ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

Zabanpazhuhi

Author Index

Keyword Index

News

Journal Metrics

Publication Ethics

Editorial Board

Aims and Scope

Indexing and Abstracting

FAQ

Related Links

About Journal

Peer Review Process

Executive staff

Subject Areas

Guide for Authors

Editing English articles

Conflict of interest of the author

Commitment

Publons Registration Guide

Reviewers Journal in 1999

Reviewers 2020

List of 2021 Reviewers2021

List of 2021 Reviewers 2022

Reviewers Journal 2023

The Study of the Communicative Situation Effect on the Selection of Politeness Strategies in Birjandi High School Girls’ Conversations

Authors

1 University of Sistan and Baluchestan

2 Master of General Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan

Abstract

The Study of the Communicative Situation Effect on the Selection of Politeness Strategies in Birjandi High School Girls’ Conversations Received: 2011/01/01 Accepted: 2012/07/09 Abbas Ali Ahangar Batool Ashrafi Abstract Some differences are observed in the manner of using politeness strategies in different communicative situations in Birjand city high school girls' conversations. The purpose of this research is to describe, analyze and compare the politeness strategies employed by some teenage girls in a corpus of conversations in three different situations: communication with the coevals, families (older sisters) and teachers and to show the amount of probable effects of communicative situation (the relationship between the speaker and addressee) on selecting the kinds of politeness strategies. To accomplish this end, first, the research data have been collected through direct observation (note-taking) and recording of the students' conversations in situations mentioned. Then the data have been classified and analyzed. The results of this study show that all different kinds of strategies are used in three situations, but the amount of their use is different in different situations. Negative politeness is more commonly used than positive politeness in all situations. Among the negative politeness strategies, asking questions is the most and apologizing is the least of all in communication with coevals and family situations. Contrary to these situations, the indirect strategies are less, and deference is more than others in communication with teacher situation. Applying the bald on-record strategies (imperative forms) in communication with coevals is more than other strategies and situation; However, in communication with teachers, it has been observed less than other strategies and situations. Employing negative politeness in communication with teachers is more common in comparison with other strategies. Keywords: politeness, face, negative politeness, positive politeness, politeness strategies

Keywords

References
 
- Afghari, A. (2007). “A Socio-Pragmatic Study of Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in Persian”. Speech Communication. N. 49. PP. 177-185.
- Akbari, Z. (2002a). “Extracting and Categorizing the Range of Persian Speakers’ Usage of Politeness Strategies”. Research Journal of Isfahan University. N. 13. PP. 34-56.
- -------------- (2002b). “The Realization of Politeness Principles in Persian”. Karen’s Linguistics Issues.
- Amou Ali Akbari Najafabadi, Sh. (2007). Social Interpersonal Power and Politeness Strategies. Unpublished Master Thesis. Zahedan: Sistan and Baluchestan University.
- Chung, S. A. (1995). “A Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Exploration of Polite Request Strategies: Chinese and American English”. New York University.
- Clark, H. H. and E. A. Isaacs (1990). “Ostensible Invitations”. Lang. Soc. N. 19 (4). PP. 493-509.
- Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologizing in British English. Tryckt av Print. Umea University.
- Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2004). “Face Keeping Strategies in Reaction to Complaints: English and Persian”. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication. N. 14 (1). PP. 179-195.
- France, P. (1992). Politeness and It’s Discontents: Problems in French Classical Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
- Hedayat, N. (2005). “Gender of Manner of Stating Request: A Research in the Field of Sociology of Language”. Social Science and Humanity Inquiry. Institute of Jahade-Daneshgahi. N. 3. PP. 17-40.
- Hudson, R. A. (1996). Socio-Linguistics. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Koutlaki, S. A. (2002). “Offers and Expressions of Thanks as Face Enhancing Acts: Ta’arof in Persian”. Journal of Pragmatics. N. 34. PP. 1733-1756.
- Lee, F. (1992). “Being Polite and Keeping MUM: How Bad News Is Communicated in Organizational Hierarchies”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. N. 23. PP. 1124-1149.
- Levinson, S. C. and P. Brown (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Olshtain, E. and A. Cohen (1983). “Apology: A Speech Act Set”. In: N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.). Socio-Linguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House. Rowly. M. A.
- Pejman Fard, M. (2004). Politeness Principles: Requests and Apologies in Spoken Persian. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. Allame Tabataba’i University. Tehran.
- Salmani-Nadoushan. M. A. (2006). “A Comparative Socio-Pragmatic Study of Ostensible Invitations in English and Farsi”. Speech Communication. N. 48. PP. 903-912.
- Shams, M. R. (1996). Sex, Socioeconomic Status and Strategies of Politeness. Unpublished Master Thesis. Isfahan: Isfahan University.
- Shariati, M. and F. Chamani (2010). “Apology Strategies in Persian”. Journal of Pragmatics. N. 42. PP. 1689-1699.
- Spencer-Oatey, H. and W. Jiang (2002). “Explaining Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Findings: Moving from Politeness Maxims to Socio-Pragmatic Principles”. Journal of Pragmatics. N. 35 (2003). PP. 1633-1650.
- Sridhar, K. K. (1991). “Speech Acts in an Indigenized Variety: Socio-Cultural Values and Language Variation”. English Around the World. Edited by Jenny Cheshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PP. 308-318.
- Sridhar, S. N. and A. Atawneh (1993). “Arabic-English Bilinguals and the Directive Speech Act”. World Englishes. N. 12. 3. PP. 279-297.
- Tajvidi, G. R. (2000). Speech Acts in Second Language Learning Process of Persian Speakers: Communicative and Pragmatic Competence in Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Allame Tabataba’i University. Tehran.
- Takano, S. (2005). “Re-Examining Linguistic Power: Strategic Uses of Directives by Professional Japanese Women in Position of Authority”. Journal of Pragmatics. N. 37. PP. 633-666.
- Tinkham, T. (1993). “Sociocultural Variation in Indian English Speech Acts”. World Englishes. N. 12. 2. PP. 239-247.
- Tracy, K. (1990). “The Many Faces of Face Work”. In: H. Giles. and W. P. Robinson (eds.). Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. PP. 209-226. Chichester: John Wiley.
- Tracy, K. and N. Coupland (1990). “Multiple Goals in Discourse: An Overview of Issues”. In: K. Tracy and N. Coupland (eds.). Multiple Goals in Discourse. N. 1-3. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
- Trudgill, P. (1983). Socio-Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Second edition. England: Penguin Books.
- Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An Introduction to Socio-Linguistics. London: Basic Blackwell.
- Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Wouk, F. (2006). “The Language of Apologizing in Lombok. Indonesia”. Journal of Pragmatics. N. 38 (9). PP. 1457-1486.
- Yegane, A. (1996). Gender, Age and Politeness: A Cross-Cultural Study. Unpublished Master Thesis. Isfahan: Isfahan University.
- Yu, M. C. (2003). “On the Universality of Face: Evidence from Chinese Compliment Response Behavior”. Journal of Pragmatics. N. 35. PP. 1679-1710.
- Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 6, Issue 11
September 2014
Pages 7-41
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics