whole, the participants upgraded their utterances more with male addressees. I evaluated two variables for this brief survey : emotional expressions, the most frequent upgrading tactic af ter repetition/reiteration (which did not always have an upgrading effect) and u Afte r subjecting the variables to the same tests as hedges, I found that in all cross sections except for one (i.e., total aggravating moves also a difference of 1%), women used more emotional expressions with men. Because emotional expressions (e.g.

PAGE 403

403 ah:::!, AY, uaf, QU? ) show engagement on the part of the speaker in response to what she has just heard, they satisfy two tenets of involvement strategies: noticing/ attending to the hearer and exaggerating interest/sympathy, etc. Thus, I have classified them a s such This falls in line with the trend suggested at the outset: that the women of this study generally used more involvement strategies with men relative to women. With u pgraders the participants consistently used more of these with men as well, e xcept for when domains were taken into account. Large discrepancies were revealed for the domestic and social domains: in the domestic domain 23% of refusal sequences to women contained upgraders, compared to 57 % of sequences to men. Conversely, in the social domain 50 % of sequences to women versus 26 % to men contained upgraders. The business domain showed a more even distribution, but upgraders to women were more prevalent (38 % versus 32 % ). In general, the utterances coded as upgraders were involvemen t oriented, serving to exaggerate, in some instances, they reinforce d or occurred concomitantly with independence strateg ies such as an apology ( e.g., sinceramente viste vos disculp la imprudencia really you know and a reverse psychological predicate ( e.g., no. no me queda (lit. none is left to me) ) At first, these results concerning upgraders seem puzzling, but th e behavior f or the domestic and social domains can be explained in broad strokes by the norm in general, show involvement; as the situation requires, show independence with other women, but moreso with men with whom the relationship is less certain A closer look at the upgraders in the social domain reveals that the

PAGE 404

404 majority of upgraded utterances toward women were to female intimates (role distance measure = 3). Such intimacy would provide an atmosphere conducive to satisfying the in genera l, On the other hand, t he majority (79%) of female male refusal sequences in the social domain were with non intimates (role distance measure = 1, 2). (Th e same figure was 46 % for female female exchanges.) This would provide a viable explanation for the lack of upgraders toward men in this domain in that . moreso with men with whom the relationship Likewise for the domestic domain: the high presence of upgraders, i.e., invol vement, in the refusals to men is indicative of the certainty of the intimate relationship. In fact, all female male exchanges in this domain were characterized by a role distance measure of 3. With this we come to the final point of this discussion, na mely, the topic of social distance. As I posited in Chapter 6 social distance and the factors relating to it arguably accounted for the most varia bility in refusal behavior aside from domain. While domain and social distance are related, the two concept s are not synonymous The data showed that increased social distance often triggered increased efforts to attend to face needs and interpersonal rapport, but that this was not independent of relationship type. In other words, + D relationships in the soci al domain did not necessarily yield the same re fusal strategies as + D relationships in the business domain. In Chapters 5 and 6 Chapter 6 I showed how the major semantic strategies plotted out a ccordingly in some contexts. Thus, this theory provided explanatory power in many instances along the

PAGE 405

405 way particularly regarding small talk and the social domain itself. A basic tenet of this theory is that it is with those with whom our relationship is less certain that we do the most relational work In these chapters I pointed out that Boxer (1993) showed speech and response s I then claimed that taking domain into consideration could reconcile these two points of view It is to this argument that I now attend Taking a domain based approach to concomitantly apply. The competing views are summed up as f ollows continued study of invitations and compl i ments (1981; 1983) led her to construct a theory of social distance When we examine the ways in which different speech acts are realized in actual everyday speech, and when we compare these b ehaviors in terms of the so c ial relati o nsh i ps of the inerlocutors, we find again and again that the two extremes of social distance minimum and maximum seem to call forth very similar behavior, while relationsh ip s which are more toward the center show marked difference (Wolfson 1988: 32). In other words, if we imagine the social distance scale as a continuum upon which various relationships can be placed, strangers and intimates would occupy the polar opposite end s, while status equal friends, colleagues and acquaintances would shaped curve representing the amount of interactional work that we do with people along this line Those at the extre me ends, strangers and intimates, have the relative certainty of their relationships in common; thus, less solidarity toward the middle of the continuum, particularly among interlocutors of equal status, that m uch of the give and take that is characteristic of the negotiation of relationships

PAGE 406

406 05). that we behave more similarly with total strangers and extreme intimates than we do with others, because, with the former, we know precisely where we stand. Boxer (1993) bases a contradicting opinion on her study of indirect complaints and r esponses to these complaints particularly commiserative responses. Through meticulous analysis, which included plotting out her data on various curves that she there are times when our speech behavior shows more commonalities between friends/ acquaintances and strangers than between intim ates and strangers For example, commiseratio n a rapport building among strangers as it did among friends and acquaintances. . The frequency of xer 1993: 118 120). Citing work by Holmes (1990) who found similar trends with apologies by speakers of regarding social distance (1993: 123). These competing views are not without their own problems, however. Wolfson tended to rely more on her impressionistic views, rather than subject the data to appropriate quantitative analysis (Boxer, personal communication). In other words, she did not actually plot out her data though others, such as Beebe et al. (1985), have Also, Wolfson did not seem to take into account the way other speech behaviors pl ayed out in comparison to compli m e nts and invitations (e.g., co mplaints, commiserations and apologies).

PAGE 407

407 Neither scholar took domains of interaction into consideration, much less the possibility that these different spheres would embody different and, potentially, co nflicting norms of interaction. Boxer, in fact, co nflates the variable of domain by with exchanges taken from service encounters (i.e ., the business domain). While it is true that people with whom we rarely or never interact except during service encounters would occupy the extreme end of the social distance continuum, and that those with whom we chat and have coffee in breakrooms would likely fall somewhere in the middle of the range, they do so importantly in their respective specifically Figures 6 21 through 6 24 Starting with the graph of the major se mantic strategies and post refusal small talk in the business domain, we can see that refusal term) toward one end or another; for example, post refusal small talk occurred almost as much among The same graph for the domestic domain could be said to s how support for either d Nevertheless, this graph serves another purpose: it shows that the domestic domain is not synonymou tinuum. Calculation of the role distance measure (cf. Chapter 6 ) revealed less intimate relatio nships in the

PAGE 408

408 domestic domain, such as a long term house guest or a family member with whom the participant was not particularly close. These were subject to i ncreased negotiation and facework. Note, for example, the lesser use of direct head acts aggravating moves and upgraders and the increased use of mitigating moves, downgraders and post refusal Turning now t o the graph for the social domain (Figure 6 24) it is here that we see the strongest For every strategy save one (upgraders), the curve representing that particular speech behavior formed a Bulge. In this way, the refusal strategies addressee s mo re closely resembled th ose directed toward acts and aggravating moves, though their curve was inverted Th e inversi on can be explained by the terse and commissive quality of direct head acts and the potentially interpretation of some aggravating moves. Per be fewer of these acts in relationships where int erlocutor rapport is most at stake and interactions are most negotiated (i.e., in the middle of the continuum). Thus, w hen viewed within a domain based framework both points of view do much to explicate face to face interac tion. Taking refusal strategies as the focus of analysis, we s ee that the business domain exhibited patterns One potential drawback was that the re were relatively few refusal sequences in the social domain upon which to base the analysis. F urther study on naturally occurring refusals or other speech acts in the social domain would serve to

PAGE 409

409 solidify this view. Additionally, t h e insights offered h ere inclusive of the domestic domain, provide strength to the claim that domain i s a variable in its own right, qualitatively different from others such as social distance and power. Principal Findings and Significance As I set out to conduct this resea rch I was primarily interested in answering two questions : How do native Spanish speakers in this case female Uruguayans, actually use their language to handle everyday situations ? What does this tell us about their socio cultural norms and their expec tations for interpersonal communication? I have attempted to get at these answers via recordings of natural data and the analysis of refusals and refusal strategies in various situational contexts. In doing so I considered the domain of interaction, part icipant characteristics, addressee characteristics and the nature of the relationship between the participant and her addressee(s). The Uruguayans of this study produced numerous strategies with various frequencies to handle refusal situations, and they often refused directly. Whereas directness than indirectness in the body of politeness literature we saw that this was not necessarily the case e.g., the high nd requests. Rather than impolite, this strategy appears to have been quite politic. However it was appropriate even expected to then add some utterance in a supportive capacity, e.g., reasons, repetitions of previous discourse, confirming the hearer. T h is had the effect of diminishing the bald to the point of semantic reduction, in some instances. Overall, strategies of involvement outweighed those of independence. Expressions of gratitude and apology were rare, though hedges and mor phosyntactic

PAGE 410

410 distancing tactics were commonly used to mitigate the force of an utterance and the commitment Because of this, I posited that the discourse system of these participants adhered predominantly to a solidarity politeness system. As working hypotheses, I suggested the following as having emerged as underlying regularities (i.e., norms of communication) : in general, show involvement; as the situation requires, show independence with other women, but moreso with men with whom the relat ionship is less certain ; in the social do main, be talkative ; decrease bald on tactics with non intimates ; in the business domain, be less talkative ; be direct, but be deferent as the situation requires These were not hard and fast rules, but appeared to behave akin to cons traints that could be upheld or violated, depending on if the situational variables and circumstances surrounding the talk resulted in a clash of norms. The domain of interaction the sex of the addressee and degree of social distance were in my estimati on, t he factors that most influenced the way in which the participants refused. To use t he latent networks of the participants pertaining to domain addressee sex and social distance informed their behavior but at times gave way to t he co construction of emergent networks as the participants encountered themselves in situations not completely familiar to them. This study has bridge d several gaps in the discourse analysis and pragmatics literature It has increased our knowledge of an understudied speech act in the context of an understudied Spanish variety. It has pointed out the importance of a domain based framework for explicating trends in interaction and for reconciling conflicting theoretical viewpoints Lastly it has dep arted from the techniques of elicited data to

PAGE 411

411 provide the field with research based on authenti c, spontaneous face to face interaction. This contributes to the establishment of baseline native speaker norms that can be compared with those of other speech communities As a source of authentic discourse it is also a valuable resource for teachers and students of Spanish as foreign language. L earners of Spanish often complete their coursework without ever really examining what native speakers of the langua ge really say and do, or what their own norms of interaction are within their own speech community. The c ultural comparisons that could be brought to light remain hidden, the values that they reflect buried and the students are none the wiser. Thus, one next step for this research is to use these findings as the basis for developing pragmatically rich course materials that incorporate knowledge about how Spanish speakers truly do things with words.

PAGE 412

412 APPENDIX A I NFORMED CONSENT Protocol Title: Politeness in Uruguay in Three Domains of Interaction Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the conversational practices of Uruguayan women a s they interact with others in the day to day contexts of family, friendship and business. What will be asked of me? The principal investigator (PI) will ask you to allow her to observe your conversations with other Uruguayans. Observation sites include: your home, social events/gatherings, your workplace, and business related outings. Because speech is fast, the observations will be audio recorded, so that the PI can analyze a transcript that is true to what was actually said. You will be asked to com plete 2 questionnaires: one will request some background information (e.g., age, city of origin); the other will keep a record of the people with whom you come in contact during the days of observation. Time required: 8 hours of observation a day for 3 4 days. Risks and Benefits: There are no known anticipated risks. You will benefit directly by receiving compensation for participating. Other benefits include the ability to influence how the Spanish language is taught to non native speakers and to brea k stereotypes regarding Uruguayans and the Spanish speaking world in general. Compensation: You will receive $1 2 .00 per day of observation. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. Your name will not be used in any report. The audio recordings and have access to this information. Voluntary partici pation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Heather K aiser (PI), Graduate Student, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, 170 Dauber Hall, (352) 359 4971; or Dr. Diana Boxer (supervisor), Linguistics Program, 4131 Burlington (352) 392 0639, ex. 223, University of Florida, USA. Whom to contact about your righ ts as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the above protocol and would like to participate. I have received a copy of this description Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 413

413 CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Ttulo del estudio: La cortesa uruguaya en tres dominios d el habla Antes de participar, es importante que leas este documento. Propsito del estudio: Examinar el habla de mujeres uruguayas en interacciones cotidianas con otros dentro de los contextos familiar, social y laboral. Qu se pedir de m? La in vestigadora principal (IP) pedir observar tus conversaciones con otros uruguayos. Se incluyen los siguientes como posibles sitios de observacin: en el hogar, durante eventos sociales, en reuniones con amigos, mientras haces mandados y en el trabajo. Como el habla es rpida, estas observaciones sern grabadas para que la investigadora pueda analizar una trascripcin fiel a lo que realmente se dijo. Te pedir llenar dos cuestionarios: uno de informacin de fondo (edad, ciudad natal, etc.); el otro ayu dar a mantener un rcord de las personas con quien convers a s durante el estudio. Tiempo que se requiere: 8 horas diarias de observacin por 3 o 4 das. Riesgos y beneficios: No se sabe de ningn riesgo por participar. Un beneficio directo para ti es que recibirs un dinero por cada da de participacin. Otros beneficios incluyen el poder influir en cmo se ensea el castellano a hablantes no nativos y ayudar a romper los estereotipos sobre los uruguayos y el mundo hispano en general. Compensacin: Recibirs $ 30 0 (pesos uruguayos) por cada da de observacin. Privacidad: Tu identidad y cualquier informacin personal se mantendrn confidenciales. A esta informacin se le asignar un cdigo que slo sabr descifrar la investigadora. No aparecer t u nombre en ningn informe o proyecto. Las grabaciones y los cuestionarios se mantendrn bajo llave en la oficina de la investigadora y solamente ella y su supervisora tendrn acceso a ellos. Participacin voluntaria: Tu participacin en este estudio e s completamente voluntaria. No hay ninguna consecuencia por no participar. T i en e s el derecho de dejar de participar en el estudio en cualquier momento sin problema. A quin contactar si t i en e s preguntas en cuanto al estudio: La Prof Heather Kaiser (IP ), Departamento de estudios del espaol y portugus, 170 Dauer Hall, (352) 359 4971, hrrobert@ufl.edu ; o la Dra. Diana Boxer (supervisora), Programa de lingstica, 4131 Turlington, (352) 392 0639, ex. 223, Universid ad de la Florida, EEUU. A quin contactar en cuanto a t us derechos como participante del estudio: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, Universidad de la Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; telfono: (352) 392 0433. Acuerdo: He ledo este documento y recibido una copia del mismo. Me gustara participar. Participante: ___________ ____________________________ Fecha: _________________ Investigadora principal: _______________________________ Fecha: _________________

PAGE 414

414 APPENDIX B I NSTRUMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE 1: BAC KGROUND INFORMATION #_____ First name: ________________________ Age: ________________________ Where are you from (birthplace)? ________________________ How long have you lived in Rosario ? ________________________ Where in Rosario do you liv e or have you live d ? ________________________ In what other towns/cities have you lived? ________________________ What do you do for a living? ________________________ What is your education level? ________________________ in Uruguay? ________________________ ________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Where do you place yourse lf in this system? ________________________ Is Spanish your first language? __________________________________________ If not, please explain how you learned it and what your fir st language is. _____________________________________________________ __________________ Besides Spanish, what other languages can you speak? __________________________ Do you frequently travel to other parts of Uruguay or other countries? Where? _______________________________________________________________________ Ho w much contact do you have with people NOT from Rosario? none little some frequent a lot How much contact do you have with people from other Latino countries? none little some frequent a lot How much contact do you have with none little some frequent a lot This study is about linguistic politeness in Uruguay. In your opinion, what does it mean to be polite? What does it mean to be impolite? Can you give me some examples?

PAGE 415

415 INFORMACI"N DE FONDO #_____ Primer nombre: ________________________ Edad: ________________________ De dnde eres (ciudad natal)? ________________________ Por cunto tiempo has vivido en Rosario ? _________________ _______ En qu parte de Rosario vives o has vivido? ________________________ En qu otra(s) ciudad(es) has vivido? ________________________ Cul es tu trabajo? ________________________ Cul es tu nivel de educacin? ________________________ Exi ________________________ ________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ D nde te ubicas en este sistema? ________________________ Es el castellano tu primer idioma? __________________________________________ Si no, favor de explicar cmo lo aprendiste y cul es tu primer idioma. ___________________________________________ ____________________________ Aparte del castellano, cules otros idiomas puedes hablar? ________________________ Viajas con frecuencia a otras ciudades del Uruguay u otros pases? Adnde? ______________________________________________________________ _________ Cunto contacto tienes con personas que NO son de Rosario? nada poco algo frecuente mucho Cunto contacto tienes con personas de otros pases latinos? nada poco algo frecuente mucho Cunto conta cto tienes con personas que no hablan el castellano como lengua nativa? nada poco algo frecuente mucho Este estudio se trata de la cortesa verbal en Uruguay. Para ti, qu significa ser corts? Qu significa ser descorts? Me puedes dar unos ejemplos?

PAGE 416

416 QUESTIONNAIRE 2: CONVERSATION LOG #_____ Time: ________________________AM / PM Place: ________________________(this place is: familiar social business) Purpose : ________________________ W ith whom did y ou speak ? First name: ________________________ Sex: ________________________ Job / profession: ________________________ Age : ________________________(this is: more / less / equal to me) Education level : ________________ ________(this is: more / less / equal to me) Economic class : ________________________(this is: more / less / equal to me) S/he is from : Centro el Pastoreo other:___________________ partner friend boss colleague from:_______ relative:_______ other:_______ How much contact do you have with this person during the week? normally none some every day multiple times a day How well do yo u know him/her? hardly/not at all not very well more or less well very well/intimates To what extent do you confide in this person? would not confide in a little somewhat quite a bit totally (I would not tell her/hi Do you interact with this person in other places/contexts? Which ones? __________________________________________________________________________ How did you perceive this interactio n/conversation? it bothered me serious normal it made me happy other reaction:_____________ OBSERVATIONS

PAGE 417

417 REGISTRO DE CONVERSACI"N #_____ Hora: ________________________AM / PM Lugar: ________________________(es un lugar: familiar social de trabajo) Motivo: ________________________ Con quin hablaste? Primer nombre: ________________________ Sexo: ________________________ Trabajo / profesin: ________________________ Edad: _____ ___________________(es: mayor / menor / igual que yo) Nivel educativo: ________________________(es: mayor / menor / igual que yo) Clase econmica: ________________________(es: mayor / menor / igual que yo) Es del: Centro el Past oreo otro:___________________ pareja amigo jefe colega de:_______ pariente:_______ otra:_______ Cunto contacto tens con esta persona durante la semana? normalmente nin guno algo todos los das varias veces al da Qu tan bien lo/la conocs? casi/nada no muy bien ms o menos bien muy bien/ntimos Hasta qu punto es de confianza esta persona? no es de confianza poca algo bastante es de muchsima confianza Te relacions con esta persona en otros lugares / contextos? Cules? ________________________________________________ ________________________ Qu tal te pareci esta interaccin/conversacin? me choc seria normal me alegr otra reaccin: _______________________ OBSERVACIONES

PAGE 418

418 APPENDIX C C ODEBOOK Abbreviations (in order of appearance) RS refus al sequence AA adult to adult HA head act R TT refusal turn at talk SMM supporti ve move mitigating SMA supportive move aggravating SUB subordinate CCSARP code manual (Bl um Kulka et al. 1989 ) FB Flix Brasdefer Codes (with HEADINGS) Exp lanation / Note / Examples Refusal sequence the set of turn s containing mands, refusals, supportive moves and linguistic strategies pertaining to an initial mand Cocoded RS randomly selected to be coded by another coder and then tested for intercoder a greement RS PARTICIPANTS refusal sequences by participant RS Rena RS Mar RS Lea RS Fabiana RS Ela RS Ana RS Isabel RS Rita RS Moqui RS Ari ADULT MANDS AA turn of talk containing a mand, a speech ac t whose purpose is to persuade convince or force someone to do something Adult Mand general, when quote is unintelligible or intent unknown Adult Invite invitation Adult Order order, instruction, demand Adult Stmnt statement, analysis d eclaration Adult Requ request Adult Offer offer Adult Sugg suggestion, insinuation Adult R TT AA refusal turn at talk ; the turn at talk that minimally contain s the refusal HA and may also contain adjacent supportive moves

PAGE 419

419 D IRECT / INDIR ECTNESS Adult HA Ind AA refusal HA coded as ind irect : does not explicitly negate a mand but carries the pragmatic force of a refusal and/or softens the blow; conceals speaker's true intentions to an extent, requiring some degree of emic interpretation b y the hearer ; technically "off record but, depending on cultural convention, could be more or less readily perceived as a refusal (cf. Mrquez Reiter 200 2 ) strategies include: indefinite replies, alternatives, avoidance strategies (including delaying r esponse/ignoring and topic switches ), counter arguments/corrections, requesting information/ confirmation, reference s to past or future conditions (see LINGUISTIC STRATEGIES) (a) Mar: es rica la marcela pero n:o tomo yo mucho mate de yuyo. (b) Fabiana: AAH est, yo veo cmo me organizo y si no cualquier cosa le mando un mensaje sabs Tesina? (c) Ela: cmo quiera(s) Adult HA Dir AA refusal HA coded as direct: verbally embodies the act of refusing by saying no or explicitly negating a propo sition ; leaves no question in the addressee 's mind; "on record" strategies include: no (stand alone or repeated), negations of propositions, elliptical forms ( e.g., no puedo ), negative morphemes ( e.g., imposible ) performative statements ( not found in th ese data ) and c ommands with a strong no message ( e.g., dejale las pantuflas par! ) (see LINGUISTIC STRATEGIES) ( a ) Moqui: no no no. ((pause)) no, no ( a ) Isabel: no SON porqueras son cosas. que no tienen otro lugar. ( c ) Fabiana: no, no pue do no si me la DOMAINS, SOCIAL CONTEXT Dom orient d omestic oriented talk with household members Couples private talk between partners in private setting Couples public talk between partners in public setting Other dom all other domestic talk (excl. parent to young child talk ) Soc orient social oriented talk Bus orient business oriented talk at work or in service encounters Service enctr client participant is the client in the exchange Service enctr agent participant is the agent in the exchange General equal participant and other hold equal status in workplace General as SUB participant is of lower status in the workplace General to SUB participant is of greater status in the workplace DOMAINS, PHYSICAL CONTEXT the physical setting in which the interaction occurs DOM SOC social, typically in public settings but also in homes WRK workplaces, businesses

PAGE 420

420 SEMANTIC COMPONENT S includes alerters, HAs SMMs and SMAs external to the HA (Spencer Oatey 2000) Alerter get s Hearer's attention ( e.g., title, name, endearment term, offensive term, pronoun, attn. getter) (CCSARP: 277) (a) Isabel: JENIFER. una lstima de (b) Isabel: m ir Estevana coqueteras? Head Act inimal unit or turn that can realize a speech act; core of sequence (CCSARP : 275); carries the brunt of the illocutionary force (a) Isabel: no SON porqueras son cosas. que no tienen otro lug ar. ( b ) Mar: es rica la marcela pero n:o tomo yo mucho mate de yuyo. ( c ) Fabiana: no, no puedo no si me la SM Aggravating a move e xternal to ncreases impact, often negatively, e.g., insults, threats, mor alizing (CCSARP : 288) (a) Isabel: no SON porqueras, son cosas. que no tienen otro lugar (b) Moqui: no no no. ((pause)) no, no SM Mitigating a move external to refusal HA that externally modifies it by support ing and/or empathiz ing with the Hearer ( e.g., positive opinions, willingness to cooperate, agreement, gratitude and empathy ) (FB 2008) (a) Mar: es rica la marcela pero n:o tomo yo mucho mate de yuyo. (b) Fabiana: no, no puedo no, si me la si me la pudieran traer s ADULT REFUSAL HEAD ACTS AA refusal HAs by type HA Ref Mand HA refusal to an unintelligible quote HA Ref Invite HA refusal to an invitation HA Ref Order HA refusal to an order, instruction, demand HA Ref Stmnt HA refusal to a statement, analysis declaration HA Ref Requ HA refusal to a request HA Ref Offer HA refusal to an offer HA Ref Sugg HA refusal to a suggestion, insinuation U P / D OWNGRADERS H A internal ; can be s yntactic lexical / phrasal morphological or tonal Other aliases (Spencer Oatey 2 000; FB 2008) : boosters / hedges intensifiers / downtoners mitiga ted refusals (for downgraders) Downgrader lex/phr/syn weakens impact of utterance, e.g., ( CCSARP : 283 85): gratitude ( gracias ) understater ( un poquito ) hedge ( tal vez, somehow, kind of, I m ean, possibly, perhaps ) subjectivizer (

PAGE 421

421 cajoler ( sabs ) appealer/tag question ( sabs? ta? ) Upgrader strengthens impact of utterance, e.g. (Spencer Oatey 2000: 26): intensifier ( ) time intensifier ( ahor a mismo!) emotional expression ( oh no, ay ) expressions marked for register ( )

PAGE 422

422 L INGUISTIC S TRATEGIES illocutionary tactics employ ed in conversation AdjStance adjusts stance; speaker adjusts her or h is line that she or he had pre viously taken in the conversation (a) 1 Eliana: =(si viene a) las nueve. 2 Ari: no pero l viene a las [ocho~! . 3 Eliana: ((looking at door?)) [est cerrado.] 4 Ari: ah no ha llegado. (b) 1 Pa blo: bueno dame la voy a pagar porque: hay una botella sola me dijo Julio. para vender. 2 Lea: y qu (entonces una botella sola) para la noche? TS 3 Pablo: y ah sos boba vos? quers [ir conmigo? 4 Lea: [ bueno, p agsela. Agree acceptance/ agreement; accepts mand or agrees with addressee ; different from confirmation/acknowledgement in that it is "strong," not "partial or weak" (cf. FB 2008: 81) (a) 1 Berta: te traigo marcela tambin? 2 Mar: buen o tra algo que te compro. = (b) 1 Moqui: qu talle ? ((pausita)) [diez y seis? 2 Vendedora: [xx diez y seis. 3 Vendedora: diez y seis, pero n o es el diez y seis diez y seis. 4 Moqui: S:. porque te i ba a decir que no le queda muy grande esto. (c) 1 Santi: =porque pienso que va a ser lindo. 2 Mar: va a estar bueno, el de ventas va a estar bueno. Alt alternative; statement that offers or suggests an altern ative or possi bility distinct from the addressee 's original proposition (a) 1 Estevana: s pero. yo quiero saber, si la presin me subi primero o la presin subi porque me asust. porque est la incgnita, o sea, (si la) presin subi primero que lo el ataque /, o la presin subi despus por sentirme miedo. 2 Isabel: no s, pero ((pausita)) te puede haber subido las dos cosas a la vez yo qu s. (b) 1 Ruperto: yo pens s, que eras vos, que xx la hija de Josefa, s, que eras vos s. tengo la idea que estoy casi seguro q ue eras vos. 2 Moqui: o la [sobrina. (c) 1 Violeta: b ueno. este:: por mi parte yo estoy xx (viernes) 2 Rena: si no/, ponemos otro da vos ves. 3 Violeta: dejamos para el viernes y si::= . 4 Rena: o si no, o lo hacemos antes xxx

PAGE 423

423 Anticipate anticipates addressee ; attempts to predict what the addressee is going or trying to say, often interrupting the other, completing the other's sentence or speaking connectedly after the other; can be a display of solidarity, comprehension or empathy with the speaker (a) 1 Antonella: si no talla M igual a sta/, [pero M. 2 Mar: [ pero M TA. ta ta ta. (b) 1 Fancy: ya est. [ya 2 Rita: [ ya queda pronto. (c) ((Velita, a teacher, enters; it is customary that Rita and/or Martola prepare mate for the teachers)) 1 Martola: ((to Veli ta)) ni se te ocurra venir a pedir mate! ((pause)) 2 Velita: s? . 3 Rita: (quien) quiere mate que lo apronte .= Apology apology/regret; expression of regret or plea for forgiveness for not complying with some mand (a) 1 Clerk : (siempre) guardando el papelito, ya sabs 2 Fabiana: s, n o no no, vos sabs que ((pausa)) cuando vine xxx bien con eso lo romp todo y no ((pause)) sinceramente (b) 1 Antonella: (estaba mira) stas son de manga corta? 2 Mar: S, son de manga corta/. 3 Antonella: (pero / porque) yo andaba buscando (una) de manga larga,= 4 Mar: = AHH, no manga larga [(no) (c) 1 Mujer4: por eso no te (voy a / da) vos trajiste ya? 2 Rena: NO, pues, eh o sea a m no me arreg laron la mquina, tengo que llevrsela a esta seora. que me lo hace ella. 3 Mujer4: porque si no te si no te iba a pagar ahora. 4 Rena: NO~! y eso es lo de menos pero no lo hice, perdneme/. AppCaj appealer/cajoler; conv entionalized elements or particles that appeal to and evoke the hearer's benevolent understanding, empathy, or cooperation; often used to create common ground and increase proximity between interlocutors; syntactically can appear in utterance initial, mid or final position (CCSARP: 284, 285) (a) Moqui: yo no SOY mentirosa, ta:~? (b) Fabiana: AAH est, yo veo cmo me organizo y si no cualquier cosa le mando un mensaje, sabs Tesina? (c) Isabel: he cambiado de cable viste y se ha visto. (d) Re na: no se ha apagado sola. viste que no se apag sola, (e) Mar: y yo no sabs que no tengo plata. (f) Ana: s:: de mm solamente con mm lo va a hacer con doce mujeres de ac de Rosario entonces, te pods imaginar

PAGE 424

424 AppealX appeals to e xternal support or party; calls on or refers to someone else (a) 1 Violeta: podramos ir todos. 2 Isabel: s ((quiet voice)). le tendra que preguntar a Milton porque el tema es el vehculo. . yo le pregunto a ver qu hacemos. (b) 1 Triza: maana, maana tens que ir a la escuela porque, xxxcito/ 2 Ari: pero, digo:, no pueden hacerme esto (pues digo)= 3 Triza: =y a m tampoco. 4 Ari: ((pause)) pero le digo, hace veinte das me dijeron, (tom ) el da libre ... (c) 1 Berta: quers que te deje: 2 Mar: NO no 3 Berta: eso que quera tu padre? 4 Mar: no, llevalo porque l no s, cundo va a venir y entonces no no lo tengo, no s si lo va a querer a eso Attax Thrts a ttacks/ threats/warns/ ridicules/insults hearer; utterances that are aggressive in tone and/or insulting, threatening or otherwise confrontational (a) 1 Estevana: xxx una pastilla o algo que me quede dormida hasta maana.= 2 Isabel: =a vo s te parece? no sabs si tens preSI"N, baja preSI"N, las papil las palpitaciones, no sabs nada. (b) 1 Mujer6: esto es lo ms barato. 2 Rena: qu sale esto? 3 Mujer6: setenta y nueve. 4 Rena: esto es espantoso.= (c) 1 Pablo: pero si yo al cumpleaos no voy a ir cuando empiece. 2 Lea: AY NO Pablo a qu (hora) va(s) a ir. 3 Pablo: al cumpleaos nueve y media, diez. 4 Lea: TS. ((scolding)) tens que ir a la hora que empiece no nueve y media (a) las diez. Backchannel backchannel; minimal response that displays interest or involvement in what the speaker is saying ( e.g., s? verdad? mm ); when questioning inflection is present, an answer is not necessarily expected (a) 1 Mujer2: pero qu cosa [xxx 2 Rena: [se me terminaron. s? no hay? 3 Mujer2: ay no, en ningn lado. (b) 1 Ruperto: s, s, s. que eras que eras vos me pareca,= 2 Moqui: =mm::= 3 Ruperto : =pero no, no me acuerdo.

PAGE 425

425 Blame blames hearer/other; blames hearer or another for the inability to comply; attributes some portion of the refusal to someone other than the speaker's self (a) 1 Milton: (no tens) t de bolsito? hay [uno que es dig estivo no? 2 Isabel: ((pause, looking?)) [no. ((tenso)) 3 Isabel: medio resfriado y no compr ms. (b) 1 Violeta: qu dice. ((concerning invitation)) 2 Isabel: mi hermana porque yo le dije < cualquier cosa que bamos para all >. ... 3 Isabel: para la casa, pero (dice) < yo quiero calle > o sea que quiere venir ELLA, quiere salir ELLA, porque est podrida de estar e ncerrada (c) 1 Berta: vos precisabas marcela? 2 Adela: s, compr ayer, por eso (le) preguntaba 3 Mar: QU COSA! llegaste tarde para venderle yuyos a ella (d) 1 Mujer4: por eso no te (voy a / da) vos trajiste ya? 2 Rena: NO, pues, eh o sea a m no me arreglaron la mquina CCGSolid claim common ground /display solidarity; utterances attempting to align the speaker in some way with the hearer or vice versa; utterances seeking to display or achieve unity with the addressee through such means as joking, (token) agreement or appeals for understanding (Brown and Levinson 1987: 103) (a) Isabel: ay qu zanahorias grandes che (b) 1 Berta: all en la peluquera de, de Franchetti. la conocs a la muchac ha? ... 2 Mar: Fernanda, Fernanda Franchetti. es tan simptica. ah de: ((pause)) bueno otro da pas porque la verdad que no tengo plata si no te compraba una bolsita. ( c ) 1 Ruperto: =nunca tengas un hijo solo vos porque es triste. porque los padres tienen que irse primero. 2 Moqui: s, [y te quedas 3 Ruperto: 4 Moqui: solo@@@ ( d ) 1 M ar: ahora voy la semana que viene si consigo manga larga, tal vez que traigo. ... 2 Antonella: claro. [claro porque en esta poca /. 3 Ma r: [pero] 4 Mar: sabs que eh: los hombres viste usan mucho para debajo de las camisas.=

PAGE 426

426 ClaimHard claims/implies hardship; u tterances that convey difficulties or circumstances beyond the speaker's control (a) Ela: est realmente caro s la cosa por eso no he comprado mucha muchas cosas porque no he tenido. (b) Mar: pero no ha venido, y yo no sabs que no tengo plata. (c) Ana: s, porque no estoy muy a ducha con la computadora, n o est oy nada ducha entonces yo tengo que esperar que est mi hijo para que me, me ayude Command command; utterances with imperative verbal form or force (a) Isabel: =dejale las pantuflas as nom. (b) Isabel: mm ((disappointed)) despus fijate cualq uier cosa/ (c) Ari: par par no no. nos vamos cuando terminemos (d) Ari: no te desespereS (e) Rena: s, pero no no. dame aquello no ms. despus dame eso s. (f) Lea: TS. tens que ir a la hora que empiece CommitIndic c ommitment indicator; modifiers that intensify the speaker's commitment to some proposition or line (cf. CCSARP: 285) (a) Mar: ...bueno otro da pas porque la verdad que no tengo plata si no te compraba una bolsita. (b) Fabiana: ... sinceram ente vis (c) Isabel: no no, en serio te digo. (d) Ana: el curso (de) esteticista eso S me gustara hacerlo/ CompEmp comprehension/empathy; utterances by which the speaker displays understan ding and/or empathy with the hearer; often solidary showing "involvement with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives" (FB 2008: 81) (a) Ari: =s s yo entiendo digo pero era yo ma que no iba a venir porque me iba a tomar el da... (b) Rena: ah:::! no pe ro ahora -> (c) Fabiana: CLAro que el tema es que se me complica hoy (d) Fabiana: AY seguro ah est. ... seguro s si no me pega el grito a m y veo Complain complaint; expression of dissatisfaction, pro test or outcry (a) Isabel: ay qu zanahorias grandes che. (b) Ari: es una llenada de huevos .= (c) Ari: no: no no, sabs que no me molesta venir, me molesta el el mal manejo de de, de las cosas (d) Ana: EH? ((pausita)) AH tengo enton ces que ordenar eso. el desbarajuste que hay all atrS.

PAGE 427

427 C ompliment compliment; expression of esteem, affection or a dmiration (a) 1 Roberto: me queda muy apretado, no? 2 Ela: no:, te queda bien. (b) 1 Roberto: me queda impecable no? 2 Ela: s, te queda bueno. (c) 1 Moqui: ((shopping for a jacket)) sta es? 2 Vendedora: sa ah. ... 3 Moqui: y esto se debe enganchar fcil tal vez, no? Concede concession/admission/dis armer; utterance ac knowledging agreement or responsibility for something; can be an attempt to combat potential objections (cf. CCSARP: 287) (a) 1 Jenifer: ha hace un fro horrible. ... 2 Isabel: s, bueno per o ac adentro tampoco est fro.= (b) 1 Milton: (no tens) t de bolsito? hay [uno que es digestivo no? ... 2 Isabel: y no compr ms (c) 1 Berta: a vos te gusta la marcela? 2 Mar : es rica la marcela pero n:o tomo yo mucho mate de yuyo. Conce rn concern for hearer/other; utterance that displays consideration for the hearer or someone else (a) 1 I saz: ((on the other end of the telephone)) xxx 2 Ana: pero si ust edes dan a dan de nuevo el ciclo, lo hago den lo hag lo completo para no estar molesTANdo a RosArio (b) 1 Estevana: ((on the other end of the telephone)) xxx 2 Isabel: bueno Estevana, dej (que xxx) cmo te sientes/ (c) 1 Andrs: ((offering to take Lucas, 2 years, to a soccer game)) (del) tambo [llevamos a Lucas.= 2 Moqui: [y 3 Moqui: pero despus? vo vos lo cuids? ... 4 Moqui: porque despus que, va vamo s all abajo (a que / hay que) trabajar, y a l le gusta andar ... all debe haber viento en pila

PAGE 428

428 Cond condition; s tatement creating a hypothetical situation in which acceptance would have occurred in the past, or would have/might occur in the fu ture; typically posed as an if then statement (a) Ari: yo como hace veinte das que tena eso, que (hubiramos) coordinado : (b) Moqui: [yo si tuvieras pantuflas para prestarme/ me quedo (c) Rena: si no/, ponemos otro da vos ves. (d) Mar: ahora voy la semana que viene si consigo manga larga, tal vez que traigo (e) Fabiana: no, no puedo no, si me la si me la pudieran traer s, si no no pue:do Tesina. (f) 1 Rena: estn congelados? 2 Butcher : vos sabs que estos s. 3 Rena: entonces dame [aquello no ms Confirm confirmation/acknowledgement; utterance confirming a request for information or acknowledging an interlocutor's proposition; weak or partial displays of agreement ( i.e., "token agreement" (Pomerantz in Spencer Oatey 2000: 229) that often preface a refusal (FB 2008: 81) (a) 1 Butcher : =microondas no tens. 2 Rena: ((pause)) s pero no no. dame aquello no ms. (b) 1 Violeta: ...porque queda cerca de la plaza verdad? 2 Isa bel: s y queda a media cuadra del: local de mi hermana. (c) 1 Tuli: no est tan fro afuera che ahora. ... 2 Moqui: no pero hay viento all abajo. (d) 1 Andrs: Zaqueo tiene una (( torta frita )). 2 Moqui: t a! pero yo quiero otr dos, para m. (e) 1 Rita: =and(s) bien? a pagarte las tortas. ((besos)) 2 Pato: pero (despus) ((beso)) (de acuerdo). 3 Rita: y bueno pero (te las) tengo que paGAR. Counter counter argument/correcti on; counters or corrects another's statement, typically initiated with pero (but) (a) 1 Butcher: =microondas no tens. 2 Rena: ((pause)) s, pero no no dame aquello no ms. (b) 1 Tuli: no est tan fro afuera che ahora. ... 2 Moqui: no, pero hay viento all abajo. (c) 1 Roger: tan difcil eso? yo 2 Ana: no! lleva tiempo cario (d) 1 J enifer: ve, ese parlante anda mal. 2 Isabel: no, no, no, es que algo se desconec t

PAGE 429

429 DelayIgn delays response/ignores; participant makes a noticeable pause before answering, or in some way does not immediately attend to the speaker; or, participant ignores the speaker's mand and continues on in the conversation without verbal ly acknowledging the speaker's request, suggestion, etc. (a) 1 Jenifer: s, se ve que es el contacto. 2 (( pause; Isabel does not respond )) 3 Jenifer: un mal contacto. 4 Isabel: no no, pero a m me ha pasado y he hecho, no s. he cambiado de cable viste y se ha visto. pero en este caso no. ... 5 Jenifer: claro, como que hay un mal contacto. 6 (( pause; Isabel does not respond )) 7 Isabel: no no s cul es el tema. son, son tres polos (b) 1 Worker : yo me voy con el grupo viejo. 2 Ari: (( pause; Ari does not respond )) 3 Worker : (se puede) ir con el grupo viejo? [xxx 4 Ari: (( pause )) [ya va ya ...ya va a volv er, ya va a volver. (c) 1 Violeta: acordate de lo que hablamos, te [acords? 2 Lea: [ s 3 Violeta: todo lo que hablamos durante el almuerzo? 4 Lea: ((pause)) ahora tens baj ada, V iole. no tens que subir el repecho. @@@ (d) 1 Juan: echs a todo el cuerpo el perfume [o:: digo 2 Isabel: [@@ 3 Negro: (es el cuerpo) tuyo no ms que [xx 4 Isabel: [vamos Violeta p orque estos, estos mir, son -DiscMkr discourse marker; usually utterance initial, "marking a boundary between one part of a spoken discourse and the next" (Jackson 2007: 72) (a) Isabel: bueno Estevana, dej (que xxx) cmo te sientes/. (b) Rita: que yo de tarde tengo tambin (me) apronto para para para viste que apronto para el MIDES tambin, entonces/ (c) Mar: pero HAY gente. digo. pero (de) eso NO/ \

PAGE 430

430 Distract distract s from offense; tactic whereby speaker avoids or seeks to take at tention away from a dispreferred response; includes topic switches, appeasers (offers not directly related to correcting initial offense/dispreffered response), jokes (a) 1 Violeta: podramos ir y:: ((pausita)) bueno, YO invito las entradas porque es mi idea. y este:: 2 Isabel: ((risita)) 3 Violeta: y s o sea 4 Isabel: pero es para todo el pblico en general? (b) 1 Isabel: como que ella ella vive ac. y se cas y se fue a Valdense. ella: extraa mucho ac. 2 Violeta: mm 3 Isabel: ella: Valdense no le no le gusta la gente. (c) ((Mar 's father offers to connect the computer in addition to the TV, so that he can watch soccer)) Mar: dejalo pap, yo no voy a mirar ms nada, me voy (yo/ya). ((pausita)) mir ftbol que te hace bien mir. mira el ftbol que te hace bien mir. as te queds tranqui. (d) 1 Fabiana: Heln ((la hija)) andaba con FIEBRE. la tengo que dejar solita yo ac a Heln, 2 Tesina: a cul, a Heln? 3 Fabiana: cmo an da Yasmine ahora porque el otro da la cuid yo pues y estaba re congestionada pobreCIIta. DoubtH doubts hearer; utterance expressing doubt or concern as to the validity or likelihood of an interlocutor's proposition (a) 1 Milton: a Nestor capaz. (que s). ((suggests shoes will fit )) 2 Isabel: ((pause)) calza 42/ Nestor? (b) 1 Ruperto: no te acords?= 2 Moqui: =no. sera yo? (c) 1 Rena: a ver cunto hay ac. fjate. 2 Mujer6: ah hay 45. 3 Rena: a ver, medilo bien/ seguro? EmotExp emotional expression/exclamation; can include short, conventionalized phrases ( e.g., por Dios! ), but typically con sists of non lexical utterances ( e.g., ah! ay! mm ) (a) Isabel: hoh! (b) Isabel: mm ((disa ppointed)) despus fijate cualquier cosa/ (c) Moqui: =AH! ((slap sound)) volaste ((slap sound)). se lo llev. (d) R ena: =AY! se me olvid. (e) Mar: QU COSA! llegaste tarde para venderle yuyos a ella.

