商务沟通拒绝策略研究

商务沟通中的拒绝策略研究

Abstract: Refusal is considered to be a face-threatening act, which threatens the hearer’s face, and accordingly many face-saving strategies will be expected to use. Until now, the study of refusal has attracted a lot of attention from home and abroad. Extensive researches have been made from the aspect of pragmatics. In the field of international business communication, refusal is of pragmatic value, as it is widely believed that the appropriate employment of refusal strategies in international business communication is sure to help businessmen alleviate uneasiness and barriers, reduce pragmatic failure and lead to the win-win situation. Therefore, the thesis tries to have a more detailed study on refusal in both written and spoken international business communication. Mainly based on Brown and Levinson’s face-saving theory and Leech’s politeness theory, it may contribute to a better understanding of appropriate refusal strategies used in different contexts of business communication underlying the perceptions of politeness in refusal.

Key words: refusal strategies; face-saving; politeness; business communication

摘要：拒绝被看作是一种威胁听者面子的行为，因此在拒绝时需要一些维护面子的策略。到目前为止，有关拒绝行为的研究吸引了国内外专家学者的关注，很多研究都是从语用学角度来分析的。在国际商务沟通中，拒绝有着其实用价值，人们普遍认为运用适当的拒绝策略可以缓和双方的矛盾，减少语用失误，并同时达到双赢的目的。因此，本篇论文就书面及口头的国际商务沟通中的拒绝做了详细的研究。在基于布朗和莱文森的面子保全

理论以及利奇的礼貌理论的基础上，本文提出了一系列在不同商务语境下可以表示礼貌的适当的拒绝策略。

关键词：拒绝策略；保全面子；礼貌；商务沟通

Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………...…………...1

2. A Brief Introduction to Refusal and Relevant Theories……………………..2

2.1 The Speech Act Theory………………………………..………………………2

2.2 The Speech Act of Refusal……………...…………………………….…….…3

2.3 The Face-saving Theory and the Politeness Principle………………………....4

2.3.1 The Face-saving Theory…………………………………………….…. 4

2.3.2 The Politeness Theory……………………………………………….… 5

3. Refusal in International Business Writing……………..………...……….….6

3.1 Refusal Correspondence and Its Role in Written Communication……..….…..6

3.2 Refusal Strategies in International Business Correspondence…………...……7

3.2.1 The Indirect Plan…………………………………………………….… 7

3.2.2 The Direct Plan……………………………………………………..…. 9

4. Refusal in International Business Negotiation…………………………..…..10

4.1 General Ideas for Negotiation Strategies………..………………………….…10

4.2 Refusal Strategies in International Business Negotiation.………………….…11

4.2.1 The Frank Refusal Strategy………………...………………...………. . 11

4.2.2 The Concessional Refusal Strategy….…..……………………………..12

4.2.3 The Euphemistic Refusal Strategy………...…………………………...12

4.2.4 The Vague Refusal Strategy………………………………………….. .13

4.2.5 The Perspective-converted Refusal Strategy…………………………...14

4.2.6 The Surprising Refusal Strategy………………………………………..15

5. Conclusion………………………………..………………………………..…...15

References………………………………………………………………………....17

1. Introduction

As the world becomes smaller and smaller owing to the rapid progress in transportation and communication systems, people with different cultures and different languages are now confronted with the need to communicate cross-culturally. Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives. Defined as a minimal unit of discourse, speech act is a basic functional unit of communication. Examples of speech acts include giving and responding to compliments, asking questions, apologizing, leavetaking, making introductions, and giving refusals.

