Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


The focus of the paper is the appropriateness of pragmatic elicitation techniques for generating talk to be used in analyses of talk and social structure. In the best pragmatic elicitation techniques (i) data are generated in situations in which researchers can manipulate variables in the testing of hypotheses, and (ii) speakers can talk freely and spontaneously without awareness that their talk is the object of study. This claim was tested in an examination of the hypothesis that more facework will occur in refusals to a High versus Low status requester. Requester status was manipulated in Oral and Written Discourse Completion, Role Play, and an Experimental elicitation technique. Support for the hypothesis was found only in the Role Play and Experimental conditions. Next, refusals generated in the above four elicitation conditions were compared to Naturally-occurring refusals. At the levels of the acts by which refusals are accomplished and the internal structure of the head act, Oral and Written DC produced anomalous and non-representative refusals. Role Play and the Experimental technique produced refusals that were very similar to Natural refusals, though Role Play refusals tended to be somewhat repetitive and long-winded. It is concluded that an Experimental technique is the preferred pragmatic elicitation technique.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, J.M. , & J.C. Heritage
    (1984) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bavelas, J.B
    (1995) Quantitative versus qualitative?In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (ed.), Communication as social construction: Social approaches to the study of communication. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 49-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beebe, L. , & M.C. Cummings
    (1985) Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedures?Paper presented atTESOL Convention, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beebe, L. , T. Takahashi , & R. Uliss-Weltz
    (1990) Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella , E. Andersen , S.D. Krashen &(eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, pp. 55-73.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bem, D.J. , & H.K. McConnell
    (1970) Testing the self-perception explanation of dissonance phenomena: On the salience of premanipulation attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology14: 23-31. doi: 10.1037/h0020916
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020916 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, S. , J. House , & G. Kasper
    (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brouwer, D. , M. Gerritsen , & D. de Haan
    (1979) Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track?Language in Society8: 33-50. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500005935
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005935 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, P. , & S. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, R. , & A. Gilman
    (1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge: Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clancy, P.M
    (1986) The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. Schieffelin E. Ochs &(eds.), Language socialization across cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Drummond, K. , & R. Hopper
    (1993) Back-channels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction26: 157-177. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Duranti, A. , & C. Goodwin
    (1992) Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Edwards, D. , & J. Potter
    (1992) Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garfinkel, H
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Garfinkel, H. , & H. Sacks
    (1970) On formal structures of practical action. In J.G. McKinney E.A. Tiryakian &(eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 338-366.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Garfinkel, H. , & D.L. Wieder
    (1992) Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R.M. Seiler (eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 175-206.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilovich, T
    (1990) Differential construal and the false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59: 623-634. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.59.4.623
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.623 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, E
    (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1983) The interaction order. American Sociological Review48: 1-17. doi: 10.2307/2095141
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, C
    (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 97-121.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, C. , & J. Heritage
    (1990) Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology19: 283-307. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gumperz, J.J
    (1972) Introduction. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., pp. 1-25.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J
    (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) Conversation analysis at century’s en: Practices of talk-in-interaction, their distributions, and their outcomes. Research on Language and Social Interaction32: 69-76. doi: 10.1080/08351813.1999.9683609
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1999.9683609 [Google Scholar]
  26. Labov, W
    (1966) The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Latane, B. , & J.M. Darley
    (1970) The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?New York: Appleton- Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, S.C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Liao, C. , & Y. Lii-Shih
    (1993) Refusal in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the4th International Pragmatics Conference, Kobe, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Miller, D.T. , & C. McFarland
    (1987) Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53: 298-305. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.53.2.298
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.298 [Google Scholar]
  31. Muntigl, P. , & W. Turnbull
    (1998) Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics29: 225-256. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00048‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nisbett, R.E. , & T.D. Wilson
    (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review84: 231-259. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.3.231
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ochs, E
    (1988) Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1992) Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 336-358.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ochs, E. , & B. Schieffelin
    (1979) Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ochs, E. , B. Schieffelin , & M. Platt
    (1979) Propositions across utterances and speakers. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 251-268.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ohlstain, E
    (1989) Apologies across languages. In S. Blum-Kulka , J. House , & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 155-173.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ong, W.J
    (1982) Orality and literacy. New York: Methuen. doi: 10.4324/9780203328064
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203328064 [Google Scholar]
  39. Owen, M
    (1983) Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. New York: Mouton Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Potter, J
    (1996) Representing reality : Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  41. Potter, J. , & M. Wetherell
    (1987) Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Prentice, D.A. , & D.T. Miller
    (1993) Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology64: 243-256. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.64.2.243
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243 [Google Scholar]
  43. Psathas, G
    (1995) Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Resnick, L.B. , J.M. Levine , & S.D. Teasley
    (1991) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10096‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-000 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rintall, E.M. , & C.J. Mitchell
    (1989) Studies of requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In S. Blum-Kulka , J. House , & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 248-272.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Robinson, W.P
    (1985) Social psychology and discourse. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 1: Disciplines of discourse. London: Academic Press, pp. 107-144.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rose, K
    (1992) Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics17: 49-62. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90028‑A
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90028-A [Google Scholar]
  48. Rubin, J
    (1983) How to tell when someone is saying "no" revisited. In: N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 10-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sacks, H
    (1992) Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1 and 2). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sacks, H. , & E.A. Schegloff
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 15-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Schegloff, E.A
    (1993) Reflections on quantification in studies of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction26: 99-128. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1972) Sequencing in conversational openings. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 346-380.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Slugoski, B.R. , & W. Turnbull
    (1988) Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology7: 101-121. doi: 10.1177/0261927X8800700202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8800700202 [Google Scholar]
  54. Storms, M.D. , & R.E. Nisbett
    (1970) Insomnia and the attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1: 319-328. doi: 10.1037/h0029835
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029835 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sudnow, D
    (1972) Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tracy, K
    (1993) It's an interesting article!Research on Language and Social Interaction26: 195-201. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_5 [Google Scholar]
  57. Turnbull, W
    (1992) A conversation approach to explanation, with emphasis on politeness and accounting. In M.L. McLaughlin , M.J. Cody , & S.J. Read (eds.), Explaining oneself to others: Reason-giving in a social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 105-130.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Turnbull, W. , & J.I.M. Carpendale
    (1999) A social pragmatic model of talk: Implications for research on the development of children’s social understanding. Human Development42: 328-355. doi: 10.1159/000022641
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000022641 [Google Scholar]
  59. (in press) Talk and the development of social understanding. Early Education and Development (Special issue on language socialization during the pre-school years).
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Turnbull, W. , & K.L. Saxton
    (1997) Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with requests: I think I should say 'no' right now. Journal of Pragmatics27: 145-181. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00034‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00034-3 [Google Scholar]
  61. Turnbull, W. , & B.R. Slugoski
    (1988) Conversational and linguistic processes in causal attribution. In D. Hilton (ed.), Contemporary science and natural explanation: Commonsense conceptions of causality. New York: New York University Press, pp. 69-93.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ueda, K
    (1974) Sixteen ways to avoid saying no in Japan. In J. Condon & M. Saito (eds.), Intercultural encounters with Japan. Tokyo: Simul Press, pp. 185-192.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. van Dijk, T.A
    (1997) Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction: Vol 2. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilson, T.D. , & Brekke
    (1994) Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin116: 117-142. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.116.1.117
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wood, L.A. , & R.O. Kroger
    (1994) The analysis of facework in discourse: Review and proposal. Journal of Language and Social Psychology13: 248-277. doi: 10.1177/0261927X94133002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94133002 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Discourse Completion; Elicitation; Experimental conditions; Request refusal; Role Play
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error