PAGE 431

431 EndearTerm endearment term/pe t name; informal form of address, not always used so endearingly (a) Isabel: ay qu zanahorias grandes che (b) Ari: ((pause 2 sec)) no veo nada, no viene mi vida (c) Ana: no! lleva tiempo cario (d) Ana: no mam no tomo ms. (e) Lea: y bueno amor que quers que haga. Gratitude gratitude; expression of thanks (a) 1 Cocinera: NADA? ((from afar)) 2 Estevana: no. ((pause)) [no gracias .= 3 Cocinera: [bueno! 4 Isabel: =[ gracias 5 Jenifer: =[no tiene ganas [por ahora, muchas gracias (b) 1 Cuada: =no se van a quedar? ((allegretto, incredulous)) 2 Moqui: muchas gracias no, yo tengo los pies fr:os. HedgeSU hedge/subjectivize r/understater; el ements that lessen the speaker's commitment to, or assertive force of, what she or he is saying (Jackson 2007: 62), via non committal expressions ( e.g., tal vez ), personal opinions ( e.g., creo que, me parece ) or adverbial modifiers that underrepresent the state of affairs ( e.g., un poquito ) (cf. CCSARP: 283, 284) (a) Isabel: no s, pero ((pause)) te puede haber subido las dos cosas a la vez yo qu s (b) Isabel: desconectarse no creo porque no tiene cmo, (c) Moqui: y esto se debe engancha r fcil tal vez no? (d) Moqui: capaz que estn, ah hay unos nios pero no s quin puede ser. (e) Moqui: todava no. demoran un ratito ((waiting for lard)) (f) Rita: manDAle otro poquito ah. IndefRep i ndefinite reply; vague, uncertai n or undecided response (cf. FB 2008: 75); often includes phrases w/ no s (a) Isabel: y:: no s Estevana. (b) Isabel: bueno. veremos (c) Moqui: a:h. no s, puede ser (de) eso no me acuerdo. (d) Ari: = ta ta digo, voy a ver qu hago m aana porque (e) E la: cmo quiera(s) (f) Mar: en cualquier momento .=

PAGE 432

432 Insist insists/tries to convince; utterances that repeat or otherwise reinforce the s peaker's line, typically in effort to bring an interlocutor around to the speaker' s point of view (a) 1 Jenifer: Isabel, quers xxx (ustedes se quedan)? 2 Isabel: no! no \ vamos ya despus cualquier cosa, ya vemos. ya [que vamos, vamos 3 Jenifer: ( podemos todos) y: capaz que:: (cualquier cosa).= 4 Isabel: =no no, vamos ya (b) 1 Nivea: s, pero no no, dej quieto, no torees! 2 Mar: y a ver si vie/ne: \ 3 Nivea: af. ((pause)) mir no viene nada y te pasa llenando por por telfono. 4 Mar: ((long pause)) vamos a VER si no viene: 5 Nivea: bueno. entonces probalo. (c) 1 Rita: hm. capaz que no quieren tener, no qui (l) no quiere tener [capaz. 2 Besi: [o capaz no puede. (quin sabe.) xxx (plata). 3 Rita: s o capaz que no quiere y no quiere! Joke j okes/laughs; utterances that are jovial or witty (can include sarcasm), said with a laugh; or, laughter outright (a) 1 Hombre: ah! disparate de qu era? 2 Ari: no s, ni lo repito @ . por ( q ue ) yo no digo disparate. 3 Hombre: pero pero malas palabrotas? palabrotas? 4 Ari: cunto sala una : una :: como una sea sexual. no pero . yo te digo siendo muy, muy catedrtica @@@ (b) 1 Chunga: XXX est pinchada, est desinflada. 2 Ela: pero est pinchAda. 3 Chunga: pero antes 4 Ela: pero te das cuenta si est:, si se desinfla o no. como est pinchada est siempre desinflada. ((paus e )) no s (( high tone )), pero as mejor porque entonces la patea y no pica. @@@ (c) 1 Dario: soy de Rosario! 2 Ana: sos de Rosario [porque nacis te ac pero tus orgenes son europeos [ aunque vos lo nieges@@. 3 Dario: [no, no, soy de Rosario. 4 Ana: @@@@@ ((Ana and ev eryone laughing))

PAGE 433

433 Justify j ustify/minimize offense; utterance used to justify or make light of one's actions, e.g., noncompliance (a) 1 Isabel: ay qu zanahorias grandes che. ((pause)) no hay ms chiquitas? 2 Vendedor: ((showing her other s)) 3 Isabel: ah ta. me gustaron sas. no, sta para cortar as no me gusta (b) 1 Mar: pero no pod:(s). 2 Nivea: se puede s. pero, tengo que averiguar bien cmo es. ... 3 Mar: pero el Direct TV cul es? 4 Pedro: Direct TV es de la antena. 5 Mar: AH la antena. ... yo pens que queras digital. (c) Ana: he recibido los mensajes s, las promociones, todo eso lo hemos recibido. este:, pero: es toy en otras, en otros proyectos y este: como que est medio suspendido todo. todo en el aire tengo. por eso no he querido, ni siquiera: mm, hacerme or porque no s qu:, no s todava las respuesta que les ten les tengo para dar. LetHoff l et hearer o ff the hook; statements that attempt to dissuade the interlocutor by absolving her or him from some commitment ( e.g., no te hagas problema ) (a) 1 Vilma: ((whistles heard)) no, pero vos decile a la norteamericana que venga que yo le explico despus lo que es eso. ... 2 Ari: no importa ... no importa! ((whistles heard)) ayer le explicaban todas las formas de usar pedo (b) 1 Velchi: ah no, (como otro / un) poquito de postre. 2 Rita: muy bie n. 3 Velchi: xxx ((goes to serve herself dessert)) 4 Rita: ah yo lo saco si quers. ahora yo yo te lo saco, no te hagas problema (c) 1 Torquato: cmo es? [(o no) 2 Moqui: [ no:: no te c Rosario cuando mucho. ... porque adems yo ni no lo s escribir tampoco. @@@ NegProp negates proposition; a direct refusal strategy that "contains an e lement that negates the propositon used in the [mand]" (FB 2008: 73) (a) 1 Hombre: no s si, si haya un cuchillo libre, xxx. 2 Ari: a:h, no hay pero, cuando termine otro, te lo presta. (b) 1 Vendedora: algo ms, negrita? 2 E la: nada ms (c) 1 Tesina: ((telephone)) xxx 2 Fabiana: no, no puedo no si me la si me la pudieran traer s, si no no pue:do Tesina.

PAGE 434

434 No n o; a flat no ; typ ical of a direct refusal, but can be found in supportive moves ; can also include ta in the sense of (a) 1 Mujer2: alguna bufanda de ho:mbre o que pueda usar un hombre una ne:gra o algo? 2 Rena: ay no creo que no me queda nada/. (b) 1 Gisel: (ponemos sa). 2 Lea: la mesa NO no puede ms mesa Gisel. (c) 1 J enifer: ve, ese parlante anda mal. 2 Isabel: no, no, no es que algo se desconect, no no (d) 1 Clerk : qu ms Rena? 2 Rena: ta PauseFill pause filler; strategy often employed to buy the speaker time to think and formulate a response and/or maintain her or his turn at talk ( e.g., eh, em, este: :) (a) Isabel: as que no pod s este, ah vos no sos mdico. (b) Isabel: eh::m bueno nada ms. (c) Rena: NO, pues, eh o sea a m no me arreglaron la mquina... (d) Ana: ...es de este:: mm Postpone postpone s ; strategy by which the speaker avoids making an explicit commi tment and puts off satisfying another's request, suggestion, etc.; postponements range from more or less specific, and can also be employed to distract attention away from a dispreferred response (FB 2008: 77) (a) 1 Berta: quers que te deje: ... eso que quera tu padre? ... 2 Mar: no, vos pas ahora el, despus cuando cobre : ... 3 Mar: = por eso. (despus de / puede) la semana que viene pas, que yo te voy a comprar algo (b) 1 Isaz: ((te lephone)) xxx 2 Ana: AH de pronto, las cuando vayan a hacer las evaluaciones/, me pongo al da con los temas/ (c) 1 Violeta: cuando tengs un momentito necesito preguntarte xx 2 Ana: s, ya termino esto, de Abuela/ y s a y ya est e te contesto Preparator preparator; pre sequence utterance by which the speaker prepares the hearer for the ensuing refusal, often with a soft ening effect (cf. FB 2008: 79) (a) Moqui: bueno despus vemos. escuchame: Andrs. (b) Ari: no: no n o, sabs qu no me molesta venir, me molesta el el mal manejo de de, de las cosas. (c) Fabiana: lo que pasa es que

PAGE 435

435 PropName proper name; form of address that can have an undertone of formality when used in the cours e of conversation, and not just as an alerter (a) I sabel: mir Estevana coqueteras? dejalas para -(b) Isabel: JENIFER una lstima de (c) Ana: el sufl. no quise Dario no quise. (d) Moqui: bueno despus vemos. escchame:, And rs Reason reason/explanation; speaker provides reasons, excuses, accounts, explanations, typically using first person; can be general or specific (a) Isabel: s ((quiet voice)). le tendra que preguntar a Milton porque el tema es el vehculo (b) Moqui: =bueno en un ratito. par que quiero ver si viene aquella as le doy un mate (c) Moqui: muchas gracias no, yo tengo los pies fr:os Reassure reassures hearer; utterance that reassures or consoles the hearer ( e.g., no te preocupes no hay problema ) (a) 1 Milton: ac se desconect algo no s xxx ((voice fades)) 2 Isabel: desconectarse no creo porque no tiene cmo, yo ya prob las instalaciones (estn / estaban) bien (b) 1 Teresa: no es chico. 2 Ari: vos prob telo porque son muy grandes los zapatos. ... no te desespereS (c) 1 Client : para no venir maana de vuelta= 2 Rena: =no no, no se preocupe Repair repair; speaker proposes to do something to directly repair the situation ( e.g., pledges to sto ck a currently unavailable item that a customer requests) (a) 1 Hombre: no s si, si haya un cuchillo libre, xxx. 2 Ari: a:h, no hay. pero, cuando termine otro, te lo presta (b) 1 Mujer4: por eso no te (voy a / da) vos trajiste ya? 2 Rena: NO, pues, eh o sea a m no me arreglaron la mquina ... 3 Mujer4: bueno, yo, el viernes tenemos la reunin ac. ... 4 Rena: ta, ta, se lo hago para el viernes (c) 1 Antonella: (pero / porque) yo andaba buscando (una) de manga larga,= 2 Mar: = AHH, no manga larga [(no) ... 3 Antonella: =ah, qu lstima. pue:s nada entonces. (voy a) xxx. ... 4 Mar: ahora v oy la semana que viene si consigo manga larga, tal vez que traigo

PAGE 436

436 RepReit repetition/reiteration; utterances that are either repeated verbatim ( e.g., no, no, no ) or effectively in other or similar words ( e.g., pero no s ((pause)) la verdad que no s. ); can serve to distract from the offense and delay a dispreferred response (FB 2008: 77) (a) 1 Isabel: y:: no s Estevana. 2 Isabel: ((pause)) no s (b) 1 Milton: se (desconfigur o) algo.= 2 Isabel: (c) 1 Fem worker : (entonces) vamos para all? 2 Ari: par par no no nos vamos cuando terminemos ac de organizar. (d) 1 Ela: y sa le le sali casi once mil pesos. la verdad que est cara ((laughs)) 2 Violeta: hmm 3 Ela: est realmente caro s la cosa por eso (e) 1 Mujer2: no te queda nada. ((verifying)) 2 Rena: no. no [me queda -RequInfo request for informatio n/confirmation; speaker asks for new information or seeks to verify in formation she or he already had; displays an interest in the interlocutor and/or the interlocutor's proposition, but can serve as an avoidance tactic in that it distracts from the offense and delays a dispreferred response (FB 2008: 77) (a) 1 Viol eta: p odramos ir y:: ((pause)) bueno,YO invito las entradas ... ... 2 Isabel: pero es para todo el pblico en general? (b) 1 Moqui: tena estaba enferma la maestra~? 2 Zaqueo ? : de [presin. 3 Cuada: [ s. 4 Moqui: ah de presin? quin 5 Zaqueo: (eh) Susana? 6 Moqui: DE presin? 7 Andrs: xxx no era la Gripe A.= 8 Moqui: =no era la gripe? (c) 1 Pablo: trescientos pesos. ((pause)) xxx. 2 Lea: ((incredulous)) tresCIENtos peSos? RhetForm rhetorical form; response or rebuttal n ot expecting an answer, often defensive in tone ( e.g., qu quers que haga ) (a) 1 Estevana: xxx una pastilla o algo que me quede dormida hasta maana.= 2 Isabel: =a vos te parece? no sabs si tens preSI"N, baja preSI"N, las papil las palpitaciones, no sabs nada. (b) 1 Taxista: el (nene) no tiene fro. 2 Moqui: l no. @qu va a tener fro@ (c) 1 Pablo: se te enferma.

PAGE 437

437 2 Lea: y bueno amor que quers que haga despus, despus peor que la bae pa salir pal cumpleaos. Sarcasm sarcasm; utterance that is sharp, satyrical and/or ironic in nature (a) 1 Roger: (hoy) voy a dormirme esta tarde. 2 Ana: EH? ((pause )) AH tengo entonces que ordenar eso. el desbarajuste que hay all atrS. ((pause, plates)) lamento decirte que no vas a tener siesta. (b) 1 Pablo: bueno dame la voy a pagar porque: hay una botella sola me dijo Julio. para vender. 2 Lea: y qu (entonces una botella sola) para la noche? TS (c) 1 Milton: xxx porqueras 2 Isabel: no SON porqueras, son cosas. que no tienen otro lugar. ((pause)) (es) as. as que las crticas para otro da SelfD self defense; response de fending oneself or action against another's proposition, or one's right to be unimpeded by interlocutor's mand (cf. Beebe et al. 1990: 73) ; i ncludes rhetorical questions, ( e.g., What do you want me to do about it? ) that Impl y that the speaker has no other option/is trapped (a) 1 Triza: maana, maana tens que ir a la escuela porque, xxxcito/ 2 Ari: pero, digo:, no pueden hacerme esto (pues digo)= 3 Triza: =y a m tampoco. 4 Ari: ((pause)) pero le digo, hace veinte das m e dijeron, (tom) el da libre, yo xxx (b) 1 Pablo: se te enferma. 2 Lea: y bueno amor que quers que haga despus, despus peor que la bae pa salir pal cumpleaos. (c) 1 Novio: ((telephone)) xxx 2 Fabiana: pero ac est espan toso de fro amor, yo tengo un resfro de, ((inhales)) y estoy haciendo un trabajo con Violeta y mientras que me v me vuelvo a la noche para casa (noms), est cruel ((sniffs)) StmtInfo statement of information; statement of information regarding some st ate of affairs, often impersonal to the speaker, typically using third person (a) 1 Jenifer: claro, como que hay un mal contacto. 2 Isabel: ((pause)) no no s cul es el tema. son, son tres polos son tres cosos mir (b) 1 Jenifer: =bien para el tiene fro ella, pon la estufa. 2 Isabel: est abajo la estufa@ = (c) 1 Violeta: [hay una negra.] 2 Rena: ((looks at the suggested scarf and verifies)) no no no. no. sa no es para hombre

PAGE 438

438 StmtPrinc st atement of princip le/philosophy; expresses the speaker's thoughts on a situation, i.e., what she or he would do, would never do, does do, etc. (Beebe et al. 1990: 72) (a) Ari: ni lo repito yo por ( que ) yo no digo disparate (b) Ari: viste cmo es. ninguno (c) Ela: eh? pero despu(s) acordate, los pantalone(s) despu(s) que lo(s) usa(s) se estiran Roberto. TopicSwx topic switch; utterance that changes the course of the interactional exchange by introducing a new or other topic ancillary to the one taken up in the interlocutor's proposition; often an avoidance strategy by which the speaker seeks to delay or forgo a dispreferred response (cf. Beebe et al. 1990: 72) (a) 1 V ioleta: acordate de lo que hablamos, te [acords? 2 Lea: [s 3 Violeta: todo lo que hablamos durante el almuerzo? 4 Lea: ((pause)) ahora tens bajada, Viole. no tens que subir el repecho. @@ (b) 1 Fabiana: Hel n ((la hija)) andaba con FIEBRE. la tengo que dejar solita yo ac a Heln, 2 Tesina: a cul, a Heln? 3 Fabiana: seGUro cmo anda Yasmine ahora porque el otro da la cuid yo pues y estaba re congestionada pobreCIIta. (c) 1 Violeta: ((offers mate to Ana)) 2 Ana: s. este:m. no me des ms, mate porque, ya estoy satisfecha. ((to her mother)) y Estelita? Wish wish/positive feelings; s tatement communicating speaker's desire or wish to comply with or accept a proposition, o r that expresses a positive opinion regarding it, thereby softening the refusal (cf. FB 2008: 78; Beebe et al. 1990: 73) (a) Isabel: me parece que son ms chicas. tn nuevitas tn. son ms chicas me parece. es 42 y medio. es una lstima eh. qu botas por Dios! es idntica a la tuya Milton. no? (b) Ari: yo como hace veinte das que tena eso, que (hubiramos) coordinado: (c) 1 Santi: =porque pienso que va a ser lindo. 2 Mar: va a estar bueno, el de ventas va a estar bueno

PAGE 439

439 FORMULAS routinized expressions, phrases si_pero s (x) + pero [x] (a) Rena: s, pero no no. (b) Mar: s pero yo voy a las nueve a Barker hasta las nueve y media/. (c) Isabel: s, bueno, pero ac adentro tampoco est fro. (d) Ari: s s s yo s lo que me decs, pero digo que... (e) Moqui: ta! pero yo quiero otr dos, para m. (f) Mar: claro, pero est el sbado. no_ porque no (x) + porque [x] (a) Ari: no, porque hay cuatro pares nada ms. (b) Ana: ...no me des m s, mate porque, ya estoy satisfecha. (c) Fabiana: ...no:, yo a Sonia no la dejo porque no no_si no + si [x] (a) Moqui: no, si yo no he tocado para nada. (b) Ana: no::, no_pero no + pero [x] (a ) Moqui: no, pero no es la direcTOra. la directora es LuAna. (b) Isabel: no no, pero hay hay para m hay algo que est mal. te_parece te parece? (do you think?) (a) Isabel: a vos te parece? no sabs si tens preSI"N, baja preSI"N...no sabs nada. (b) Roberto: te te parece? si_quers si quers (if you want) (a) Rita: ah yo lo saco si quers ahora yo yo te lo saco, no te hagas problema. (b) Dona: yo traigo si quers maana. es_lo_mismo es lo mismo ame to me) (a) Dona: = es lo mismo = (b) Rita: y si no traigo YO, es lo mismo tema_problema se es el tema/problema; el tema es (que) problem; the problem is (that)) (a) Rita: me da lstima porque, una que no TENgo para comprarme u na cocina. pero el horno anda lo ms bien, viste? ((pause)) se es el tema (b) Mar: s pero yo voy a las nueve a Barker hasta las nueve y media /.... se es el problema (c) Fabiana: CLAro que el tema es que se me complica hoy

PAGE 440

440 como_quiera co mo quiera(s) (however you prefer) (a) 1 Roberto: te te parece? 2 Ela: cmo quiera(s) (b) 1 Roberto: qu dec(s) vo(s)? 2 Ela: no cmo quiera/ (c) 1 Dona: que yo ya voy a a [traer la yerba. 2 Rita: [ como vos quieras Dona... lo_que_pasa lo que pasa es que (the thing is that) (a) Ari: porque a su vez viste, digo, lo que pasa (es) que podra dejarlo pero... (b) Fabiana: lo que pasa es que Heln ((la hij a)) andaba con FIEBRE. OTHER Small T alk interactional talk; conversation that is "unmarked," casual, without prearranged topics, typically characterised by such tenets as: noticing and attending to hearer (H), exaggerating interest, approval and sympathy with H, using in group identity markers, seeking agreement, avoiding disagreement, presupposing, raising and/or asserting common ground with H, joking and reciprocating (Schneider 1988: 39, 79) 1 Clerk : nada ms Isabel?= 2 Isabel: =no ((tense)). (( pause)) no nada ms ((relaxed)). 3 Clerk: muy bien.= 4 Isabel: =ta? ((to store owner)) tu nena Juan? 5 Juan: bien de bien. 6 Isabel: bien? bueno, me alegro. Priming lexical or structural, the process by which the use of a certain lexical ite m or structure in one utterance influences/functions as a prime on a subsequent utterance, such that that same lexical item or structure is repeated (Travis 2007: 101) (a) 1 Clerk : qu ms? (what else?) 2 Fabiana: nada ms (nothing else.) (b ) 1 Cabrera: vamos a seguir el trabajo ahora. 2 Ari: vamos a ir guardando Cabrera. (c) 1 Roberto: me queda muy apretado, no? ((lit. no))?) 2 Ela: no: te queda bien. (no:, it fits you well.)

