Assess differences in polite expressions between second language learners and native speakers based on scenarios involving the combination of multi-factors

Assess differences in polite expressions between second language learners and native speakers based on scenarios involving the combination of multi-factors | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Assess differences in polite expressions between second language learners and native speakers based on scenarios involving the combination of multi-factors Liang Xu, Xiao Wu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6246285/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract By methods of DCT with 24 designed continuous request-refusal dialogue scenarios and optimized classification of request and refusal strategies, differences in polite expressions between Native Korean (NK) and Chinese Korean language learners of intermediate (CKLI) and advanced (CKLA) levels were quantitatively assessed. There were significant differences in frequencies of three groups using request and refusal strategies in different scenarios. NK used more categories and numbers of strategies than CKLI. Gaps between NK and CKLI might narrow as language proficiency increases. Furthermore, not only a single influence factor affected strategy choice, but also interactions between factors, suggesting that people might behave differently when faced with complex scenarios consisting of multiple factors. The method of designing multiple independent scenarios with the same factors, and analyzing the impact of factors and their interactions on strategies used, has the potential to be applied to studies on distinctions in use of other languages or speech acts. continuous dialogue request refusal Korean language Chinese learner interaction of influence factors Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Face Threatening Act (FTA in short) often inevitably occurs when people are interacting with each other, especially in the face of requests or refusals from others. Requesting behavior is very sensitive and highly used in daily life. The request is considered a type of FTA because it is usually self-serving and requires time, effort, or material cost to the requested person (Brown & Levinson, 1987 ). The speech act of refusal is also regarded as a type of FTA because of its disobedient nature (Martí-Arnándiz & Salazar-Campillo, 2013 ). In refusing a directive discourse (e.g., request, suggestion), the speaker threatens his or her negative image; while in refusing a commanding discourse (e.g., offer, invitation), the speaker refuses to support his or her positive image. Once refused, the self-esteem of both the speaker and the listener can be potentially jeopardized, impede social interactions, or even cause offense. When implementing an FTA (e.g., refusal or request), speakers must consider sociolinguistic variables such as closeness, age, gender, and social status to choose an appropriate polite expression strategy that best accomplishes their goals and avoids damaging the others’ faces. Korean culture has long been influenced by Confucianism, so there are certain commonalities between South Korea and China. In recent times, Korea has been influenced by other countries such as the USA and Japan in many ways, resulting in differences in living environment, values, and ways of thinking. Both Korea and China now have their cultural characteristics in terms of language and non-language. When communication difficulties occur, native speakers are more likely to judge the foreign learner as rude and uncooperative, rather than finding the cause in the deficiencies of the foreign learner's language resources (Gass et al., 2020 ). Another study on Koreans' reactions to foreigners' refusal behaviors has found that Koreans reacted more negatively to content issues than to grammatical issues, which is closely related to Korean culture and social habits (Lee, 2009 ). To identify the differences in the polite expressions of requests and refusals between native Korean and Chinese learners of Korean as a second language for more targeted teaching, and to avert communicative conflicts stemming from cultural disparities, it is crucial to carry out in-depth research and comparative analyses. This involves quantitatively pinpointing the scenarios and underlying causes of these differences and applying the resultant findings in subsequent teaching. Literature review The request is a speech act that falls under Searle's category of "instruction" and is an attempt by the speaker to get the hearer to do something, which may be a very gentle attempt or a very vigorous one" (Searle, 1979 ). There have been many comparative studies on the speech act of request in Korean and other languages or between Koreans and people from other countries, including English (Yu, 2011 ; Song, 2014 ; No, 2023 ), Japanese (Jisoo, 2019 ), Thai (Kanchina, 2022 ), French (Ying & Hong, 2020 ), Chinese (Rue and Zhang 2008 ), and so on. Refusal is a response speech act in which the respondent refuses to participate in the action proposed by the interlocutor (Wu, 2021 ; Zhang, 2022 ), which has been described as a major cross-cultural barrier for many non-native speakers (Beebe et al., 1990 ). Because of the face-threatening nature of refusal, it usually requires a lengthy negotiation process, the form and content of which varies according to the eliciting speech act. Beebe et al. ( 1990 ) categorized refusal strategies and is one of the most widely used refusal taxonomies. Several studies have been conducted on comparisons of refusal speech acts between Korean and other languages or between Koreans and people from other countries, e.g. English (Krulatz & Dixon, 2020 ), Egyptian (El-Bably, 2022 ), Korean Expressions for South and North Korea (Lee et al., 2018 ), Japanese, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Filipino (Candy, 2017 ), Chinese (Wu, 2011 ; Yun, 2017 ; Wu et al., 2019 ). Most request strategy research draws on the strategy categorization methodology and research methods of classic work (Brown & Levinson, 1987 ; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989 ). The request speech act could be analyzed with the following segments: (a) Address Term(s); (b) Head Act; (c) Adjunct(s) to Head Act. However, requests are not necessarily made in this order, and the order can change depending on variables. Some studies have analyzed only Head Act alone, which tends to be biased, and it is necessary to study them in conjunction with the entire phase of the request. There have been fewer comparative and cognitive studies on intergroup language and culture. Especially the refusal speech act that can easily threaten the face of other people, it is important to carefully choose the appropriate way of refusal in different scenarios, taking into account the status of both parties, age, gender, intimacy, and so on. In contrast to the large number of cross-cultural comparative studies on request or refusal speech acts between Western languages or between Western and Asian languages, relatively few studies have been conducted on Asian languages, such as comparisons between Korean and Chinese (Wu, 2021 ). The vast majority of the current research on request or refusal speech acts, including strategies and expressions in Korean and Chinese, has been conducted using the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) by setting up situations with fixed numbers of variables (Rue & Zhang, 2008 ; Wu, 2021 ; El-Bably, 2022 ; Kanchina, 2022 ; Zhang, 2022 ). Many studies have used DCT as the sole means of collecting data. While DCTs can facilitate the collection of large samples of speech acts, these samples may be underrepresented in naturalistic data and the responses may deviate from the real speech acts that subjects make in naturalistic settings. However, it is unlikely that the variables distributed in each scenario will fully cover all aspects of real life. To achieve the goals, request or refusal speech acts often use multiple strategies, which may be of different types, and the request or refusal act may go through multiple rounds. Yet many DCT studies simply ask respondents to respond based on set scenarios. In addition, some DCT scenarios appear to be quite unrealistic, and some studies have limited sample sizes, all of which may have had a significant impact on the results of the study. Some of the studies that did not employ DCT used linguistic materials such as television dramas, television talk shows, literature, and textbooks, which are susceptible to subjective authorial ideas, acquired linguistic formulas, and the unnatural style of television programs (Jisoo, 2019 ; Wu, 2021 ). Therefore, further study is needed on Korean request and refusal speech acts between Chinese learners and Korean native speakers. Request and refusal speech acts tend to occur simultaneously in a conversational scenario, and the two speech acts should not be studied separately and in isolation. The study should be based on a reasonable setting of DCT investigation scenarios, collecting and summarizing closer to real conversation data from multiple similar scenarios and multiple rounds of conversations, so that the results can more realistically reflect the changing characteristics of speech acts. Methodology Context and participants In this study, the DCT survey method was used for data collection and analysis by answering questionnaires and dialogues. A preliminary survey was conducted from March to June 2018 using designed questionnaires with current students (Korean majors and Korean learners) at several universities located in Qingdao, China, as well as Korean study abroad students in Qingdao (Wu et al., 2019 ). Chinese learners were categorized by levels into intermediate (passing TOPIK level 3–4, hereinafter CKLI) and advanced (passing TOPIK level 5–6, hereinafter CKLA). Native Korean students were hereinafter referred to as NK. The questionnaire was improved to make the scenarios more relevant to daily life to eliminate interference in the subjects' strategy choices. A questionnaire study was conducted from March to July 2019, and from June to December 2023 with students from several colleges and universities in Qingdao and South Korea, with the total number of participating NKs, CKLAs, and CKLIs being 43, 67, and 84, respectively. This study does not require human or animal ethical approval. Study design Three variables, social status, the intimacy of the relationship between the interlocutors, and the difficulty of the speech act, were selected to study the effect on communication strategies. Social status was subdivided into “equal” and “unequal”, intimacy was subdivided into “intimate” and “not intimate”, and difficulty was subdivided into “easy” and “difficult”. Each variable was cross-combined with each other to produce eight combinations. Three replicate scenarios for each combination, for a total of 24 scenarios, were set up (Table 1 ). This research design was adopted because there is little research on the interactive effects of various factors that influence communication behavior. Therefore, we proposed this method for studying the effects of multiple factors and their interactions on interrelated speech acts and named this method “Methodology Based on Interaction and Combination of Multi-factors (hereinafter referred to as MICMF)”. This method designs multiple independent scenarios with the same factors by inserting each factor affecting strategy choice in each scenario, combining them, and analyzing the effects of the factors and their interactions on strategy choice. Based on previous studies, request, and refusal strategies were classified into seven categories respectively (Table 2 ), with which the data were analyzed (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989 ; Beebe et al., 1990 ; Wu, 2021 ). Table 1 Table 1 Eight combinations of request scenarios and eight combinations of refusal scenarios Speech act Combination Variables Social status Intimacy Difficulty Request 1 Equal Intimate Easy 2 Equal Not intimate Easy 3 Equal Intimate Difficult 4 Equal Not intimate Difficult 5 Unequal Intimate Easy 6 Unequal Not intimate Easy 7 Unequal Intimate Difficult 8 Unequal Not intimate Difficult Refusal 1 Equal Intimate Easy 2 Equal Not intimate Easy 3 Equal Intimate Difficult 4 Equal Not intimate Difficult 5 Unequal Intimate Easy 6 Unequal Not intimate Easy 7 Unequal Intimate Difficult 8 Unequal Not intimate Difficult Table 2 Table 2 Framework for analyzing request and refusal discourses in this study Number Strategy categories of request Strategy categories of refusal Major category name (the name of the included strategy) 1 Direct request Direct refusal 2 Mention conditions Provide a reason or rationale 3 Ask for information Avoidance (Chang the topic/avoidance / make non-verbal statements) 4 Statement of obligation Conditional acceptance (Make a suggestion / conditional acceptance) 5 Make a suggestion Subjective causes (assertion / self-blame) 6 Express a wish Accusation (Accusation/question) 7 Statement of situation Express emotions (apologize/thank/congratulate) Data analysis methods One-way ANOVA and Least Significant Difference (LSD) were used to examine the differences between NK, CKLA, and CKLI in the category and number of request-refusal discourse strategies. In addition, a multifactor ANOVA was used in this study to examine the effects of target people (P), social status (S), intimacy of the relationship (R), difficulty (D), and their interaction on speech acts. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York, USA). The significant difference was indicated by p < 0.05. Origin (Originlab Corporation, Massachusetts, the USA) was used for Fig. plotting. Results Request speech acts and associated strategies From the results of the one-way ANOVA and LSD test, NK used a greater variety and number of strategies relative to CKLI, with a higher proportion using request strategies 1 and 3 and a lower proportion using request strategy 7 (Table 3 ; Figs. 1 and 2 ). CKLA used request strategy 7 at a significantly higher rate than NK (Table 3 ; Fig. 2 ). During a single dialogue, CKLA used a greater number of strategies than CKLI on average, although there was no significant difference in the categories of request strategies used between CKLA and CKLI (Table 3 ; Fig. 1 ). On the side of the use of refusal strategies, there was no significant difference between NK and CKLA in terms of the categories and the numbers of refusal strategies, with a relatively low percentage of refusal strategy 2 and a relatively high percentage of strategy 3 being used for NK (Table 3 ; Figs. 1 and 2 ). Similar to the use of request strategies, NK used more categories and numbers of refusal strategies than CKLI in the dialogue. Furthermore, NK used refusal strategy 2 at a lower percentage than CKLI and strategy 3 at a higher percentage than CKLI (Table 3 ; Figs. 1 and 2 ). CKLA also used more categories and numbers of refusal strategies as well as a higher percentage of refusal strategy 6 in the dialogue than CKLI (Table 3 ; Figs. 1 and 2 ). The language level gap between NK and CKLA was relatively smaller than the gap between NK and CKLI. Overall, the differences in language level led to differences in the categories, numbers, and choices of strategies used between the different study groups, especially between NK and CKLI (Table 3 ; Figs. 1 and 2 ). A one-way ANOVA found differences in the request-refusal strategy used between the different study groups. A multifactor ANOVA enabled further clarification of the effects of different influence factors and their interactions on the use of politeness expression strategies. For the strategy category of the request speech act, social status had a significant effect on the choice of request dialogue strategy category for different groups. Statistically, NK used more request dialogue strategy categories when talking to people with unequal social status. However, for CKLA and CKLI, the request dialogue strategy categories did not differ according to social status, i.e. there was no difference in the request dialogue strategy categories used by CKLA and CKLI when talking to people with equal or unequal social status. Based on the above analyses, it can be concluded that Koreans are more influenced by social status than Chinese. This is related to the strict social hierarchy, seniority, and subordination in Korea, and the strict use of honorifics and non-salutations in Korean society, which reinforces the importance of social status in people's subconscious. The interaction of S×R×D was significant. The fewest categories of request strategies were used in situations where social status was equal, not intimate, and easy, as well as the most categories in situations of unequal social status, intimate relationship, and difficulty. There was no significant difference in the expression of each group in each of the other combinations (Table 4 ; Fig. 1 ). Both NK and CKLA used more request strategy numbers than CKLI. R×D was significant indicating that there was an interaction between R and D, i.e., intimacy and difficulty affected the use of request dialogue strategies. In the context of intimacy with the other party and difficulty in making requests, the number of request strategies used by each group was relatively high. In the rest of the situations, there was no significant difference in the number of request strategies used by each group. There were also interactions between S, R, and D. The number of request strategies used in a difficult request scenario with intimate relationships, but unequal social status was relatively high (Table 4 ; Fig. 1 ). NK used the request strategy 1 (i.e., direct request) at a higher rate than CKLI. Overall, NK, CKLA, and CKLI all used the "direct request" strategy with intimate people at a higher rate than with those who were not in intimate relationships. All three groups had higher proportions using the “direct request” strategy in easy situations (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). Table 3 Table 3 F values from One-way ANOVA and P values from LSD test for the differences between NK, CKLA, and CKLI in the category, number, and strategies percentages of request-refusal discourse strategies. Items of analysis F value of request from one-way ANOVA P value of request from LSD F value of refusal from one-way ANOVA P value of refusal from LSD NK-CKLA NK-CKLI CKLA-CKLI NK-CKLA NK-CKLI CKLA-CKLI Strategy category 2.5895 ns 0.5631 0.0315 0.1109 10.2336 *** 0.2853 0.0000 0.0017 Strategy number 12.1080 *** 0.2796 0.0006 0.0000 19.5356 *** 0.9280 0.0000 0.0000 Strategy 1 4.2288 * 0.0514 0.0060 0.3975 1.1412 ns 0.1589 0.2546 0.7839 Strategy 2 1.3650 ns 0.1098 0.2791 0.5983 8.8157 *** 0.0149 0.0001 0.0983 Strategy 3 4.0367 * 0.1655 0.0059 0.1545 7.9409 *** 0.0007 0.0013 0.8438 Strategy 4 0.9837 ns 0.2909 0.1901 0.7965 0.4980 ns 0.3220 0.5994 0.6400 Strategy 5 0.4152 ns 0.4130 0.9411 0.4561 0.5816 ns 0.7684 0.4555 0.2992 Strategy 6 0.9521 ns 0.6238 0.1774 0.3873 2.7284 ns 0.2322 0.2623 0.0224 Strategy 7 26.2708 *** 0.0000 0.0000 0.9376 0.0592 ns 0.7318 0.8705 0.8574 *** indicates P < 0.001, ** indicates P < 0.01, * indicates P < 0.05, and ns indicates no significant difference. Table 4 Table 4 F values of multifactor ANOVA for the effects of target people (P), social status (S), intimacy of the relationship (R), difficulty (D), and their interaction on request speech acts. Strategy category Strategy number Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5 Strategy 6 Strategy 7 P 2.8299 ns 14.2482 *** 4.1997 * 1.3468 ns 4.4995 * 1.1154 ns 0.4069 ns 0.8747 ns 29.7324 *** S 1.8166 ns 2.1721 ns 0.6938 ns 2.2055 ns 0.0551 ns 5.2868 * 1.6817 ns 0.0232 ns 5.7326 * R 0.6053 ns 2.2189 ns 5.4040 * 4.7538 * 1.8596 ns 2.6737 ns 3.2072 ns 0.5842 ns 7.9672 ** D 2.7050 ns 2.2032 ns 7.3947 ** 0.0762 ns 5.3133 * 3.4965 ns 0.2389 ns 4.8958 * 4.2460 * P × S 3.5630 * 0.5132 ns 0.4649 ns 0.8457 ns 1.8630 ns 0.7839 ns 0.2362 ns 0.0405 ns 0.6252 ns P × R 0.3209 ns 1.1627 ns 0.3440 ns 0.0344 ns 1.1113 ns 0.1136 ns 0.0526 ns 0.3572 ns 0.6201 ns P × D 1.9839 ns 1.9121 ns 0.5325 ns 0.4431 ns 0.2909 ns 0.7290 ns 0.0235 ns 1.9654 ns 0.9420 ns S × R 0.2488 ns 0.0970 ns 0.0026 ns 0.7330 ns 6.8350 * 0.0027 ns 0.9978 ns 0.9858 ns 1.7580 ns S × D 0.0723 ns 1.1113 ns 0.0312 ns 6.1106 * 1.1123 ns 0.0266 ns 9.5879 ** 1.3180 ns 0.3858 ns R × D 0.0215 ns 7.1171 * 2.4488 ns 1.3916 ns 1.0297 ns 7.8985 ** 1.3471 ns 1.2330 ns 1.7777 ns P × S × R 0.5988 ns 0.3200 ns 0.2487 ns 0.0922 ns 1.6647 ns 1.5120 ns 0.1868 ns 0.0583 ns 0.6548 ns P × S × D 0.5380 ns 0.0942 ns 0.0296 ns 0.2223 ns 0.1768 ns 0.5388 ns 0.2277 ns 0.1536 ns 0.8686 ns P × R × D 0.1850 ns 0.1828 ns 0.4747 ns 0.6492 ns 0.2631 ns 0.0146 ns 0.0925 ns 0.3466 ns 0.0629 ns S × R × D 6.3158 * 8.6897 ** 0.0729 ns 0.1930 ns 1.4313 ns 0.9428 ns 0.6875 ns 0.0007 ns 0.4376 ns P × S × R × D 0.6210 ns 0.6087 ns 0.1444 ns 0.0201 ns 0.2681 ns 1.2642 ns 0.1183 ns 0.2521 ns 0.1197 ns Groups include NK, CKLA, and CKLI; social status includes equal and unequal; relationship includes intimate and not intimate; difficulty includes easy and difficult. *** indicates P < 0.001, ** indicates P < 0.01, * indicates P < 0.05, and ns indicates no significant difference. All three groups had higher percentages of using request strategy 2 (i.e., mention conditions) with those who were not in an intimate relationship and lower percentages with those who were in an intimate relationship. The significant interactions of S×D suggest that social status and difficulty affected the use of request strategy 2. With equal social status and relative ease of making a request, the speaker had relatively high rates of using the “mention conditions” strategy. However, the proportion of the three groups using strategy 2 was relatively low in scenarios where social status was unequal, and requests were easy to make (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). NK used request strategy 3 (i.e., ask for information) at a higher percentage than CKLI. All three groups used the “ask for information” strategy at a higher rate in easy situations and at a lower rate in difficult scenarios. There was a significant interaction effect between S and R. The use of the “ask for information” strategy was relatively higher when social status was unequal, and the relationship was intimate (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). People of equal social status had higher rates of using the “statement of obligation” strategy, while people of unequal social status had lower rates of using strategy 4. R×D had a significant interactive effect. The highest proportion of people using the “statement of obligation” strategy was found in situations where they were not intimate with other people and where the request act was difficult. In the remaining situations, there was no significant difference in the proportion of groups using the “statement of obligation” strategy (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). For the use of request strategy 5 (i.e., make a suggestion), S×D was significant. The group with the highest percentage of using the “make a suggestion” strategy was the group with unequal social status and easy request situation. On the other hand, the group with the lowest percentage of using the "make suggestions" strategy was the group with equal social status and easy request situation (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). The results of the multifactor ANOVA analyses showed that a higher percentage of people used the request strategy 6 (i.e., express a wish) in difficult situations and a lower percentage of people used the strategy in easy situations (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). NK had a lower rate of using the “statement of the situation” strategy than CKLA and CKLI, while CKLA and CKLI had similar rates of using the request strategy 7. Overall, the rate of using the “statement of situation” strategy was higher for those with unequal social status, while the rate of using the “statement of situation” strategy was lower for those with equal social status. In addition, the frequency of using the “statement of situation” strategy was higher for those who were not intimate and lower for those who were intimate. Finally, the use of the request strategy 7 was higher in difficult situations and lower in easy situations (Table 4 ; Fig. 2 ). Refusal speech acts and associated strategies Based on the results of a one-way ANOVA and LSD test of refusal speech acts extracted from the dialogue, NK used a higher percentage of refusal strategy 3 but a lower percentage of refusal strategy 2 than CKLA (Table 3 ; Fig. 2 ). In addition, a similar trend to that between NK and CKLA was shown between NK and CKLI in the use of strategies 2 and 3 (Table 3 ; Fig. 2 ). CKLA used a relatively higher rate of request strategy 6 than CKLI (Table 3 ; Fig. 2 ). There was no significant difference between NK and CKLA in terms of the categories and numbers of refusal strategies used. Both NK and CKLA, on the other hand, used relatively more categories and numbers of refusal strategies in the dialogues than did CKLI (Table 3 ; Fig. 1 ). A multifactor ANOVA was also used to analyze the effects of different influence factors and their interactions on the refusal speech acts in multi-round dialogue in different scenarios. Both NK and CKLA used more categories of refusal communication strategies than CKLI. The results of the multifactor ANOVA showed that there was a significant interaction of R×D, suggesting that the intimacy of the parties and the difficulty of the refusal influenced the choice of refusal strategy categories. In difficult refusal situations, the most categories of refusal strategies were used with intimate people, while in difficult refusal scenarios, the least categories of refusal strategies were used with people who were not intimate (Table 5 ; Fig. 1 ). Similar to the use of refusal strategies categories, both NK and CKLA used more numbers of refusal strategies in dialogue than CKLI, while there was no significant difference between NK and CKLA. A higher number of refusal strategies were used with people who were intimate and a lower number of refusal strategies were used with people who were not intimate. In addition, more refusal strategies were used in situations where refusal was easy, while fewer were in cases where refusal was difficult. A significant interaction between R and D indicated that relatively more refusal strategies were used when the relationship with the other party was intimate, while relatively less number of refusal strategies were used when the relationship with the other party was not intimate and easy to refuse (Table 5 ; Fig. 1 ). There was no significant difference in results for the use of refusal strategy 1 (i.e., direct refusal) and refusal strategy 4 (i.e., conditional acceptance; Table 5 ; Fig. 2 ). NK used refusal strategy 2 (i.e., provide a reason or rationale) at a lower rate than CKLA and CKLI. The significant interaction of S×R showed that the highest proportion of using the “provide a reason or rationale” strategy was found when social status was unequal and the other person was not intimate. In the rest of the cases, there was no significant difference in the proportion of using refusal strategy 2 (Table 5 ; Fig. 2 ). NK used refusal strategy 3 (i.e., avoidance) at a higher percentage than CKLA and CKLI. The significant interaction between P and S suggested that social status had a strong effect on the choice of refusal strategies across groups. A higher proportion of NK used the “avoidance” strategy in easy refusal situations, whereas a lower proportion of NK used the “avoidance” strategy in difficult refusal situations. For CKLA, a similar proportion used the “avoidance” strategy in easy and difficult situations. Similarly to NK, CKLI had higher proportions using the refusal strategy 3 in easy refusal situations, but lower proportions using the “avoidance” strategy in difficult refusal situations. The results of the interaction between S and D suggested that overall a relatively higher proportion of people used the “avoidance” strategy in situations where social status was equal and refusal was easy, and a relatively lower proportion of people used the “avoidance” strategy in situations where social status was unequal and refusal was difficult. There was a significant interaction between P, S, and D. For NK, a higher proportion used the “avoidance” strategy in situations where social status was unequal and refusal was easy than in situations where social status was unequal and refusal was difficult. CKLA had similar proportions of using the refusal strategy 3 in all scenarios. For CKLI, the proportion using the "avoidance" strategy was higher in situations where social status was equal and refusal was difficult than in situations where social status was equal and refusal was difficult (Table 5 ; Fig. 2 ). Table 5 Table 5 F values of multifactor ANOVA for the effects of target people (P), social status (S), intimacy of the relationship (R), difficulty (D), and their interaction on refusal speech acts. Strategy category Strategy number Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5 Strategy 6 Strategy 7 P 10.0358 *** 20.9773 *** 0.9907 ns 8.6541 *** 9.8259 *** 0.4870 ns 0.5904 ns 3.7396 * 0.0803 ns S 0.5936 ns 2.3669 ns 0.8823 ns 0.9389 ns 2.3461 ns 3.1149 ns 0.3658 ns 0.0000 ns 1.9551 ns R 2.2013 ns 7.7550 ** 0.7692 ns 2.2769 ns 0.5304 ns 1.0445 ns 0.0088 ns 0.3766 ns 10.3303 ** D 0.4922 ns 5.9232 * 0.0468 ns 1.5317 ns 2.0784 ns 1.2205 ns 4.1893 * 7.5591 ** 6.2415 * P × S 0.3852 ns 0.0533 ns 0.3768 ns 0.2787 ns 0.5023 ns 0.3714 ns 0.8199 ns 1.5469 ns 0.1868 ns P × R 0.2855 ns 0.5026 ns 0.4158 ns 0.2845 ns 0.1465 ns 0.5870 ns 0.1794 ns 4.3127 * 0.1872 ns P × D 3.0482 ns 0.8511 ns 0.5529 ns 0.0449 ns 6.1144 ** 0.5272 ns 2.0895 ns 1.0680 ns 0.9209 ns S × R 0.4300 ns 0.0231 ns 0.4918 ns 7.7575 ** 0.0000 ns 2.8911 ns 6.0704 * 6.1284 * 0.0964 ns S × D 1.0455 ns 0.3698 ns 0.8313 ns 0.4268 ns 5.5218 * 0.1506 ns 0.0307 ns 0.7224 ns 6.2070 * R × D 4.3114 * 4.9241 * 0.1306 ns 1.2536 ns 0.3498 ns 0.6270 ns 2.5168 ns 0.6600 ns 0.9286 ns P × S × R 0.0047 ns 0.1125 ns 0.5639 ns 0.4097 ns 0.4721 ns 0.1772 ns 0.4435 ns 2.0177 ns 0.3194 ns P × S × D 0.5841 ns 0.0289 ns 0.7022 ns 0.0498 ns 5.0631 * 0.7658 ns 0.4225 ns 1.7874 ns 1.5721 ns P × R × D 0.5683 ns 0.4942 ns 0.3106 ns 1.1916 ns 0.3576 ns 0.7501 ns 0.0052 ns 2.1243 ns 0.6090 ns S × R × D 0.3843 ns 0.0124 ns 0.6449 ns 0.0302 ns 1.0720 ns 3.6035 ns 0.1807 ns 3.6187 ns 12.0039 ** P × S × R × D 0.2281 ns 0.3161 ns 1.1282 ns 0.5005 ns 0.0845 ns 0.2308 ns 0.3818 ns 0.8982 ns 0.1148 ns Groups include NK, CKLA, and CKLI; social status includes equal and unequal; relationship includes intimate and not intimate; difficulty includes easy and difficult. *** indicates P < 0.001, ** indicates P < 0.01, * indicates P < 0.05, and ns indicates no significant difference. For refusal strategy 5 (i.e., subjective causes), a lower proportion used the “subjective causes” strategy in easy refusal scenarios than in difficult rejection scenarios. There was an interaction between S and