Refusal, as a saliently pain-taking speech act, has been called a “major cross-cultural ‘sticking point’for many nonnative speakers”(Beebe, Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz 1990: 56). Due to its inherently face threatening nature, refusal is of an especially sensitive nature, and a pragmatic breakdown in this act may easily lead to unintended offense and breakdowns in communication. Therefore, the study on refusal has attracted a lot of attention in multifarious realms from both at home and abroad. A major study (Beebe et al, 1990) compared the refusal given by native speakers of Japanese and native speakers of English using a Discourse Completion Test (DCT). Stevens(1993) studies Arabic and English refusals using a written DCT. Liao and Breshnahan(1996) co

mpared American English and Mandarin Chinese refusal strategies. Similar studies have been conducted by numerous scholars. However, there are not many studies on refusal in a certain field of communication. There are even fewer studies on refusal related to international business communication. Since sometimes refusal is inevitable in international business communication, the study on refusal is a necessity. In this thesis, the author specially focuses on refusal strategies in international business communication. Therefore, the study may contribute to a better understanding of appropriate refusal strategies used in different contexts for protecting the face of the interlocutor.

2. A Brief Introduction to Refusal and Relevant Theories

2.1 The Speech Act Theory

The development of speech act may be thought to have originated from Austin’s(1962) idea that language is performative；whether explicitly or implicitly, speakers perform an act through what they say. A speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication.

In Austin’s opinion, there are three kinds of acts for an utterance: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act, and a perlocutionary act (Austin 1962: 98). A locutionary act is an expression with a certain sense and reference, to mean something. The speaker performs an act with certain verbs, such as promise, apologize, warn, etc. An illocutionary act is the performing act in saying something. It is informed with a certain tone, attitude, feeling, motive, or int

ention. For example, by saying “I have a headache” when refusing an invitation without the word no the speaker still makes some kind of a refusal. As to the perlocutionary act, it is bringing about something by saying. Austin paid most of his attention to the illocutionary act and the speech act theories derived from it.

After Austin, Searle further developed the speech act theory. In his system, there are five kinds of speech acts according to their functions: (a) representatives, which commit the speaker to the truth of some proposition (e.g. stating, suggesting, boasting, claiming, reporting, etc.), (b) commissives, which commit the speaker to some future action (e.g. promising, suffering, vowing, offering, etc.),(c) directives, which causes to bring about some effect through the action of the hearer (e.g. ordering, requesting, warning, etc.),(d) declaratives, which bring about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality (e.g. resigning, sentencing, dismissing, etc.), and (e) expressives, which count as expressions of some psychological state (e.g. thanking, condoling, congratulating, etc.) (冉永平 2006: 77).

Both Austin’s and Searle’s theories show that people use language to achieve various objectives. “If we want to understand what they hope to accomplish, we must be prepared to take into account factors that range far beyond the actual linguistic form of any particular utterance” (Wardhaugh, 2000: 285).

2.2 The Speech Act of Refusal

In our daily life, some speech acts such as complaints, requests, disapproval, disagreement, and refusal demand a high level of pragmatic competence than others because they are easy to risk the interpersonal relationship of the speakers. These speech acts are often called face-threatening acts (FTAs). According to Brown and Levinson (1987), in communication and interaction, two aspects of people’s feelings are involved with face. One is the desire of the individual “not to be imposed on,” which is the “negative face,” and the other is the desire of the individual “to be liked and approved of” that is the “positive face”. A face-threatening act is likely to threaten either the speaker’s or the hearer’s positive or negative face.

Refusal is generally considered to be a potentially face-threatening and essentially impolite act (Levinson 1983: 87). Thus, refusal requires a very high level of pragmatic competence for successful performance. As Beebe et al. point out “refusals… reflect fundamental cultural values… (and) involve delicate interpersonal negotiation. Refusals, in that they involve telling a listener something he or she does not want to hear, require the speaker to build support and help the listener avoid embarrassment. They require a high level of pragmatic competence.” (Beebe et al 1990: 68)

When a refusal is called for, people often tend to “soften” the hardness of this act by applying refusal strategies. It’s necessary to use some indirectness to reduce the risk of face. The speech act of refusal is more context-dependent, compared with some other speech acts, such as greetings and leave-taking which are formulaic and routine in form and thus easier to perfor

m. The refusal involves more sociocultural variables, is more complicated in form, usually cannot be memorized as a routine, and thereby is difficult to carry out.