PAGE 441

441 LIST OF RE FERENCES Agar, Michael. ( 1980 ) The Professional Stranger. New York: Academic Press, Inc. -----. ( 1994 ) Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Alberts, J anet K. ( 1990 ) Intimates in Conflict: A Communication Perspective Ed. D. Cahn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 105 20. Al Issa, A hmad ( 1998 ) Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance of refusals by Jordanian EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors. Diss. U of Pennsylvania Aston, G uy ( 1988 ) Learning Comity: An Approach to the Description and Pedagogy of Interactional Speech. Bologna: CLUEB. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and John H eritage. ( 1984 ) "Jefferson's transcript notation." Structures of Social Action Eds. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ix xvi Austin, John. ( 1962 ) How to Do Things with Words Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bataineh, Ruba, and Rula Bataineh ( 2005 ) Journal of Intercultural Communication 9 Web. 19 Jan. 2014. < http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr9/bataineh.htm >. Bardovi Harlig, K athleen and B everly Hartford. ( 1991 ) Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. II) Eds. L. F. Bou to n and Y. Kachru. Urbana: University of Illinois. 41 57. Beckers, A strid ( 1999 ) Diss. U of Mississippi. Beebe, L eslie and Martha Cl ark Cummings ( 1996 ) "Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method a ffects speech act performance." Speech A cts A cross C ultures Eds. S usan M. Gass and J oyce Neu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 65 86. Beebe, L esl ie T omoko Takahashi and R obin Uliss Weltz. ( 1990 ) "Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals." Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language Eds. R obin Scarcella, Elaine Andersen and S tephen D. Krashen. New York: Newbury House. 55 73.

PAGE 442

442 Biesa nz, Mavis Hiltunen, Richard Biesanz and Karen Biesanz Zubris. ( 1999 ) The Ticos: Cultural and Social change in Costa Rica Costa Rica: Lynne Rienner Publishers. B lum Kulka, Shoshana. ( 1987 ) different Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131 46. -----. ( 1992 ) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice Eds. R ichard Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlic h. Be rlin: Mouton de Gruyter 255 80. Blum Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Oshtain. ( 1984 ) Applied Linguistics 5 3: 196 213. Blum Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper, eds. ( 1989 ) Cross Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Bourdieu, Pierre. ( 1990 ) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boxer, Diana. ( 1993 ) indirect Journal of Pragmatics 19: 103 25. -----. ( 1996 ) "Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis: The case of complaints." Speech A cts A cross C ultures Eds. S. M. Gass and J. Neu. Berlin: Mouton de G ruyter. 217 39. -----. ( 2002 ) Applying Sociolinguistics: Domains and F ace to F ace I nteraction Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. -----. ( 2003 ) "Critical Issues in Developmental Pragmatics." Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Lang uage Teaching Eds. Alicia Martinez Flor, Esther Uso Juan, and Ana Fernandez Guerra. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume. 45 67. -----. ( 2008 ) Encyclopedia of Language and Education 2 nd Edition, Volume 3 Eds. M. Martin Jones, A.M. de Mejia, and N.H. Hornberger. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 305 1 6 Bresnahan, M ary R ie Ohashi, Wen Ying Liu, Reiko Nebashi and C hao Chih Liao. ( 1999 ) Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 30: 342 58. Brown, Gillian and George Yule. ( 1983 ) Discourse Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 443

443 B rown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. ( 1987 ) Politeness Cambridge: Ca mbridge University Press. Brown, R. and A. Gilman. ( 1960 ) Style in Language Ed. T.A. Sebeok. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 253 76. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. ( 1994 ) The E volution of Gramma r: Tense, Aspect and M odality in the Languages of the W orld. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Byon, Andrew Sangpil. ( 2006 ) Cultural Analysis in Korean Studies 29: 137 66. Caetano, Gerardo and Jo s Rilla. ( 2005 ) Historia contempornea del Uruguay: de la colonia al siglo XXI. Montevideo: Editorial Fin de Siglo. Cancellier, Antonella. ( 1996 ) Lenguas en contacto: italiano y espaol en el Ro de la Plata. Padova: Imprimitur. Carvalho, Ana. ( 2 004 ) urbanization of Uruguayan Portuguese Language Variation and Change 16:127 51. Cedergren, Henrietta. ( 1973 ) The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panam. D iss. Cornell U. Cenoz Jasone. ( 1996 ) "Requests and Apologies: a comparison between native and non native speakers of English." Atlantis 18: 53 61. Chen, R ong. ( 2001 ) Journal of Pragmatics 33: 87 106. Chen, X ing L ei Ye and Y anyin Zha ng. ( 1995 ) Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language Ed. G. Kasper. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 119 63. Cohen, Andrew. ( 2003 ) "Learner strategy train ing in the development of pragmatic ability." Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching Eds. Alicia Martinez Flor, Esther Uso Juan, and Ana Fernandez Guerra. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume. 93 108. Cohen, Andrew and Elite Olshtain. ( 1981 ) "Developing a measure of sociolinguistic competence: The case of apology." Language Learning 31 .1 : 113 34. Cohen, Andrew and Rachel Shively. ( 2007 ) Spanish and French: Impact of The Modern Language Journal 91 .2 : 189 212.

PAGE 444

444 Company Company, Concepcin. (2006). markers. Semantic Topics in Subjectification and Modal ization Eds. Nicole Delbecque and B ert Cornillie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 97 121. Cordella, Marisa. ( 1991 ) cultural Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 14.2 : 115 38. Coup land, Justine, ed. ( 2000 ) Small Talk Essex: Pearson Educaton Limited. Culpeper, J onathan ( 1996 ) Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349 67. De Francisco, V ictoria L. ( 1991 ) women in Discourse and Society 2 .4 : 413 23. De Kadt, E lizabeth ( 1998 ) Journal of Pragmatics 29: 173 91. Denzin, Norman and Yvonna Lincoln, eds. ( 2000 ) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. De Pierris, Marta Susan a. ( 1990 ) Rioplatense Speech: Some Italian Elements that Characterize It. Diss. U of California, Berkeley. Daz Prez, Francisco Javier. ( 2003 ) La cortesa verbal en ingls y en espaol : actos de habla y pragmtica intercultural. Jan: Universidad de Jan. Eelen, Gino. ( 2001 ) A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome. Elizaincn, A dolfo ( 1997 ) for inanimate entities in Uruguayan Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism Ed. Carmen Silva Corvaln. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 117 31. Escandell Vidal, Victor ia. ( 2004 ) Current Trends in the Pragma tics of Spanish Eds. Rosina Mrquez Reiter and Mara Elena Placencia Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 347 71. Evans, Vyvyan. ( 2006 ) gnitive models and meaning Cognitive Linguistics 17: 491 534. Flix Brasdefer, J. Csar. ( 2003 ) "Declining an invitation: A cross cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish." Multilingua 22: 22 5 55. -----. Language Learning 54.4: 587 653.

PAGE 445

445 -----. ( 2007 ) request Spanish in Context 4 .2 : 159 85. -----. ( 2008 ) Politeness in Mexico and the United States. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fishman, Joshua. ( 1972 ) "Domains and the relationship between micro and macros ociolinguistics." Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication Eds. John Gumperz and Dell Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 35 71. Fishman, P amela ( 1983 ) Language, Gender and Soc iety Eds. B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and N. Henley. Cambridge: Newbury. 89 101. Fitch, Kristine. ( 1998 ) Speaking Relationally. New York: The Guilford Press. Fontanella de Weinberg, Mara Beatriz. ( 1 979 ) Dinmica social de un cambio lingstico. Mxico: Universidad Autnoma de Mxico. Fraser, Bruce. ( 1990 ) Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219 36. Fraser, Bruce and William Nolen. ( 1981 ) International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27: 93 109. Studies in Social Power Ed. D. Cartwright. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 150 67. Frescura, M arina ( 1997 ) Europ e Plurilingue 12 13: 180 203. Furumura, Y umiko ( 2002 ) Studies in Languages and Cultures 16: 147 63. Garca, Carmen. ( 1989 ) "Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non native speakers." Multilingua 8: 3 20. -----. ( 1992 ) "Refusing an invitation: A case study of Peruvian style." Hispanic Linguistics 5 .1 2 : 207 43. -----. ( 1993 ) "Making a req uest and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish Speakers." Journal of Pragmatics 19: 12 7 52. -----. ( 1999 ) "The three stages of Venezuelan invitations and responses." Multilingua 18(4): 391 433.

PAGE 446

446 -----. ( 2007 ) "Establishing and Main taining Solidarity: A Case Stud y of Argentinean Invitations." Research on Politeness in the Spanish Speaking World Eds. Mara Elena Placencia and Carmen Garca. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 261 301. Gass, Susan M., and Nol Houck. (1999). Interlang uage Refusals Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grice, H. P aul ( 1975 ) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts Eds. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan. New York: Academic Press 41 58. -----. ( 2006 ) The Discourse Reader, 2 nd edition Eds. Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. New York: Routledge. 66 77. Goffman, Erving. ( 1967 ) Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books. Gu, Yueguo. ( 1990 ) Journ al of Pragmatics 14: 237 57. Gumperz, John, and Dell Hymes, eds. ( 1972) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Harris, Marvin. ( 1976 ) "History and s ignificance of the e mic/ e tic d is tinction Annual Review of Anthropology 5 : 329 50. Haverkate, Henk. ( 1993 ) Acerca de los actos de habla expresivos y comisivos en espanol." Aproximaciones pragmalinguisticas al espanol Eds. H. Haverkate, K. Hengeveld and G. Mulder. Amsterdam: Ro dopi. 149 80. -----. ( 1994 ) La cortesa verbal. Estudio pragmalinguistico Madrid: Gredos. Herbert, Robert. ( 1986 ) "Say 'thank you' -or something." American Speech 61 .1 : 76 88. -----. ( 1990 ) "Sex based differences in compliment behavior ." L anguage in Society 19 .2 : 201 24. Heritage, John and J. Maxwell Atkinson. ( 1984) "Introduction." Structures of Social Action Eds. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1 16. Holmes, Janet. ( 1989 ) erences and apologies: One aspect of communicative Applied Linguistics 10 .2 : 194 213. -----. ( 1990 ) "Apologies in New Zealand English." Language in Society 19: 155 199. -----. ( 1995 ) Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

PAGE 447

447 Ho uk, Noel and Susan Gass. ( 1996 ) "Non native refusals: A methodological perspective." Speech A cts A cross C ultures: Challenges to C ommunication in a S econd L anguage Eds. S. M. Gass and J. Neu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 217 39. Hussein, Anwar A. ( 1995 ) Applied Language Learning 6 .1 2 : 65 87. Hymes, Dell. ( 1972 ) "Models of the interaction of language and social life." Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication Eds. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 35 71. IBM Corp. ( 2012 ) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Ide, Sachiko. ( 1989 ) orms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of Multilingua 8: 223 48. Ide, Sachiko, Beverly Hill, Yukiko Carnes, Tsunao Ogino, and Akiko Kawasaki ( 1992 ) nd Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice Eds. R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 281 97. Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, Repblica Oriental del Uruguay. ( 2012 a ) Web. 1 Oct. 2012. < http://www.ine.gub.uy/censos2011/resultadosfinales/colonia.html >. -----. ( 2012 b ) Censo s 2011: Informacin cartogrfica: Departamento de Colonia: A1H Web. 15 Oct. 2012. < http://www.ine.gub.uy/mapas/censos2011/para%20colgar%20en%20web/pd f/05_UYCO/Localidades/A1H_0542 2%20Rosario.pdf > -----. ( 2012 c ) Web. 15 Oct. 2012. < http://www.ine.gub.uy/censos2011/index.html >. Jackson, Howard. ( 2007 ) Key Terms in Linguistics London: Continuum. Janney, R ichard and H orst Arndt. ( 1992 ) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice Eds. R. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 21 41. Jefferson, G ail ( 19 88 ) talk in ordinary Social Problems 35 .4 : 418 41. Johnstone, Barbara. ( 2000 ) Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics New York: Oxford University Pre ss.

PAGE 448

448 Kasper, Gabriele and Kenneth Rose. ( 2002 ) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Kaul de Marlangeon, S ilvia ( 1995 ) t esa descortesa y sus estrategias en el discurso tanguero de la d Revista de la Sociedad Argentina de Lingstica 3: 7 38. Kim, Duk Young. ( 2001 ) implications for i Kitao, S. Kathleen. ( 1996 ) Communicative competence, preference organization, and refusals in British English. Doshisha Joshidaigaku Sogo Bunka Kenkyusho Kiyo 13: 47 58. Kwon, J ihyun ( 2004 ) Multilingua 23 .4 : 339 64. Lab ov, William. ( 1972 ) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadephia: Pennsylvania University Press. --------. ( 2003 ) Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings Eds. Christina Bratt Paulston and G. Richard Tucker Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 234 50. Labov, William and D avid Fanshel. (1977). Therapeutic D iscourse: Psychotherapy as C onversation New York: Academic Press. Lakoff, Robin. ( 1973 ) Chicago Lingui stics Society 8: 282 305. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger ( 1991 ) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazaraton, Anne. ( 2004 ) Studying Speaking to Info rm Second Language Learning Eds. Diana Boxer and Andrew Cohen. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 49 67. Leech, Geoffrey. ( 1983 ) Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman. Lipski, John. ( 2004 ) El espaol de Amrica Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts. ( 2005 ) Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9 33. Lyuh, I nook ( 1992 ) Diss. Indiana U.

PAGE 449

449 Margalef Boa da, T rinidad ( 1993 ) Diss. Indiana U. Markee, Numa. ( 2004 ) Modern Language Journal 88 .4 : 583 96. Markee Numa and Gabriele Kasper. ( 2004 ) Modern Language Journal 88 .4 : 491 500. Mrquez Reiter, Rosina. ( 2000 ) Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ---------. ( 2002 ) Pragmatics 12 .2 : 135 51. Mrquez Reiter, Rosina and Mara Elena Placencia, eds. ( 2004 ) Current Trend s in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mrquez Reiter, Rosina and Mara Elena Placencia. ( 2005 ) Spanish Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mez zera, Baltasar Luis. ( 1968 ) Idioma espaol y habla crioll a: charras y vilelas Montevideo: Editorial Solange. Mills, Sara. ( 2003 ) Gender and Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Milroy, Lesley. ( 1980 ) Language and Social Networks Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Mir, Montserrat. ( 1992 ) of apologizing by Spanish speakers learning English." Pragmatics and Language Learning 3: 1 19. communication Gengo (Language) 19 8 : 59 66. Nelson, G ayle J oan Carson, M ahmoud Al Batal and W aguida El Bakary. ( 2002 ) cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American Applied Linguistics 23 (2) : 163 89. Ochs Keenan, Elinor. ( 1976 ) Language in Society 5: 67 80. -----. ( 1979 ) "Transcription as theory." Developmental Pragmatics Eds. Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schiefflen. New York: Academic Press. 43 72.

PAGE 450

450 Olshtain, Elite. ( 1983 ) Language Transfer in Language Learning Eds. Stephen Krashen and Robin Scarcella. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. 232 49. -----. ( 1989 ) Cross Cultural Pragmatics Eds. S. Blum Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 155 73. Olshtain, Elite and Andrew Cohen. ( 1983 ) Sociolinguistics and Language Acqu isition: Series on Issues in Second Language Acquisition Research Eds. Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers. 18 35. Owen, Marion. ( 1983 ) Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. New York: Mouton Publishers. Paulston, Chr istina and G. Richard Tucker, eds. ( 2003 ) Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Philipsen, Gerry and Lisa Coutu. ( 2005 ) "The ethnography of speaking." Handbook of Language and Social Interaction Eds. Kris tine Fitch and Robert Sanders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 355 79. Pinto, Derrin R. ( 2003 ) Perdname, llevas mucho tiempo esperando ? U of California, Davis. ---------. ( 2008 ) A cross cultural study of American English Multilingua 27: 371 88. Placencia, Mara E. and Diana Bravo, eds. ( 2002 ) Actos de habla y cortesa en espaol. Mnchen : LINCOM Europa. Placencia, Mara E. and Carmen Garca, eds. ( 2007 ) Research on Politeness in the Spanish speaking world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pomerantz, Anita. ( 1984 ) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferr e d/disprefer Structures of Social Action Eds. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57 101. Rampton, Ben. ( 1998 Handbook of Pragmatics Eds. J. Verschueren, J O stman, J. Blommae rt and C.Bulcaen. Amsterdam/Philapdelphia: John Benjamins. 130 56. Rintell, Ellen and Candace Mitchell. ( 1989 ) Cross Cultural Pragmatics Eds. S. Blum Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper. Norwo od, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 248 72.

PAGE 451

451 Rojo, Laura. ( 2005 ) The speech act of Hipertexto 1: 63 80. Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition Eds. Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. 10 17. Ruzickova, E lena ( 1998 ) "Apologies in Cuban Spanish." Proceedings to the First Hispanic Linguistics Colloquiu m Eds. Gutierrez Rexach and J. del Valle. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 126 49. S adler, R andall and Erz, B ertil (2001). I refuse you: An examination of English refusals by nativespeakers of English, Lao, and Turkish. Arizona Working Paper s in SLAT 9: 53 80. Samper Padilla, Jos Antonio. ( 1990 ) Estudio sociolingstico del espaol de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Las P almas de Gran Canaria: La Caja de Canarias. Sarfo, Emmanuel. 2011. h among African Nebula 3: 1 15. SAS Institute Inc. (2013). Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), Version 9.4 Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Schegloff, Emmanuel. ( 1984) "On questions and ambiguities in convers ation." Structures of Social Action Eds. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 28 52. Schiffrin, Deborah. ( 1994 ) Approaches to Discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Sch neider, Klaus. ( 1988 ) Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse Marburg: Hitzeroth. Schrader Kniffki, M artina ( 2007 ) "Silence and politeness in Spanish and Zapotec interactions (Oaxaca, Mexico)." Research on Politeness in the Spanish speaking world Eds. Mara E. Placencia and Carmen Garca. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 305 32. Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Scollon. Language and Communication Eds. Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt. New York: Longman. 156 90. -----. ( 2001 ) Intercultural communication, 2 nd edition Malden, MA: Blackwell Publications. Searle, John. ( 1969 ) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 452

452 -----. ( 1977 ) "A classification of of illocutionary acts." Proceedings of the Texas Conference of Perfomatives, Presupposition, and Implicatures Eds. A. Rogers, B. Wall and J. Murphy. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. 27 45. Shigeta, M idori ( 1974 ) Intercultural E ncount ers with Japan: Communication contact and C onflict Eds. J. C. Condon and M. Saito. Tokyo: Simul Press. 193 95. Silva Corvaln, Carmen. ( 2001 ) Sociolingstica y pragmtica del espaol Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Spencer Oatey, H e len ( 2000 ) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures Ed. H elen Spencer Oatey. London: Continuum. 11 46. Spencer Oatey, Helen, ed. ( 2009 ) Culturally Speaking: Culture Co mmunication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum. Sperber, D an and D ei r dre Wilson. ( 1995 ) Relevance: Communication and Cognition 2 nd edition Oxford: Blackwell. Spradley, James. ( 1979 ) Ethnographic Interview New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. -----. ( 1980 ) Participant Observation New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ( 1999 ) Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1053 65. S uzuki, Ryoko. ( 2007 ) Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis Language in Society 36 .2 : 299 303. Takahashi competence b JALT Journal 8.2: 131 55. Tannen, Deborah. ( 1987 ) Language 63(3): 574 605. -----. ( 1990 ) . New York: William Morrow and Company -----. ( 1994 ) Talking from nine to five New York: William Morrow and Company. Thompson, Sandra. ( 2002 ) Studies in Language 26: 125 64.

