INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Since the implementation of its open-door policy, Doi Moi, in 1986, Vietnam has transformed into a market economy, establishing diplomatic relations with over 200 countries and regions The country has joined significant organizations, including ASEAN, AFTA, APEC, ASEM, and WTO, enhancing its role in international trade and investment.
In response to globalization, the Vietnamese government is promoting English language learning among its citizens, making it the most widely studied foreign language in schools and universities Consequently, international certifications such as TOEIC, TOEFL, and IELTS are increasingly essential for college graduates and professionals seeking academic success and effective communication skills.
English learners frequently encounter difficulties with language proficiency tests, particularly in the listening section According to Brown (2006:1), "Listening in another language is a hard job." For instance, the TOEFL PBT Listening Part features materials such as dialogues, academic lectures, and lengthy conversations that necessitate test-takers to infer the speakers' implicit ideas, attitudes, or intentions Therefore, in addition to language skills, test-takers must possess pragmatic knowledge to succeed in these assessments.
Despite limited research on the barriers faced by TOEFL PBT test-takers, this study aims to explore a specific aspect of pragmatics and conversation analysis It focuses on identifying common patterns of dispreferred second turns and the linguistic units used to signal these patterns in Part A - Listening.
Comprehension Section of TOEFL PBT tests in order to work out some tips that help test-takers to cope with these kinds of questions
The study explores the significant role of TOEFL tests and the challenges faced by test-takers, highlighting the previous lack of attention to these issues and the author's self-interest in Pragmatics This motivation drives the investigation into the use of "dispreferred second turns" in communication.
Part A – Listening Section of TOEFL PBT”.
Research Question
The research seeks the answer to the following question:
What are the general patterns of dispreferred structures and the common linguistic features indicating them in Part A - Listening Comprehension Section of TOEFL PBT?
More obviously, to solve the research question, the study is conducted to:
Provide readers with basic knowledge of speech acts, conversation analysis, adjacency pairs and preference structure
Find out the general patterns of dispreferred structures used in Part A - Listening Section of TOEFL PBT
Examine the linguistic features signaling dispreferred responses in Part A - Listening Comprehension of TOEFL PBT
Provide potential test-takers with practical knowledge to deal with TOEFL PBT questions containing dispreferred-second-turn questions
This paper serves as a valuable resource for both teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT, enhancing their understanding of conversation analysis, adjacency pairs, and preference structures By exploring dispreferred responses and their linguistic signals, users can improve their ability to tackle listening questions in Part A of the TOEFL PBT Additionally, a deeper comprehension of these concepts enables more natural and effective communication in English, especially when expressing indirect declines, refusals, or disagreements.
Teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT can utilize this paper as a valuable handbook for strategies to effectively handle questions featuring dispreferred-second-turn responses in the Listening Comprehension Section.
Last but not least, researchers of related fields can also use the paper for reference and suggestions for deeper studies
This study, conducted as part of a minor thesis for a Master of Arts in English Linguistics, focuses on the preference structure in communication, specifically examining the common patterns of dispreferred-second acts and the linguistic features used to express them in the TOEFL PBT Listening Section.
This study analyzes the transcripts of 50 dialogues from 300, specifically examining dispreferred responses in Part A - Listening Comprehension The data is sourced from 10 Complete Practice Tests featured in three TOEFL preparation books, including TOEFL Success 2000.
Bruce Rogers, The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening by Milada
Broukal and TOEFL Practice Tests Volume 3 by ETS
The study includes three parts:
Part I is the Introduction of the study which states the problem, the research question, objectives, scope, significance and design of the entire paper
Part II is the Development which consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background related to the topic Chapter 2 includes database of the study, methodology, data analysis procedure, and discussion of data analysis
Part III is the Conclusion which summarizes major findings of the investigation and provides implications for teaching and learning TOEFL PBT This part also points out some limitations of the research & makes suggestions for further studies.
Significance of the study
This paper serves as a valuable resource for both teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT, enhancing their understanding of conversation analysis, adjacency pairs, and preference structures By providing insights into dispreferred responses and the linguistic markers that signal them, it equips users with the tools to navigate listening questions in Part A of the TOEFL PBT more effectively Additionally, a thorough comprehension of these concepts enables learners to communicate in English more naturally and effectively, especially when expressing indirect declines, refusals, or disagreements.
Teachers and learners of TOEFL PBT can utilize this paper as a valuable handbook, offering essential tips for effectively addressing questions that involve dispreferred-second-turn responses in the Listening Comprehension Section.
Last but not least, researchers of related fields can also use the paper for reference and suggestions for deeper studies
This study, conducted as part of a minor thesis for a Master of Arts in English Linguistics, focuses on the preference structure in communication Specifically, it examines the common patterns of dispreferred second acts and the linguistic features used to express them, with a particular emphasis on Part A of the TOEFL PBT Listening Section.
This research analyzes the transcripts of 50 out of 300 dialogues featuring dispreferred utterances in Part A - Listening Comprehension, sourced from 10 Complete Practice Tests across three TOEFL preparation books, including "TOEFL Success 2000."