R. The use of the “subjective causes” strategy was higher when refusing people who were intimate to them and of equal social status than when refusing people who were not intimate to them and of equal social status. Furthermore, the use of the “subjective causes” strategy was lower when refusing people of unequal social status who were intimate to them than when refusing people of unequal social status who were not intimate to them (Table 5 ; Fig. 2 ). When refusing a request, CKLA used the refusal strategy 6 (i.e., accusation) more than CKLI did. The use of the “accusation” strategy was higher in cases where it was difficult to refuse and lower in cases where it was easy to refuse. The significance of P×R told that NK had a higher proportion of using the “accusation” strategy when refusing an intimate person compared to refusing a person who was not intimate. In contrast to NK, CKLA used a lower proportion of the “accusation” strategy when refusing people who were intimate than when refusing people who were not intimate. CKLI used the “accusation” strategy when refusing people who were intimate at a rate similar to the rate of the “accusation” strategy when refusing people who were not intimate. There was also a significant interaction between S and R. The lowest percentage of using the “accusation” strategy was found in the case of the same social status and not intimate relationships. In the remaining cases, there was no significant difference in the proportion of groups using the “accusation” strategy (Table 5 ; Fig. 2 ). For refusal strategy 7 (i.e., express emotions), a lower proportion used this strategy when refusing someone intimate than when refusing someone who was not in an intimate relationship. A higher proportion used the “express emotions” strategy in cases of easy refusal than in cases of difficult refusal. Significant results for S×D indicated that a relatively high proportion of people used the “express emotions” strategy when they were socially unequal and easily refused, and a relatively low proportion of people used the refusal strategy 7 when they were socially equal and difficult to refuse. There was also an interaction between S, R, and D. The highest rates of using the “express emotions” strategy were found in situations of unequal social status, not intimate and easy to refuse, while the lowest rates of using the refusal strategy 7 were found in situations of equal social status, intimate and difficult to refuse (Table 5 ; Fig. 2 ). Discussion In daily dialogue, we often need to make requests to and by others, and these requests may be accepted or refused. As a response to a request speech act, refusal will always occur in pairs with the requesting speech act. Both requests and refusals are face-threatening behaviors. The reality of how to make requests appropriately and how to refuse them in a way that does not damage the face of the other party to the greatest extent possible is inescapable. To be able to achieve their final goals, both the party making the request and the party refusing the request will adjust their polite expression strategies according to various realities, such as the level of status, the closeness of the relationship, the difficulty of the matter, etc., to ease the conflict to the greatest extent possible. The use of request and refusal strategies in dialogue is in a dynamic state of flux as the level of interaction between the parties varies and will determine the outcome of the communication. Much of the research that has been done on requests and refusals tends to study only one speech act, either request or refusal, in isolation, with very few studies of the two speech acts together as a whole (Lan, 2013 ; Bulaeva, 2016 ; Loong, 2017 ; Wu, 2021 ). Neglecting the correlation between request and refusal and separating the two for research, the results obtained are not in-depth, and comprehensive. Only by considering the request-refusal speech act as a continuous discourse process, and conducting quantitative research on the successive rounds of dialogues, can we comprehensively reveal the characteristics of the request-rejection dialogue act, explore the factors affecting its changes, and use them to guide the practice of foreign language teaching. It was found that factors such as age, social power, social distance, the purpose of the request, the scenarios, the relationship, and the burden of the request influenced request behavior (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989 ). The influence of linguistic and cultural diversity on the extent of request speech acts, as well as the specific criteria for analyzing request speech act strategies, have been studied and discussed by numerous scholars. According to the analytical framework of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Project (CCSARP), which has been proven to be effective, request speech acts were classified into three main strategies, and nine sub-strategies were proposed. This analytical framework has been applied in many subsequent request behavior studies (Searle, 1979 ; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989 ). Most studies on Korean request discourse refer to CCSARP's analytical framework. Among the many studies on Korean request speech acts, the influencing factors involved are the attributes of the request, the content of the request, relationship, social status, age, gender, etc (Lan, 2013 ; Loong, 2017 ; Wu, 2021 ). Refusal strategies are considered direct or indirect linguistic formulas. Specifically, which refusal strategy is used depends on the social status and power of both speakers. The order of use, frequency of occurrence, and specific content of linguistic formulas have also been analyzed. The types of refusal have been classified into direct and indirect refusals, and direct refusals have been further classified into performative and non-performative refusals. Indirect refusals were further categorized into 11 types (Beebe et al., 1990 ), which has been the basis for several subsequent studies. Social status, closeness, task difficulty, and demands/requests, were identified as the four factors determining the degree of linguistic indirectness, which influenced the choice of variable factors in many subsequent studies (Thomas, 1995 ). In the study of refusal behavior in the Korean language, social status, social rights, social distance, the difficulty of the event, intimacy, gender, and age are among the influences that have been studied (Lan, 2013 ; Loong, 2017 ; Wu, 2021 ; El-Bably, 2022 ). Although there are many influence factors for the strategic choice of request and refusal speech acts, both have some major common factors, such as social status, difficulty, and intimacy. Therefore, these can be identified as influence factors in the study of request-refusal continuous dialogue. Depending on the level of refinement of the analysis, there are up to a dozen different sub-strategies for request and refusal strategies, respectively. These differences are due to the different classification criteria and levels of refinement used in each study, as well as the different purposes and audiences of the studies. In foreign language learning activities, teachers do not have a high level of language proficiency in their target audience, especially beginner learners, so detailed categorization, while academically meaningful, may hinder rather than help learners select and use strategies in actual interactions. Therefore, the common influence factors, as well as the optimized request and refusal strategy analysis framework, can be used as a basis for the questionnaire involving the use of MICMF. The results of the study showed that there were significant differences between NK and CKL in the choice of request and refusal dialogue strategies, with the most pronounced differences between NK and CKLI. For each group, the level of intimacy between interlocutors, social status, and difficulty of the speech act, and the interaction of these factors, may influence the choice of strategy. For example, there was a high use of request strategy 2 with intimate relationships and a relatively low use of request strategy 2 in scenarios where social status is unequal and requests are easy to make. A higher proportion used the refusal strategy 6 in situations where refusal was difficult. NK used refusal strategy 6 more often when refusing an intimate person than when refusing a person who was not intimate. A certain level of linguistic competence is both a prerequisite and a means of discursive expression. Request and refusal are demanding and politeness expression speech acts with a certain potential for face-threatening in their nature. Therefore, there is a gap between second language learners with limited knowledge of discourse language and socio-pragmatics and native speakers in their use (Zhang, 2022 ). According to the results of the statistical analyses, CKLA used a variety of strategies that show transitory. Although CKLA and NK's strategy choices were similar in many ways, it was difficult to distinguish between CKLA and CKLI in the use of some strategies in the statistical data. The role of context is highly valued in pragmatics. Speakers should first have appropriate linguistic-pragmatic knowledge, and in combination with a specific context, use their socio-pragmatic knowledge to choose an appropriate way of expressing verbal behavior to achieve their intentions. In the teaching of a second language, to achieve good results, the first step is to understand the students' current language level, their habits of expression, and where the main gaps are between them and native speakers. The MICMF can be used to investigate the level of awareness of language behaviors of learners and native speakers. The statistical results of the data in this thesis are slightly different from the results of previous research dissertations (Wu, 2021 ), indicating that for different groups and sizes of samples, there will be some differences in language proficiency. Therefore, a pre-survey needs to be conducted for each group of students. More relevant data should be collected from different groups of native speakers as a standard of authentic expression in teaching. According to the results of the survey and analysis, second language learners should be taught according to their abilities and levels. Situating the use of speech acts makes it easier for learners to understand appropriate expressions in different complex situations. Narrowing the gap between learners' and native speakers' pragmatic competence in different contexts. Conclusions With the methodology of MICMF, different variables regarding request and refusal communication strategies were investigated. Each variable was cross-combined with each other, and each combination was set up with three different repetitive scenarios, for a total of 24 consecutive dialogue request-refusal scenarios. The optimized classification of each into seven categories of request and refusal strategies was used as an analysis framework. DCT was combined with role-playing methods to obtain analytical data. Due to the different scenarios, it was appropriate to use two to three categories and two to four numbers in the request strategy. For refusal strategies, two to three categories, and anywhere from two to five (with three or four being appropriate). There were significant differences in the frequency of use of request and refusal strategies across scenarios for NK, CKLA, and CKLI. Overall, NK used more categories and numbers of strategies than CKLI. The gap between NK and CKL may narrow as the language level increases. Another important finding was that not only a single influence factor affected strategy choice but also the interaction of these factors, suggesting that people might behave differently when faced with complex scenarios consisting of multiple factors. The research methodology of MICMF combines factors affecting strategy choice by inserting them into individual scenarios, designing multiple independent scenarios with the same factors, and analyzing the effects of these factors and their interactions on strategy choice. Using this approach, differences in strategy choice between foreign language learners and native speakers in different scenarios are identified by analyzing multi-component cross-cultivated language scenarios, and the results of the analyses are used to help formulate detailed teaching plans. Abbreviations NK Native Korean CKLI Chinese Korean language learners of intermediate level CKLA Chinese Korean language learners of advanced level FTA Face Threatening Act MICMF Methodology Based on Interaction and Combination of Multi-factors Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate I have read and understood the human ethics and consent to participate declaration. All participants in this study were informed of the research purposes when they participated in the survey interviews. Informed consent has been obtained from all participants in this study. Consent for publication I confirm that I have obtained the necessary consent for publication from all authors. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Funding This study was funded by Qingdao Agricultural University. Author Contribution L.X. wrote the original draft of the manuscript, conducted the investigation, performed the formal analysis, curated the data, and was involved in the review and editing process. X.W. contributed to the investigation, provided supervision, handled project administration, developed the methodology and conceptualization of the study, and also participated in the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. References Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals . Newbury House. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologie . Ablex. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Bulaeva, M. E. (2016). Multivariate Analysis of Refusal Strategies in Request Situations: The Case of Russian JFL Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(5), 829-840. Candy. (2017). Refusal expressions in Asian languages: A comparison of semantic formulas occurrence. International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 21-35. El-Bably, N. O. (2022). A study on refusal speech act realization patters of Egyptian learners of Korean language. Master. Ain Shams University. Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second language acquisition: An introductory Course . Routledge. Jisoo, C. (2019). A Contrastive Study on Request Speech Acts in Korean and Japanese. The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(3), 1491-1500. Kanchina, Y. (2022). Request Modification Strategies Made by the Korean Speakers of Thai. Journal of Human Sciences, 23(1), 27–62. Krulatz, A., & Dixon, T. (2020). The use of refusal strategies in interlanguage speech act performance of Korean and Norwegian users of English. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 751-777. Lan, X. X. (2013). A study of speech acts of request and refuse discourse for Chinese Korean Learners. Doctor. Shanghai International Studies University. Lee, H. Y. (2009). A Study on the Korean Native Speakers’ Acceptability of the Non-native Speakers’ Refusal Speech Acts. Korean Education, 20 (2), 203-228. Lee, H. Y., Lee, B., & Hee, C. (2018). Refusal speech act response: differences between South Koreans and North Korean refugees in inducing speech acts and directness. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 18(2), 17-29. Loong, P. (2017). Research on the Use of Korean Request and Refusal Strategies for Korean as a Foreign Language Students of Hong Kong. Doctor. Seoul National University. Martí-Arnándiz, O., & Salazar-Campillo, P. (2013). Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond . Rodopi. No, G. (2023). Pragmatic awareness in English of primary pre-service teachers. The Korea Association of Primary English Education, 29(3), 131-155. Rue, Y. J., & Zhang, G. (2008). Request Strategies: A Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean . John Benjamins. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts . Cambridge University Press. Song, S. H. (2014). Politeness in Korea and America: A Comparative Analysis of Request Strategy in English Communication. Korea Journal, 51(1), 60-84. Thomas, J, A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics . Longman. Wu, X. (2011). A Comparative Study of Korean and Chinese Refusal Speech Act Strategies. Master. Ewha Womans University. Wu, X. (2021). A Comparative Study on Politeness Expressions between Native Koreans and Chinese Korean Language Learners—Focusing on Request and Refusal Speech Acts. Doctor. Chungbuk National University. Wu, X, Tai, X. H., & Kim, J. (2019). A Comparative Study on Refusal Speech Act between Chinese Korean Language Learners and the Native Koreans. Studies in Linguistics, 4, 247-272. Ying, J. Q., & Hong, G. (2020). A Cross-cultural Comparative Study of Requests Made in Chinese by South Korean and French Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(1), 54-65. Yu, K. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 385-409. Yun, M. (2017). A comparison of Speech Act in Refusal between Korean native speakers and Chinese native speakers in the workplace. Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, 17(9), 121-147. Zhang, F. H. (2022). A Developmental Study of Pragmatic Strategies of Refusals by Chinese English Majors. English Language Teaching, 15(10), 1. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6246285","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":435852572,"identity":"5fed313c-49ea-41f3-a77d-388caab1ffbb","order_by":0,"name":"Liang Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qingdao Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Liang","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":435852573,"identity":"4f107c52-98ea-4f37-a917-ffec2d143545","order_by":1,"name":"Xiao Wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qingdao Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiao","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-17 16:10:59","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6246285/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6246285/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79580790,"identity":"5060b0ec-e6cf-4c36-bff2-39ab92d5d714","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-31 11:50:50","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":306634,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCategories of request strategy (a), numbers of request strategy (b), categories of refusal strategy (c), and numbers of refusal strategy (d) used by NK (white), CKLA (white diagonal line), and CKLI (black) in different scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6246285/v1/73ca90416be5027f18e0b78c.jpeg"},{"id":79580796,"identity":"adcda3fa-a93b-4797-aeb0-d68342419d69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-31 11:50:51","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":608508,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage of different request strategies (a, c, e) and refusal strategies (b, d, f) used by NK (a, b), CKLA (c, d), and CKLI (e, f).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6246285/v1/194902d2a9a38c7f3f696187.jpeg"},{"id":79980685,"identity":"2c278cb7-03f6-4f7c-b096-cb60b08a90b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-06 03:31:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2184197,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6246285/v1/5108f59a-b5c9-4f4a-baed-74e4a3d7015f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Assess differences in polite expressions between second language learners and native speakers based on scenarios involving the combination of multi-factors","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFace Threatening Act (FTA in short) often inevitably occurs when people are interacting with each other, especially in the face of requests or refusals from others. Requesting behavior is very sensitive and highly used in daily life. The request is considered a type of FTA because it is usually self-serving and requires time, effort, or material cost to the requested person (Brown \u0026amp; Levinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e). The speech act of refusal is also regarded as a type of FTA because of its disobedient nature (Mart\u0026iacute;-Arn\u0026aacute;ndiz \u0026amp; Salazar-Campillo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In refusing a directive discourse (e.g., request, suggestion), the speaker threatens his or her negative image; while in refusing a commanding discourse (e.g., offer, invitation), the speaker refuses to support his or her positive image. Once refused, the self-esteem of both the speaker and the listener can be potentially jeopardized, impede social interactions, or even cause offense. When implementing an FTA (e.g., refusal or request), speakers must consider sociolinguistic variables such as closeness, age, gender, and social status to choose an appropriate polite expression strategy that best accomplishes their goals and avoids damaging the others\u0026rsquo; faces.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKorean culture has long been influenced by Confucianism, so there are certain commonalities between South Korea and China. In recent times, Korea has been influenced by other countries such as the USA and Japan in many ways, resulting in differences in living environment, values, and ways of thinking. Both Korea and China now have their cultural characteristics in terms of language and non-language. When communication difficulties occur, native speakers are more likely to judge the foreign learner as rude and uncooperative, rather than finding the cause in the deficiencies of the foreign learner's language resources (Gass et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Another study on Koreans' reactions to foreigners' refusal behaviors has found that Koreans reacted more negatively to content issues than to grammatical issues, which is closely related to Korean culture and social habits (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). To identify the differences in the polite expressions of requests and refusals between native Korean and Chinese learners of Korean as a second language for more targeted teaching, and to avert communicative conflicts stemming from cultural disparities, it is crucial to carry out in-depth research and comparative analyses. This involves quantitatively pinpointing the scenarios and underlying causes of these differences and applying the resultant findings in subsequent teaching.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe request is a speech act that falls under Searle's category of \"instruction\" and is an attempt by the speaker to get the hearer to do something, which may be a very gentle attempt or a very vigorous one\" (Searle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). There have been many comparative studies on the speech act of request in Korean and other languages or between Koreans and people from other countries, including English (Yu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Song, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; No, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Japanese (Jisoo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Thai (Kanchina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), French (Ying \u0026amp; Hong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Chinese (Rue and Zhang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), and so on.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRefusal is a response speech act in which the respondent refuses to participate in the action proposed by the interlocutor (Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which has been described as a major cross-cultural barrier for many non-native speakers (Beebe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Because of the face-threatening nature of refusal, it usually requires a lengthy negotiation process, the form and content of which varies according to the eliciting speech act. Beebe et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) categorized refusal strategies and is one of the most widely used refusal taxonomies. Several studies have been conducted on comparisons of refusal speech acts between Korean and other languages or between Koreans and people from other countries, e.g. English (Krulatz \u0026amp; Dixon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Egyptian (El-Bably, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Korean Expressions for South and North Korea (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), Japanese, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Filipino (Candy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), Chinese (Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Yun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost request strategy research draws on the strategy categorization methodology and research methods of classic work (Brown \u0026amp; Levinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e; Blum-Kulka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The request speech act could be analyzed with the following segments: (a) Address Term(s); (b) Head Act; (c) Adjunct(s) to Head Act. However, requests are not necessarily made in this order, and the order can change depending on variables. Some studies have analyzed only Head Act alone, which tends to be biased, and it is necessary to study them in conjunction with the entire phase of the request. There have been fewer comparative and cognitive studies on intergroup language and culture. Especially the refusal speech act that can easily threaten the face of other people, it is important to carefully choose the appropriate way of refusal in different scenarios, taking into account the status of both parties, age, gender, intimacy, and so on.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the large number of cross-cultural comparative studies on request or refusal speech acts between Western languages or between Western and Asian languages, relatively few studies have been conducted on Asian languages, such as comparisons between Korean and Chinese (Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The vast majority of the current research on request or refusal speech acts, including strategies and expressions in Korean and Chinese, has been conducted using the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) by setting up situations with fixed numbers of variables (Rue \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; El-Bably, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kanchina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Many studies have used DCT as the sole means of collecting data. While DCTs can facilitate the collection of large samples of speech acts, these samples may be underrepresented in naturalistic data and the responses may deviate from the real speech acts that subjects make in naturalistic settings. However, it is unlikely that the variables distributed in each scenario will fully cover all aspects of real life. To achieve the goals, request or refusal speech acts often use multiple strategies, which may be of different types, and the request or refusal act may go through multiple rounds. Yet many DCT studies simply ask respondents to respond based on set scenarios. In addition, some DCT scenarios appear to be quite unrealistic, and some studies have limited sample sizes, all of which may have had a significant impact on the results of the study. Some of the studies that did not employ DCT used linguistic materials such as television dramas, television talk shows, literature, and textbooks, which are susceptible to subjective authorial ideas, acquired linguistic formulas, and the unnatural style of television programs (Jisoo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, further study is needed on Korean request and refusal speech acts between Chinese learners and Korean native speakers. Request and refusal speech acts tend to occur simultaneously in a conversational scenario, and the two speech acts should not be studied separately and in isolation. The study should be based on a reasonable setting of DCT investigation scenarios, collecting and summarizing closer to real conversation data from multiple similar scenarios and multiple rounds of conversations, so that the results can more realistically reflect the changing characteristics of speech acts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\n \n\n"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003ch2\u003eContext and participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the DCT survey method was used for data collection and analysis by answering questionnaires and dialogues. A preliminary survey was conducted from March to June 2018 using designed questionnaires with current students (Korean majors and Korean learners) at several universities located in Qingdao, China, as well as Korean study abroad students in Qingdao (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Chinese learners were categorized by levels into intermediate (passing TOPIK level 3–4, hereinafter CKLI) and advanced (passing TOPIK level 5–6, hereinafter CKLA). Native Korean students were hereinafter referred to as NK. The questionnaire was improved to make the scenarios more relevant to daily life to eliminate interference in the subjects' strategy choices. A questionnaire study was conducted from March to July 2019, and from June to December 2023 with students from several colleges and universities in Qingdao and South Korea, with the total number of participating NKs, CKLAs, and CKLIs being 43, 67, and 84, respectively. This study does not require human or animal ethical approval.