PAGE 453

453 Thompson, Sandra and Anthony Mulac. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English Journal of Pragmat ics 15: 237 51. Travis, Catherine. ( 2005 ) Discourse Markers in Colombian Spanish: A Study in Polysemy Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -----. ( 2007 ) Language Variation and Change 19.2: 101 35. Intercultural Encounters with Japan: Communication Contact and Conflict Eds. John Condon and Mitsuko Saito. Tokyo: The Simul Press. 185 92. VERBI Software. (2011). MAXQDA for Windows, Version 10 Berlin: Consult Sozialforschung. Vollmer, Helmut and Elite Oshtain. ( 1989 ) Cross Cultural Pragmatics Eds. S. Blum Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 197 218. VonCanon, A my L ( 2006 ) Diss. U of Iowa. Wagner, Lisa C. ( 1999 ) . The Ohio State U. -----. ( 2000 ) Revista de Humanidades: Tecnolgico de Monterrey 9 : 37 53. Watts, Richard J. ( 1991 ) Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -----. ( 2003 ) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich. ( 1992 ) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice Eds. R. Watts, S. Ide a nd K. Ehlich. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1 17. Wenger, Etienne. ( 1998 ) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolfram, Walt. ( 2003 ) Soc iolinguistics: The Essential Readings Eds. Christina Bratt Paulston and G. Richard Tucker. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 251 71. Wolfson, Nessa. cholinguistics 24.4: 7 22.

PAGE 454

454 -----. ( 1988 ) Second Language Discourse: A textbook of current research Ed. J. Fine. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 21 38. -----. ( 1989 ) Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Wolfson, Nessa, Thomas Marmor and Steve Jones. ( 1989 ) c omparison of s peech a cts a cross c Cross Cultural Pragmatics Eds. S. Blum Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 174 96 Wootton, A nthony J ( 1981 ) in request s Semiotica 37 .1 2 : 59 89.

PAGE 455

455 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Heather Robertson Kaise r was born in Birmingham, Alabama and took her first Spanish class while enrolled in high school in DeLand, Florida. As an undergraduate, she majored in Spanish at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, where she also began a career of travel to di fferent countries in the Spanish speaking world. Her most extensive experience abroad played out in Uruguay, where she spent the year following graduation as a Young Adult Volunteer with the Presbyterian Church (USA). It was there that she got to know th e many people in Rosario, Uruguay w ho made this research possible. Before beginning the doctoral program at the Unive r sity of Fl orida, Kaiser obtained a Master of Arts in Latin American Studies with an emphasis in political science, and a Certificate in Brazilian Studies from Florida Internatio nal University in Miami. She is married to David Kaiser and together they have two sons, William and Luke both of whom have already made the journey to Uruguay



PAGE 1

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRP,QVWUXFWLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQLQ6SDQLVKDVD)RUHLJQ/DQJXDJH $XWKRUVf-&VDU)OL[%UDVGHIHU 6RXUFH+LVSDQLD9RO1R0D\fSS 3XEOLVKHGE\$PHULFDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI7HDFKHUVRI6SDQLVKDQG3RUWXJXHVH 6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/20063733 $FFHVVHG Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Hispania. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 2

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fZHUHDOVRFROOHFWHG/HDUQHUVSDUWLFLSDWHGLQIRXUUROHSOD\UHIXVDOVLWXDWLRQVZLWKWZRQDWLYHVSHDNHUVRI6SDQLVKRQHIRUIRUPDODQGRQHIRULQIRUPDOVLWXDWLRQV7KHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSZDVH[SRVHGWRPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQIRUPDWLRQIHDWXULQJH[SOLFLWWHDFKLQJRQOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVIROORZHGE\FRPPXQLFDWLYHSUDFWLFH5HVXOWVIURPWKHSRVWWHVWDZHHNDIWHUWUHDWPHQWf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f6WXGLHVZKLFKH[DPLQHWKHHIIHFWVRILQVWUXFWLRQLQSUDJPDWLFVLQVHFRQG/fRUIRUHLJQODQJXDJH)/fFRQWH[WVKDYHDGGUHVVHGWKHIROORZLQJLVVXHVfWHDFKDELOLW\"VSHFLILFDOO\ZKHWKHUFHUWDLQDVSHFWVRISUDJPDWLFVFDQEHWDXJKW/R&DVWUR2OVKWDLQDQG&RKHQ7DWH\DPDffH[SRVXUHYVLQVWUXFWLRQWKDWLVZKHWKHUOHDUQHUVZKRUHFHLYHLQVWUXFWLRQLQSUDJPDWLFVSHUIRUPEHWWHUWKDQWKRVHZKRGRQRW%DUGRYL+DUOLJ5RVHfDQGfYDULRXVWHDFKLQJDSSURDFKHVZKHWKHUGLIIHUHQWW\SHVRILQVWUXFWLRQLPSOLFLWRUH[SOLFLWSURYLGHGLIIHUHQWOHDUQLQJHIIHFWV$OF"Q.RLNHDQG3HDUVRQf+RZHYHUZKLOHPRVWUHVHDUFKKDVEHHQFRQGXFWHGRQDYDULHW\RIDVSHFWVRI/SUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQDWWKHSURGXFWLRQDQGFRPSUHKHQVLRQOHYHOVFI%DUGRYL+DUOLJ5RVH5RVHDQG.DVSHUfIHZVWXGLHVKDYHH[DPLQHGZKHWKHUPLWLJDWLRQFDQEHOHDUQHGDVDUHVXOWRISHGDJRJLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQ)XNX\DDQG&ODUN.RLNHDQG3HDUVRQ:LVKQRIIf7KHFXUUHQWVWXG\IRFXVHVRQH[SRVXUHYVLQVWUXFWLRQDQGH[DPLQHVWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQFDQIDFLOLWDWHWKHOHDUQLQJRIPLWLJDWRUVWKDWDOORZLQWHUPHGLDWHILIWKVHPHVWHUfOHDUQHUVRI6SDQLVKDVD)/WRVRIWHQDUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHLQIRUPDODQGLQIRUPDOVLWXDWLRQVLQOHDUQHUQDWLYHVSHDNHU16fLQWHUDFWLRQV0LWLJDWLRQ0LWLJDWLRQLVW\SLFDOO\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKDWWHQXDWLRQKHGJLQJZHDNHQLQJVRIWHQLQJRU)"OL[%UDVGHIHU-&"VDU7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRP,QVWUXFWLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQLQ6SDQLVKDVD)RUHLJQ/DQJXDJH+LVSDQLDf This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 3

+LVSDQLD0D\GRZQJUDGLQJRIWKRVHHIIHFWVZKLFKDUHXQGHVLUDEOHRQWKHSDUWRIWKHKHDUHU&DIILfREVHUYHGWKDWPLWLJDWLRQLVIXQFWLRQDOWRVPRRWKLQWHUDFWLRQDOPDQDJHPHQWLQWKDWLWUHGXFHVULVNVIRUSDUWLFLSDQWVDWYDULRXVOHYHOVHJULVNVRIVHOIFRQWUDGLFWLRQUHIXVDOORVLQJIDFHFRQIOLFWDQGVRIRUWKf0LWLJDWLRQLVUHODWHGWRHSLVWHPLFPRGDOLW\DQGUHIHUVWRWKHVSHDNHUnVGHJUHHRIFRPPLWPHQWWKDWLVWKHVSHDNHUnVFRQILGHQFHRUODFNRIFRQILGHQFHfZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHWUXWKRIWKHSURSRVLWLRQH[SUHVVHG&RDWHVf,QWKHSUDJPDWLFVOLWHUDWXUHWZRW\SHVRIPLWLJDWLRQDUHH[DPLQHGOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLF&RDWHV)DHUFKDQG.DVSHU1X\WVf/H[LFDOPLWLJDWRUVLQFOXGHPRGDODGYHUEVPD\EHXQIRUWXQDWHO\fPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHV,WKLQN,EHOLHYHfGHJUHHPRGLILHUVVRUWRInNLQGRIfPRGDODGMHFWLYHVSRVVLEOHfGLPLQXWLYHVXQIDYRUFLWRDOLWWOHIDYRUfDQGIRUPVRIDGGUHVVWRVLJQDOGHIHUHQWLDOSROLWHQHVVXVWHG\RXIRUPDOf6\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVRQWKHRWKHUKDQGLQFOXGHWKHFRQGLWLRQDOWRHQFRGHSROLWHQHVV&KRGRURZVND3LOFKfWKHVXEMXQFWLYHWRH[SUHVVXQFHUWDLQW\GRXEWLPSHUVRQDOIRUPVWRSURGXFHDGLVWDQFLQJHIIHFWEHWZHHQWKHVSHDNHUDQGWKHFRQWHQWRIDSURSRVLWLRQH[SUHVVHG+DYHUNDWHfH[SUHVVLRQVRIXQFHUWDLQW\,GRQnWNQRZfDQGWDJTXHVWLRQVLVWKDWULJKW"f2YHUDOOOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVUHSUHVHQWRQHIRUPRILQWHUQDOPRGLILFDWLRQDQGVHUYHWRUHGXFHWKHQHJDWLYHHIIHFWVRIDGLVSUHIHUUHGUHVSRQVH$OWKRXJKLPSOLFLWO\WDXJKW6SDQLVKOHDUQHUVDUHRIWHQH[SRVHGWRSUDJPDWLFRUDODXUDORUZULWWHQfLQSXWLQWKHFODVVURRPWKDWFRQWDLQVDZLGHUDQJHRIWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGOLQJXLVWLFIRUPVQDPHO\OH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUV+RZHYHUWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQVfRIWKHVHIRUPVHJSROLWHQHVVGHIHUHQFHWHQWDWLYHQHVVRUXQFHUWDLQW\fLVUDUHO\LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWKH6SDQLVKFXUULFXOXP2QHZD\RIWHDFKLQJWKHQRWLRQRIPLWLJDWLRQLQWKHFODVVURRPPD\EHWRGUDZOHDUQHUVnDWWHQWLRQWRWKHVHIRUPVDQGWRPDNHWKHPDZDUHRIWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQVfRIWKHPLWLJDWRUVHQFRGHGLQDUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHLQVSHFLILFVRFLRFXOWXUDOFRQWH[WV/HDUQLQJWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQRIPLWLJDWRUVHQKDQFHVFRPPXQLFDWLYHFRPSHWHQFHLQD/DQGDOORZVOHDUQHUVWRFRPPXQLFDWHPRUHHIIHFWLYHO\E\HQDEOLQJWKHPWRLQWHUDFWLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHVRFLRFXOWXUDOQRUPVRIWKHWDUJHWFXOWXUH&RPPXQLFDWLYHFRPSHWHQFHDVGHVFULEHGE\6DYLOOH7URLNHf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f$NQRZOHGJHRIPLWLJDWLQJGHYLFHVLQVHQVLWLYHVLWXDWLRQVPD\DOORZOHDUQHUVWRVPRRWKFRQYHUVDWLRQDOLQWHUDFWLRQDQGWRQHJRWLDWHIDFHZLWKVSHDNHUVRIWKHWDUJHWFXOWXUHWRDUULYHDWDPXWXDOUHVROXWLRQ2YHUDOOOHDUQLQJWKHSUDJPDWLFVRIDQ/QRWRQO\UHTXLUHVDFKLHYLQJKLJKOHYHOVRIJUDPPDWLFDOFRPSHWHQFHHJVRXQGVZRUGVHQWHQFHIRUPDWLRQSURSRVLWLRQDOPHDQLQJfEXWDOVRDVRFLRFXOWXUDONQRZOHGJHRIGLIIHUHQWDVSHFWVRIWKH/FXOWXUHHJODQJXDJHXVHFRQYHQWLRQVfLQRUGHUWRDSSURSULDWHO\DQGHIIHFWLYHO\FRPPXQLFDWHLQWHQWLRQVLQVRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQ7KXVWKHLVVXHRIZKHWKHUPLWLJDWLRQFDQEHWDXJKWLQWKHFODVVURRPPD\IXUWKHURXUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRISUDJPDWLFGHYHORSPHQWLQDQ/DQGSURYLGHODQJXDJHHGXFDWRUVZLWKHVVHQWLDOSHGDJRJLFDOLPSOLFDWLRQVIRUWKHWHDFKLQJRISUDJPDWLFVLQWKH6SDQLVKDV)/FODVVURRP0LWLJDWLRQDPRQJ8QLQVWUXFWHGDQG,QVWUXFWHG/HDUQHUV7KHOLWHUDWXUHRQLQWHUODQJXDJHSUDJPDWLFV,/3fKDVVKRZQWKDWXQLQVWUXFWHGOHDUQHUVLQ/DQG)/FRQWH[WVXVHPLWJDWRUVOHVVRIWHQWKDQQDWLYHVSHDNHUV16Vf)RULQVWDQFHLWKDVEHHQUHSRUWHGWKDWXQLQVWUXFWHGOHDUQHUVODFNWKHDELOLW\WRXVHOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVLQUHTXHVWV)DHUFKDQG.DVSHUfDQGDSRORJLHV7URVERUJf$GYDQFHGOHDUQHUVRI6SDQLVKZLWKGLIIHUHQWOHQJWKVRIVWD\LQWKHWDUJHWFRPPXQLW\DOVRODFNWKHDELOLW\WRXWLOL]HDZLGH This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 4

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRPYDULHW\RIV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUV)"OL[%UDVGHIHUf%DUGRYL+DUOLJDQG+DUWIRUGfIRXQGWKDWZKLOH16VXVHGOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVDWDOPRVWDbUDWHZKHQSHUIRUPLQJVXJJHVWLRQVWKHDGYDQFHG/OHDUQHUVHPSOR\HGDQDUURZUDQJHRIPLWLJDWRUVDWDOPRVWDbUDWHRYHUWKHFRXUVHRIRQHVHPHVWHU2YHUWKHFRXUVHRID\HDU6DOVEXU\DQG%DUGRYL+DUOLJfIRXQGLQGLVDJUHHPHQWVWKDWVRPHOHDUQHUVXVHGIHZPRGDOLW\PDUNHUVDQGWKDWWKHLUJUDPPDWLFDOH[SUHVVLRQVRIPRGDOLW\UHPDLQHGPRVWO\XQSURGXFWLYH)LQDOO\LQ(OOLVnVfVWXG\RIWZRER\VOHDUQLQJ(QJOLVKDVD6HFRQG/DQJXDJH(6/fKHIRXQGWKDWZKLOHWKHUDQJHRIWKHLUUHTXHVWW\SHVZDVH[WHQGHGVOLJKWO\RYHUWLPHGLUHFWUHTXHVWVSUHGRPLQDWHGLQWKHLUVSHHFKDVWKH\ODUJHO\HPSOR\HGLPSHUDWLYHYHUEVDQGWKHPDMRULW\RIWKHVHGLUHFWLYHVFRQWDLQHGOLWWOHXVHRILQWHUQDOPRGLILFDWLRQ7KXV(OOLVFRQFOXGHGWKDW>L@WPD\EHQHFHVVDU\WRFUHDWHVXFKDQHHGDUWLILFLDOO\DQGSHUKDSVDOVRWRGUDZOHDUQHUVnFRQVFLRXVDWWHQWLRQWRWKHZD\LQZKLFKODQJXDJHLVXVHGWRHQFRGHVRFLDOPHDQLQJf:KLOHWKHOLWHUDWXUHLQ/SUDJPDWLFVKDVVKRZQLQJHQHUDOWKDWLQVWUXFWLRQLQSUDJPDWLFVLVPRUHHIIHFWLYHWKDQH[SRVXUHFI%DUGRYL+DUOLJ5RVH5RVHDQG.DVSHUfWKHLVVXHRIZKHWKHUOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQFDQEHOHDUQHGDVDUHVXOWRISHGDJRJLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQLVVWLOOQRWFOHDU8VLQJDSRVWWHVWGHVLJQ)XNX\DDQG&ODUNfLQYHVWLJDWHGZKHWKHULPSOLFLW)RFXVRQ)RUPfRUH[SOLFLW)RFXVRQ)RUPVfWHDFKLQJWHFKQLTXHVZRXOGLPSURYHWKHOHDUQHUVnDELOLW\WRUHFRJQL]HGLIIHUHQWPLWLJDWRUVLQUHTXHVWV7KHLUUHVXOWVLQGLFDWHGQRVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQLPSOLFLWDQGH[SOLFLWWHDFKLQJDQGWKHDXWKRUVFRQFOXGHGWKDWW\SRJUDSKLFDOHQKDQFHPHQWZDVQRWSHUFHSWXDOO\VDOLHQWHQRXJKWRGUDZWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVnDWWHQWLRQWRPLWLJDWRUVf8VLQJDSUHWHVWSRVWWHVWGHVLJQ:LVKQRIIfH[DPLQHGWKHHIIHFWVRIFODVVURRPLQVWUXFWLRQRIKHGJHGH[SUHVVLRQVE\PHDQVRIFRPSXWHUPHGLDWHGZULWLQJDPRQJDGYDQFHG(6/OHDUQHUV+HUHWKHDXWKRUIRXQGDQLQFUHDVHGIUHTXHQF\DQGDZLGHUUDQJHRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVDVDUHVXOWRIH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQRQWKHSRVWWHVWOHQGLQJVXSSRUWWR6FKPLGWnVQRWLFLQJK\SRWKHVLVf$FFRUGLQJWRWKLVK\SRWKHVLVIRUWKHOHDUQLQJRISUDJPDWLFVLQDVHFRQGODQJXDJHDWWHQWLRQWROLQJXLVWLFIRUPVIXQFWLRQDOPHDQLQJVDQGWKHUHOHYDQWFRQWH[WXDOIHDWXUHVLVUHTXLUHGf)LQDOO\XVLQJDSUHWHVWSRVWWHVWDQGDGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWGHVLJQZLWKOHDUQHUVRI6SDQLVK.RLNHDQG3HDUVRQfH[DPLQHGZKHWKHULPSOLFLWUHFDVWVLQGLDORJZULWLQJfRUH[SOLFLWPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQfLQVWUXFWLRQDQGIHHGEDFNRQVXJJHVWLRQVZRXOGLPSURYHWKHLUDELOLW\WRXQGHUVWDQGDQGSURGXFHDSSURSULDWHVXJJHVWLRQV,WZDVIRXQGWKDWZKLOHERWKW\SHVRILQVWUXFWLRQKHOSHGOHDUQHUVLPSURYHWKHLUSUDJPDWLFFRPSHWHQFHWKHODWWHUSURGXFHGWKHEHVWUHVXOWV1RQHWKHOHVVLPSOLFLWIHHGEDFNKHOSHGOHDUQHUVXVHPRUHPLWLJDWRUVHJSRUIDYRUnSOHDVHQRSRGU"DV"FRXOGQnW\RX"fLQVXJJHVWLRQVWKDQWKHFRQWUROJURXS,QWKHVWXGLHVFLWHGDERYHWKHUROHRIH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQZDVWRGLUHFWOHDUQHUVnDWWHQWLRQWRUHOHYDQWIHDWXUHVRIWKHLQSXWDQGWRJDLQLQVLJKWVLQWRWKHPDSSLQJRIOLQJXLVWLFIRUPPHDQLQJDQGFRQWH[W6LQFHWKHVWXGLHVDERYHLQYHVWLJDWHGPLWLJDWLRQXVLQJZULWWHQDQGOLVWHQLQJFRPSUHKHQVLRQGDWDWKHFXUUHQWVWXG\VHHNVWRVKHGDGGLWLRQDOOLJKWRQWKHLVVXHRI/PLWLJDWLRQDWWKHGLVFRXUVHOHYHOE\XWLOL]LQJLQWHUDFWLRQDOUROHSOD\f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his content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 5