Bruce Rogers, The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening by Milada
Broukal and TOEFL Practice Tests Volume 3 by ETS
The study includes three parts:
Part I is the Introduction of the study which states the problem, the research question, objectives, scope, significance and design of the entire paper
Part II is the Development which consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background related to the topic Chapter 2 includes database of the study, methodology, data analysis procedure, and discussion of data analysis
Part III is the Conclusion which summarizes major findings of the investigation and provides implications for teaching and learning TOEFL PBT This part also points out some limitations of the research & makes suggestions for further studies.
Design of the study
The study includes three parts:
Part I is the Introduction of the study which states the problem, the research question, objectives, scope, significance and design of the entire paper
Part II is the Development which consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background related to the topic Chapter 2 includes database of the study, methodology, data analysis procedure, and discussion of data analysis
Part III is the Conclusion which summarizes major findings of the investigation and provides implications for teaching and learning TOEFL PBT This part also points out some limitations of the research & makes suggestions for further studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Speech Acts
The speech act (SA) theory has generated significant interest in the field of language usage, emerging as a key topic of discussion Following Austin's pioneering research on speech acts several decades ago, the concept has captivated scholars and remains a compelling area for exploration.
In linguistic pragmatics, speech acts (SAs) are fundamental phenomena that every pragmatic theorist must consider This importance has led to extensive research on SAs by notable philosophers and linguists, including Grice, Searle, Levinson, Thomas, and Yule A shared perspective among these scholars is that utterances are not merely statements; instead, speakers perform actions through their words, encapsulated in Austin's assertion that "in saying something, the speaker (S) does something."
Briefly speaking, ―actions performed via utterances‖ are called speech acts (Yule,
1996: 47) According to Searle (1969: 16), these SAs, considered ‗the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in authentic situations of language use
In English, speech acts (SAs) are categorized into various labels, including greeting, assessment, offer, agreement, disagreement, compliment, apology, complaint, invitation, request, refusal, blame, acceptance, denial, admission, question, answer, proposal, and promise.
These terms for SAs are used to name the S's communicative intentions and the hearer (H) is expected to correctly interpret the S's intentions via the process of inferences
“Hi, Mary How are things going?" greeting
"Could you lend me your pen, please?" request
Conversation Analysis
Conversation is defined as a common form of communication where two or more individuals freely exchange dialogue, typically occurring outside formal settings such as religious services, courts, or classrooms (Levinson, 1983) It represents the natural interactions between people, rather than a structured format like a sentence Levinson emphasizes that conversation arises from the dynamic interplay of independent individuals, each with their own goals and often differing interests.
Conversation analysis (CA) is a method for examining audio and video recordings of spoken interactions, as defined by Sidnell (2010) This social-science approach aims to describe, analyze, and understand conversation as a fundamental aspect of human social life.
Conversation Analysis (CA) is defined by Hutchby & Wooffitt (2008) as the study of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction, focusing on how speakers understand and respond to each other during conversations The primary goal of CA is to reveal the implicit reasoning and sociolinguistic skills that inform the production and interpretation of dialogue within structured sequences of interaction.
Conversation Analysis (CA) aims to uncover the systematic properties of how talk is organized sequentially and how utterances are crafted to navigate these sequences According to Levinson (1983), CA must adhere to two key requirements: it should employ inductive methods to identify recurring patterns in naturally occurring conversations, and it should focus on the interactional and inferential outcomes that arise from choosing between different utterances.
When it comes to the analytic studies on English data, local management organizations in conversation, namely turn-taking and adjacency pairs, cannot be omitted
Conversation is fundamentally structured around turn-taking, where one participant speaks and then pauses, allowing the other to respond, creating an alternating pattern of dialogue This A-B-A-B distribution of speech highlights the interactive nature of communication, as noted by Levinson (1983).
Yule (1996: 71) compares conversation structure to a market economy, highlighting that the right to speak is a limited resource The speaker who holds this right secures a turn in the conversation In scenarios where control isn't predetermined, anyone can strive to gain the floor, leading to a dynamic process of turn-taking.
Let us now turn to another local management organization in conversation - adjacency pairs - that is one of the most significant contributions of CA
Adjacency pairs are defined by Levinson (1983: 303) as the kind of paired utterances of which question-answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance, apology- minimization, etc., are prototypical
Yule (1996: 77) defines adjacency pairs as automatic sequences in conversation structure, comprising a first and second part produced by different speakers These pairs can include various interactions such as greeting-greeting, question-answer, thank-response, and request-acceptance, illustrating the predictable nature of conversational exchanges.
Anna: How are you? Bill : Fine!
Anna: See ya! Bill: Bye!
According to Thornbury & Slade (2006), an adjacency pair is defined as two adjacent turns taken by different speakers, where the second utterance is directly related to the first Examples of adjacency pairs include question-answer, complaint-denial, offer-accept, request-grant, compliment-rejection, challenge-rejection, and instruct-receipt These pairs possess three key characteristics: they consist of two utterances, the utterances are adjacent, and they are produced by different speakers.
According to Yule, adjacency pairs are not mere sequences of sounds; they embody social actions that vary in significance, particularly when they serve as the second turn in these pairs.
