SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Science Journal / 2015 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 3

The Investigation of Patterns of Iranian EFL learners’ Request Speech Act in Three Different Levels

Samira GANJI
Bahador SADEGHI
Pages
801–809
Publication Date
2015-05-13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results revealed that there are significant differences in the use of patterns among three levels of participants and also the degree of familiarity according to the levels of student changed but significantly most of learners tend to used deference taxonomy which showed medium degree of familiarity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study is an investigation of Iranian EFL learners’ request speech act among learners with different English proficiency.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study attempts to find out the request strategies and also the degree of familiarity among three levels of participants according to Lakoff (1973) taxonomy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results revealed that there are significant differences in the use of patterns among three levels of participants and also the degree of familiarity according to the levels of student changed but significantly most of learners tend to used deference taxonomy which showed medium degree of familiarity.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:pragmatics · politeness · request speech act

Abstract

Abstract. The present study is an investigation of Iranian EFL learners’ request speech act among learners with different English proficiency. This study attempts to find out the request strategies and also the degree of familiarity among three levels of participants according to Lakoff (1973) taxonomy. In order for the Iranian EFL learners’ language proficiency in the use of request speech act to be argued, the discourse completion test (DCT) was used. The DCT included six authentic request situations. The total number of students who took part in this study were 231 at three levels of MA (master of art), BA (bachelor of art), and UI (upper intermediate of institute). Based on the Z ratio test, the degree of formality and also the participants’ request strategies were analyzed. The results revealed that there are significant differences in the use of patterns among three levels of participants and also the degree of familiarity according to the levels of student changed but significantly most of learners tend to used deference taxonomy which showed medium degree of familiarity.

🔖

Cite This Article

GANJI, S., SADEGHI, B. (2015). The Investigation of Patterns of Iranian EFL learners’ Request Speech Act in Three Different Levels. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 3, 801–809. https://ajindex.com/articles/705599

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Allami, H., & Nekouzadeh, M. (2011, novomber). Congratulation and Positive Politeness Strategies in Iranian Contex. 10.4304/tpls.1.11.1607-1613, pp. 1607-1613.
  2. Al-Zumor, A. W. (2010). Apologies in Arabic and English. Language and Translation, 19 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bloomfield, L. (1956). Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Bottan, G. (n.d.). The oprationality of Grice's test for implicature. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions on politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56- 289). Cambridge: Cambridge. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Delen, B., & Tavil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four courebooks in terms of three speech act:Request, Refusals, Complaints. Science Direct, 692-697.
  5. Eslamirasekh, Z. (1993). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Request speech Act Realization Patterns in Persian and American English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 85- Fraser, B. (1990, April). Perspective on Politeness. 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N, pp. 219-2
  6. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts (pp. 41-58). NY: Academic Press Gruyter, M. d. (1992). Politeness in Language. Die Deutsche Biblothek. GU, Y. (1990). Politness Phenomena in modern Chinese. Jornal of Pragmatics, 237-257.
  7. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman. Kasper, G. (1997).Can pragmatic competence be taught? University of Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on inter language pragmatics. In K. Rose &G. Kasper (Eds.), pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Lakoff, R. T. (2004). Language and Woman's Place. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  9. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. j. (2005, July 7). Politeness Theory and Relational Work. 1515/JPLR.2005.1.19, pp. 9-33.
  10. Pariera, K. (2006). the use pf Politness strategies in email discussions about taboo topics. PSU McNair Scholar Online Jornal, 9-23.
  11. Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (n.d.). Speech act therory and Pragmatics. D.Reidel publishing company. Tabatabaei, O., & Samiee, Z. (