Paper Titles in Periodical
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences
Volume 49

Subscribe

Subscribe to our Newsletter and get informed about new publication regulary and special discounts for subscribers!

ILSHS > Volume 49 > The Study of Disagreement Strategies to...
< Back to Volume

The Study of Disagreement Strategies to Suggestions Used by Iranian Male and Female Learners

Full Text PDF

Abstract:

This study seeks to investigate the ways in which the speech act of disagreement 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 University (Najafabad branch). The focus of this study was on the role that gender and power might play in the employment of strategies to mitigate the threat of disagreement. Students were asked to complete a discourse completion test (DCT) designed by the researcher. They were supposed to read nine suggestions 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 and used different strategies from those of males.

Info:

Periodical:
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (Volume 49)
Pages:
30-42
DOI:
10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.49.30
Citation:
S. Salehipour Bavarsad et al., "The Study of Disagreement Strategies to Suggestions Used by Iranian Male and Female Learners", International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, Vol. 49, pp. 30-42, 2015
Online since:
Mar 2015
Export:
Distribution:
References:

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).

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.

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-directjournal. 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).

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/S03782166(03)00074-2.

Yule, G. (1996).

Show More Hide