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eStudy design\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree variables, social status, the intimacy of the relationship between the interlocutors, and the difficulty of the speech act, were selected to study the effect on communication strategies. Social status was subdivided into “equal” and “unequal”, intimacy was subdivided into “intimate” and “not intimate”, and difficulty was subdivided into “easy” and “difficult”. Each variable was cross-combined with each other to produce eight combinations. Three replicate scenarios for each combination, for a total of 24 scenarios, were set up (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This research design was adopted because there is little research on the interactive effects of various factors that influence communication behavior. Therefore, we proposed this method for studying the effects of multiple factors and their interactions on interrelated speech acts and named this method “Methodology Based on Interaction and Combination of Multi-factors (hereinafter referred to as MICMF)”. This method designs multiple independent scenarios with the same factors by inserting each factor affecting strategy choice in each scenario, combining them, and analyzing the effects of the factors and their interactions on strategy choice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on previous studies, request, and refusal strategies were classified into seven categories respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), with which the data were analyzed (Blum-Kulka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Beebe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEight combinations of request scenarios and eight combinations of refusal scenarios\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpeech act\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCombination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficulty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRequest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRefusal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot intimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifficult\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFramework for analyzing request and refusal discourses in this study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy categories of request\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy categories of refusal\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor category name (the name of the included strategy)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect request\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect refusal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMention conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvide a reason or rationale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsk for information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Chang the topic/avoidance / make non-verbal statements)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatement of obligation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConditional acceptance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Make a suggestion / conditional acceptance)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMake a suggestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubjective causes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(assertion / self-blame)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpress a wish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccusation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Accusation/question)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatement of situation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpress emotions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(apologize/thank/congratulate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eData analysis methods\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne-way ANOVA and Least Significant Difference (LSD) were used to examine the differences between NK, CKLA, and CKLI in the category and number of request-refusal discourse strategies. In addition, a multifactor ANOVA was used in this study to examine the effects of target people (P), social status (S), intimacy of the relationship (R), difficulty (D), and their interaction on speech acts. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York, USA). The significant difference was indicated by \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05. Origin (Originlab Corporation, Massachusetts, the USA) was used for Fig. plotting.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRequest speech acts and associated strategies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the results of the one-way ANOVA and LSD test, NK used a greater variety and number of strategies relative to CKLI, with a higher proportion using request strategies 1 and 3 and a lower proportion using request strategy 7 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). CKLA used request strategy 7 at a significantly higher rate than NK (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). During a single dialogue, CKLA used a greater number of strategies than CKLI on average, although there was no significant difference in the categories of request strategies used between CKLA and CKLI (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the side of the use of refusal strategies, there was no significant difference between NK and CKLA in terms of the categories and the numbers of refusal strategies, with a relatively low percentage of refusal strategy 2 and a relatively high percentage of strategy 3 being used for NK (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Similar to the use of request strategies, NK used more categories and numbers of refusal strategies than CKLI in the dialogue. Furthermore, NK used refusal strategy 2 at a lower percentage than CKLI and strategy 3 at a higher percentage than CKLI (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). CKLA also used more categories and numbers of refusal strategies as well as a higher percentage of refusal strategy 6 in the dialogue than CKLI (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The language level gap between NK and CKLA was relatively smaller than the gap between NK and CKLI. Overall, the differences in language level led to differences in the categories, numbers, and choices of strategies used between the different study groups, especially between NK and CKLI (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA one-way ANOVA found differences in the request-refusal strategy used between the different study groups. A multifactor ANOVA enabled further clarification of the effects of different influence factors and their interactions on the use of politeness expression strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the strategy category of the request speech act, social status had a significant effect on the choice of request dialogue strategy category for different groups. Statistically, NK used more request dialogue strategy categories when talking to people with unequal social status. However, for CKLA and CKLI, the request dialogue strategy categories did not differ according to social status, i.e. there was no difference in the request dialogue strategy categories used by CKLA and CKLI when talking to people with equal or unequal social status. Based on the above analyses, it can be concluded that Koreans are more influenced by social status than Chinese. This is related to the strict social hierarchy, seniority, and subordination in Korea, and the strict use of honorifics and non-salutations in Korean society, which reinforces the importance of social status in people's subconscious. The interaction of S\u0026times;R\u0026times;D was significant. The fewest categories of request strategies were used in situations where social status was equal, not intimate, and easy, as well as the most categories in situations of unequal social status, intimate relationship, and difficulty. There was no significant difference in the expression of each group in each of the other combinations (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth NK and CKLA used more request strategy numbers than CKLI. R\u0026times;D was significant indicating that there was an interaction between R and D, i.e., intimacy and difficulty affected the use of request dialogue strategies. In the context of intimacy with the other party and difficulty in making requests, the number of request strategies used by each group was relatively high. In the rest of the situations, there was no significant difference in the number of request strategies used by each group. There were also interactions between S, R, and D. The number of request strategies used in a difficult request scenario with intimate relationships, but unequal social status was relatively high (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK used the request strategy 1 (i.e., direct request) at a higher rate than CKLI. Overall, NK, CKLA, and CKLI all used the \"direct request\" strategy with intimate people at a higher rate than with those who were not in intimate relationships. All three groups had higher proportions using the \u0026ldquo;direct request\u0026rdquo; strategy in easy situations (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e values from One-way ANOVA and \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e values from LSD test for the differences between NK, CKLA, and CKLI in the category, number, and strategies percentages of request-refusal discourse strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems of analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e value of request from one-way ANOVA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e value of request from LSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e value of refusal from one-way ANOVA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e value of refusal from LSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK-CKLA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK-CKLI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKLA-CKLI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK-CKLA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK-CKLI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKLA-CKLI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5895 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5631\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0315\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1109\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.2336 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2853\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.1080 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2796\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.5356 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2288 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0514\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3975\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1412 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1589\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2546\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7839\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3650 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2791\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5983\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.8157 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0149\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0983\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0367 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1655\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1545\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.9409 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8438\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9837 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2909\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1901\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7965\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4980 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3220\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5994\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6400\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4152 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4130\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9411\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4561\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5816 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7684\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4555\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9521 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6238\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1774\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3873\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7284 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2623\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0224\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.2708 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9376\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0592 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7318\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8705\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8574\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, and \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e indicates no significant difference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e values of multifactor ANOVA for the effects of target people (P), social status (S), intimacy of the relationship (R), difficulty (D), and their interaction on request speech acts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8299 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.2482 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1997 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3468 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4995 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1154 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4069 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8747 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.7324 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8166 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1721 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6938 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2055 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0551 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.2868 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6817 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0232 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.7326 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6053 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2189 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.4040 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7538 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8596 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.6737 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.2072 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5842 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.9672 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7050 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2032 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.3947 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0762 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3133 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4965 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2389 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.8958 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2460 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5630 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5132 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4649 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8457 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8630 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7839 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2362 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0405 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6252 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3209 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1627 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3440 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0344 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1113 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1136 