2.3 The Face-saving Theory and the Politeness Principle

All humans, with all cultures of the world, project a public “face” which has two sides— involvement and independence (Scollon & Scollon 2000:36) and is a sense of positive identity and public self-esteem. Throughout social interactions, all individuals attempt to show they are competent, interesting and worthy individuals. However, refusal is intrinsically likely to generate tension of conflict. In such case, people resort to politeness behaviors to mitigate interpersonal conflict. Politeness is a communication strategy which people use to maintain and develop relationships. Politeness can be seen as one of the basic social guidelines for human interaction (潘敏 2005: 66). As a social category as well as a linguistic term, it has been studied from different approaches. Here, the face-saving theory and the politeness principle are employed in the analysis and discussion of the refusal strategies.

2.3.1 The Face-saving Theory

Generally speaking, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) face-saving theory rests on three basic notions: face, face-threatening act (FTA) and face redress strategies.

An individual’s face consists of two desires: the desire to be approved of by others (termed “positive face”) and the desire not to be impeded by others in one’s action (termed “negative face”). Politeness, therefore, refers to any strategic behavior taken by a social member to maintain or save such face wants.

According to Brown and Levinson, “it is intuitively the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face, namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee or of the hearer”(Brown & Levinson 1987: 65). As for refusals to others’ invitation, requirement or suggestion, they are essentially impolite. These refusals threaten both the speaker’s and the hearer’s positive face(谷慧娟 2007: 112).

Face-threatening acts pose either the speaker’s or the hearer’s face or both at threat and the tendency to maintain face leads the speaker to take some strategies to decrease or avoid the threat. Brown and Levinson developed five face-saving strategies dealing with a face-threatening act: bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record and don’t do the FTA.

2.3.2 The Politeness Principle

From the conversational-maxim view, a Politeness Principle is postulated as complement to Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP), which states what rational individuals should say in certain contexts (Grice 1975:26). Grice’s CP con

tains four sets of maxims:

Maxim of quantity: make your contribution as informative as is required.

Maxim of quality: be non-spurious.

Maxim of relation: be relevant.

Maxim of manner: be perspicuous.

The most comprehensive proposal of a Politeness Principle was formulated by Leech (1983). Adopting Grice’s framework, Leech proposes to supplement Grice’s CP with the Politeness Principle in terms of goal-directed linguistic behavior (Jaszczolt 2004: 314). Compared with the CP, the Politeness Principle provides explanations to the indirectness in communication and the relation between sense and force in non-declarative sentences (Leech 1983: 80). Leech’s Politeness Principle has the following maxims (Leech 1983: 119):

Maxim

Where Found

Description

1. The tact maxim

In impositives and commisives The speaker minimizes the cost and maximizes the benefit) to the listener.

2. The generosity maxim In impositives and commisives

The speaker minimizes the benefit and maximizes the cost to self.

3. The approbation maxim

In expressives and assertives

The speaker minimizes dispraise and maximizes praise of the listener.

4. The modesty maxim

In expressives and assertives

The speaker minimizes praise and maximizes dispraise of self.

5. The agreement maxim

In assertives

The speaker minimizes disagreement and maximizes agreement between self and the listener.

6. The sympathy maxim

In assertives

The speaker minimizes antipathy and maximizes sympathy between self and the listener.

The Politeness Principle addresses relational goals, serving primarily to reduce frictions in personal interaction. Therefore, the Politeness Principle needs to be taken into account while we refuse others in international business communication.

3. Refusal in International Business Writing

As the activity of international business communication is increasing, business correspondence takes the major part of business communaiction. Every day thousands of business letters, which represent oneself or one’s company, are written, typed, and sent. These letters are extremely important because they have the interest of an individual or a company at stake.