Levinson (1983) highlights a significant issue with the concept of adjacency pairs, specifically regarding the variety of acceptable responses to a given first part Instead of a singular, fixed reply, a first part, such as a question, can elicit multiple appropriate responses These can include expressions of ignorance, redirections, refusals to answer, or challenges to the underlying assumptions or sincerity of the question posed.
A : What does John do for a living?
B : a Oh that and this b He doesn‟t c I have no idea d What‟s that got to do with it?
In this instance, the response to the inquiry does not offer an immediate answer but instead includes a commitment to deliver a response at a future date, accompanied by an explanation for the postponement.
A: Yes // how many tubes would you like sir? ((Q1)) B: Er, hh I‟ll tell you what I‟ll just eh eh ring you back I have to work out how many I‟ll need Sorry I did- wasn‟t sure of the price you see
While the initial response may be limited, it does not constitute a small set, which challenges the structural importance of adjacency pairs as highlighted by the concept of preference organization.
Preference structure
Yule (1996) explains that requests or offers typically anticipate acceptance, as acceptance is more likely than refusal, a concept known as preference This term describes a socially determined structural pattern rather than individual desires Similarly, Levinson (1983) asserts that preference is not about the psychological inclinations of speakers or listeners but reflects a structural phenomenon akin to "markedness." In summary, preference represents an observable pattern in communication rather than personal wishes.
The preference structure categorizes second turns into two types: preferred and dispreferred social acts Preferred acts are the anticipated responses in a conversation, while dispreferred acts represent unexpected replies.
According to Comrie (1976), unmarked categories typically exhibit less morphological complexity than marked categories, leading to a higher likelihood of irregular forms in unmarked instances Preferred second turns in adjacency pairs are structurally simpler and contain less material compared to dispreferred ones Consequently, preferred second acts are considered unmarked, while dispreferred acts, characterized by their structural complexity, are deemed marked.
1.3.2 General patterns of preference structure
Levinson (1983) emphasizes that by structurally characterizing preferred and dispreferred conversational turns, we can link their content and sequential positions to their likelihood of being expressed in either format Notably, disagreements regarding assessments or proposals typically appear in a dispreferred format, whereas agreements are consistently presented in a preferred format This relationship is illustrated in a table showcasing the reliable patterns between conversational formats and their corresponding content across various adjacency pairs.
Request Offer/ Invite Assessment Question Blame
Preferred Acceptance Acceptance Agreement Expected answer Denial
Dispreferred Refusal Refusal Disagreement Unexpected answer/ non-answer
Yule (1996: 79) discusses the relationship between content and format in adjacency pair second responses, identifying them as general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures He presents these patterns in a distinct manner, as illustrated in the accompanying table.
Assessment Invitation Offer Proposal Request
Preferred Dispreferred agree accept accept agree accept disagree refuse decline disagree refuse
Table 2 - The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures
The analysis reveals that when evaluating requests or offers, acceptance is the favored response, while refusal is generally less preferred Below are some illustrative examples to support this observation.
Yule (1996) emphasizes that silence in conversations is typically viewed as a dispreferred response, prompting the initial speaker to rephrase their statement to elicit a reaction from the other person This lack of response indicates that the listener may be unable to give the expected reply.
Sandy: But I'm sure they'll have good food there
Sandy: Hmm - I guess the food isn't great Jack: Nah - people mostly go for the music
Silence in conversations can be perceived as non-participation, which poses a risk for effective communication When participants need to make a dispreferred second turn, they often signal this marked response through various cues such as hesitation, delays, prefaces, appeals to others' opinions, or stumbling repetitions.
The patterns related to a dispreferred second turns in English are presented as a series of optional elements by (Yule, 1996: 81) as follows:
When addressing a dispreferred response, consider employing strategies such as delaying or hesitating to soften the impact Prefacing your response can help set the stage for the message you want to convey Expressing doubt or using token affirmatives like "yes" can mitigate the negativity of your response Offering an apology may also ease the situation, while mentioning obligations can provide context for your stance Additionally, appealing for understanding ensures your audience empathizes with your position It's essential to keep the conversation non-personal to avoid escalating tensions Providing an account of the situation can clarify your reasoning, and using mitigators can further soften your response Finally, incorporating hedges and pauses, such as "er," "ah," or "well," can create a more thoughtful and measured delivery.
I'm not sure; I don't know that's great; I'd love to I'm sorry; what a pity
I must do X; I'm expected in Y you see; you know everbody else; out there too much work; no time left really; mostly; sort of; kinda
We can take one dialog to analyze:
Becky: Come over for some coffee later Wally: Oh - eh - I'd love to - but you see - I - I'm supposed to get this finished - you know
In this discussion, various linguistic features are employed to formulate dispreferred second turns, including hesitations like "oh" and "eh," prefaces or tokens such as "I'd love to," stumbling repetitions like "I - I'm," accounts stating "I'm supposed to get this finished," and invocations of understanding with phrases like "but you see, you know."