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0526 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3572 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6201 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9839 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9121 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5325 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4431 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2909 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7290 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0235 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9654 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9420 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS \u0026times; R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2488 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0970 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0026 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7330 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.8350 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0027 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9978 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9858 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7580 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0723 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1113 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0312 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1106 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1123 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0266 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.5879 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3180 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3858 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0215 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.1171 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.4488 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3916 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0297 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.8985 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3471 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2330 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7777 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S \u0026times; R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5988 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3200 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2487 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0922 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6647 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5120 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1868 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0583 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6548 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5380 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0942 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0296 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2223 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1768 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5388 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2277 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1536 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8686 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; R \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1850 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1828 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4747 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6492 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2631 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0146 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0925 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3466 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0629 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS \u0026times; R \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.3158 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.6897 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0729 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1930 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4313 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9428 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6875 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0007 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4376 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S \u0026times; R \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6210 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6087 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1444 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0201 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2681 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2642 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1183 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2521 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1197 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroups include NK, CKLA, and CKLI; social status includes equal and unequal; relationship includes intimate and not intimate; difficulty includes easy and difficult. \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, and \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e indicates no significant difference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll three groups had higher percentages of using request strategy 2 (i.e., mention conditions) with those who were not in an intimate relationship and lower percentages with those who were in an intimate relationship. The significant interactions of S\u0026times;D suggest that social status and difficulty affected the use of request strategy 2. With equal social status and relative ease of making a request, the speaker had relatively high rates of using the \u0026ldquo;mention conditions\u0026rdquo; strategy. However, the proportion of the three groups using strategy 2 was relatively low in scenarios where social status was unequal, and requests were easy to make (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK used request strategy 3 (i.e., ask for information) at a higher percentage than CKLI. All three groups used the \u0026ldquo;ask for information\u0026rdquo; strategy at a higher rate in easy situations and at a lower rate in difficult scenarios. There was a significant interaction effect between S and R. The use of the \u0026ldquo;ask for information\u0026rdquo; strategy was relatively higher when social status was unequal, and the relationship was intimate (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeople of equal social status had higher rates of using the \u0026ldquo;statement of obligation\u0026rdquo; strategy, while people of unequal social status had lower rates of using strategy 4. R\u0026times;D had a significant interactive effect. The highest proportion of people using the \u0026ldquo;statement of obligation\u0026rdquo; strategy was found in situations where they were not intimate with other people and where the request act was difficult. In the remaining situations, there was no significant difference in the proportion of groups using the \u0026ldquo;statement of obligation\u0026rdquo; strategy (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the use of request strategy 5 (i.e., make a suggestion), S\u0026times;D was significant. The group with the highest percentage of using the \u0026ldquo;make a suggestion\u0026rdquo; strategy was the group with unequal social status and easy request situation. On the other hand, the group with the lowest percentage of using the \"make suggestions\" strategy was the group with equal social status and easy request situation (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the multifactor ANOVA analyses showed that a higher percentage of people used the request strategy 6 (i.e., express a wish) in difficult situations and a lower percentage of people used the strategy in easy situations (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK had a lower rate of using the \u0026ldquo;statement of the situation\u0026rdquo; strategy than CKLA and CKLI, while CKLA and CKLI had similar rates of using the request strategy 7. Overall, the rate of using the \u0026ldquo;statement of situation\u0026rdquo; strategy was higher for those with unequal social status, while the rate of using the \u0026ldquo;statement of situation\u0026rdquo; strategy was lower for those with equal social status. In addition, the frequency of using the \u0026ldquo;statement of situation\u0026rdquo; strategy was higher for those who were not intimate and lower for those who were intimate. Finally, the use of the request strategy 7 was higher in difficult situations and lower in easy situations (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRefusal speech acts and associated strategies\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the results of a one-way ANOVA and LSD test of refusal speech acts extracted from the dialogue, NK used a higher percentage of refusal strategy 3 but a lower percentage of refusal strategy 2 than CKLA (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, a similar trend to that between NK and CKLA was shown between NK and CKLI in the use of strategies 2 and 3 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). CKLA used a relatively higher rate of request strategy 6 than CKLI (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). There was no significant difference between NK and CKLA in terms of the categories and numbers of refusal strategies used. Both NK and CKLA, on the other hand, used relatively more categories and numbers of refusal strategies in the dialogues than did CKLI (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA multifactor ANOVA was also used to analyze the effects of different influence factors and their interactions on the refusal speech acts in multi-round dialogue in different scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth NK and CKLA used more categories of refusal communication strategies than CKLI. The results of the multifactor ANOVA showed that there was a significant interaction of R\u0026times;D, suggesting that the intimacy of the parties and the difficulty of the refusal influenced the choice of refusal strategy categories. In difficult refusal situations, the most categories of refusal strategies were used with intimate people, while in difficult refusal scenarios, the least categories of refusal strategies were used with people who were not intimate (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilar to the use of refusal strategies categories, both NK and CKLA used more numbers of refusal strategies in dialogue than CKLI, while there was no significant difference between NK and CKLA. A higher number of refusal strategies were used with people who were intimate and a lower number of refusal strategies were used with people who were not intimate. In addition, more refusal strategies were used in situations where refusal was easy, while fewer were in cases where refusal was difficult. A significant interaction between R and D indicated that relatively more refusal strategies were used when the relationship with the other party was intimate, while relatively less number of refusal strategies were used when the relationship with the other party was not intimate and easy to refuse (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was no significant difference in results for the use of refusal strategy 1 (i.e., direct refusal) and refusal strategy 4 (i.e., conditional acceptance; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK used refusal strategy 2 (i.e., provide a reason or rationale) at a lower rate than CKLA and CKLI. The significant interaction of S\u0026times;R showed that the highest proportion of using the \u0026ldquo;provide a reason or rationale\u0026rdquo; strategy was found when social status was unequal and the other person was not intimate. In the rest of the cases, there was no significant difference in the proportion of using refusal strategy 2 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNK used refusal strategy 3 (i.e., avoidance) at a higher percentage than CKLA and CKLI. The significant interaction between P and S suggested that social status had a strong effect on the choice of refusal strategies across groups. A higher proportion of NK used the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in easy refusal situations, whereas a lower proportion of NK used the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in difficult refusal situations. For CKLA, a similar proportion used the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in easy and difficult situations. Similarly to NK, CKLI had higher proportions using the refusal strategy 3 in easy refusal situations, but lower proportions using the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in difficult refusal situations. The results of the interaction between S and D suggested that overall a relatively higher proportion of people used the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in situations where social status was equal and refusal was easy, and a relatively lower proportion of people used the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in situations where social status was unequal and refusal was difficult. There was a significant interaction between P, S, and D. For NK, a higher proportion used the \u0026ldquo;avoidance\u0026rdquo; strategy in situations where social status was unequal and refusal was easy than in situations where social status was unequal and refusal was difficult. CKLA had similar proportions of using the refusal strategy 3 in all scenarios. For CKLI, the proportion using the \"avoidance\" strategy was higher in situations where social status was equal and refusal was difficult than in situations where social status was equal and refusal was difficult (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e values of multifactor ANOVA for the effects of target people (P), social status (S), intimacy of the relationship (R), difficulty (D), and their interaction on refusal speech acts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0358 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.9773 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9907 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.6541 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.8259 \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4870 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5904 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7396 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0803 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5936 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3669 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8823 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9389 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3461 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.1149 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3658 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9551 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2013 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.7550 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7692 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2769 