+"VSDQOD0D\0HWKRG3DUWLFLSDQWV7KHFXUUHQWVWXG\DGRSWHGDTXDVLH[SHULPHQWDOGHVLJQIHDWXULQJWZRJURXSVRIXQLYHUVLW\OHYHOOHDUQHUVDQH[SHULPHQWDOJURXS/6SDQLVKfDQGDFRQWUROJURXS/6SDQLVKf7KHGDWDIURPWKHVHJURXSVZHUHFRPSDUHGWREDVHOLQHGDWDIURP16VRI6SDQLVK/6SDQLVKfDQG(QJOLVK/,(QJOLVKf7KHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSFRQVLVWHGRIRQHLQWDFWLQWHUPHGLDWHOHYHOILIWKVHPHVWHU6SDQLVKFODVVFRQVLVWLQJRIOHDUQHUVRI6SDQLVKDVDQ)/IHPDOHVDQGIRXUPDOHVPHDQDJH \HDUVfWDXJKWE\D16RI0H[LFDQ6SDQLVK$OOVXEMHFWVSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHSUHWHVWSRVWWHVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWVDQGZHUHH[SRVHGWRWKHWUHDWPHQWGHVFULEHGEHORZf7KHFRQWUROJURXSFRQVLVWHGRIDQDGGLWLRQDOLQWDFWFODVVRIOHDUQHUVRI6SDQLVKDVDQ)/IHPDOHVDQGWKUHHPDOHVPHDQDJH \HDUVfWDXJKWE\D16RI&KLOHDQ6SDQLVK$OOOHDUQHUVSHUIRUPHGWKHSUHWHVWVDQGSRVWWHVWV7KHVHOHDUQHUVZHUHDOVRH[SRVHGWRWKHWUHDWPHQWPDWHULDOVLQFODVVEXWGLGQRWUHFHLYHH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQRQWKHXVHRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVWKDWWKHOHDUQHUVLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSUHFHLYHG7KH/,6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVKGDWDZHUHHPSOR\HGWRDVVHVVWKHOHDUQHUVnDSSUR[LPDWLRQWRPLWLJDWRUVSURGXFHGE\16V7KH/6SDQLVKGDWDZHUHFROOHFWHGDWDSXEOLFXQLYHUVLW\LQFHQWUDO0H[LFR7OD[FDOD&LW\fDQGLQFOXGHGGDWDIURPPDOH16VRI0H[LFDQ6SDQLVK7RGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHU/WUDQVIHULQIOXHQFHGWKH/SURGXFWLRQRIWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSDQGZKHWKHUFKDQJHVLQSUDJPDWLFEHKDYLRURFFXUUHGDVDUHVXOWRIWKHWUHDWPHQWWKH/,(QJOLVKGDWDZHUHFROOHFWHGIURPWKHVDPH/6SDQLVKOHDUQHUVWKDWSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXS,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQG3URFHGXUHV7KHGDWDIRUWKHSUHVHQWLQYHVWLJDWLRQZHUHFROOHFWHGXVLQJRSHQHQGHGUROHSOD\V&RKHQ)"OL[%UDVGHIHU.DVSHUDQG'DKOf6L[UROHSOD\VLWXDWLRQVZHUHHPSOR\HGLQWKHWDVNLQFOXGLQJIRXUUHIXVDOVDQGWZRGLVWUDFWHUVRQHFRPSODLQWDQGRQHFRPSOLPHQWf'XHWRVSDFHFRQVWUDLQWVWKHIRXUUHIXVDOVLWXDWLRQVDUHEULHIO\GHVFULEHGEHORZIROORZHGE\WKHPHDQQXPEHURIZRUGVIRUHDFKVLWXDWLRQ(DFKUROHSOD\GHVFULSWLRQFRQWDLQHGFRQWH[WXDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHVHWWLQJSDUWLFLSDQWVDJHDQGWKHGLVWDQFHDQGSRZHUUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVr$VWXGHQWUHIXVHVDSURIHVVRUnVVXJJHVWLRQWRWDNHDQH[WUDFODVV3RZHU'LVWDQFHf$GYLVRUZRUGVfr$QHPSOR\HHGHFOLQHVDERVVnVLQYLWDWLRQWRDWWHQGDIDUHZHOOSDUW\3RZHU'LVWDQFHf)DUHZHOOZRUGVfr$GLOLJHQWVWXGHQWUHIXVHVWROHQGQRWHVWRDFODVVPDWH3RZHU'LVWDQFHf1RWHVZRUGVfr$VWXGHQWUHIXVHVDIULHQGnVLQYLWDWLRQWRDWWHQGDELUWKGD\SDUW\3RZHU'LVWDQFHf%LUWKGD\ZRUGVf'XULQJWKHUROHSOD\WDVNHDFKSDUWLFLSDQWLQWHUDFWHGZLWKWZRGLIIHUHQWLQWHUYLHZHUVDWGLIIHUHQWWLPHVRQHIRUVLWXDWLRQVRIXQHTXDOVWDWXV)DUHZHOO$GYLVRUfDQGDVHFRQGIRUVLWXDWLRQVRIHTXDOVWDWXV%LUWKGD\1RWHVf%RWKLQWHUYLHZHUVZHUH16VRI0H[LFDQ6SDQLVKRQHZDVDFROOHJHVWXGHQWDQGWKHRWKHUZDVDXQLYHUVLW\SURIHVVRU5ROHSD\LQWHUDFWLRQVZHUHFRQGXFWHGLQ6SDQLVKIRUWKH/DQG/6SDQLVKJURXSVDQGLQ(QJOLVKIRUWKH/(QJOLVKJURXSE\WZR16VRI(QJOLVKDVWXGHQWDQGDSURIHVVRU3UHWHVW3RVWWHVWDQG'HOD\HG3RVWWHVW7RHOLPLQDWHDQ\SRVVLEOHSUHWHVWHIIHFWVRQWKHLQVWUXFWLRQDOWUHDWPHQWWKHH[SHULPHQWDO This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 6

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRPSUHWHVWZDVDGPLQLVWHUHGIRXUZHHNVSULRUWRWKHWUHDWPHQWDSSUR[LPDWHO\DPRQWKDIWHUWKHVHPHVWHUEHJDQ7KHSRVWWHVWZDVFRQGXFWHGRQHZHHNDIWHUWKHWUHDWPHQWDQGWKHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWRQHPRQWKDIWHUWKHWUHDWPHQWDWWKHHQGRIWKHVHPHVWHU'XHWRDFDGHPLFUHVWULFWLRQVUROHSOD\GDWDIRUWKHFRQWUROJURXSZHUHFROOHFWHGWZLFHDWWKHEHJLQQLQJSUHWHVWfDQGWRZDUGVWKHHQGRIWKHVHPHVWHUSRVWWHVWfDWWKHVDPHWLPHVGDWDZHUHFROOHFWHGIURPWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXS3HGDJRJLFDO,QWHUYHQWLRQ7UHDWPHQW0DWHULDOVDQG3URFHGXUHV7KHWUHDWPHQWZDVRIIHUHGGXULQJRQHUHJXODUFODVVVHVVLRQODVWLQJPLQXWHVDQGZDVIROORZHGE\PLQXWHVRIFRPPXQLFDWLYHSUDFWLFHLQWKHIROORZLQJFODVVVHVVLRQWZRGD\VODWHU'XHWRWKHLQWHQVLYHQDWXUHRIWKHFRXUVHGXULQJWKHVSULQJVHPHVWHUWKLVFODVVPHWWZLFHDZHHNHDFKFODVVODVWLQJPLQXWHV)ROORZLQJWKHSURFHGXUHVRI.LQJDQG6LOYHUfDQG7DNDKDVKLfWKHWUHDWPHQWVHVVLRQZDVGLYLGHGLQWRWZRVHJPHQWVfDFURVVFXOWXUDOVHJPHQWFRPSDULVRQH[SHULPHQWDODQGFRQWUROJURXSVfDQGfPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSRQO\fIROORZHGE\FRPPXQLFDWLYHSUDFWLFH0RUHVSHFLILFDOO\GXULQJWKHSHGDJRJLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQWKHOHDUQHUVLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSZHUHH[SRVHGWRSUDJPDWLFLQSXWOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVLQUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHVfDQGZHUHPDGHDZDUHWKURXJKH[SOLFLWWHDFKLQJfRIWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQVRIPLWLJDWRUVLQUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHVLQIRUPDODQGLQIRUPDOVLWXDWLRQV,QWKHFXUUHQWVWXG\PHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQLVRSHUDWLRQDOL]HGDVWKHH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVLQUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHVE\UDLVLQJOHDUQHUVnDZDUHQHVVRIWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQRIWKHVHIRUPVWKURXJKH[SRVXUHWRHQKDQFHGLQSXWLQD3RZHU3RLQWSUHVHQWDWLRQ7KHREMHFWLYHRIWKHPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQZDVWRSURPRWHH[SOLFLWOHDUQLQJRIFHUWDLQPLWLJDWRUVZKHQUHIXVLQJDSHUVRQRIHTXDORUKLJKHUVWDWXV$FFRUGLQJWR'H.H\VHUH[SOLFLWOHDUQLQJRFFXUVZLWKFRQFXUUHQWDZDUHQHVVRIZKDWLVEHLQJOHDUQHG7KLVLPSOLHV>@WKDWVRPHVRUWRIUXOHLVEHLQJWKRXJKWDERXWGXULQJWKHOHDUQLQJSURFHVVf0HWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQFHQWHUVRQWKHIRUPIXQFWLRQUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHWDUJHWHGSUDJPDWLFIHDWXUHVLHOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVf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fWKHGHJUHHRILQfGLUHFWQHVVLQ6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVKUHIXVDOVWKHGHJUHHRISROLWHQHVVDQGWKHXVHRIW"\RXLQIRUPDOfDQGXVWHG\RXIRUPDOfIRUPVLQWKH6SDQLVKGDWD0HWDSUDJPDWLF,QVWUXFWLRQ([SOLFLW7HDFKLQJRI5HIXVDOV7KHUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHVGLVFXVVHGLQWKHSUHYLRXVVHJPHQWZHUHVKRZQLQD3RZHU3RLQWSUHVHQWDWLRQWRWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXS,QRUGHUWRGLUHFWWKHOHDUQHUVnDWWHQWLRQWRWKHWDUJHWHGUHIXVDOIHDWXUHVDQGWRPDNHWKHPVDOLHQWLQSXWZDVPDQLSXODWHGIROORZLQJWKHSURFHGXUHVGHVFULEHGLQ6KDUZRRG6PLWKf7RPD[LPL]HWKHQRWLFLQJRIWKHWDUJHWHGIHDWXUHVLQWKH3RZHU3RLQWSUHVHQWDWLRQWKHOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVZHUHHQKDQFHGDQGPDGHVDOLHQWDFURVVWKHUHIXVDOLQWHUDFWLRQE\PHDQVRIFRORUFRGLQJXQGHUOLQLQJDQGKROGLQJ/HDUQHUVLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSZHUHWDXJKWWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQVRIWKHFRQGLWLRQDOIRUH[SUHVVLQJSROLWHQHVVLQ6SDQLVK&KRGRURZVND3LOFKfWKHLPSHUIHFWIRUH[SUHVVLQJPLWLJDWLRQ+DYHUNDWHfWKHXVHRIWKHVXEMXQFWLYHWRH[SUHVVKHVLWDQFHDQGGRXEWWKHXVHRILPSHUVRQDO This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 7

+LVSDQLD0D\FRQVWUXFWLRQVWRSURGXFHDGLVWDQFLQJHIIHFW+DYHUNDWHfDQGWKHVRFLDOIXQFWLRQVR"XVWHG\RXIRUPDOf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nDZDUHQHVVRIFURVVFXOWXUDOGLIIHUHQFHVDQGRIWKHOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVHPSOR\HGWRSHUIRUPDUHIXVDOLQIRUPDODQGLQIRUPDOVLWXDWLRQVLQ6SDQLVK'DWD$QDO\VLV7KHUROHSOD\LQWHUDFWLRQVH[SHULPHQWDOJURXS>SUHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVW@FRQWUROJURXS>SUHDQGSRVWWHVW@/,6SDQLVK/,(QJOLVKfZHUHFROOHFWHGDQGUHFRUGHGRQWDSHV7KHGDWDZHUHWUDQVFULEHGDFFRUGLQJWRDPRGLILHGWUDQVFULSWLRQFRQYHQWLRQ-HIIHUVRQfVHH$SSHQGL[%IRUWKHWUDQVFULSWLRQQRWDWLRQVXVHGLQWUDQVFULELQJWKHGDWDf7KHQWKHWUDQVFULEHGGDWDZHUHFRGHGDFFRUGLQJWRDPRGLILHGYHUVLRQRIDFODVVLILFDWLRQRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUV&RDWHV)DHUFKDQG.DVSHU1X\WVf6HH$SSHQGL[$IRUWKHFODVVLILFDWLRQRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVXVHGLQWKLVVWXG\DQGH[DPSOHVf)XUWKHULQRUGHUWRDGGUHVVWKHLVVXHRILQWHUFRGHUUHOLDELOLW\GXULQJWKHFRGLQJRIVWUDWHJLHVWKHOHDUQHUGDWDZHUHFRGHGLQGHSHQGHQWO\E\WKHUHVHDUFKHUDQGVXEVHTXHQWO\E\D16RI6SDQLVK,QFDVHVZKHUHDGLVFUHSDQF\ZDVGHWHFWHGE\WKH16FRGHUWKHUHVHDUFKHUDQGFRGHUGLVFXVVHGWKHFRGLQJDQGDUULYHGDWDPXWXDODJUHHPHQW2YHUDOOWKHUHVHDUFKHUDQGWKHFRGHUDJUHHGRQWKHFRGLQJRIVWUDWHJLHVIRUbRIWKHGDWD)LQDOO\DVWDWLVWLFDODQDO\VLVRIWKHGDWDZDVFRQGXFWHGXVLQJYHUVLRQRIWKH6WDWLVWLFDO3DFNDJHIRUWKH6RFLDO6FLHQFHV6366f'HVFULSWLYHVWDWLVWLFVZHUHXVHGWRFRPSXWHWKHIUHTXHQF\RIUHIXVDOVWUDWHJLHVRQWKHSUHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWPHDVXUHVIRUHDFKJURXS7KHVWDWLVWLFDOWHVWVHPSOR\HGWRH[DPLQHWKHGDWDLQFOXGHGUHSHDWHGPHDVXUHVDQDO\VHVRIYDULDQFH$129$fIROORZHGE\SRVWKRFFRPSDULVRQVWHVWVfZKHQVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHVZHUHREVHUYHG7KHWHVWVZHUHSHUIRUPHGZLWK%RQIHUURQLFRUUHFWLRQVWRDGMXVWIRULQIODWHGDOSKDV5HVXOWV)UHTXHQF\RI/H[LFDODQG6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWRUV)LJXUHGLVSOD\VWKHRYHUDOOGLVWULEXWLRQRIPLWLJDWRUVOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFfIRUHDFKVLWXDWLRQDFURVVWKHOHDUQHUJURXSVIRUHDFKPHDVXUH([SHULPHQWDODQG&RQWUROfDQGLQWKH6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVKEDVHOLQHGDWD5HVHDUFK4XHVWLRQf7DEOHVKRZVWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJQXPHULFUHVXOWVLQFOXGLQJPHDQVDQGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQV This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 8

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRP2&')LJXUH2YHUDOO'LVWULEXWLRQRI/H[LFDODQG6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWLRQE\6LWXDWLRQ*URXSDQG(DFK0HDVXUH7RWDO1XPEHURI0LWLJDWRUVfbbb([SHULPHQWDO([SHULPHQWDO([SHULPHQWDO3UHWHVW3RVWWHVW'HOD\HG&RQWURO3UHWHVW&RQWURO3RVWWHVW/,6SDQLVK/,(QJOLVK+$GYLVRU3RZHU'LVWDQFHf)DUHZHOO3RZHU'LVWDQFHfQ1RWHV3RZHU'LVWDQFHf+%LUWKGD\3RZHU'LVWDQFHf7DEOH0HDQVDQG6WDQGDUG'HYLDWLRQ6'fRI/H[LFDODQG6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWRUVE\6LWXDWLRQDQG*URXSIRU(DFK0HDVXUHQ f5HVXOWVRI77HVW&RPSDULVRQV([SHULPHQWDO*URXSf$GYLVRU)DUHZHOO1RWHV%LUWKGD\0HDQ6'0HDQ6'0HDQ6'0HDQ6'([SHULPHQWDO3UHWHVW([SHULPHQWDO3RVWWHVW([SHULPHQWDO'HOD\HG&RQWURO3UHWHVW&RQWURO3RVWWHVW/,6SDQLVK+/,(QJOLVK$GYLVRU3UHSRVWWHVWLf S3UHGHOD\HGWf ")DUHZHOO3UHSRVWWHVWWf MS3UHGHOD\HGW^?f "1RWHV3UHSRVWWHVWWf S?3UHGHOD\HGWf "%LUWKGD\3UHSRVWWHVW"f S3UHGHOD\HG"f "$FFRUGLQJWR)LJXUHRIWKHPLWLJDWRUVLGHQWLILHGLQWKHIRXUGDWDVHWVWKHPDMRULW\ZDVSURGXFHGE\ERWKJURXSVRI16VZLWKWKH6SDQLVKVSHDNHUVSURGXFLQJDKLJKHUIUHTXHQF\RIERWKOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVb" fWKDQWKH$PHULFDQVbQ f:LWKLQWKH/,6SDQLVKJURXSWKHUHZDVDSUHIHUHQFHIRUPLWLJDWLRQLQVLWXDWLRQVRIIRUPDOVWDWXV$GYLVRU)DUHZHOOfKRZHYHUQRPDMRUGLIIHUHQFHZDVREVHUYHGDPRQJWKH16VRI(QJOLVKLQIRUPDODQGLQIRUPDOVLWXDWLRQV:LWKUHJDUGWRWKHOHDUQHUGDWDWKHIUHTXHQF\RIPLWLJDWRUVZDVKLJKHVWRQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOSRVWWHVWbQ fIROORZHGE\WKHH[SHULPHQWDOGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWbQ f7KHH[SHULPHQWDOSUHWHVWbQ fDQGWKHFRQWUROSRVWWHVWbQ fVKRZHGOHVVIUHTXHQWXVHRIPLWLJDWRUVDQGILQDOO\WKHFRQWUROSUHWHVWUHSUHVHQWHGWKHORZHVWIUHTXHQF\bQ f:LWKUHJDUGWRWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUPLWLJDWRUW\SHRYHUDOOWKHUHZDVDSUHIHUHQFHIRUOH[LFDObQ fRYHUV\QWDFWLFbQ fPLWLJDWLRQ$UHSHDWHGPHDVXUHV$129$ZDVXVHGWRFRPSDUHWKHPHDQVRIPLWLJDWRUXVHLQHDFKVLWXDWLRQDQGDFURVVWKHWKUHHPHDVXUHVLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXS7KHGLIIHUHQFHZDVVLJQLILFDQWIRUHDFKVLWXDWLRQVHHPHDQVDQGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQVLQ7DEOHf$GYLVRU)?f ")DUHZHOO)Of A1RWHV)Of ADQG%LUWKGD\)Of S7RGHWHUPLQHZKHUHWKHVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHREWDLQHGDSDLUHGVDPSOHV"WHVWZDVXVHGWRFRPSDUHWKHPHDQVRIWKHSUHDQGSRVWWHVWVWKHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWVDQGWKHSUHDQG This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 9

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f $SfZLWKPRUHOH[LFDOPLWLJDWRUVXVHGRQWKHSRVWWHVWWKDQRQWKHSUHWHVWQRVLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHZDVQRWHGLQWKHXVHRIV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQRQWKHSRVWWHVW'HVSLWHWKHIDFWWKDWWKHOHDUQHUVLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDODQGFRQWUROJURXSVZHUHDWDQLQWHUPHGLDWHOHYHOILIWKVHPHVWHU6SDQLVKfWKH\VKRZHGGLIIHUHQWDFTXLVLWLRQDODQGOHDUQLQJSURILOHV)LJXUHVDQGVKRZWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUPLWLJDWRUVE\OHDUQHULQERWKWKHH[SHULPHQWDODQGFRQWUROJURXSVDFURVVWKHSUHDQGSRVWWHVWPHDVXUHVUHVSHFWLYHO\)LJXUH([SHULPHQWDO*URXS/H[LFDODQG6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWLRQE\/HDUQHULQ)RXU6LWXDWLRQV3UHWHVW0HDQ f3RVW7HVW0HDQ f'HOD\HG0HDQ fAA"ttAAAr"AAIrI"ArUrr"3UHWHVW3RVWWHVW+'HOD\HG)LJXUH&RQWURO*URXS/H[LFDODQG6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWLRQE\/HDUQHULQ)RXU6LWXDWLRQV3UHWHVW0HDQ fDQG3RVW7HVW0HDQ f0LO,3UHWHVWA3RVWWHVW This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 10