Still discussing the linguistic features that signal dispreferred second responses, but Levinson (1983: 334) presents them in a different way as we can see below:
(a) delays: (i) by pause before delivery, (ii) by the use of a preface, (iii) by displacement over a number of turns via use of repair initiators or insertion sequences
(b) prefaces: (i) the use of markers or announcers of dispreferreds like
Effective communication involves several key elements: (i) using fillers like "uh" and "well" to manage conversation flow, (ii) establishing token agreements to prevent disagreements, (iii) incorporating expressions of appreciation when making offers or suggestions, (iv) utilizing apologies appropriately for requests and invitations, (v) employing qualifiers to convey uncertainty, and (vi) demonstrating hesitation through self-editing These components contribute to clearer and more considerate interactions.
(dispreferred) act is being done (d) declination component: of a form suited to the nature of the first part of the pair, but characteristically indirect or mitigated
Looking at the linguistic elements that present dispreferreds, we can conclude that a dispreferred takes more time and more language than a preferred one.
Dispreferreds in Part A - Listening Comprehension of TOEFL PBT
Listening Comprehension Section of TOEFL is divided into three parts, each with a different format and a different direction Since July 1995, its standard form has followed this format:
Table 4 - Listening Comprehension Format in Standard Form
The TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section begins with conversations between two speakers, followed by a question posed by a third speaker regarding the dialogue's content or implications Test-takers must select the best answer from four provided choices based on what they have heard and mark their selection on the answer sheet.
Part A of the TOEFL PBT features dialogues primarily between a man and a woman, with each typically speaking one or two sentences These conversations focus on various aspects of life at American universities, such as taking tests, engaging with professors, writing research papers, and attending classes Additionally, the dialogues cover broader topics, including shopping, house hunting, and vacationing.
According to Rogers (2000), certain test items assess test-takers' understanding of various language functions, particularly in discerning agreement or disagreement between speakers This involves recognizing whether one speaker is accepting or rejecting another's offer In Part A of the TOEFL PBT Listening section, questions are specifically designed to address dispreferred second acts Here are five types of questions that reflect the general patterns of dispreferred second turns in this section.
M1: We can still make it to the movie We‟d just miss the first ten minutes
F1: Over by the window, I‟d say There‟s not much point
M2: What does the woman imply?
(A) She does not mind if she misses ten minutes of the movie
(B) She thinks they can be there in no time
(C) She does not mind if they go or not
(D) She sees no reason to go if they miss the first ten minutes
The woman‘s reply indicates that there is no reason to go to the movie if they are going to miss the first ten minutes Therefore, the best choice is (D)
First, the questions belong to the pattern assessment-disagreement in which the first S gives an assessment of something and the second S disagrees with the idea
F1: I thought Cheryl‟s photographs were the best at the exhibit
M1: I didn‟t really see it that way
Invitation-refusal interactions involve one person (S1) inviting another (S2) to participate in an activity or event, only for S2 to decline the invitation This dynamic highlights the social nuances of communication, where one party expresses a desire for engagement while the other chooses to refuse Understanding this interaction is essential for analyzing interpersonal relationships and the complexities of social invitations.
M1: Would you like to join us on Sunday? We‟re going to go on a picnic at the lake
F1: I‟d love to, but I have a test Monday, and I have to get ready for it
(Rogers, 2000: 50) The third question type falls into offer-declination They are situations where the first
S proposes to help the second S or allows him/her to do something but the second one declines the offer For instance:
F1: Should I make reservations for dinner Friday night?
M1: Thanks anyway, but I‟ve already made them
(Rogers, 2000: 51) Fourth is the question of proposal-disagreement This is the kind of question in which the first S suggests a solution to something but the second S rejects it
F2: Maybe you could get a ride to campus with Peggy tomorrow
M1: Oh, Peggy no longer drives to class
Last comes request-refusal In this pattern, the first S asks the second S to do something; or asks him/her for help or information:
F1: Jim, can I have one of those bananas you bought?
M1: Sorry – they‟re still not ripe enough
To sum up, there are five patterns of dispreferreds that can appear in dialogs of Part A
The TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section includes various question types, such as meaning, inference, opinion, and future action questions Test-takers often encounter queries like "What does the man/woman mean?" or "How does the man/woman feel about ?" Most questions center around the second speaker's utterance, making it crucial for learners to understand dispreferred second turns in Part A of the Listening Section This knowledge can significantly enhance performance in the exam.
Previous works
The issues of CA and Preference Structure have been concerned by many researchers
Since the 1970s, Pomerantz has focused on the characteristics of second assessments, beginning with her 1975 Ph.D dissertation, which explores the key aspects of agreeing and disagreeing She later examines the features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes in her 1984 work Her research meticulously analyzes how second speakers utilize these preference structures to navigate the dynamics of agreement and disagreement.
Eisenstein & Bodman (1993) explore how gratitude is expressed by both Americans and English learners through naturally occurring conversations, highlighting the ways in which native and non-native speakers foster friendly relationships Additionally, Brown (2002) and Snow & Blum-Kulka (2002) effectively utilize naturalistic corpora to investigate the influence of context and culture on children's pragmatic development.
