Refusal Strategy Used by Malay and German Native Speakers to Refuse Requests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates similarities and differences in Malay and German refusal speech acts realised by their respective mother tongue languages, which are the Malay and German languages. This study analysed situations in which refusal could occur and examined the refusal strategies and corresponding linguistic forms used by the two groups when refusing requests made by higher, equal, and lower relationship status interlocutors. A Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was utilised to obtain data on the types and content of refusal strategies. The data gathered from the DCT was analysed and coded according to a combined taxonomy of refusal strategies proposed by Beebe et al. (1990) and Al-Issa (2003). The findings will provide future insights on the cross-cultural complexity of refusal interaction patterns used by both Malay and German speakers in order to understand and also avoid creating stereotypes of foreign culture. In addition, speakers may also adopt socially appropriate strategies for future situations that might be encountered in order to engender successful communication when dealing with refusals. The results are then discussed from the universality and cultural-specificity perspectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".