3.1 Refusal Correspondence and Its Role in Written Communcation

Business corresspondence is divided into three groups: (1) routine letters communicating straightforward request, replies, and goodwill messages ; (2)persuasive messages including sales pitches ; and (3) negative messages deliv

ering refusals and bad news(李艳艳 2004: 72). Refusal correspongdence is hard to write. Because a refusal disappoints, irratates, and sometimes even angers the receiver, special care is needed in refusal correspondence writing. Businessmen want to establish good relations with customers. But every business communicator will occasionally have to refuse a request. So it’s of great importance to master the skills and techniques of writing refusal correspondence.

3.2 Refusal Strategies in International Business Correspondence

When writing a refusal letter, one ought to not only give negative responses to orders or inquires, but also maintain the customer’s loyalty at the same time. How one arrange the main idea and supporting data can also ease the audience’s disappointment. The two basic strategies are (1) the indirect plan, which demonstrates supporting data before the main idea, and (2) the direct plan, which shows the main idea before the supporting data.

3.2.1 The Indirect Plan

The indirect plan is actually a familiar approach. It contains four parts: (1) a buffer; (2) reasons supporting the negative decision; (3) a clear statement of what you cannot provide; and (4) a positive close. By showing the reasons for your decision before the bad news, the audience are gradually prepared for disappointment. In most cases, this approach is more appropriate than an abrupt expession of the bad news.

1. A buffer

A buffer is a positive or neutral statement—not a negative one—that serves as a starting place for your negative response(张素红&Hatcher 2006: 187). A buffer allows the reader to feel comfortable with you before experencing the discomfort of the no message. Such sentence patterns “Thank you for…”“We were so pleased that…” are often used as buffers in a refusal letter, for they accord with the requirement of the Approbation maxim in Leech’s Politeness Priciple(姚敏 2006: 81). Using a buffer presents your effort to soften the blow of the negative response which often builds goodwill that goes beyond the momentary disappointment.

2. Reasons

After you’ve given a good buffer, the reasons will follow naturally. If you demonstrate your reasons effectively, they will help convince the audience that your decision is justified and logical. Demonstrate the more positive points first; then move to the less positive ones. When giving your reasons, be tactful by highlighting just how the decision is good for your audience, instead of focusing on why the decision benefits you or your company. Besides, don’t hide behind company policy. What’s more, using language which conveys respect to protect the audience’s pride. The third-person, impersonal, passive language is applied to explain your audience’s mistake in an inoffensive way. There are two examples.

Examples :

1. The appliance won’t work after being immersed in water.

2.You shouldn’t have immersed the appliance in water.

It is obvious that the first example is much better than the second one, because the “you” attitude is better observed by avoiding the word “you”. If you don’t have a good reason, omit the reason and move directly to the next part.

3. The refusal

Three techniques are really helpful in order to say no as clearly and painlessly as possible.

First, de-emphasize the refusal by putting it in the same paragraph as the reason, rather than in a paragragh by itself.

Second, imply the refusal rather than state it directly. Say “The shortest term for an insurance policy is six months” instead of “ You can not get the insurance for just one month ”(张素红&Hatcher 2006: 189). Of course, make sure the implication is very clear.

Third, tell the audience what you did do, can do , or will do rather than what you did not do, cannot do, or won’t do. Focusing on the positive an

d implying the refusal will mitigate the blow.

4. A positive close

After showing the refusal to your audience, what you should do is to end the message on a more optimistic note. You might propose an attainable solution to your audience, for example, giving an alternative which can offer your audience another way to get what he or she wants and suggest that you really care about the audience. Follow these guidelines when closing the letter :

(1) Don’t refer to, repeat, or apologize for the refusal, and refrain from expressing any doubt that your reasons will be accepted. Avoid statements such as “ I trust our decision is satisfactory”.

(2) Keep a positive outlook on the future. Avoid expressions such as “ Should you have further problems. Please let me know”(李艳艳 2004: 74).

The close is the last thing the audience has to remember you by. Keep in mind that to make the memory a posotive one.

3.2.2 The Direct Plan

Although the indirect approach is preferable for most refusal messages, the direct plan, with the refusal coming first, may be more effective in situati

ons such as the following:

(1) When the receiver may overlook the refusal. Due to the busy work, many businessmen skim messages, sometimes only looking at the opening.

(2) When the receiver prefers directness. If you know that the reader prefers that facts be presented straightforward, employ the direct plan.

In international business communication, the direct plan is seldom applied, for it can harm the relation between two sides easily. However, for some reasons you may sometimes want to get right to the point, and then choose the direct plan.

4. Refusal in International Business Negotiation

Negotiation is an art developed throught study and practice(谢晓莺 2005: 30). It can be described as the process through which two parties move from diverse position to a point of mutual agreement by the way of discussions. Effective negotiation requires an understanding of the social, cultural, political, and economic system, an expertise in technical, financial, accounting, and legal analysis, as well as some apropriate strategies.

4.1 Genral Ideas for Negotiation Strategies

Business negotiation, as one of the most important forms in business act

ivities, palys an crucial role in international business communication(徐知媛&徐宁燕 2008：29). Thereby, negotiators need strategies to make the negotiation a successful one. In the negotiation, strategies are long-term moves to achieve the negotiator’s objective. Generally speaking, strategies can be classified into three categories: “when” strategies, replying on time to achieve change in the negotiation; “how” strategies, dealing with methods; “where” strategies handling places used to achieve change in the negotiation.

There are some principle forms of “when” strategies, such as forbearance, surprise, fait accompli, deadlines and feitings. Let’s take forbearance and surprise for example. Forbearance, suspending an answer instead of giving it at once, is one of the strongest negotiation strategies and a tremendous advantage for the party with no deadlines. A dramatic change in attitude, requirement, method, argument, or approach is called the strategy of surprise(谢晓莺 2005:132). The aforesaid strategies sometimes are employed when you refuse the other party in the negotiation.

According to the outcomes, all those “how” and “where” strategies are likely to fall into the kinds of Win-Win and Win-Lose negotiation strategies. A Win-Win strategy is a blend of avoiding (neglecting the conflict), compromising (settling for less than the maximum), and collaborating (try to optimize the outcome) (谢晓莺 2005: 132), for the range of issues negotiated will vary in importance to the parties. On the contrary, a Win-Lose strategy is a blend of contending (convincing the other party to accept a position that favors only our own interests), compromising, and accomodating (concerntrating

on the other party’s needs instead of our own). In a lot of situations, the Win-Win negotiation strategies work well. Even if in the negotiation one party refuses the other’s requirement, they still regard the Win-Win strategy as the first choice, hoping to move the negotiation process toward collaboration and remain the good relation with the other in the long run.

4.2 Refusal Strategies in International Business Negotiation

In international business negotiation, bargaining is normal and inevitable. Sometimes the other party’s requirement or view is beyond yours. At this time, you should refuse and say no to your opponent. Nevertheless, the abrupt refusal will make the negotiation reach a deadlock and influence the negotiators’ mood. Thus, applying refusal strategies skillfully is of great importance. There are several refusal strategies used in international business negotiation.

4.2.1 The Frank Refusal Strategy

Every negotiator holding the sincere attitude will lead to a successful negotiation.

Example :

A : I think I have the right qualification for the position, and my ability can fill the company’s needs.

B : To be perfectly frank with you, we’re planning to fill the vacant position you’re after with somebody from the outside. (缪素琴 2008: 215)

The pragmatic marker “to be perfectly frank with you” in the above example belongs to the attitudinal marker which represents the speaker’s opinion or belief of the state of affairs, thus speaker-oriented(韩戈玲 2008: 63). In this case, it is to assure B that B is telling the truth. B’s sincere attitude will soften the illocutionary of the refusal. If the pragmatic marker is omitted, B’s statement will be thought as a vicious satire or an intended provocation. The similar pragmatic markers are : to be candid with you, to tell you the truth, frankly, candidly, honestly, faithfully, truly, etc.