Research on naturally-occurring conversation has informed various studies, including Schegloff et al.'s (1977) exploration of self-correction in conversational repair and Firth's (1996) analysis of "lingua franca" English Additionally, Seedhouse (1999) examined the interplay between context and repair organization in L2 classrooms Kieu T.T.H (2006) utilized Pragmatics and Conversation Analysis frameworks to investigate how native speakers perceive and express disagreement in English and Vietnamese Her findings highlight the distinct politeness strategies employed by North American English speakers and Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi, which stem from their differing assessments of socio-cultural factors and social contexts.
Numerous linguistic studies have utilized methods from Conversation Analysis (CA) and pragmatics This paper distinguishes itself from previous research by the extent and depth with which each approach is employed to adequately address the research question.
This chapter examines previous research and theories pertinent to the study, concentrating on the general patterns of dispreferred responses and their linguistic indicators It incorporates the analytical frameworks established by Levinson (1983) and Yule (1996) The author specifically selects Yule's (1996) theories to analyze dispreferred expressions found in Part A - Listening Comprehension of the TOEFL PBT, an area that has received limited attention.
THE STUDY
Methodology
The study employs a blend of analytic, descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative methods to analyze the frequency of dispreferred patterns and their linguistic features in the Listening Comprehension Section of the TOEFL PBT.
Among the above methods, quantitative one is given priority to because most of the conclusions and considerations are calculated and converted into charts and figures.
Procedure
There are four stages in the data collection:
Stage 1: The author read the theories related to the topic to grasp essential knowledge of SAs, CA, adjacency pairs and preference structure
Stage 2: The author studied the transcripts of 10 complete practice tests in three aforementioned TOEFL PBT books to collect data in order to find out which utterances contain dispreferreds and how many dialogs in which interlocutors use dispreferred second acts
Stage 3: The author identified which general pattern of dispreferreds was used in each dialog and which the most common pattern was Simultaneously, the author investigated which linguistic features signaling these dispreferred second turns
Stage 4: The author converted the results into numbers The coded data were then presented in charts and graphs.
Findings and discussion
The research question's first half was addressed by analyzing 50 adjacency pairs from dialogues in the Listening Comprehension Section of three TOEFL PBT books, specifically focusing on dispreferred seconds To facilitate interpretation of the findings, the data from Question 1 was organized and presented in chart form.
Fre qu enc y of U se Assessment-Disagreement
Invitation-Refusal Offer-Decline Proposal-Disagreement Request-Refusal
Figure 1: Common patterns of dispreferred second turns
The chart illustrates five columns, each representing a tested adjacency pair that includes dispreferred responses: assessment followed by disagreement, invitation followed by refusal, offer followed by decline, proposal followed by disagreement, and request followed by refusal.
Looking at the statistics introduced in the graph, all the five observed patterns of dispreferred second responses appear in dialogs in Part A – Listening Comprehension Section of TOEFL PBT
Among the five identified patterns, the assessment-disagreement pattern is the most frequently utilized, appearing in 22 out of 50 dialogues This prevalence is likely due to its association with reference questions, which are noted as the second most common type of part A questions according to Rogers (2000: 23).
Following this is the paired utterance invitation - refusal and request - refusal These two kinds of adjacency pairs appear 8 and 9 times respectively in the dialogs
The least popular pattern used here falls into offer - decline It is only found in 5 out of
2.4.2 Common linguistic features of dispreferreds
To address the remaining half of the research question, the author meticulously examined the dialogs individually to identify the most frequently utilized linguistic units that demonstrate dispreferred second acts The analysis focused on how these units function within each pair of dispreferred responses The findings were quantified, represented in a pie chart, and thoroughly analyzed.
The following chart presents the frequent use of linguistic elements that indicate dispreferred second responses in 50 adjacency pairs taken from 10 TOEFL PBT tests
18% delay/hesitate preface express doubt token yes apology mention obligation appeal for understanding make it non-personal give an account use mitigators
The chart illustrates that the phrase "give an account" is the most frequently used linguistic feature, accounting for 36% of the total This prevalence highlights its significance in communication.
When S disagrees with H's statement or proposal, it is essential for S to clarify the reasons behind their refusal This explanation serves as a crucial linguistic tool for S to articulate a dispreferred response, effectively communicating their stance on H's invitation, offer, or request.
The use of "hedge the negative" and "token yes" occurs at rates of 18% and 16%, respectively In contrast, the frequencies of features such as "mention obligation," "appeal for understanding," and "make it personal" are less significant These elements often serve as supplementary tools for the second speaker to express disagreement before explaining their differing viewpoint on the first speaker's statement.
In summary, eight prevalent linguistic features that indicate dispreferred responses have been identified in Part A of the TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section Each pattern of adjacency pairs is typically marked by distinct linguistic elements, which can vary in their expression The subsequent section will elaborate on the usage of these eight common linguistic elements.