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5304 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0445 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0088 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3766 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3303 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4922 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9232 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0468 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5317 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0784 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2205 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1893 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5591 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.2415 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3852 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0533 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3768 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2787 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5023 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3714 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8199 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5469 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1868 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2855 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5026 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4158 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2845 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1465 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5870 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1794 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3127 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1872 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0482 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8511 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5529 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0449 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1144 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5272 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0895 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0680 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9209 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS \u0026times; R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4300 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0231 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4918 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.7575 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0000 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8911 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.0704 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1284 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0964 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0455 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3698 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8313 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4268 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.5218 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1506 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0307 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7224 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.2070 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3114 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.9241 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1306 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2536 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3498 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6270 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5168 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6600 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9286 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S \u0026times; R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0047 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1125 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5639 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4097 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4721 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1772 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4435 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0177 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3194 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5841 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0289 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7022 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0498 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0631 \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7658 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4225 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7874 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5721 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; R \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5683 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4942 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3106 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1916 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3576 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7501 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0052 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1243 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6090 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS \u0026times; R \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3843 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0124 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6449 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0302 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0720 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6035 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1807 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6187 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.0039 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP \u0026times; S \u0026times; R \u0026times; D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2281 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3161 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1282 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5005 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0845 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2308 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3818 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8982 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1148 \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroups include NK, CKLA, and CKLI; social status includes equal and unequal; relationship includes intimate and not intimate; difficulty includes easy and difficult. \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e indicates \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, and \u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e indicates no significant difference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor refusal strategy 5 (i.e., subjective causes), a lower proportion used the \u0026ldquo;subjective causes\u0026rdquo; strategy in easy refusal scenarios than in difficult rejection scenarios. There was an interaction between S and R. The use of the \u0026ldquo;subjective causes\u0026rdquo; strategy was higher when refusing people who were intimate to them and of equal social status than when refusing people who were not intimate to them and of equal social status. Furthermore, the use of the \u0026ldquo;subjective causes\u0026rdquo; strategy was lower when refusing people of unequal social status who were intimate to them than when refusing people of unequal social status who were not intimate to them (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen refusing a request, CKLA used the refusal strategy 6 (i.e., accusation) more than CKLI did. The use of the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy was higher in cases where it was difficult to refuse and lower in cases where it was easy to refuse. The significance of P\u0026times;R told that NK had a higher proportion of using the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy when refusing an intimate person compared to refusing a person who was not intimate. In contrast to NK, CKLA used a lower proportion of the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy when refusing people who were intimate than when refusing people who were not intimate. CKLI used the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy when refusing people who were intimate at a rate similar to the rate of the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy when refusing people who were not intimate. There was also a significant interaction between S and R. The lowest percentage of using the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy was found in the case of the same social status and not intimate relationships. In the remaining cases, there was no significant difference in the proportion of groups using the \u0026ldquo;accusation\u0026rdquo; strategy (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor refusal strategy 7 (i.e., express emotions), a lower proportion used this strategy when refusing someone intimate than when refusing someone who was not in an intimate relationship. A higher proportion used the \u0026ldquo;express emotions\u0026rdquo; strategy in cases of easy refusal than in cases of difficult refusal. Significant results for S\u0026times;D indicated that a relatively high proportion of people used the \u0026ldquo;express emotions\u0026rdquo; strategy when they were socially unequal and easily refused, and a relatively low proportion of people used the refusal strategy 7 when they were socially equal and difficult to refuse. There was also an interaction between S, R, and D. The highest rates of using the \u0026ldquo;express emotions\u0026rdquo; strategy were found in situations of unequal social status, not intimate and easy to refuse, while the lowest rates of using the refusal strategy 7 were found in situations of equal social status, intimate and difficult to refuse (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn daily dialogue, we often need to make requests to and by others, and these requests may be accepted or refused. As a response to a request speech act, refusal will always occur in pairs with the requesting speech act. Both requests and refusals are face-threatening behaviors. The reality of how to make requests appropriately and how to refuse them in a way that does not damage the face of the other party to the greatest extent possible is inescapable. To be able to achieve their final goals, both the party making the request and the party refusing the request will adjust their polite expression strategies according to various realities, such as the level of status, the closeness of the relationship, the difficulty of the matter, etc., to ease the conflict to the greatest extent possible. The use of request and refusal strategies in dialogue is in a dynamic state of flux as the level of interaction between the parties varies and will determine the outcome of the communication. Much of the research that has been done on requests and refusals tends to study only one speech act, either request or refusal, in isolation, with very few studies of the two speech acts together as a whole (Lan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Bulaeva, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Loong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Neglecting the correlation between request and refusal and separating the two for research, the results obtained are not in-depth, and comprehensive. Only by considering the request-refusal speech act as a continuous discourse process, and conducting quantitative research on the successive rounds of dialogues, can we comprehensively reveal the characteristics of the request-rejection dialogue act, explore the factors affecting its changes, and use them to guide the practice of foreign language teaching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was found that factors such as age, social power, social distance, the purpose of the request, the scenarios, the relationship, and the burden of the request influenced request behavior (Blum-Kulka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The influence of linguistic and cultural diversity on the extent of request speech acts, as well as the specific criteria for analyzing request speech act strategies, have been studied and discussed by numerous scholars. According to the analytical framework of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Project (CCSARP), which has been proven to be effective, request speech acts were classified into three main strategies, and nine sub-strategies were proposed. This analytical framework has been applied in many subsequent request behavior studies (Searle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; Blum-Kulka et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Most studies on Korean request discourse refer to CCSARP's analytical framework. Among the many studies on Korean request speech acts, the influencing factors involved are the attributes of the request, the content of the request, relationship, social status, age, gender, etc (Lan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Loong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRefusal strategies are considered direct or indirect linguistic formulas. Specifically, which refusal strategy is used depends on the social status and power of both speakers. The order of use, frequency of occurrence, and specific content of linguistic formulas have also been analyzed. The types of refusal have been classified into direct and indirect refusals, and direct refusals have been further classified into performative and non-performative refusals. Indirect refusals were further categorized into 11 types (Beebe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), which has been the basis for several subsequent studies. Social status, closeness, task difficulty, and demands/requests, were identified as the four factors determining the degree of linguistic indirectness, which influenced the choice of variable factors in many subsequent studies (Thomas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). In the study of refusal behavior in the Korean language, social status, social rights, social distance, the difficulty of the event, intimacy, gender, and age are among the influences that have been studied (Lan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Loong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; El-Bably, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough there are many influence factors for the strategic choice of request and refusal speech acts, both have some major common factors, such as social status, difficulty, and intimacy. Therefore, these can be identified as influence factors in the study of request-refusal continuous dialogue. Depending on the level of refinement of the analysis, there are up to a dozen different sub-strategies for request and refusal strategies, respectively. These differences are due to the different classification criteria and levels of refinement used in each study, as well as the different purposes and audiences of the studies. In foreign language learning activities, teachers do not have a high level of language proficiency in their target audience, especially beginner learners, so detailed categorization, while academically meaningful, may hinder rather than help learners select and use strategies in actual interactions. Therefore, the common influence factors, as well as the optimized request and refusal strategy analysis framework, can be used as a basis for the questionnaire involving the use of MICMF.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the study showed that there were significant differences between NK and CKL in the choice of request and refusal dialogue strategies, with the most pronounced differences between NK and CKLI. For each group, the level of intimacy between interlocutors, social status, and difficulty of the speech act, and the interaction of these factors, may influence the choice of strategy. For example, there was a high use of request strategy 2 with intimate relationships and a relatively low use of request strategy 2 in scenarios where social status is unequal and requests are easy to make. A higher proportion used the refusal strategy 6 in situations where refusal was difficult. NK used refusal strategy 6 more often when refusing an intimate person than when refusing a person who was not intimate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA certain level of linguistic competence is both a prerequisite and a means of discursive expression. Request and refusal are demanding and politeness expression speech acts with a certain potential for face-threatening in their nature. Therefore, there is a gap between second language learners with limited knowledge of discourse language and socio-pragmatics and native speakers in their use (Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). According to the results of the statistical analyses, CKLA used a variety of strategies that show transitory. Although CKLA and NK's strategy choices were similar in many ways, it was difficult to distinguish between CKLA and CKLI in the use of some strategies in the statistical data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of context is highly valued in pragmatics. Speakers should first have appropriate linguistic-pragmatic knowledge, and in combination with a specific context, use their socio-pragmatic knowledge to choose an appropriate way of expressing verbal behavior to achieve their intentions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the teaching of a second language, to achieve good results, the first step is to understand the students' current language level, their habits of expression, and where the main gaps are between them and native speakers. The MICMF can be used to investigate the level of awareness of language behaviors of learners and native speakers. The statistical results of the data in this thesis are slightly different from the results of previous research dissertations (Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that for different groups and sizes of samples, there will be some differences in language proficiency. Therefore, a pre-survey needs to be conducted for each group of students. More relevant data should be collected from different groups of native speakers as a standard of authentic expression in teaching. According to the results of the survey and analysis, second language learners should be taught according to their abilities and levels. Situating the use of speech acts makes it easier for learners to understand appropriate expressions in different complex situations. Narrowing the gap between learners' and native speakers' pragmatic competence in different contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWith the methodology of MICMF, different variables regarding request and refusal communication strategies were investigated. Each variable was cross-combined with each other, and each combination was set up with three different repetitive scenarios, for a total of 24 consecutive dialogue request-refusal scenarios. The optimized classification of each into seven categories of request and refusal strategies was used as an analysis framework. DCT was combined with role-playing methods to obtain analytical data. Due to the different scenarios, it was appropriate to use two to three categories and two to four numbers in the request strategy. For refusal strategies, two to three categories, and anywhere from two to five (with three or four being appropriate). There were significant differences in the frequency of use of request and refusal strategies across scenarios for NK, CKLA, and CKLI. Overall, NK used more categories and numbers of strategies than CKLI. The gap between NK and CKL may narrow as the language level increases. Another important finding was that not only a single influence factor affected strategy choice but also the interaction of these factors, suggesting that people might behave differently when faced with complex scenarios consisting of multiple factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research methodology of MICMF combines factors affecting strategy choice by inserting them into individual scenarios, designing multiple independent scenarios with the same factors, and analyzing the effects of these factors and their interactions on strategy choice. Using this approach, differences in strategy choice between foreign language learners and native speakers in different scenarios are identified by analyzing multi-component cross-cultivated language scenarios, and the results of the analyses are used to help formulate detailed teaching plans.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eNK \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Native Korean\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCKLI \u0026nbsp; Chinese Korean language learners of intermediate level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCKLA \u0026nbsp; Chinese Korean language learners of advanced level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFTA \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Face Threatening Act\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMICMF \u0026nbsp;Methodology Based on Interaction and Combination of Multi-factors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI have read and understood the human ethics and consent to participate declaration. All participants in this study were informed of the research purposes when they participated in the survey interviews. Informed consent has been obtained from all participants in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI confirm that I have obtained the necessary consent for publication from all authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by Qingdao Agricultural University.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eL.X. wrote the original draft of the manuscript, conducted the investigation, performed the formal analysis, curated the data, and was involved in the review and editing process. X.W. contributed to the investigation, provided supervision, handled project administration, developed the methodology and conceptualization of the study, and also participated in the review and editing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., \u0026amp; Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). \u003cem\u003ePragmatic transfer in ESL refusals\u003c/em\u003e. Newbury House.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlum-Kulka, S., House, J., \u0026amp; Kasper, G. (1989). \u003cem\u003eCross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologie\u003c/em\u003e. Ablex.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, P., \u0026amp; Levinson, S. C. (1987). \u003cem\u003ePoliteness: Some universals in language usage.\u003c/em\u003e Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulaeva, M. E. (2016). Multivariate Analysis of Refusal Strategies in Request Situations: The Case of Russian JFL Learners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language Teaching and Research,\u003c/em\u003e 7(5), 829-840.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCandy. (2017). Refusal expressions in Asian languages: A comparison of semantic formulas occurrence. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies,\u003c/em\u003e 15(2), 21-35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEl-Bably, N. O. (2022). \u003cem\u003eA study on refusal speech act realization patters of Egyptian learners of Korean language.\u003c/em\u003e Master. Ain Shams University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGass, S. M., Behney, J., \u0026amp; Plonsky, L. (2020).\u003cem\u003e Second language acquisition: An introductory Course\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJisoo, C. (2019). A Contrastive Study on Request Speech Acts in Korean and Japanese. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,\u003c/em\u003e 10(3), 1491-1500. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanchina, Y. (2022). Request Modification Strategies Made by the Korean Speakers of Thai. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Human Sciences,\u003c/em\u003e 23(1), 27\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrulatz, A., \u0026amp; Dixon, T. (2020). The use of refusal strategies in interlanguage speech act performance of Korean and Norwegian users of English. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,\u003c/em\u003e 10(4), 751-777.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLan, X. X. (2013). \u003cem\u003eA study of speech acts of request and refuse discourse for Chinese Korean Learners.\u003c/em\u003e Doctor. Shanghai International Studies University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, H. Y. (2009). A Study on the Korean Native Speakers\u0026rsquo; Acceptability of the Non-native Speakers\u0026rsquo; Refusal Speech Acts. \u003cem\u003eKorean Education,\u003c/em\u003e 20 (2), 203-228.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, H. Y., Lee, B., \u0026amp; Hee, C. (2018). Refusal speech act response: differences between South Koreans and North Korean refugees in inducing speech acts and directness. \u003cem\u003eGEMA Online\u0026reg; Journal of Language Studies,\u003c/em\u003e 18(2), 17-29. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoong, P. (2017). \u003cem\u003eResearch on the Use of Korean Request and Refusal Strategies for Korean as a Foreign Language Students of Hong Kong.\u003c/em\u003e Doctor. Seoul National University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;-Arn\u0026aacute;ndiz, O., \u0026amp; Salazar-Campillo, P. (2013). \u003cem\u003eRefusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond\u003c/em\u003e. Rodopi.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNo, G. (2023). Pragmatic awareness in English of primary pre-service teachers. \u003cem\u003eThe Korea Association of Primary English Education,\u003c/em\u003e 29(3), 131-155.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRue, Y. J., \u0026amp; Zhang, G. (2008). \u003cem\u003eRequest Strategies: A Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean\u003c/em\u003e. John Benjamins.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSearle, J. R. (1979). \u003cem\u003eExpression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSong, S. H. (2014). Politeness in Korea and America: A Comparative Analysis of Request Strategy in English Communication. \u003cem\u003eKorea Journal,\u003c/em\u003e 51(1), 60-84.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, J, A. (1995). \u003cem\u003eMeaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e. Longman.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, X. (2011). \u003cem\u003eA Comparative Study of Korean and Chinese Refusal Speech Act Strategies.\u003c/em\u003e Master. Ewha Womans University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, X. (2021). \u003cem\u003eA Comparative Study on Politeness Expressions between Native Koreans and Chinese Korean Language Learners\u0026mdash;Focusing on Request and Refusal Speech Acts.\u003c/em\u003e Doctor. Chungbuk National University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, X, Tai, X. H., \u0026amp; Kim, J. (2019). A Comparative Study on Refusal Speech Act between Chinese Korean Language Learners and the Native Koreans. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Linguistics,\u003c/em\u003e 4, 247-272.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYing, J. Q., \u0026amp; Hong, G. (2020). A Cross-cultural Comparative Study of Requests Made in Chinese by South Korean and French Learners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language Teaching and Research, \u003c/em\u003e11(1), 54-65.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, K. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. \u003cem\u003eIntercultural Pragmatics,\u003c/em\u003e 8(3), 385-409. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYun, M. (2017). A comparison of Speech Act in Refusal between Korean native speakers and Chinese native speakers in the workplace. \u003cem\u003eKorean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, \u003c/em\u003e17(9), 121-147. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, F. H. (2022). A Developmental Study of Pragmatic Strategies of Refusals by Chinese English Majors. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching,\u003c/em\u003e 15(10), 1. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"continuous dialogue, request, refusal, Korean language, Chinese learner, interaction of influence factors","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6246285/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6246285/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBy methods of DCT with 24 designed continuous request-refusal dialogue scenarios and optimized classification of request and refusal strategies, differences in polite expressions between Native Korean (NK) and Chinese Korean language learners of intermediate (CKLI) and advanced (CKLA) levels were quantitatively assessed. There were significant differences in frequencies of three groups using request and refusal strategies in different scenarios. NK used more categories and numbers of strategies than CKLI. Gaps between NK and CKLI might narrow as language proficiency increases. Furthermore, not only a single influence factor affected strategy choice, but also interactions between factors, suggesting that people might behave differently when faced with complex scenarios consisting of multiple factors. The method of designing multiple independent scenarios with the same factors, and analyzing the impact of factors and their interactions on strategies used, has the potential to be applied to studies on distinctions in use of other languages or speech acts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Assess differences in polite expressions between second language learners and native speakers based on scenarios involving the combination of multi-factors","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-31 11:50:46","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6246285/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d50e33b0-0f29-481a-a31d-f9a142c61ce2","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-06T03:23:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-31 11:50:46","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6246285","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6246285","identity":"rs-6246285","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}