4.2.2 The Concessional Refusal Strategy

The concession in bussiness negotiation is significant for the last agreement reached by the two parties. Any concession will give different values to the seller and the buyer (舒亭亭、余丽雯 2008: 78). In the beginning, the concession you allow should encourage the customer to feel valuable, but acctually it will not cause the substantial rise in your own cost. At the same time, keep in mind that don’t provide the drastical consession. The dramatical concession can weeken your credibility and it means you have much room to cut your price. Some examples are as follows.

Examples :

1. If you could make a 10% discount, we would be pleased to give you an order for 150 sets.

2. Your demand is too high, but if we can reach some middle ground we might have a deal.

In the process of negotiation, if you intend to amend the other party’s proposal, you can skillfully employ the sentence pattern “We suggest a compromise” to improve the tense negotiaton atmosphere (袁小华 2001: 70) and use the new suggestion to plough around your customer. Other sentence patterns are :

Can we meet each other half way ?

We suggest an alternative 10%.

4.2.3 The Euphemistic Refusal Strategy

Some words can not be spoken out directly in the business negotiation, so it requires euphemistic expressions. The reason is that euphemistic expressions mitigate the tense atmosphere of the negotiation effecticvely, break the deadlock, get rid of the embarrassing situation and avoid conficts as well. Using euphemistic expressions does not mean weakening the attitude of the negotiators. In fact, it is an effective strategy and an important way to gain the success for the negotiators.

Example :

I agree with most of what you said.

It means that there is something in what you said I cannot agree with. This is an euphemistic refusal strategy. There is another example.

Example :

A : Don’t you have any opinion about the contract terms ?

B : Could we discuss it next time after I talk it over to our director？

B uses the form of question to answer A’s question, expressing his disagreement euphemistically and leaving room for further negotiation. This is also an euphemistic refusal strategy.

4.2.4 The Vague Refusal Strategy

The application of vagueness in international business negotiation offers more flexibility than what it was expected. Using vague information instead of certain information can leave the necessary leeway for negotiators to discuss.

Example :

I am afraid that the propose you forward just now isn’t up too much. Your presentation makes me feel a little too. You know what I mean.

In the above example, “isn’t up too much” and “you know what I mean” are vague language which you can not point out exactly what is its limit. The vague language can not only express the meaning clearly to avoid arbitariness, but also imply the refusal to avoid hurting others’s sensation. Hence, the discourse becomes more appropriate and decenter. There are two other examples.

1. That’s too high. It will be difficult for us to make any sale.

2. But I believe we’ll have a hard time convincing our clients at our price.

The aforesaid examples show that the price the other party suggests is beyond the speaker‘s acceptance. However, the speaker employs the vague language of “difficult” and “hard time” instead of the absolute word “impossible”. The speaker stresses that it is difficult to accept the too high price, indicating his position and leaving room for the following negotiation. Using the word “impossible” would lead the negotiation to a dead end. When the authorization is limited, and it can not be expressed clearly, you can also employ the vague words to deal with the problem.

Examples :

1. I am not in position to say yes or no. Let me have a word with my boss.

2. I’m in a difficult position. It’s beyong my capability to decide it.

In international business negotiation, there exist many vague words for negotiators to choose, such as “perhaps”, “ probably”, “maybe”, “ as far as I can tell”, “ to some extent”, etc.

4.2.5 The Perspective-converted Refusal Strategy

Every negotiator is likely to put forward the requirement from his or her own point of view. It’s easy to give rise to conficts with these words“you are wrong” and “I don’t agree with you”. If the negotiator dexterously suggests the other party to change their perspective to handle the problem, it will avoid the conflict and reach the goal of refusal too.

Example :

A : Well, we want to have the largest share. Our company is much larger than yours, and we’ve been in business longer.

B : Let’s look at this another way. The major point is the value that we add ; not who’been in business longer, or is bigger.

B cannot accept A’ way of negotiation, but B don’t want to destroy th

e relationship with A, so B use “let’s look at this anthor way”, hoping that A will convert his perspective to deal with the case. Thus, B not only succeeds to refuse A, but also leads the negotiation toward a favorable direction for B. The similar expressions are “let’s look at this from another angle / in a differernt way / from another point of view,etc.”.