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fSRVWWHVW0 fDQGGHOD\HG0 fSRVWWHVW:LWKUHJDUGWRWKHFRQWUROJURXS)LJXUHVKRZVWKDWRIWKHOHDUQHUVXVHGDVOLJKWO\KLJKHUQXPEHURIPLWLJDWRUVRQWKHSRVWWHVWDQGILYHOHDUQHUVGLGQRWVKRZDQ\FKDQJHIURPWKHSUHWHVWWRWKHSRVWWHVW)LQDOO\XQOLNHWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSLQZKLFKWKHPHDQVVLJQLILFDQWO\LQFUHDVHGDVDUHVXOWRILQVWUXFWLRQRQERWKSRVWWHVWVDVH[SHFWHGWKHFRQWUROJURXSGLGQRWVKRZHYLGHQFHRIDVLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHLQWKHPHDQXVHRIPLWLJDWRUVSUHWHVW0 fDQGSRVWWHVW0 f$JDLQWKLVILQGLQJVKRZVWKDWRQO\WKHOHDUQHUVZKRZHUHH[SRVHGWRWKHWUHDWPHQWVKRZHGDGHYHORSPHQWDOFKDQJHLQFUHDVHGXVHRIPLWLJDWRUVfDVDUHVXOWRIPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQDQGPRVWRIWKHVHOHDUQHUVGLVSOD\HGUHWHQWLRQRIWKHVHIRUPVRQHPRQWKDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQ7\SHRI/H[LFDODQG6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWRUV'LIIHUHQFHVZHUHDOVRREVHUYHGLQWKHW\SHRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUV5HVHDUFK4XHVWLRQf7DEOHVKRZVWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIILYHOH[LFDOPLWLJDWRUVLQHDFKJURXSIRUDOOIRXUVLWXDWLRQVRQHDFKPHDVXUHLQFOXGLQJWKHPHDQVDQGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQV7DEOH/H[LFDO0LWLJDWRUVE\7\SH,QFOXGHV$OO)RXU6LWXDWLRQVf0HQWDO6WDWH3UHGLFDWH0HDQ6'0RGDO$GMHFWLYH0HDQ6'0RGDO$GYHUE0HDQ6''HJUHH0RGLILHU0HDQ6''LPLQXWLYH0HDQ6'([SHULPHQWDO3UHWHVW([SHULPHQWDO3RVWWHVW([SHULPHQWDO'HOD\HG&RQWURO3UHWHVW&RQWURO3RVWWHVW/,6SDQLVK/,(QJOLVK$VVKRZQLQ7DEOHWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUOH[LFDOPLWLJDWRUVYDULHGLQ6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVK$VVHHQIURPWKHPHDQVRIPLWLJDWRUXVHPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHVFUHRPHSDUHFHTXH,WKLQNn9nLWVHHPVWRPHWKDWfDQGGHJUHHPRGLILHUVFRPRTXHQRYDDVHUSRVLEOHLWnVVRUWRIOLNHLWnVQRWJRLQJWREHSRVVLEOHfZHUHPRUHIUHTXHQWLQWKH6SDQLVKEDVHOLQHGDWDZKHUHDVPRGDODGYHUEVPD\EHSUREDEO\fZHUHPRUHIUHTXHQWDPRQJ16VRI(QJOLVK)RUERWKJURXSVRI16VPRGDODGMHFWLYHVHVSRVLEOHL"VSRVVLEOHfDQGGLPLQXWLYHVZHUHUDUH This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 11

+"VSDQOD0D\:LWKUHJDUGWRWKHOHDUQHUGDWDHIIHFWVRILQVWUXFWLRQZHUHQRWHGIRUPRVWPLWLJDWRUVZLWKYDU\LQJGHJUHHVRISUHIHUHQFH$VIRUWKHFRQWUROJURXSWKHUHZDVOLWWOHHYLGHQFHRIFKDQJHLQWZRPLWLJDWRUVRQWKHSRVWWHVWPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHVPRGDODGMHFWLYHVf:LWKUHJDUGWRWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHVFUHRSLHQVRTXHQRSXHGR,GRQnWEHOLHYHWKLQN,FDQfZHUHRIWHQXVHGWRVRIWHQWKHQHJDWLYHHIIHFWVRIDUHIXVDODQGD"WHVWZKLFKFRPSDUHGWKHPHDQVEHWZHHQWKHSUH0 fDQGSRVWWHVW0 fGDWDUHYHDOHGVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHVWf "fZLWKWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSVKRZLQJVLJQLILFDQWJDLQVRQWKHSRVWWHVWRQHZHHNDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQ7KHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWVKRZHGUHWHQWLRQRIPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHVIRXUZHHNVDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQ0 f:KHQFRPSDUHGWRWKH/,6SDQLVKJURXSWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSIRUPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHVfRQERWKSRVWWHVWVVKRZHGDQDSSUR[LPDWLRQWR166SDQLVKEHKDYLRU0 f1H[WWKHUHZDVDQRWLFHDEOHLQFUHDVHLQWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUPRGDODGMHFWLYHVDFURVVWKHWKUHHPHDVXUHVZKLFKZDVPRVWO\UHDOL]HGE\PHDQVRIWZRIRUPVHVSRVLEOHLWnVSRVVLEOHDQGSRVLEOHSRVVLEOH:LWKUHJDUGWRWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUPRGDODGYHUEVGHVDIRUWXQDGDPHQWHXQIRUWXQDWHO\SUREDEOHPHQWHSUREDEO\TXL]"PD\EHfWKHUHZDVVRPHHYLGHQFHRIFKDQJHDVDUHVXOWRILQVWUXFWLRQRQERWKWKHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWV)LQDOO\ZKLOHWKHUHZDVDVOLJKWLQFUHDVHLQWKHPHDQVRIGHJUHHPRGLILHUVFRPRTXHVRUWRIfDQGGLPLQXWLYHVXQSRTXLWRDOLWWOHELWfRQERWKWKHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWVLWDSSHDUVWKDWNQRZOHGJHRIWKHVHOH[LFDOPLWLJDWRUVLVVWLOOXQSURGXFWLYHDPRQJWKHVHOHDUQHUV7DEOHVKRZVWKHPHDQVDQGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQVIRUILYHV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUV$VFDQEHVHHQIURPWKHEDVHOLQHGDWDWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQZDVPRUHIUHTXHQWLQWKH6SDQLVKGDWD,QSDUWLFXODUWKUHHV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVZHUHHPSOR\HGIUHTXHQWO\DPRQJWKH16VRI6SDQLVKLQIRUPDODQGLQIRUPDOVLWXDWLRQVWKHFRQGLWLRQDOWKHVXEMXQFWLYHDQGWDJTXHVWLRQVWDJVfDWWKHHQGRIDUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHWRHOLFLWDQXSWDNH7DEOH6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWRUVE\7\SH,QFOXGHV$OO)RXU6LWXDWLRQVf([SHULPHQWDO3UHWHVW([SHULPHQWDO3RVWWHVW([SHULPHQWDO'HOD\HGB&RQWURO3UHWHVW&RQWURO3RVWWHVW/,6SDQLVK/,(QJOLVK&RQGLWLRQDO0HDQ6'8QFHUWDLQW\QRV",GRQnWNQRZf0HDQ6'6XEMXQFWLYH0HDQ',PSHUVRQDOnVHn7DJV0HDQ6'0HDQ6':LWKUHVSHFWWRWKHOHDUQHUGDWDDQRWLFHDEOHLQFUHDVHZDVREVHUYHGLQWKHPHDQVRIWKUHHV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVRQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOSRVWWHVWWKHXVHRIWKHFRQGLWLRQDOWRH[SUHVVSROLWHQHVVQRSRGU"D,ZRXOGQnWEHDEOHWRfH[SUHVVLRQVRIXQFHUWDLQW\WRGHOD\DUHIXVDOQRV",GRQnWNQRZfDQGDQLQFUHDVHLQWKHXVHRIWKHVXEMXQFWLYHWRH[SUHVVVXEMHFWLYLW\DQGGRXEWRQWKHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWQRV"VLSXHGD>68%-81&7,9(@,GRQnWNQRZLI,nGEHDEOHWRf5HWHQWLRQRIWKHVHPLWLJDWRUVFDQEHREVHUYHGRQWKHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWRQZKLFKWKHPHDQVDUHJUHDWHUWKDQWKRVHRIWKHSUHWHVWDQGVOLJKWO\ORZHUWKDQWKRVHRIWKHSRVWWHVWFRQGLWLRQDOXQFHUWDLQW\QRV",GRQnWNQRZf7KHFRQWUROJURXSRQWKHRWKHUKDQGVKRZHGXQSURGXFWLYHXVHRIWKHVHIRUPVDVQRPDMRUFKDQJHZDVVHHQLQWKHSRVWWHVWGDWD)LQDOO\ZKLOHWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSVKRZHGVRPHHYLGHQFHRILPSURYHPHQWRQWKHODVWWZRPLWLJDWRUVWKHLPSHUVRQDOVHQRVH This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 12

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRP,03(5621$/SXHGHLWnVQRWSRVVLEOHfDQGWDJTXHVWLRQVSUHILHURWRPDUODFODVHGHVSX"VOHSDUHFH",nGUDWKHUWDNHWKHFODVVODWHUZKDWGR\RXWKLQN"fDVDUHVXOWRILQVWUXFWLRQLQWKHFRQWUROJURXSWKHVHPLWLJDWRUVGLGQRWDSSHDUDWDOOLQERWKPHDVXUHV7RVKRZWKHHIIHFWVRILQVWUXFWLRQRQWKHXVHRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVDFURVVGLVFRXUVHWKUHHUHIXVDOLQWHUDFWLRQVSURGXFHGE\WKHVDPHOHDUQHUH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSfSUHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWfDUHDQDO\]HGIURPWKHVLWXDWLRQLQZKLFKDVWXGHQWUHIXVHVDSURIHVVRUnVVXJJHVWLRQWRWDNHDQH[WUDFODVV'XHWRVSDFHUHVWULFWLRQVVRPHOLQHVLQWKHWUDQVFULSWEHORZKDYHEHHQRPLWWHGf"VKRZVULVLQJLQWRQDWLRQVKRZVIDOOLQJLQWRQDWLRQff3UHWHVW/6SDQLVKVWXGHQWUHIXVHVSURIHVVRUnVVXJJHVWLRQWRWDNHDQH[WUDFODVV)HPDOHfILYHOLQHVLQWKUHHWXUQVRPLWWHGff6WXGHQWrXUQ\RFUHRTXHXP\RQRSXHGRXP\RFUHRTXHQRSXHGR"DKWRPDUHVWDVFODVHVSRUTXHXPHQODFODVHSU"[LPDXPXPPHVDFRXQEXHQRQRWDPDO"XP,WKLQNWKDWXUQ,FDQnWXUQ,WKLQNWKDW,FDQnW?DKWDNHWKHVHFODVVHVEHFDXVHXUQLQWKHQH[WFODVVXUQXUQ,JHWDJRRGEDGJUDGH"3URIHVVRUEXHQRDKHVWXGHFLVL"QVLFDPELDVGHRSLQL"QYHQDYHUPHGHDFXHUGR"ZHOODKLWnV\RXUGHFLVLRQ,LI\RXFKDQJH\RXUPLQGFRPHVHHPHRNO6WXGHQWVL\HVf3RVWWHVW/6SDQLVKVWXGHQWUHIXVHVSURIHVVRUnVVXJJHVWLRQWRWDNHDQH[WUDFODVV)HPDOHfILYHOLQHVLQWKUHHWXUQVRPLWWHGff6WXGHQWrXUQV"VHU"DEXHQRSHURXPORTXHSDVDHVTXH\RFUHRTXHHVWDPDWHULDXPrFRPRTXHQRV"SHURHQODFODVHDQWHVGHHVWHXPWXYHPPWXYHHOPPHOWLHPSRPX\GLI"FLOSRUTXHODSURIHVRUDKDEODPX\U"SLGD\HQWRQFHVHQHVWHrFODVH\RFUHRTXHHOSURIHVRUXPKDEODU"PX\U"SLGDXUQ\HVLWZRXOGEHJRRGEXWXPWKHWKLQJLVWKDW,WKLQNWKDWWKLVVXEMHFWXUQLWnVNLQGRIOLNH,GRQIWNQRZEXWLQWKHFODVVEHIRUHWKLVRQHXUQ,KDGPP,KDGWKHPPDKDUGWLPHEHFDXVHWKHSURIHVVRUVSRNHYHU\YHU\IDVWDQGVRLQWKLVFODVV,WKLQNWKDWWKHSURIHVVRUZLOOVSHDNYHU\IDVWL3URIHVVRUDKEXHQRSXHVHVWXGHFLVL"QXPSLHQVRTXHVHU"DXQDEXHQDFODVHfDKZHOOZHOOLWnV\RXUGHFLVLRQXP,WKLQNWKDWLWZRXOGEHDJRRGFODVVf6WXGHQWrXUQfSHURQRV"SRUTXH\RFUHRTXHXP\RQHFHVLWRTXHHVWXGLDPXFKRDQWHVXPGHWRPDQGRHVWDFODVHZZfEXW,GRQnWNQRZEHFDXVH,WKLQNWKDWXP,QHHGWRVWXG\DORWEHIRUHXUQWDNLQJWKLVFODVV3URIHVVRUEXHQRHQWRQFHVSL"QVDORDQDO"]DOR\OXHJRPHGLFHVZHOOVRWKLQNDERXWLWDQDO\]HLWDQGOHWPHNQRZ6WXGHQWHVW"ELHQYHU\JRRGf'HOD\HG3RVWWHVW/6SDQLVKVWXGHQWUHIXVHVSURIHVVRUnVVXJJHVWLRQWRWDNHDQH[WUDFODVV)HPDOHfILYHOLQHVLQWKUHHWXUQVRPLWWHGff6WXGHQWXUQVHU"DEXHQRSHURXPQRV"FRPRQRV"SRUTXHODFODVHXPTXH\RWHQJRDKRUDXPHVPX\GLI"FLODYHFHVXPHQWRQFHVXK\RFUHRTXHHVWDFODVHXKVHU"DXPP"VGLI"FLOSRUPLOXUQLWZRXOGEHJRRGEXWXUQ,GRQnWNQRZLWIVOLNH,GRQnWNQRZEHFDXVHWKHFODVVXUQWKDW,KDYHQRZLVYHU\GLIILFXOWVRPHWLPHVXUQVRXK,WKLQNWKDWWKLVFODVVXKZRXOGEHXUQKDUGHUIRUPH,3URIHVVRUEXHQRVHU"DGLI"FLO\RV"TXHV"SHURDODODUJDWHD\XGDU"DZHOOLWZRXOGEHGLIILFXOW,NQRZLWZRXOGEXWLQWKHORQJUXQLWZRXOGKHOS\RXWKUHHOLQHVRPLWWHGff6WXGHQW!XUQ\RSLHQVRTXHXKVHU"DXQEXHQDLGHDSHURDKRUDXPODFODVHXKODFODVHXPHVGLI"FLO\XKVLWRPHXPXQRWUDFODVHXK\\RQRWHQJRDKODH[SHULHQFLDTXHXP\RTXLHURXPHQWRQFHVQRSXHGRKDFHUOR,XUQ,WKLQNWKDWLWXKZRXOGEHDJRRGLGHDEXWQRZXUQWKHFODVVXK This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 13

+"VSDQLD0D\WKHFODVVXUQ"LVGLIILFXOWDQGXKLI,WDNHXUQDQRWKHUFODVVXKDQG,GRQnWKDYHWKHH[SHULHQFHWKDWXUQ,ZDQWXUQWKHQ,ZRQnWEHDEOHWRGRLW,3URIHVVRUHQWLHQGREXHQRSXHVHVWXGHFLVL"QVLFDPELDVGHRSLQL"QDY"VDPHXQGHUVWDQGZHOOLWnV\RXUGHFLVLRQLI\RXFKDQJH\RXUPLQGOHWPHNQRZ6WXGHQWRND\8QOLNHWKHUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHLQWKHSUHWHVWH[DPSOHLQfLQZKLFKRQHLQVWDQFHRIDOH[LFDOPLWLJDWRULVXVHGWZLFH\RFUHRTXHWKLQNWKDWfOLQHfWKHSRVWDQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWLQWHUDFWLRQVH[DPSOHVDQGfVKRZYDULRXVLQVWDQFHVRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQUHDOL]HGDFURVVWKHUHIXVDOVHTXHQFHDQGDFURVVGLIIHUHQWWXUQV)RULQVWDQFHLQWKHH[DPSOHLQfRQHZHHNDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQWKHUHDUHIRXUFDVHVRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVLQWKHILUVWUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHVHU"DLWZRXOGEH\RFUHRWKLQNVRFRPRTXHQRV"LWIVNLQGRIOLNH,GRQ9NQRZFUHRWKLQNfOLQHVfDQGWZRPRUHPLWLJDWRUVLQOLQHRQHOH[LFDODQGRQHV\QWDFWLFQRV",GRQnWNQRZFUHRWKLQNf5HWHQWLRQRIWKHVHIRUPVZDVHYLGHQWRQHPRQWKDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQDVVKRZQLQWKHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWH[DPSOHLQfLQZKLFKDFRPELQDWLRQRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVFRRFFXUUHGOLQHVfVHU"DLWZRXOGEH>WZLFH@QRV"FRPRQRV"GRQnWNQRZLWnVOLNH,GRQNQRZ\RFUHR,WKLQNfDQGWZRDGGLWLRQDOPLWLJDWRUVLQOLQHRQHOH[LFDODQGRQHV\QWDFWLF\RSLHQVRWKLQNVHU"DLWZRXOGEHf2YHUDOOLWDSSHDUVWKDWWKHOHDUQHUVnDELOLW\WRPLWLJDWHDUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHLPSURYHGDVDUHVXOWRILQVWUXFWLRQDQGUHWHQWLRQRIPRVWOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVDFURVVWKHLQWHUDFWLRQZDVHYLGHQWLQWKHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWGDWDIRXUZHHNVODWHU'LVFXVVLRQ7KHILQGLQJVRIWKHSUHVHQWVWXG\VKRZHGWKDWWKHOHDUQHUVZKRUHFHLYHGH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQIRUPDWLRQfUHJDUGLQJWKHXVHRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVGXULQJUHIXVDOLQWHUDFWLRQVPRYHGIURPWKHOH[LFDOVWDJHSUHWUHDWPHQWfWRDSURGXFWLYHXVHRIERWKOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQRQHZHHNDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQ5HVHDUFK4XHVWLRQf,QDGGLWLRQUHWHQWLRQRIPRVWPLWLJDWRUVZDVHYLGHQWRQHPRQWKDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQ7KHFRQWUROJURXSKRZHYHUPRVWO\UHPDLQHGDWWKHOH[LFDOVWDJHDQGOLWWOHHYLGHQFHRIFKDQJHZDVREVHUYHGLQWKHSRVWWHVWGDWDIRUVRPHPLWLJDWRUV7KLVILQGLQJVKRZVWKDWLQVWUXFWLRQLQSUDJPDWLFVVHHPVWRIDFLOLWDWHWKHOHDUQLQJSURFHVVZKHQOHDUQHUVnDWWHQWLRQLVGLUHFWHGWRVSHFLILFIHDWXUHVRIWKHLQSXW)XUWKHUZKLOHWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVLQWKHSUHVHQWVWXG\ZHUHLQWHUPHGLDWHILIWKVHPHVWHUfOHYHOOHDUQHUVWKH\VKRZHGYDULRXVLQGLYLGXDOOHDUQLQJSURILOHVDQGWKHLUSHUIRUPDQFHZDVFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\YDULDWLRQ8QOLNHSUHYLRXVVWXGLHVZKLFKKDYHH[DPLQHGOHDUQHUVnSUDJPDWLFFRPSHWHQFHDQGUHSRUWHGWKHUHVXOWVIRUWKHJURXSLJQRULQJOHDUQHUYDULDWLRQ$OF"Q:LVKQRIIfWKHFXUUHQWVWXG\PDGHDQHIIRUWWRDQDO\]HWKHSUDJPDWLFGHYHORSPHQWRILQGLYLGXDOOHDUQHUV,QIDFWVRPHVWXGLHVZKLFKIRFXVHGRQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIPLWLJDWLRQDPRQJOHDUQHUVRI(QJOLVKDVDVHFRQGODQJXDJHVKRZHGWKDWWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQYDULHVDPRQJLQGLYLGXDOOHDUQHUV6DOVEXU\DQG%DUGRYL+DUOLJf7KHILQGLQJWKDWWKHFRQWUROJURXSVKRZHGVLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHIURPWKHSUHWHVWWRWKHSRVWWHVWOH[LFDOPLWLJDWLRQfLQWKH1RWHVVLWXDWLRQPD\LQGLFDWHSUDJPDWLFGHYHORSPHQWDVDUHVXOWRILQFLGHQWDOOHDUQLQJ+RXVHfRULPSOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQ$OF"Q.RLNHDQG3HDUVRQf7KLVLQVWDQFHRIQDWXUDOFKDQJHDPRQJXQLQVWUXFWHGOHDUQHUVLQSUDJPDWLFVPD\EHGXHWRWKHIDFWWKDWWKLVSDUWLFXODUVLWXDWLRQDVWXGHQWUHTXHVWLQJQRWHVIURPDFODVVPDWHLVYHU\OLNHO\WRRFFXULQLQVWLWXWLRQDOGLVFRXUVHLQDXQLYHUVLW\VHWWLQJDQGWKHOHDUQHUVRIWKHFRQWUROJURXSPD\KDYHWUDQVIHUUHGWKHLU/,NQRZOHGJHWRWKHWDUJHWODQJXDJH1RQHWKHOHVVWKHSRVWWHVWPHDQVIRUWKHFRQWUROJURXSZHUHUDWKHUORZ0 fLQFRPSDULVRQWRWKRVHRIWKHH[SHULPHQWDOSRVW0 fDQGGHOD\HG0 fWHVWVZKHUHWKHSUHIHUHQFHIRUOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVZDVIUHTXHQWDQGYDULHG7KHFXUUHQWVWXG\XVHGDFRPELQDWLRQRIWHFKQLTXHVWRDQDO\]HWKHHIIHFWRIH[SOLFLWWHDFKLQJRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUV8QOLNHSUHYLRXVVWXGLHVZKLFKGLGQRWILQGVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQLPSOLFLWH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQLQSXWHQKDQFHPHQWfDQGH[SOLFLWH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQLQSXWHQKDQFHPHQWfLQVWUXFWLRQLQWKHXVHRIPLWLJDWRUV)XNX\DDQG&ODUNfWKH This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 14