2.4.2.2 The ways eight common linguistic features are used
In this part, the ways that eight common elements indicating dispreferred second turns in TOEFL PBT Listening (according to figure 2 above), namely „give an account‟,
„hedge the negative‟, „token yes‟, „use mitigators‟, „preface‟, „delay/hesitate‟,
„apology‟ and „express doubt‟ are used will be discussed in meticulous detail a ‘Give an account’
The linguistic feature "give an account" is utilized across all five patterns related to dispreferred responses in the TOEFL PBT Listening Comprehension Section Specifically, it appears in 15 of the 22 assessment-disagreement pairs, 6 of the 8 invitation-refusal and request-refusal pairs, and is present in every pair of offer-decline and proposal-disagreement.
In paired utterances of assessment and disagreement, the second speaker often employs linguistic strategies to clarify and counter the first speaker's assessment, thereby reinforcing their opposing viewpoint This may involve providing examples and evidence to substantiate their disagreement.
[1] F: Nancy didn't try out for the play, and now they've given the lead role to someone else
M1: Actually, she did try out but didn't make the cut
[2] M1: That was the most boring presentation I've ever heard in my life
F: I wouldn't go that far There were several interesting issues discussed
[3] F: You're so excited about moving into the dorm, aren't you?
M1: Not really I like living at home with my family
[4] F1: Uh, oh Your roommate's making dinner again Your kitchen is going to look like a tornado hit it
M1: Maybe not Last night he cooked dinner and left the kitchen spick-and- span
[5] F2: Have you seen Shelly recently? The last time I spoke to her she said she hadn't been feeling too well
M1: Well, when I saw her this morning, she was a picture of health
[6] F: Your football team didn't play very well
M: That's true, but at least we won the game
When declining an invitation, the second party often provides reasons for their unavailability, citing busy schedules filled with meetings, appointments, and personal commitments They may also mention unforeseen circumstances that prevent them from accepting the invitation.
[7] M: We plan to go to the beach after class Want to come?
F: I'd love to, but Professor Jones wants to speak with me
[8] F: Would you like to join us on a charity run on Saturday?
M1: I would if I hadn't had an accident during the football game yesterday
[9] F: Look, they're advertising the Sports Show at the Convention Center Would you care to go?
M1: I'd love to, but I'm working overtime this week
[10] F: Jonathan, wouldn't you like to come to the cafe with us?
M1: Are you kidding? I'm swamped with homework
When declining a request, the responder typically offers a reason for their inability to comply, highlighting their limitations or external constraints.
[11] M: I need to get a copy of my birth certificate
F: Sorry, but we can only accept requests by mail now
[12] F: I want you to try that scene again, but this time do it with less anger and more concern
M1: But I don't understand why this character is reacting this way at all
[13] M1: My zoom lens isn't working properly Can you repair it?
F: I'm sorry We only sell photography equipment However, there's a repair shop just down the street
[14] M1: Would you mind giving these books to Professor Hata for me? He loaned them to me
F: I'm afraid I won't be seeing him today, since classes have been cancelled due to the snow storm
In the context of the offer-declination pattern, it is common for the second statement to present reasons that oppose the initial offer This approach effectively communicates that the second speaker does not require assistance from the first speaker.
[15] F: I've got a recipe for a garlic and hot pepper chicken dish Want to try it tonight with green salad?
M: You know, my stomach's a little on edge; I'd prefer something bland
[16] M1: Would you like me to put the name of each flower on a stick where we planted the seeds?
F: That won't be necessary I can remember what we planted
[17] M1: Would you like a piece of cake? I baked it for you
F: Why did you do that? You know I'm trying to lose weight
[18] F: Should I make plans for us to go river rafting in the Grand Canyon over the holiday?
M1: That won't be necessary I've already arranged it
Take the pattern proposal - disagreement into consideration, it can be seen that the second S normally provides a reason why it is unreasonable to follow the first S‘s suggestion
[19] M1: Do you want to make a pizza for dinner tonight?
F: That's too much work Let's order one
[20] F: It's chilly outside Why don't you wear the plaid jacket your aunt gave you for your birthday?
M1: Are you kidding? I wouldn't be caught dead in that jacket
In all patterns of dispreferred second turns, the second speaker employs the phrase "give an account" to explain their disagreement or refusal regarding the first speaker's statement These explanations vary based on the context of the interaction, but they often begin with the conjunction "but" before presenting the reason or explanation This technique effectively hedges the negative response.
This feature of dispreferred second response is mostly used in the two patterns offer - decline and assessment - disagreement To make a declination to an offer, the second
S presents objection to the first S‘s help; then to create a disagreement to an assessment, he/she mentions contradiction
[21] F: Should I make plans for us to go river rafting in the Grand Canyon over the holiday?
M1: That won't be necessary I've already arranged it
[22] M1: I understand you're flying back to Boston tomorrow Do you want me to take you to the airport?
F: Thanks, but that won't be necessary The hotel has a shuttle bus
[23] F: You're so excited about moving into the dorm, aren't you?
M1: Not really I like living at home with my family
[24] F: You hate this cold, snowy weather, don't you?
M1: Not at all It just means better conditions on the ski slopes
[25] F1: Hotel rooms along the beach must be very expensive
M2: Not now During the off-season, they're dirty cheap
The term "token yes" refers to a strategic response used to politely decline an invitation or express disagreement It typically involves phrases such as "yeah," "yes," "I'd love to," or "that's great," which serve to acknowledge and appreciate the initial offer while softening the impact of the subsequent refusal This technique helps to mitigate any potential negativity associated with the disagreement.
