A Cultural Study of Social Disagreement Strategies by Iranian EFL Male and Female Learners

• Autorzy: Samira Salehipour Bavarsad , Shahla Simin
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The speech act of disagreement is one of the neglected areas of research in the Iranian context. This study seeks to investigate the ways in which this act is expressed by young male and female Persian speakers. To collect the data 100 participants (50 males, 50 females,) were selected randomly from among undergraduate and graduate students of University of Isfahan and Islamic Azad Universi ty (Najafabad branch) . The focus of this study was the role that gender and power might play in the employment of strategies to mitigate the threat of the act of disagreement. Students were asked to complete a discourse completion test (DCT) designed by the researcher. They were supposed to read nine situations, and react to them via making disagreements. Respondents were expected to disagree with three interlocutors with higher status, three peers and three with lower status. In order to analyze the utterances of disagreement, Muntigl and Turnbull's taxonomy (1998) was employed. The results revealed that although both males and females were concerned about the power status of interlocutors and try to apply the appropriate strategies while expressing their disagreements, females were more cautious.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Kobieta; Mężczyzna; Komunikowanie

EN

Woman; Men; Communication

• Czasopismo: International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS)
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 7 (1)
• Strony: 78-90

Twórcy

autor

Samira Salehipour Bavarsad

• English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

autor

Shahla Simin

• English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

Bibliografia

• Al-Tayib Umar, A. M. (2006). The speech act of complaint as realized by advanced Sudanese learners of English.Umm Al-Qura University. Journal of Educational & Social Sciences & Humanities, 18(2), Jumada II 1427AH.
• Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35,1453-1469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 2166(02)00173-X Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena In EN Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, Cambridge (pp. 56-311). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
• Gruber, H. (1998). Disagreeing sequential placement and internal structure of disagreements in conflict episodes. Text, 18, 467-503.
• Guodong, L., & Jing, H. (2005). A contrastive study on disagreement strategies for politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese. Asian EFL Journal, 10 (1).
• Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge Language Teaching Library: Cambridge University press
• [8] Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 573-608.
• Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching Journal, 2(1), 790-803.
• Ji, S. J. (2000). 'Face' and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1059-1062.
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00068-5 Kakava, Ch. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and Contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1537-1568.
• Kihekaya, F. (2010). The pragmatic knowledge of Turkish EFL students in using certain request strategies, 9(1), 185-201.
• Liu, S. (2004). Pragmatic strategies and power relations in disagreement: Chinese culture in higher education. New York: Universal Publishers. Locher, Miriam. )2004(. Power and politeness in action. Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Moon, K. (2001). Speech act study: differences between native and nonnative speakers' complaint strategies.
• The American University. Retrieved from www.Science-direct-journal.com.
• Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998).Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29,225-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9.
• Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & El-Bakary, W. (2002). Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 39-57.
• Pearson, E. (1986). Agreement/disagreement: An example of results of discourse analysis applied to the oral English classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 74(1), 47-61.
• Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1087-1111.
• Richard J. C., & Schimidt R. (1985). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Longman: Pearson Education.
• Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Oxford university press.
• Scott, S. (2002). Linguistic feature variations within disagreements: An empirical investigation. Text, 22(2), 301-328.
• Takano, S. (2005). Re-examining linguistic power: strategic uses of directives by professional Japanese women in positions of authority and leadership. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 633-666. www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 10; 2012 191.
• Tannen, D., & Kakava, Ch. (1992). Power and solidarity in modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to disagree.Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 10, 11-34.
• Walko, Z. (2007). EFL research articles through the lens of pragmatic politeness. Retrieved from http://langped.elte.hu/Walko.pdf Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Yu, M. (2003). On universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 2166(03)00074-2.
• Yule, G.(1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.