Cross-cultural Study of Iranian and English Students’ Impoliteness and Threat Responses
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)
1 - Department of English Language and Literature Payame Noor University, Iran
2 - Department of English, Khorasgan (Esfahan)Branch, Islamic Azad university, Khorasgan, Iran
کلید واژه: EFL learners, impoliteness, responses to threats, contextual variables,
چکیده مقاله :
The purpose of the present study is to compare the impoliteness strategies employed by Iranian and English students in English and Persian Languages. The participants consisted of 6o Iranian EFL learners at intermediate level of language proficiency, 60 Iranian non-English major students, and 212 native English-speaking students. The data were collected through an open-ended questionnaire in the form of discourse completion task where responses to different threatening situations were elicited. The questionnaire consisted of six situations with variations in social power. The data were analyzed based on Limberg’s (2009) model of threat responses. The findings showed variations in the use of strategies employed with variation of social power in different situations. Moreover, the overall findings displayed the frequent use of tendency strategies, that is, toward compliance, toward non-compliance, by the three groups of respondents. It is hoped that the findings of this study can add to the body of knowledge in impoliteness studies and to our understanding of how threat responses vary cross-culturally in particular.
هدف از مطالعة حاضر، مقایسه استراتژیهای بی‌ادبی در پاسخ به تهدیدهای مختلف توسط دانشجویان ایرانی و انگلیسی به زبان‌های انگلیسی و فارسی است. شرکت‌کنندگان شامل 60 نفر فراگیران ایرانی زبان خارجی در سطح متوسط، 60 نفردانشجوی ایرانی غیر رشته زبان انگلیسی، و 212 سخنور بومی زبان‌انگلیسی بودند. داده‌ها با استفاده از پرسشنامه باز در قالب تکالیف-گفتاری که در آن پاسخ به شرایط تهدید کننده مختلف مورد بررسی قرارگرفت جمع‌آوری شد. پرسشنامه شامل شش موقعیت با تفاوت در قدرت اجتماعی بود. داده‌ها براساس مدل پاسخ به تهدید لیمبرگ (2009) مورد تحلیل قرارگرفت. یافته‌ها نشان دهنده تغییرات در استفاده از استراتژیهای استفاده شده با تغییر قدرت اجتماعی در شرایط مختلف است. علاوه براین، یافته‌های کلی نشان داد که فراوانی استفاده از استراتژی‌ها به سمت تطابق یا عدم انطباق با تهدید کننده در سه گروه پاسخ‌دهندگان بود. امیداست که یافته‌های این مطالعه بتواند به دانش ما در مطالعات بی‌ادبی و به درک ما از این که چگونه پاسخ های تهدید با تغییر فرهنگی متفاوت است اضافه می‌کند.
Archer, D. (2011). Cross-examining lawyers, facework and the adversarial courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3216-3230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.007
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bousfield, D. (2007a). Beginnings, middles and ends: a biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (12), pp. 2185-2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005.
Chang, W. M., & Haugh, M. (2011). Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12). 2948–2963
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367.https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Culpeper, J. (1998). (Im)politeness in drama. In: J. Culpeper, M. Short & P. Verdonk. (Eds.), Studying drama: From text to context (pp. 83-95). London: Routledge.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158-2187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.004
Fraser, B. (1975). Warning and threatening. Centrum: Working Papers of the Minnesota Center of Advanced Studies in Language, Style and Literary Theory, 3, 169–180.
Geluykens, R. &Limberg, H. (2012). Gender variation, indirectness, and preference organization in threat responses. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1-12.
Ghasempour, B. &Farnia, M. (2016). A comparative study of perception of (im) politeness between Iranian EFL Learners and Americans: The case of request speech act. Studies about Languages, 29,19-30.http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.29.14168
Górska, A. (2014). Impoliteness in the language of WłatcyMóch, a Polish animated series. PraceJęzykoznawcze , 16(3), 23- 29.
Harris, S. (1984). The form and function of threats in court. Language & Communication,4, 247–271.
House, J. (2010). Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 561-595. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.026
Jan, J. M., & How, C. (2015). Discursive construction of Asian responses towards impoliteness. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23, 89-106.
Jannejad, M., Bordbar, A., Bardideh, A. &Banari, R. (2015). The analysis of impoliteness in family discourse: Verbal interactions between irreconcilable Iranian couples. ELT Voices, 5 (6), 19-41.
Khurniawan, R., Wijayanto, A., &Hikmat, M. H. (2017). The impoliteness strategies in republican party's debate of Donald Trump. Doctoral dissertation, UniversitasMuhammadiyah Surakarta.http://eprints.ums.ac.id/51195/
Limberg, H. (2003). Classifying Threats and Responses to Threats: A Sociopragmatic Analysis. Unpublished MAThesis. University of Muenster.
Limberg, H. (2008). Threats in conflict talk: impoliteness and manipulation. In D. Bousfield & M.A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 155–179). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1376-1394.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003
Limberg, H., &Geluykens, R. (2007). Investigating preference organization and social variation through questionnaires: the case of threat responses. In B. Kraft & R. Geluykens (Eds.). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics and Interlanguage English (pp.159-185) München: Lincom Europa.
MahmoodiBakhtiari, B., &Salimiyan, S. (2016). Linguistic impoliteness patterns in Sayyadan. Language Related Research, 7(1), 129-149.
Marco, M. A. (2008). Influence of situational factors on the codification and interpretation of impoliteness. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 18(4), 751-773. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.4.09alb
Mugford, G. (2007). How rude! Teaching impoliteness in the second-language classroom. ELT journal, 62(4), 375-384.
Nishimura, Y. (2010). Impoliteness in Japanese BBS interactions: Observations from message exchanges in two online communities. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 35-55.https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.003
Rahmani, H., Modarresi, Y., Ghiasian, M.S., &Zandi, B. (2016). Politeness and impoliteness in Persian-speaking youngsters’ novels. Language Related Research, 7(5), 1-22.
Santamaría-García, C. (2017). Emotional and educational consequences of (im) politeness in teacher–student interaction at higher education. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(3), 1-23.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, l-23.
Shum, W., & Lee, C. (2013). (Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 52-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.010
Song, K. S. (1995). Pragmatics and speech acts of threatening and warning in English conversational discourse: A stepping-stone to TESOL. English Language & Literature, 41 (4), 1209-1227.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1970). Threats and promises. In P. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict (155–191). London:Academic Press.