4.2.6 The Surprising Refusal Strategy

The process of negotiation is a psychological process. Each party is eager to know the limit of the other’s acceptance. Therefore, applying the suprising tone in the negotiation implies that the price your opponent quoted is far from satisfactory and needs to be discussed. The surprising refusal strategy acctually is a supra-segmental means which shows the refusal attitude through a rising tone or a stress (吴建设 2003: 108).

Examples :

1. Fifteen pence ! You must be joking ! Why, that’s less than the manufacturing price.

2. Why, your price has gone up sharply ! It is 20% higher than last year.

In the above examples, the speaker uses “why” in a surprising tone to achieve the contextual effect that he or she is not satisfied with the price the other party provided and forces the opponent to make the concesion in t

he price.

5. Conclusion

This thesis is conducted with Brown and Levinson’s face-saving theory, Leech’s Politeness theory, as well as some other academician’s theories as the theoretical foundation, adopting the discourse analysis method to expatiate refusal strategies in international business writing and negotiation.

Two refusal strategies, the indirect plan and the direct plan, are provided in international business writing. At the same time, it is found that six refusal strategies in international business negotiation: the frank refusal strategy, the concessional refusla strategy, the euphemistic refusal strategy, the vague refusal strategy, the perspective-converted refusal strategy and the surprising refusal strategy. Examples are quoted to give a visual expalnation. From the examples quoted, we can easily see that the different wordings involved lead to different effects. The appropriate application of refusal strategies can avoid friction and conflict in business communication.

Refusal in international business communication has various kinds of situations. Though efforts have been made to cover most situations, it is still far from being adequate. It is hoped that refusal strategies discussed in this thesis can still be of some help to international business communication.

References

[1] Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Cambridge, Mass, and Oxford: Harvard and Oxford University Presses, 1962.

[2] Beebe, L.T., Takahashi & R. Uliss-Weltz. Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals [A]. In: R. Scarcella, E. Anderson & S. D. Krashen (eds.). On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language [C]. Cambridge: Newbury House, 1990.

[3] Brown, Penelope & Levinson Stephen. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, 2nd Edition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

[4] Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation [A]. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

[5] Jaszczolt, K.M. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.

[6] Leech. G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1983.

[7] Levinson, S. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

[8] Scollon, Ron & Scollon, Suzanne Wong. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research

Press, 2000.

[9] Wardhaugh, R. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000.

[10] 谷慧娟. 汉英拒绝策略的文化映射[J]. 华东理工大学学报, 2007(3): 111-114.

[11] 韩戈玲. 语用标记语：双边最佳交际[M]. 江苏: 东南大学出版社, 2008.

[12 李艳艳. 商务拒绝信在实践中的运用[J]. 华夏星火, 2004(11): 71-74.

[13] 缪素琴. 话语标识语与商务英语谈判拒绝策略[J]. 商场现代化, 2008(8): 214-216.

[14] 潘敏. 英汉言语行为中的拒绝策略对比研究[J]. 黑河学刊, 2005(5): 66-69.

[15] 冉永平. 语用学：现象与分析[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版, 2006.

[16] 舒亭亭, 余丽雯. 商务英语谈判中“赞成”与“否决”的句型浅析[J]. 南昌高专学报, 2008(3): 77-82.

[17] 吴建设. 拒绝语的表达方法[J]. 四川外语学院学报, 2003(4): 106-109.

[18] 谢晓莺. 商务英语谈判[M]. 北京: 中国商务出版社, 2005.

[19] 徐知媛, 徐宁燕. 商务英语谈判中的否定语言策略[J]. 商场现代化, 2008(21):

29.

[20] 姚敏. 英语商务信函中的语用原则及运用[J]. 钦州师范高等专科学校学报, 2006(1): 78-82.

[21] 袁小华. 商务英语谈判中“赞成”与“否决”句型的巧用[J]. 南京理工大学学报, 2001(4): 68-72.

[22] 张素红. Caroline Hatcher. 商务交流[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2006.