Negotiating Turns in Conversation: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Linguistic Strategies in Iraqi Arabic and American English
الموضوعات :
Hind Mohammed Sami Aljanabi
1
,
Parivash Esmaeili
2
,
Ghanim Jwaid Idan
3
,
Bahram Hadian
4
1 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Karbala, Karbala Iraq
4 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: turn-taking, linguistic strategies, Iraqi Arabic, American English, gender, age, politeness, cross-cultural communication, conversational analysis,
ملخص المقالة :
The present study attempts to find the linguistic strategies followed by speakers in negotiating a turn in Iraqi Arabic and American English, looking at how far age and gender will contribute in bringing about the variation in linguistic strategies. This study used a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative methods in the analysis of conversational data from two corpora: the Iraqi Arabic Dataset, which contains recordings collected from Iraqi talk shows and university discussions, and the American English Dataset, a collection of recording sessions from TV shows that are broadcast through a national platform and casual conversations at universities. In general, this paper uncovers considerable cross-cultural differences regarding linguistic strategies. Iraqi Arabic speakers show a preference for indirect and mitigating forms, such as hedging (45%) and politeness markers (38%), reflecting a cultural emphasis on relational harmony and face-saving. American English speakers, on the other hand, prefer to use direct and assertive strategies, for instance, direct assertions, which make up 48%, and interruptions, which are 30%, reflecting a focus on clarity and efficiency. The study also investigates how gender and age influence conversational dynamics. The use of deferential strategies is distributed differently in Iraqi Arabic: much more frequently by younger speakers when addressing elders, while American English shows little variation due to age. The implications of such findings reflect a more hierarchical structure of Iraqi society, as opposed to an egalitarian approach to conversational participation in America. The paper contributes to the understanding of how cultural norms and social hierarchies shape linguistic behavior in conversation. It also provides practical implications for the intercultural communication training programs regarding the training on the differences in the strategy of cultural politeness, directness, and turn-taking. The findings strongly signal the inclusion of the factors of gender and age in studies pertaining to cross-cultural communication. There is a further evident need to extend the number of non-Western languages, such as Iraqi Arabic studied on conversational dynamics.
Al-Khatib, M. (2010). Turn-taking in Arabic: A sociolinguistic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001
Almakrob, A., & Al-Ahdal, A. (2020). Conversational turn-taking in Saudi Arabia: The role of cultural values in shaping conversational behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 162, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.005
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (2013). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Farghal, M., & Haggan, M. (2006). Politeness strategies in colloquial Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 53–76.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (2015). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford University Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Sage Publications.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoffmann, C. (2021). Gender dynamics in family dinner conversations: A cross-cultural comparison. Language in Society, 50(2), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404521000123
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Holmes, J. (2005). Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1041–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.004
Ide, S. (2005). How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In S. Okamoto & J. S. Shibamoto Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology (pp. 69–86). Oxford University Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2017). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (Eds.), Intentionality and interculturality (pp. 99–120). John Benjamins.
Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.009
Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication: Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Nakane, I. (2012). Silence in intercultural communication: Perceptions and performance. John Benjamins.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Ablex Publishing.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.
Tannen, D. (2010). Gender and discourse. Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Walter de Gruyter.
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1556–1559).
Yassin, A. (2017). Turn-taking in Iraqi Arabic: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12245
