Farzaneh Khakzad Esfahlan, Mohsen Boroumand

Cinsiyet ve sosyoekonomik durum: İranlı EFL öğrencileri tarafından Farsça ve İngilizce taleplerde kullanılan nezaket stratejilerinin pragmatik bir analizi

Konuşmacıların bir konuşma eylemini gerçekleştirirken uyguladıkları nezaket stratejilerinin, aralarında cinsiyet ve sosyoekonomik durumun öne çıkan iki faktörden etkilendiği görülmüştür. Bu çalışma, bir yandan cinsiyet ve sosyoekonomik durum (SES) arasındaki ilişkiyi, diğer yandan da nezaket stratejilerinin seçimini incelemeye yönelik bir girişimdi. Odak noktası, özellikle Farsça (L1) ve İngilizce (L2) dillerinde talep edilen konuşma eyleminin gerçekleştirilmesiydi. Katılımcılar 100 ileri düzey İranlı EFL öğrencisiydi. Cinsiyetlerine ve sosyoekonomik durum anketine verdikleri yanıtlara göre, yirmi beşlik dört eşit gruba ayrıldılar: 1. erkek-yüksek; 2. düşük erkek; 3. kadın yüksek; ve 4. düşük kadın. Veri toplama araçları, bir söylem tamamlama testinin (DCT) İngilizce ve Farsça versiyonlarıydı. Sonuçlar, L1 ve L2'de istek üzerine konuşma eyleminde cinsiyet ile nezaket stratejilerinin kullanımı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koydu. Bununla birlikte bulgular, katılımcıların sosyoekonomik statüsü ile nezaket stratejisi kullanımları arasında ne L1 ne de L2'de anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığını göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, Brown ve Levinson’un nezaket stratejilerinin evrenselliği konusundaki iddiasının bir başka kanıtı olabilir.

Gender and socioeconomic status: A pragmatic analysis of politeness strategies used by Iranian EFL students in Persian and English requests

Politeness strategies that speakers deploy when performing a speech act have been seen to be influenced by severalfactors among which gender and socioeconomic status are two prominent ones. The current study was an attemptto examine the relationship between gender and socioeconomic status (SES) on one hand, and choice of politenessstrategies on the other. The focus was specifically on the realization of speech act of request in Persian (L1) andEnglish (L2). The participants were 100 advanced-level Iranian EFL students. Based on their gender and responsesto the socioeconomic status questionnaire, they were divided into four equal groups of twenty-five: 1. male-high;2. male-low; 3. female-high; and 4. female-low. The data collection instruments were the English and Persianversions of a discourse completion test (DCT). The results revealed a significant relationship between gender anduse of politeness strategies in speech act of request in L1 as well as L2. The findings, however, demonstrated nosignificant relationship between the participants’ socioeconomic status and their use of politeness strategy neitherin L1 nor in L2. This study can be another proof for Brown and Levinson’s claim about the universality ofpoliteness strategies.© 2020 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS.

PDF

___

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592.
Akbari, Z. (2002). The realization of politeness principles in Persian. Karen’s Linguistics Issues, 12, 120-135.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. J. (1996). Requests and status in business correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(5), 635-662.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, (pp. 56-310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, S. C., & Chen, S. H. E. (2007). Interlanguage requests: A cross-cultural study of English and Chinese. The Linguistics Journal, 2(2), 33-52.
Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Elmianvari, A., & Kheirabadi, R. (2013). The study of EFL students’ requests based on politeness theory. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2), 375-385.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Cascadilla proceedings project. Selected proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp. 66-78). Cascadilla, MA.
Garcia, C. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(2), 127-152.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say? Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328-351.
Haugh, M., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2010). Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2073- 2077.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London, England: Longman.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.
Kádár, D., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kariithi, F. (2016). Politeness strategies used by youth in their language use. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(7), 70-72.
Khandani, E. K. (2017). Requestive speech act realization patterns: Observations from Persian. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8, 104-124.
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your P’s and Q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292-305.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Bou-Franch, P. (2003). Gender and politeness: Spanish and British undergraduates’ perception of appropriate requests. In J. Santaemilia (Ed.), Genero, lenguaje y traduccion, (pp. 187- 199). Valencia, Spain: Universitat de Valencia.
Macaulay, M. (2001). Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 293-316.
Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1836-1869.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Niroomand, M. (2012). An exploration of upper-intermediate Iranian EFL learners’ perception of politeness strategies and power relation in disagreement. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 180- 191.
Phillips, D. (2015). Longman preparation course for the TOEFL iBT test (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Quraishi, S. (2009). The acquisition of politeness strategies by Afghan learners of English as a foreign language (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://krex.kstate.edu/dspace/handle/2097/2347
Rafieyan, M. (2012). Evaluation of English language teaching departments of Turkish and Iranian universities in terms of politeness strategies with reference to request. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(5), 226-241.
Sahragard, R. (2003). A cultural script analysis of a politeness feature in Persian. Proceedings of the 8th Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Japan, 399-423. Retrieved from http://www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/2003/sahragard.pdf
Senowarsito, S. (2013). Politeness strategies in teacher-student interaction in an EFL classroom context. TEFLIN Journal, 24(1), 82-96.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyer.
Yarmohammadi, N. (2003). Politeness strategies in English and Persian in contrast (Unpublished master’s thesis). Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.