[26] F: Would you like to join our study club tonight? It's a great way to improve your grades
M1: Sounds like a great idea, but I have to take care of my baby sister
[27] F: Look, they're advertising the Sports Show at the Convention Center Would you care to go?
M1: I'd love to, but I'm working overtime this week
[28] F: Look at the lion! Isn't it majestic?
M1: Yes it is, but I enjoy the elephants more Let's go see them again
[29] F: Your football team didn't play very well
M: That's true, but at least we won the game
CONCLUSION
Recapitulation
This research aims to identify common patterns of dispreferred second acts in the Listening Section of the TOEFL PBT, along with the linguistic features that characterize these dispreferred responses The study's findings highlight key trends and linguistic elements associated with these patterns.
1.1 The common patterns of dispreferreds
The data analysis reveals that all five identified patterns of dispreferred second responses—assessment-disagreement, invitation-refusal, offer-decline, proposal-disagreement, and request-refusal—are present in Part A of the TOEFL exam.
The PBT Listening Comprehension Section primarily features assessment-disagreement interactions, making it the most prevalent pattern Following closely are the adjacency pairs of invitation-refusal and request-refusal In contrast, the offer-declination pattern is the least frequently observed in this section.
1.2 The linguistic features signaling dispreferreds
The paper highlights key linguistic features that signal dispreferred second turns in Part A of the TOEFL Listening section It identifies eight common linguistic elements associated with dispreferred responses, including phrases like "give an account," "hedge the negative," and "token yes."
The article highlights the significance of various communicative elements, noting that "give an account" is the most frequently used, while "appeal for understanding," "mention obligation," and "make it non-personal" are much less common Additionally, the use of mitigators, prefaces, delays, apologies, and expressions of doubt are discussed as essential components in communication.
Several significant findings about how the eight common features work in the five patterns to create dispreferreds are also revealed:
The feature 'give an account' is prevalent in various types of paired utterances, particularly in dispreferred second turns This element serves to explain why the second speaker disagrees with or does not accept the first speaker's statement It frequently appears in significant numbers and often starts with the conjunction 'but'.
The element "hedge the negative," which includes phrases like "not at all," "not really," and "not necessary," is specifically found in two patterns: offer-decline and assessment-disagreement This hedging typically occurs before the second statement, where reasons for disagreement are provided.
Third, as regards ‘ token yes’ such as ‗that‘s true, it may look like that, yeah, yes it is,
This feature is designed to facilitate token appreciation or token agreement, particularly before an individual declines an invitation or disagrees with an assessment.
Fourth, the feature ‘ preface ’ like ‗actually, well‘ is often employed by the second S to give an account for disagreeing with an assessment
Delays or hesitations expressed in interrogative forms, such as "Are you kidding?" or "Why did you do that?", are often utilized by the second speaker in the context of paired utterances, specifically in situations involving invitation-refusal and proposal-disagreement dynamics.
A formal apology is typically offered by the second speaker before providing reasons for their refusal, aiming to mitigate negative feelings and garner sympathy from the first speaker who has made a request.
Seventh, the feature ‘ express doubt’ is often found in the two patterns of dispreferreds ‗request - refusal‟ and ‗invitation - refusal‟
The element of using mitigators appears in all types of dispreferred second turns within the Listening Comprehension Section of the TOEFL PBT, though it is utilized less frequently than the seven other features.
Suggested tips for TOEFL PBT learners or potential test-takers
Based on the results, some tips for learners and test-takers are recommended below:
To effectively tackle the questions, begin by briefly reviewing the four answer options to identify the types of questions presented These may include meaning questions, inference questions, opinion-based questions, or inquiries about future actions This preliminary assessment will enhance your understanding and improve your response strategy.
To effectively grasp the main ideas of the dialogues, listen attentively to the tape Focus particularly on the second speaker's responses, as they frequently provide the answers to the questions posed in the conversations.
When addressing speech acts (SAs) such as invitations, offers, requests, proposals, and assessments, it is crucial to recognize the linguistic features that distinguish preferred responses from dispreferred ones Dispreferred responses are typically marked by specific linguistic indicators and often occur alongside the conjunction "but." Understanding these nuances can enhance communication effectiveness.
After that, infer the second S‘s utterances in order to work out their implied purposes, attitudes and intentions to opt for the correct answer.
Implications for English language learning and test taking
In order to achieve effectiveness in taking Part A - TOEFL PBT Listening tests, the following points should be paid due attention to:
Learners and potential test-takers should have insights into the general patterns of dispreferreds and the common linguistic features in dispreferred expressions
In dialogues within Part A, the second speaker's disagreement or refusal is frequently implied rather than explicitly stated This is often conveyed through implicature, reasoning, or questions that soften the negative response Consequently, potential test-takers and learners need to listen attentively to discern the speaker's implicit intentions, purposes, and attitudes in order to select the correct answer.
To effectively address challenges related to dispreferred second acts, educators should facilitate better opportunities for students to explore and apply their understanding of preference structures, including the patterns and linguistic cues that indicate them Additionally, offering a diverse range of engaging speaking topics will enable learners to practice and reinforce the knowledge acquired.
Teachers can enhance students' listening skills by encouraging them to expand their vocabulary through a deep exploration of idioms and implicature, which frequently occur in spoken language.
Learners must take full responsibility for their education and develop an awareness of their learning strategies By employing meta-cognition, they can enhance their learning efforts and achieve greater success in their academic pursuits.
In summary, understanding pragmatics and conversation analysis (CA) is essential for enhancing language performance Teaching learners effective strategies for managing preference organization and other aspects of pragmatics and CA can significantly improve their listening communication skills.
The study emphasizes the significance of preference structure for both English teachers and learners, urging textbook writers to create effective listening syllabi and materials It highlights that listening skills should be developed alongside speaking skills, as practicing natural communication and engaging with authentic resources are essential for learners aiming to excel in the TOEFL PBT.
Limitations of the research
Due to the limitation of length and time constraints, this work still has some certain restrictions
The study's findings are limited due to the small sample size, comprising only 50 dialogues featuring dispreferred responses, sourced from 10 comprehensive tests across three selected TOEFL PBT books Consequently, the research on dispreferred second-turn expressions lacks depth and abundance.
The study focused on dispreferred-second-response patterns and their linguistic features, utilizing Yule's theoretical framework (1996) However, the limited data may hinder the ability to draw definitive conclusions.
In real-life interactions, non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, postures, gestures, laughter, and eye contact play a vital role in communication Additionally, prosodic features like intonation, pitch, and silence are essential for effective dialogue However, this research is limited to data derived solely from TOEFL PBT transcripts, neglecting the impact of these non-verbal and prosodic elements.
Suggestions for further research…….…………………………………………40 REFERENCES
The study of preference structures, pragmatics, and conversation analysis (C.A) is a vast and crucial field, especially concerning language functions in TOEFL PBT and everyday communication To enhance the understanding of potential test-takers and English learners, it is essential to explore related aspects such as implicature, implication, reference, pauses, silence, and turn-taking This in-depth examination will foster greater awareness of these critical issues in language use.
In the realm of social interactions, preferred and dispreferred responses, akin to agreement and disagreement, are intrinsically linked, as highlighted by Kieu, T.T.H (2006:200) The concept of "opinion-negotiation" encompasses both agreeing and disagreeing, illustrating that these elements are two sides of the same coin, with each relying on the other for meaning Often, the distinction between agreement and disagreement can be subtle in face-to-face conversations, where a simple "yes" may imply "no," and conversely, a "no" can carry an opposite connotation.
Thus, it is more interesting for the present researcher (and other researchers) to study these two acts in parallel
Third, studies on preference structure, particularly dispreferreds in other authentic materials will be also encouraged
Hopefully, a research work in the future will be carried out with much more useful & creative data and longer time to increase the validity and reliability of the research
1 Austin, J L (1962) How to do things with words New York: Oxford University Press, Oxford
2 Broukal, M (1994) The Heinle & Heinle TOEFL Test Assistant Listening, Glendale: Glendale Community College
3 Brown, P (2002) ―Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal In S Blum-Kulka & C E Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults – The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to
4 Brown, S (2006) Teaching Listening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
5 Comrie, B (1976a) Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and
6 Eisenstein M & Bodman J (1993) ―Expressing Gratitude in American English‖
In G Kasper & S Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp 64-81) Oxford: Oxford University Press
7 Firth, A (1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: On "lingua franca"
English and conversation analysis Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259
8 Gilbert, J (1984) Clear Speech Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in
American English Student‟s Book, Cambridge: CUP
9 Goodwin, C (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between and hearers New York: Academic Press
10 Hutchby, I and Wooffitt, R (2008) Conversation Analysis Polity
11 Jacobs, S (1987) Commentary on Zimmerman: Evidence and inference in conversation analysis Communication Yearbook, 11, 433-443
12 Kieu, Thi Thu Huong (2001) Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese
Unpublished M A Thesis C F L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
13 Kieu, Thi Thu Huong (2006) Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis C F L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
15 Levinson, Stephen C 1983.Pragmatics Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
16 Peccei, J (1999) Pragmatics, London and New York: Routledge
17 Pomerantz, A (1975) Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of
18 Pomerantz, A (1978) ―Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints‖ In J Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction Academic Press pp 79-112
19 Pomerantz, A (1984a) ―Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes‖ In J Heritage & J M Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp 57-101
20 Pomerantz, A (1984b) ―Pursuing a Response‖ In J Heritage & J M Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp 152-64
21 Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B J (1997) ―Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices‖ In van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Vol 2 pp 64-91 Sage Publications
22 Rogers, B (2000) TOEFL Success 2000, Peterson‘s Education Center: Heinle & Heinle/ITP
23 Rogers, R (1997) Peterson‟s TOEFL Practice Tests, Peterson‘s Education Center: Heinle & Heinle/ITP
24 Schegloff, E A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H (1977) The preference for self-