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRPFXUUHQWVWXG\XVHGDFRPELQDWLRQRIH[SOLFLWWHDFKLQJWHFKQLTXHVDQGLQFOXGHGGLUHFWLQJOHDUQHUVnDWWHQWLRQWRQRWLFHWKHIRUPRIPLWLJDWRUV6FKPLGWfXVLQJLQSXWHQKDQFHPHQW6KDUZRRG6PLWKfDORQJZLWKPHWDSUDJPDWLFGLVFXVVLRQRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVLQUHIXVDOUHVSRQVHV)RUWKHSUHVHQWVWXG\DFRPELQDWLRQRIERWKWHFKQLTXHVZDVXWLOL]HGWRDQDO\]HWKHHIIHFWVRIH[SOLFLWWHDFKLQJRIPLWLJDWRUVEHFDXVHLWKDVEHHQGHPRQVWUDWHGWKDWDFRPELQDWLRQRILPSOLFLWDQGH[SOLFLWWHFKQLTXHVKDVPRUHLQVWUXFWLRQDOHIILFDF\WKDQRQHVLQJOHWHFKQLTXH,]XPL0DUW"QH])ORUf7KHIDFWWKDWVRPHPLWLJDWRUVDQGQRWRWKHUVVKRZHGDQRWLFHDEOHFKDQJHLQIUHTXHQF\DVDUHVXOWRILQVWUXFWLRQPD\EHDWWULEXWHGWRGLIIHUHQWIDFWRUV5HVHDUFK4XHVWLRQf:KLOHWKHHIIHFWVRILQVWUXFWLRQLQFUHDVHGWKHIUHTXHQF\DQGVHOHFWLRQRIPLWLJDWRUVLQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSWRYDU\LQJGHJUHHVWKHIROORZLQJPLWLJDWRUVZHUHWKHPRVWSURGXFWLYHDQGZLGHO\XVHGLQERWKSRVWWHVWVPHQWDOVWDWHSUHGLFDWHVPRGDODGMHFWLYHVPRGDODGYHUEVWKHFRQGLWLRQDOIRUPH[SUHVVLRQVRIXQFHUWDLQW\DQGWKHVXEMXQFWLYH2WKHUIRUPVVXFKDVGHJUHHPRGLILHUVVRUWRInNLQGRIfGLPLQXWLYHVLPSHUVRQDOVHQRVH?0"(56"+$KSXHGHLWnVQRWSRVVLEOHfDQGWDJTXHVWLRQVVKRZHGOLWWOHHIIHFWRILQVWUXFWLRQRQERWKSRVWWHVWPHDVXUHVVHH7DEOHVDQGf:KLOHERWKOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVIUHTXHQWO\RFFXUUHGLQWKH/,6SDQLVKGDWDLWPD\EHWKHFDVHWKDWWKHPLQXWHWUHDWPHQWDQGWKHDPRXQWRILQSXWUHFHLYHGE\WKHH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSZHUHQRWVXIILFLHQWWRWHDFKWKHSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQVRIWKHVHLQIUHTXHQWPLWLJDWRUVDQGWRFDXVHOHDUQHUEHKDYLRUWRDSSUR[LPDWH16QRUPV,WLVDOVRSRVVLEOHWKDWWKHPLWLJDWRUVZKLFKDSSHDUHGLQIUHTXHQWO\RQSRVWWHVWVPD\QRWKDYHEHHQSUDFWLFHGVXIILFLHQWO\GXULQJWKHFRQYHUVDWLRQDOVHVVLRQ+RZGRZHH[SODLQWKHLQFUHDVHGIUHTXHQF\RIWKHPRGDODGMHFWLYHHVSRVLEOHLWnVSRVVLEOHSRVLEOHSRVVLEOHfDFURVVWKHPHDVXUHVLQERWKOHDUQHUJURXSV"$VWKLVPLWLJDWRUZDVXVHGLQIUHTXHQWO\LQWKHGDWDRIWKH16VRI6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVK7DEOHfLWDSSHDUVWKDWWKLVSDUWLFXODUPRGDODGMHFWLYHZDVRYHUXVHGDQGSUREDEO\HPSOR\HGDVDGHYHORSPHQWDOIRUPXOD%DUGRYL+DUOLJfWKDWLVDVDVLQJOHXQDQDO\]HGIRUPZKLFKWKHOHDUQHUJUDPPDUPD\XVHWRH[SUHVVGLIIHUHQWSUDJPDWLFIXQFWLRQV,ILWLVWKHFDVHWKDWWKLVPRGDODGMHFWLYHZDVXVHGDVDIRUPXODWRH[SUHVVERWKDGMHFWLYDODQGDGYHUELDOPRGDOLW\WKHQWKLVPD\H[SODLQWKHORZPHDQVRIWKHPRGDODGYHUEVZLWKQRVLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHRQWKHH[SHULPHQWDOSRVWWHVWV7KHSUHVHQFHRIWKLVGHYHORSPHQWDOIRUPXODZKLFKZDVSURGXFHGZLWKDQGZLWKRXWDFRSXODE\VRPHOHDUQHUVHVSRVLEOHYVSRVLEOHfVHHPVWRFRUUHVSRQGWRDVWDJHRIWKHOHDUQHUVnLQWHUODQJXDJHGHYHORSPHQW7KHRXWFRPHRIWKLVTXDVLH[SHULPHQWDOVWXG\VXJJHVWVDGGLWLRQDODUHDVRIUHVHDUFKDQGRIIHUVVRPHOLPLWDWLRQV,WLVLPSRUWDQWWKDWWKHUHVXOWVIURPWKHGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWEHLQWHUSUHWHGZLWKFDXWLRQVLQFHWKHGDWDZHUHJDWKHUHGDWWKHHQGRIRQHVHPHVWHURQHPRQWKDIWHUPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQf,GHDOO\WRREVHUYHUHWHQWLRQRIWKHSUDJPDWLFIHDWXUHVDGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWVKRXOGEHFDUULHGRXWVL[PRQWKVRUORQJHUDIWHULQVWUXFWLRQDVSUHYLRXVO\GRQHLQRWKHUVWXGLHV0RUURZf)RUWKHFXUUHQWVWXG\KRZHYHULWZDVQRWSRVVLEOHWRFDUU\RXWDVHFRQGGHOD\HGSRVWWHVWDIWHUWKHVHPHVWHUHQGHGEHFDXVHPRVWVWXGHQWVKDGJUDGXDWHG$OVRLQWKHFXUUHQWVWXG\QRDWWHQWLRQZDVJLYHQWRLQGLYLGXDOGLIIHUHQFHVVXFKDVPRWLYDWLRQDQGLWVUHODWLRQVKLSWRSURILFLHQF\7DNDKDVKLf)XUWKHUPRUHGHVSLWHWKHSUDJPDWLFYDULDWLRQREVHUYHGDPRQJGLIIHUHQWYDULHWLHVRI6SDQLVK0"UTXH]5HLWHUDQG3ODFHQFLD3ODFHQFLDDQG*DUFLDf0H[LFDQ6SDQLVKZDVWKHYDULHW\WKDWZDVXVHGWRFRPSDUHWKHDSSUR[LPDWLRQRI/6SDQLVKWR16QRUPV$VDUHVXOWWKH16QRUPDGRSWHGLQWKHFXUUHQWVWXG\LQFOXGHGRQO\RQHYDULHW\RI6SDQLVKWKLVUHSUHVHQWVRQHOLPLWDWLRQZKLFKVHHPVGLIILFXOWWRRYHUFRPH)LQDOO\FRQVRQDQWZLWKSUDJPDWLFVUHVHDUFKLQLQVWUXFWHGODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJ%DUGRYL+DUOLJ5RVHfWKHILQGLQJVRIWKLVVWXG\VXJJHVWWKHIROORZLQJLPSOLFDWLRQVIRUWHDFKLQJSUDJPDWLFVLQWKHFODVVURRP/DQJXDJHWHDFKHUVVKRXOGPDNHDQHIIRUWWRUDLVHWKHOHDUQHUVnSUDJPDWLFDZDUHQHVVWKURXJKYDULRXVFODVVURRPDFWLYLWLHVVXFKDVWKHXVHRIYLGHRVWKDWIHDWXUHGLIIHUHQWVSHHFKDFWVUROHSOD\VLWXDWLRQVFDUULHGRXWEHWZHHQ16VRUFURVVFXOWXUDODQDO\VLVRIFHUWDLQDVSHFWVRISUDJPDWLFVLQWKHWDUJHWODQJXDJH)XUWKHUJLYHQWKDWWKHUHVXOWVRIWKLVVWXG\VKRZWKDWOHDUQHUVFDQEHQHILWIURPPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQLWLVLPSRUWDQWIRUHGXFDWRUVWRFRQVLGHUFRPSOHPHQWLQJWKHLU)/WHDFKLQJZLWKDSUDJPDWLFVFRPSRQHQW)RUH[DPSOHXVLQJ This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 15

+"VSDQOD0D\WRROVRIFRQYHUVDWLRQDQDO\VLV)"OL[%UDVGHIHUfSURYLGHVDSHGDJRJLFDOPRGHOIRUWHDFKLQJWKHQHJRWLDWLRQRIUHIXVDOVLQ6SDQLVKDVDQ)/7KHPRGHOLQFOXGHVUHVHDUFKEDVHGSHGDJRJLFDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUWHDFKHUVVDPSOHVRIRQOLQHUHIXVDOLQWHUDFWLRQVDQGRWKHUVSHHFKDFWVIURP16VRI6SDQLVKDQG(QJOLVKWKDWFDQEHDFFHVVHGGLUHFWO\IURPDZHEVLWHLQWKHFODVVURRP&RQFOXVLRQ7KLVVWXG\ZDVGHVLJQHGWRDGGUHVVWKHLPSRUWDQWLVVXHRISUDJPDWLFGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHOHDUQLQJRIOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQDVDUHVXOWRISHGDJRJLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQDPRQJLQWHUPHGLDWHILIWKVHPHVWHUfOHDUQHUVRI6SDQLVKDVDIRUHLJQODQJXDJH$OWKRXJKWKLVUHSRUWLVOLPLWHGLQVFRSHWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHSHGDJRJLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQVHHPWRVXJJHVWWKDWWKHOHDUQHUVnDELOLW\WRXVHOH[LFDODQGV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWRUVPD\EHIDFLOLWDWHGWKURXJKH[SOLFLWLQVWUXFWLRQE\PHDQVRIUDLVLQJWKHOHDUQHUVnPHWDSUDJPDWLFDZDUHQHVVRIVSHFLILFIHDWXUHVRIWKHLQSXWLQVRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQ%XLOGLQJRQWKLVDZDUHQHVVWKURXJKLQVWUXFWLRQZRXOGSHUKDSVLQFUHDVHWKHOHDUQHUVnSURGXFWLYHDELOLW\LQ/SUDJPDWLFVDVVXJJHVWHGE\SUHYLRXVZRUNRQSUDJPDWLFVLQLQVWUXFWHGODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJ$OF"Q%DUGRYL+DUOLJDQG*ULIILQ.RLNHDQG3HDUVRQf)LQDOO\WRLQWURGXFHYDULDWLRQLQWKHODQJXDJHFODVVURRPLWLVVXJJHVWHGWKDWOHDUQHUVEHVHQVLWL]HGWRFRQWH[WEDVHGYDULDWLRQDQGODQJXDJHXVH5RVHfDQGWKDWWKH\DSSO\WKLVNQRZOHGJHLQGLVFXVVLQJLVVXHVLQWKHFODVVURRPVXFKDVSROLWHQHVVLQGLUHFWQHVVDQGGLVWDQFHLQERWKWKHQDWLYHDQGWDUJHWODQJXDJH127(n,WZDVREVHUYHGE\RQHUHYLHZHUWKDWWKHKHDY\LQIOXHQFHRIVXEMXQFWLYHLQVWUXFWLRQLQWKH6SDQLVKFXUULFXOXPRYHUDOOPD\KDYHPDGHWKHXQLQVWUXFWHGOHDUQHUVFRQWUROJURXSfPRUHDZDUHRIZKDWWKH\DOUHDG\VWXGLHG:KLOHWKLVLVDSODXVLEOHH[SODQDWLRQWKHSUHVHQFHRIVXEMXQFWLYHLVDQLQVWDQFHRIV\QWDFWLFPLWLJDWLRQ6HH$SSHQGL[$fDQGLQWKLVVWXG\RQO\WKHOHDUQHUVZKRZHUHH[SRVHGWRWKHWUHDWPHQWPHWDSUDJPDWLFLQVWUXFWLRQfLPSURYHGWKHLUNQRZOHGJHRIWKHVXEMXQFWLYHIRUPVWRH[SUHVVKHVLWDQF\RUWHQWDWLYHQHVVLQWKHSRVWWHVWVZKHQUHIXVLQJDSHUVRQRIHTXDORUKLJKHUVWDWXV:25.6&,7('$OF"Q(YDf'RHV,QVWUXFWLRQ:RUNIRU/HDUQLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH()/&RQWH[W"6\VWHP%DUGRYL+DUOLJ.DWKOHHQf(YDOXDWLQJWKH(PSLULFDO(YLGHQFH*URXQGVIRU,QVWUXFWLRQLQ3UDJPDWLFV"3UDJPDWLFVLQ/DQJXDJH7HDFKLQJ(G*DEULHOH.DVSHUDQG.HQQHWK5RVH&DPEULGJH8.&DPEULGJH83"f2QWKH5ROHRI)RUPXODVLQWKH$FTXLVLWLRQRI/3UDJPDWLFV3UDJPDWLFVDQG/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJ9RO(GV.DWKOHHQ%DUGRYL+DUOLJ&"VDU)"OL[%UDVGHIHUDQG$OZL\D2PDU0DQRD+,6HFRQG/DQJXDJH7HDFKLQJDQG&XUULFXOXP&HQWHU8RI+DZDLnL%DUGRYL+DUOLJ.DWKOHHQDQG%HYHUO\+DUWIRUGf/HDUQLQJWKH5XOHVRI$FDGHPLF7DON$/RQJLWXGLQDO6WXG\RI3UDJPDWLF&KDQJH6WXGLHVLQ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ%DUGRYL+DUOLJ.DWKHHQDQG5REHUW*ULIILQf/3UDJPDWLF$ZDUHQHVV(YLGHQFHIURPWKH(6/&ODVVURRP6\VWHP&DIIL&ODXGLDf2Q0LWLJDWLRQ-RXUQDORI3UDJPDWLFV&KRGRURZVND3LOFK0DULDQDf7KH&RQGLWLRQDO$*UDPPDWLFDOL]HG0DUNHURI3ROLWHQHVVLQ6SDQLVK&XUUHQW7UHQGVLQWKH3UDJPDWLFVRI6SDQLVK(GV5RVLQD0"UTXH]5HLWHUDQG0DU"D(OHQD3ODFHQFLD$PVWHUGDP-RKQ%HQMDPLQV&RDWHV-HQQLIHUf(SLVWHPLF0RGDOLW\DQG6SRNHQ'LVFRXUVH7UDQVDFWLRQVRIWKH3KLORORJLFDO6RFLHW\2[IRUG%DVLO%ODFNZHOO&RKHQ$QGUHZ'f6WUDWHJLHVLQ/HDUQLQJDQG8VLQJD6HFRQG/DQJXDJH/RQGRQ/RQJPDQ'H.H\VHU5REHUWf/HDUQLQJ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH*UDPPDU5XOHV6WXGLHVLQ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ(OOLV5RGf/HDUQLQJWR&RPPXQLFDWHLQWKH&ODVVURRP$6WXG\RI7ZR/HDUQHUVn5HTXHVWV6WXGLHVLQ6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQ)DHUFK&ODXVDQG*DEULHOH.DVSHUf,QWHUQDODQG([WHUQDO0RGLILFDWLRQLQ,QWHUODQJXDJH5HTXHVW5HDOL]DWLRQ&URVV&XOWXUDO3UDJPDWLFV(G6KRVKDQD%OXP.XOND-XOLDQH+RXVHDQG*DEULHOH.DVSHU1RUZRRG$EOH[A This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PAGE 16

7HDFKLQJ3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRP)"OL[%UDVGHIHU-&"VDUf9DOLGLW\LQ'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ0HWKRGVLQ3UDJPDWLFV5HVHDUFK7KHRU\3UDFWLFHDQG$FTXLVLWLRQ3DSHUVIURPWKHWK+LVSDQLF/LQJXLVWLFV6\PSRVLXPDQGWKHWK&RQIHUHQFHRQWKH$FTXLVLWLRQRI6SDQLVKDQG3RUWXJXHVH(G3DXOD.HPSFKLQVN\DQG&DUORV(GXDUGR3LQHURV6RPHUYLOOH0$&DVFDGLOOD3"f,QWHUODQJXDJH5HIXVDOV/LQJXLVWLF3ROLWHQHVVDQG/HQJWKRI5HVLGHQFHLQWKH7DUJHW&RPPXQLW\/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJ"f7HDFKLQJWKH1HJRWLDWLRQRI0XOWL7XUQ6SHHFK$FWV8VLQJ&RQYHUVDWLRQ$QDO\WLF7RROVWR7HDFK3UDJPDWLFVLQWKH&ODVVURRP3UDJPDWLFVDQG/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJ(GV.DWKOHHQ%DUGRYL+DUOLJ&"VDU)"OL[%UDVGHIHUDQG$OZL\D2PDU0DQRD+,6HFRQG/DQDJXDJH7HDFKLQJDQG&XUULFXOXP&HQWHU8RI+DZDLnL)XNX\D
PAGE 17

+LVYDQLD0D\7DWH\DPD\RX)250$/@LILWZRXOGEHSRVVLEOHQRWWRWDNHWKHFODVVf6\QWDFWLF0LWLJDWRUV&RQGLWLRQDO1RSRGU"DLUDVXGHVSHGLGD,ZRXOGQnWEHDEOHWRFRPHWR\RXUIDUHZHOOSDUW\f6XEMXQFWLYH1RV"VL\RfSXHGD,GRQnWNQRZLI,FDQf,PSHUIHFW4XHU"DVDEHUVLSRG"DD\XGDUPHFRQPLVFODVHV,ZDQWHGWRNQRZLI\RXFRXOGKHOSPHZLWKP\FODVVHVf8QFHUWDLQW\1RV"VLSRGU"DDVLVLUDODILHVWDGHGHVSHGLGD,GRQnWNQRZLI,FRXOGDWWHQGWKHIDUHZHOOSDUW\f,PSHUVRQDOIRUPV1RVH,03(5621$/SXHGHLWnVQRWSRVVLEOHf7DJTXHVWLRQV3RGU"DDYLVDUOHGHVSX"VVLWRPRODFODVH"QR",FRXOGOHW\RXNQRZODWHULI,WDNHWKHFODVVULJKW"f$SSHQGL[%7UDQVFULSWLRQFRQYHQWLRQVEDVHGRQ-HIIHUVRQ>@f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f7KUHHGRWVLQVLQJOHSDUHQWKHVHVDUHXVHGWRVLJQDOXQLQWHOOLJLEOHLQIRUPDWLRQ This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:50:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions