Upload
trandan
View
261
Download
9
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF POWER
AND DISTANCE ON CORE STRATEGIES AND MODIFICATION
By
EINAS HASHEM ALREFAI
Bachelor of Arts/ English Language Kuwait University
Kuwait city, Kuwait 1998
Masters of Arts/ English Langauge
Colordo State University Fort Collins, Colorado
2008
Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the
Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
July, 2012
ii
FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF
POWER AND DISTANCE ON CORE STRATEGIES AND
MODIFICATION
Dissertation Approved:
Dr. Gene Halleck
Dr. Dennis Preston
Dr. Ravi Sheorey
Dr. Stephen Perkins
Dr. Sheryl A. Tucker
Dean of the Graduate College
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
Speech Act Research ......................................................................................................................... 2 Politeness Theory .............................................................................................................................. 4 Arabic Speech Acts ........................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................................. 6 Organization of the Dissertation........................................................................................................ 6 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................................................. 8 Speech Act Theory ............................................................................................................................ 8 Politeness Theory ............................................................................................................................ 10 Speech Act of Request .................................................................................................................... 13 Speech Act of Favor Asking ........................................................................................................... 16 Research on Arabic Speech Acts .................................................................................................... 17 Pragmalinguistic Data Collection Methods ..................................................................................... 19 Field Observations of Spontaneous Speech ............................................................................... 19 Role-plays .................................................................................................................................. 20 Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) ......................................................................................... 22 Research Gaps Addressed by the Present Study ............................................................................. 23 III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 24 Participants ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Instrument – Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) ......................................................................... 25 Pilot Study ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Final DCT ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Data Coding – Core Strategies and Modification ............................................................................ 29
iv
Chapter Page
IV. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Core Strategy Use Across All Scenarios ......................................................................................... 34 Modifications Across All Scenarios ................................................................................................ 36 Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P) .................................................................................. 39 Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P) ................................................................................... 49 Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P) .................................................................................... 59 V. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 70 Core Strategy Use Across All Scenarios ......................................................................................... 70 Modifications Across All Scenarios ................................................................................................ 72 Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P) .................................................................................. 73 Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P) ................................................................................... 76 Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P) .................................................................................... 77 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 82 Implications of the Study ................................................................................................................ 82 Comparison with Previous Studies on Requests ............................................................................. 83 Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................................. 84 Directions for Future Research ....................................................................................................... 85 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 86 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 107
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1 Searle’s (1969) speech act classifications .......................................................................................... 9 2 Scenarios in final DCT ..................................................................................................................... 28 3 Direct strategies for asking core favor .............................................................................................. 29 4 Conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor ..................................................................... 30 5 Non-conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor .............................................................. 30 6 Modifications to core request ........................................................................................................... 31 7 Additional modifications outside the CCSARP coding scheme ....................................................... 33 8 Strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios ......................................................................................... 35 9 Strategy use in +D and –D scenarios ................................................................................................ 35 10 Modifications per favor .................................................................................................................. 36 11 Modifier use across all power relations .......................................................................................... 37 12 Modifier frequency by distance ...................................................................................................... 38 13 Core strategy use in +P scenarios ................................................................................................... 39 14 Modification in +P scenarios .......................................................................................................... 40 15 Modification in Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................. 41 16 Modification in Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................. 43 17 Modification in Scenario 3 ............................................................................................................. 45 18 Modification in Scenario 4 ............................................................................................................. 47 19 Core strategy use in –P scenarios ................................................................................................... 49 20 Modification in –P scenarios .......................................................................................................... 50 21 Modification in Scenario 5 ............................................................................................................. 51 22 Modification in Scenario 6 ............................................................................................................. 53 23 Modification in Scenario 7 ............................................................................................................. 55 24 Modification in Scenario 8 ............................................................................................................. 57 25 Core strategy use in =P scenarios ................................................................................................... 60 26 Modification in =P scenarios .......................................................................................................... 60 27 Modification in Scenario 9 ............................................................................................................. 61 28 Modification in Scenario 10 ........................................................................................................... 64 29 Modification in Scenario 11 .......................................................................................................... 66 30 Modification in Scenario 12 ........................................................................................................... 68 31 Core strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios ............................................................................... 71 32 Core strategy use in +D and –D scenarios ...................................................................................... 71 33 Modifiers affected by distance ....................................................................................................... 73 34 Description of +P scenarios ............................................................................................................ 74 35 Core strategy use in +P scenarios ................................................................................................... 74 36 Core strategy directness in +P scenarios ........................................................................................ 75
vi
Table Page 37 Modifier frequency in +P scenarios........................................................................ ........................ 75 38 Description of –P scenarios .................................................................................... ........................ 76 39 Core strategy directness in –P scenarios................................................................. ........................ 77 40 Description of =P scenarios………........................................................................ ........................ 77 41 Core strategy directness in =P scenarios................................................................. ........................ 78
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study investigates favor asking in Kuwaiti Arabic, with a focus on how social
power and distance affect the performance of the speech act. The primary goal of the study is
to see the effect of the variables of power and distance on core strategies and modifications in
the speech act of favor asking.
Speech acts are utterances intended to perform communicative actions, and have been
defined as the “basic minimal units of linguistic communication” (Searle, 1976, p.16). Their
study provides critical insight into the social and linguistic norms of speech communities
(Meier, 1995, 1997; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985; Schmidt, 1983). Cross-cultural research
on speech acts investigates how speakers of different languages use different linguistic
features to perform similar communicative functions, in order to reflect culturally defined
standards of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Such studies can be useful in reducing
stereotyping and potential communication difficulties between cross-cultural interlocutors
(Meier, 1995; Takahashi & Beebe, 1993).
This chapter provides a brief background on speech act research, paying specific
attention to the speech acts of requests and favor asking. It also provides background on
politeness theory and discusses existing research on speech acts in Arabic. This will be
followed by a description of the rationale for the current study, as well as the research design
and methods of data collection and analysis. The final section of the chapter provides an
overview of how this dissertation is organized.
2
Speech Act Research
Studies investigating speech acts have typically focused on requests (Blum-Kulka,
1982a; House & Kasper, 1987; Koike, 1989; Takahashi, 1996), suggestions (Bardovi-Harlig
& Hartford, 1990; Koike, 1996), complaints (Boxer, 1996), refusals (Beebe, Takahashi &
Uliss-Welts, 1990; Houk & Gass, 2006) and apologies (Eslami-Rusekh & Mardani, 2010;
Mulamba, 2009). Examining the production of these and other speech acts is an essential tool
for gaining cultural knowledge (Al-Issa, 1998; Rubin, 1989), as “lack of knowledge of
speech act realization patterns and strategies across cultures can lead to breakdowns” (Rubin,
p. 12).
Studies investigating speech acts generally fall into one of four categories: learner-
focused, methodological, cross-cultural, and intralingual. Learner-focused studies examine
how second and foreign language learners develop pragmatic competence in the target
language (Mey, 1993; Thomas, 1995). Methodological studies explore the effectiveness of
different means of data collection (Golato, 2003; Yuan, 2001). Cross-cultural studies
compare speech act performance across two or more cultures (Al-Ali & Al-Awneh, 2010;
Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Nelson, Carson, Al-Batal & El-Bakary, 2002), while
intralingual studies focus on a single language or culture (Demeter, 2007; Farghal & Al-
Khatib, 2001; Farghal & Haggan, 2006; Hahn, 2006; Nureddeen, 2008). As this dissertation
examines favor asking in a single language, Kuwaiti Arabic, it thus falls within the category
of intralingual research.
Studies on the speech act of requests have recently become a popular topic and have
gained the interest of people in the speech act research community. Favors are a specialized
type of request, with a higher degree of imposition that typically necessitates reciprocity.
3
Though there has been extensive investigation of requests, relatively few linguists have
specifically investigated the speech act of favor asking.
The most common framework for examining requests is to analyze the frequency of
nine strategies first identified in Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) Cross Cultural Speech
Act Realization Project (CCSARP). One of the most significant contributions of the study
was to classify different strategies for making the “core” or obligatory portion of the request.
Three types of strategies were identified: direct, conventional indirect, and nonconventional
indirect. They also looked at 22 kinds of modifications to the core request, which are non-
obligatory portions of the speech act designed to modify its force and get the hearer to
comply.
The effect of social power and distance on speech acts has been researched in a
number of studies (e.g., Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000; Spencer-Oaty, 1996; Wolfson, 1989).
The results of these studies have proven that speech acts, such as invitations, requests, offers,
and suggestions, are influenced by social power. Wolfson (1989) found that variables like
social status influence the length of refusals, and that people who are familiar with each other
tend to make more elaborate refusals. Demographic variables that influence speech act
strategies include age, gender, and education, but this study focuses on the variables of power
and distance. Power refers to level of social control possessed by the speaker (Blau, 1964;
Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Emerson, 1962). Compared
to the hearer, the speaker can either have more power (+P), less power (–P), or equal power
(=P). Distance refers to the level of familiarity between speaker and hearer. If interlocutors
are unfamiliar with each other, as with strangers, there is said to be distance between them
(+D). But if the interlocutors are familiar, as in the case of friends or family, there is no
4
distance (–D). Social power and distance have been shown to affect speech acts such as
invitations, requests, offers, and suggestions (Spencer-Oaty, 1996; Lee, Pillutla, & Law,
2000). For example, +P speakers give shorter refusals, whereas –D speakers tend to give
elaborate refusals (Wolfson, 1989).
Politeness Theory
The linguistic forms used to perform speech acts are determined by standards of
politeness. Though politeness is a universal human trait, it is always culturally specific
(Brown & Levinson, 1987). Generally speaking, to be polite a speaker must reduce
imposition on the hearer, provide the hearer with options, and make the hearer feel
comfortable (Lakoff, 1973). By doing so, the speaker enables the hearer to maintain face,
which is defined as the “public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”
within the speech community (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61).
Brown and Levinson’s explanation of politeness (1987) involves two types of face,
both positive and negative. Positive face refers to how people want to project themselves to
others, while negative face involves ensuring that one’s actions remain “unimpeded by
others” (p. 62). To be polite, speakers must preserve their own face and avoiding threatening
that of the hearer (Stabb, 1983). In favor asking, the greatest potential threat to the speaker’s
face would be if the favor were refused, while the greatest threat to the hearer’s face would
be if the favor was perceived as an imposition (Goldshmidt, 1993).
Like other aspects of politeness, perceptions of face are culturally defined.
Researchers have found that some of the features described by Brown and Levinson do not
apply in cultures with a collectivist rather than individualistic perspective, such as the Polish
5
(Wierzbicka, 1985), Japanese (Matsumoto, 1988), and Chinese (Gu, 1990) speech
communities. But despite these and other limitations of politeness theory, most studies have
found that it is a useful analytical framework for understanding the performance of speech
acts (Pop, 2009).
Arabic Speech Acts
Over the last decade an expanding interest has developed in an attempt to learn and
understand the Arabic language (Al-Batal, 2007; Badawi, 2006; Liu, 2004; Abboud, 1995).
An increasing number of books are translated every year from Arabic to English (Buchler &
Guthrie, 2011), and a recent survey of US universities showed that the number of Arabic
language learners had tripled from 2003-2009 (Modern Language Association, 2010).
The body of literature on Arabic speech acts is small but growing. In the last few
years there has been an increasing amount of research on speech acts in Arabic, including
apologies (Ghawi,1993; Hussein & Hammouri,1998), compliments (Nelson, El-Bakary &
Al-Batal, 1993), requests (Al- Eryani, 2007; Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009; Al-Momani,
2009; Sattar, Lah, & Suleiman, 2009; Umar, 2004), and refusals (Al-Shalawi, 1997; Al-
Eryani, 2007; Stevens, 1993). Most of the research has focused on Jordanian and Egyptian
Arabic, with a few investigations of Yemeni and Iraqi Arabic.
However, studies situated in the Gulf region (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United
Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman) have been scarce. Among the few noteworthy studies
have been Taylor-Hamilton’s (2002) investigation of directives in Emirati Arabic, and
Enssaif’s (2005) examination of compliments in Saudi Arabic. The absence of speech act
research in this region constitutes a gap in the literature that requires further investigation.
6
Although all Arab countries share a common language and a religion, they speak different
dialects and have differing cultural norms (Al-Eryani, 2007; Al-Issa, 1998; Al-Shalawi,
1997; Feghali, 1997).
This study explores speech act performance in a single Gulf country, Kuwait. It
attempts to add new knowledge to the body of current research about linguistic and cultural
norms in a region of growing international influence.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The primary aim of this study is to gain insight on the linguistic and social
distribution of the speech act of favor asking, particularly among speakers of
Kuwait Arabic. Through an in-depth analysis of the speech act of favor asking we may gain
important insight into certain aspects of this culture, particularly the impact of social power
and social distance. The study therefore intends to answer the following research questions:
1. What core strategies do Kuwaiti Arabic speakers use to perform the speech act of
favor asking, and are these strategies affected by social power and distance?
2. What modifications to the core favor do Kuwaiti Arabic speakers use to perform the
speech act of favor asking, and are these modifications affected by social power and
distance?
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One is the introduction. It provides general background information on topics
relevant to this research, all of which will be examined in more detail in the literature review.
Chapter Two provides a review of relevant literature. It explains theories of speech acts
7
and politeness before looking more closely at the speech acts of both request and favor
asking. Speech act research in other Arabic cultures is summarized, followed by a discussion
of appropriate methods of pragmalinguistic data collection.
Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the study. It
describes the recruiting of participants, development of the instrument (a discourse
completion test), administration of the pilot study, and coding of the data.
Chapter Four provides the results of the study. It describes overall trends in the use of
core strategies and modification, as well as the effects of power and distance. It then
examines the participants’ responses to each of 12 individual scenarios from the discourse
completion test.
Chapter Five provides a discussion of the most significant findings from the study. It
attempts to provide a rationale for Kuwaiti Arabic speakers’ use of core request strategies
and modification during the speech act of favor asking.
Chapter Six provides a conclusion that describes the limitations of the study and
makes suggestions for future research.
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter discusses scholarship relevant to the current study. It begins with an
overview of speech act theory and politeness theory, then moves to a summary of the
literature on the speech acts of requests and favor asking. Speech act research on Arabic
is discussed, and three types of pragmalinguistic data collection methods are outlined:
field observations of spontaneous speech, role-plays, and discourse completion tests
(DCTs). The chapter concludes by identifying research gaps addressed by the current
study.
Speech Act Theory
Identifying speech acts as particular units of discourse was first proposed in the
1930s by Austin (1962), though the concept remained relatively unexplored until much
later (Austin, 1962 ). Austin believed that “in saying something, we are doing something”
(1962, p.12), and his resulting speech act theory emphasized the socially active nature of
language.
This emphasis on language as an active system, not just an abstract entity, led to a
fundamental shift in perception among philosophers of language. Searle (1969) expanded
on Austin’s theory by emphasizing the importance of an utterance’s conversational
context. He saw the speech act as “the basic unit of linguistic
9
communication” (1969, p. 136), and identified five separate types of acts: directives,
assertives, commissives, declaratives, and expressives. See Table 1 for definitions and
examples.
Table 1
Searle’s (1969) speech act classifications
Category Definition
Directive Attempt to get hearer to perform an action (examples: ordering, requesting)
Assertive Attempt to represent actual state of affairs (examples: informing, predicting)
Commissive Attempt to get speaker to commit to a course of action (examples: promising, threatening)
Declarative Attempt to bring about change in an official state of affairs (examples: declaring war, performing a marriage)
Expressive Attempt to express one’s psychological state (examples: thanking, complaining)
An understanding of speech acts was also central to Hymes’ (1974) influential
notion of communicative competence, which he defined as knowing what to say, when
and how to say it, and to whom to say it, in a socially appropriate way. To do so
effectively, he asserted that a speaker needed extensive knowledge of the cultural norms
of the surrounding discourse community.
Hymes theorized (1974) that there were three distinct units to any conversation:
speech situations, speech events and speech acts. Speech situations are generic scenarios
that reoccur frequently, such as the interaction between a waiter and restaurant patron.
Speech events are what occur in a specific time and place, such as a single interaction
10
between waiter and patron. Speech acts are goal-focused portions of discourse that arise
within the speech event, such as the patron requesting another drink, or the waiter
apologizing for a service delay.
Later theorists further refined communicative competence by stating that it
consisted of three inter-related competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic
(Canale & Swain, 1980). Grammatical competence is knowledge of what is
grammatically acceptable, sociolinguistic competence is knowledge of what is socially
acceptable, and strategic competence is knowledge of “how to use one’s language to
communicate intended meaning” (Canale & Swain, p. 28). Canale (1983) later added a
fourth competency, discourse competence, which is the ability to connect separate
utterances into a meaningful whole.
According to Bardovi-Harlig (2001), speech acts have come to be one of the most
extensively researched topics in the field of pragmatics. The reason for this emphasis on
speech acts is that they are so frequent in everyday communication, and they are at the
heart of being able to communicate (Cohen, 2005). Speech acts demonstrate how we use
language to accomplish specific tasks (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003), and
successful performance requires “not only the knowledge of the language but also the
appropriate use of that language within a given culture” (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006,
p.1902).
Politeness Theory
When discussing speech acts, there is an obligation to talk about politeness theory
because the two concepts are intertwined. Successful performance of any speech act is
11
intimately related to culturally defined standards of politeness (Brown & Levinson,
1987). Some research on politeness has focused on cross-cultural comparison (Huang,
1996) but others have emphasized politeness universals (Grice, 1989; Lakoff, 1973;
Leech, 2007; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Most linguistic theories of politeness revolve
around the concept of face, defined as “the positive social value a person effectively
claims for himself…[based on what] others assume” in a particular context (Goffman,
1955, p. 213). As people interact in society, they do so not only to communicate, but also
to present a desirable self, thereby retaining face (Goffman, 1967; Mead, 1962).
The most influential theory of linguistic politeness is that of Brown and Levinson
(1987), which broadly states that cultural notions of politeness are established to help
interlocutors avoid conflict and achieve social harmony. Their formulation covers a vast
range of sociolinguistic theories, including Grice’s conversational maxims (1975) and
Searle’s speech act theory (1969). It is based on a more nuanced understanding of
Goffman’s concept of face, which they separate into two distinct types, positive and
negative. Positive face involves retaining a positive image in the eyes of others, while
negative face involves ensuring one’s freedom from outside imposition.
Brown and Levinson also differentiate between positive and negative politeness.
Positive politeness attends to the hearer’s need to retain positive face, and therefore
involves appealing to the hearer’s to be approved of or desired. This type of politeness is
expressed through positive evaluations of the hearer, such as compliments, showing
interest, and giving signals that the hearer is a friend. Similarly, negative politeness
involves attending to the hearer’s need to retain negative face, and therefore involves
avoiding any imposition on the hearer. Speakers can express this type of politeness
12
through strategies such as deference, hedging, and indirectness, all of which reduce
potential imposition and maintain the hearer’s freedom of action.
In this typology, there are four types of potentially face threatening acts (FTAs):
those that threaten the hearer’s positive face, the hearer’s negative face, the speaker’s
positive face, or the speaker’s negative face. In all such situations, interlocutors must
employ politeness strategies in order to demonstrate their good intentions. Decisions
about which strategies to employ depend on three important, culturally defined variables:
social distance, social power, and the degree of imposition of the associated act (Brown
& Levinson, 1987).
Brown and Levinson’s understanding of politeness remains influential, and has
been described as “a powerful argument for a universal politeness theory as a possible
way of understanding the social function of language use” (Gagne, 2010, p. 124). What
many studies oppose is Brown and Levinson’s notion of face, which they assume to be
universal. Gagne (2010) contests this view by claiming that what they consider as
negative face may be perceived as positive face in other cultures, and vice versa. For
example, within the Russian culture they seem to carry out positive politeness, in that
people show concern and encourage the involvement of other people in their lives,
strategies that other cultures may perceive as an imposition on others’ personal space
(Dong, 2009; Ogiermann, 2009).
An alternative classification scheme was proposed by Leech (2007), who
identified two forms of politeness scales, semantic and pragmatic. Semantic politeness
relates to how people use words, meaning that when a person says Can you help me? it is
more polite than just saying Help me?, and to be even more polite one would say Could
13
you possibly help me? The reason that the last example is considered the most polite is
that it offers the hearer a greater choice of options in response. According to Darwish
(2003) semantic politeness is important because it represents norms, social distance and
how to honor different people in society through specific words. Pragmatic politeness
refers to “politeness relative to norms in a given society, group, or situation. It is sensitive
to context, and is a bi-directional scale.” (p. 174). This means that in this situation an
action that is carried out in a particular context to show politeness may actually be
viewed as impolite in a different context. For example, the utterance Could I possibly
interrupt? can be viewed as too polite in a certain situation and it could be interpreted as
completely acceptable in a different context. Leech explains that pragmatic politeness is a
scale that registers “over politeness”, “under politeness”, and “politeness appropriate to
the situation” (p. 174).
Speech Act of Request
Searle (1976) defines requests as speech acts in which the speaker conveys his or
her desire to have the hearer perform an act that benefits the speaker. Blum-Kulka (1991)
emphasizes that requests are “pre-event” acts that are carried out to affect the hearer,
unlike “post-event” acts such as apologies and complaints. They are distinguished from
orders and commands by the fact that the speaker is not in a position of authority that
obligates the hearer to comply. Politeness strategies are important in making requests
because this speech act has the potential to threaten hearers’ need for negative face, by
interfering with their freedom of action (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
14
Requests can either be direct or indirect. In direct requests, speakers are explicit
about the task they would like hearers to perform, but in indirect requests, speakers do
not explicitly state this task (Searle, 1975). For example, when seated at the dinner table,
a speaker could make a direct request by saying “Please pass the butter”. The same
speaker might indirectly request that the butter be passed by saying “Are you finished
with that?” Although that utterance appears on the surface to be a question about the
hearer’s need for butter, it is typically intended and interpreted as a request. According to
Wierzbicka (1985), Western cultures have a general preference for indirect requests.
Brown & Levinson (1987) describe how indirect requests are typically
accompanied by linguistic devices used for hedging, apologizing, impersonalizing, and
showing deference. These strategies serve to “redress a hearer’s negative face of not
wanting to be impinged upon” (Goldschmidt, 1993, p. 40).
Generally speaking, speech act performance is affected by interlocutors’ roles,
relationships, and immediate circumstances (Cheng, 2011). The literature on requests
distinguishes between context external factors, such as social power and distance, and
context internal factors, such as the degree of imposition and the speaker’s motivation
(Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Brown & Levinson,
1987). Some studies also emphasize individual characteristics of the speaker, as even in
identical situations, different people will choose different communication strategies
(Cheng, 2011; Stiles, 1992).
Research on requests has focused on the culturally defined ways in which this
speech act is realized in a variety of languages. Language teachers and applied linguists
have been particularly interested in this speech act because it occurs frequently in
15
everyday life, often with a wide variety of interlocutors (Schauer, 2009). In addition, it
can be extremely face-threatening, making it critical for language learners to develop the
pragmatic expertise to perform it effectively (Uso-Juan, 2010). Studies on the speech act
of request have typically addressed directness and the effects of power and distance.
Some have examined only a single group of speakers, while others have attempted cross-
cultural comparison. Blum-Kulka (1982a) found Hebrew speakers to be far more direct
than speakers of American English, while House and Kasper (1987) found German
speakers to be more direct than Danes, who in turn were more direct than British English
speakers. Hassall’s examination of Indonesian EFL learners (2003) found a preference
for conventional indirect strategies, such as using modal verbs to ask the possibility of
performing a task, but minimal use of such nonconventional indirect strategies as hints.
In contrast, Rue, Zhang, and Shin (2007) found extensive use of hints among
native speakers of Korean. Power (P) was found to be an important variable, as speakers
with more social power than their interlocutors (+P) were considerably more direct than
those with less (–P). Felix-Brasdefer (2005) found a similar preference for directness
among +P Mexican EFL learners, but a much higher level of indirectness in –P scenarios.
Blum-Kulka’s early investigation of Hebrew and American English speakers
(1982) focused only on core strategies for performing requests, but later studies also
examined non-obligatory modification to the core request (House & Kaspar, 1987;
Martinez-Flor, 2005; Ogiermann, 2009).
16
Speech Act of Favor Asking
Favors have typically been classified as a subtype of request, but Goldschmidt
(1993, 1996) proposes that favor asking be considered a separate speech act worthy of
additional study on its own. She distinguishes favors from requests based on four criteria:
favors a) ask interlocutors to perform a task that is beyond their daily routine, b) require
considerable time and effort, c) do not involve any role-related obligation on the part of
the hearer, and d) often imply future reciprocity.
The first criterion addresses tasks that result from exigent circumstances requiring
a special need; as an example, Goldschmidt (1993) describes a speaker, who does not
travel frequently, asking a friend for a ride to the airport. The second criterion addresses
the degree of imposition entailed; as an example, she describes a speaker asking a friend
to take care of three cats while she is on vacation. Closely related to this type of favor is
one that involves giving or lending an item of value. The third criterion involves role-
related obligation; as an example, she describes how an executive asking his or her
secretary for a cup of coffee would not be a favor, as it is part of the secretary’s job. The
fourth criterion implies that the favor may need to be returned in the future; as an
example, she describes a situation in which the asker ends the interaction with the phrase,
“Great, I owe you” (pp. 157).
Goldschmidt (1993) concluded that favor asking is an emotional speech act,
unlike requests, in which the speaker is more detached. This is because in favor asking
people carry out the service willingly and thus are emotional when performing the favor,
out of pity for the person asking, or when declining to perform it, out of guilt for being
unable to carry it out. Another finding was that speakers have ambivalent emotions about
17
asking favors, because “though people do need people at times and feel good when this
need is attended to, they do not like to appear needy, therefore, do not like to ask favors
of others” (p.150).
Goldschmidt (1998) subsequently conducted a more wide-ranging investigation of
favor asking that focused on the pragmalinguistic choices of interlocutors, in relation to
their rights and obligations towards each other. She was able to investigate the speech act
through the use of spontaneous data, elicited through face to face or telephone
interactions from 102 participants.
More recent favor asking studies examined the cross-cultural dimensions of this
speech act. Lee, Park, Imai and Dolan (2012) found that while Americans were likely to
modify favors by expressing thanks or appreciation, Japanese speakers were much more
likely to express apology for the imposition. They explained “Japanese prefer more direct
and extreme forms of apology than do Americans…[and] also use apologies to express
their gratitude” (p.4).
Research on Arabic Speech Acts
Speech act research has focused predominantly on Western and Far Eastern
languages and cultures, with little investigation of the Middle East. A decade ago, speech
act research in Arabic was described as “still at its very beginning” (Jarbou, 2002; as
cited in Momani, 2009, p. 26). However, Arabic researchers have since investigated
speech acts such as refusals (Morkus, 2009), compliments (Farghal & Haggan, 2006;
Migdadi, 2003; Nelson, Al-Batal & Echols, 1996), and apologies (Al-Hami, 1993; Al-
Zumor, 2003; El-Khalil, 1998; Ghawi, 1993; Hussein & Hammouri, 1998; Soliman,
18
2003). Most studies have addressed cross-cultural speech act performance, typically by
comparing Arabic speakers’ speech act performance with that of native English speakers.
However a few have avoided this focus by focusing exclusively on a single culture, such
as Al-Marrani & Sazakie’s investigation of request strategies by Yemenis (2010) and
Abd-el Jawad’s (2000) study of oath-taking by Egyptians.
Only a few studies have explored the request strategies of native Arabic speakers,
but even these have focused primarily on Arabic speakers as EFL learners. In one of the
earliest pragmatic studies of Arabic speakers, Umar (2004) analyzed the requests of
Arabic-speaking EFL learners and found they were far more direct than those of native
speakers of British English, especially when speakers had higher social power (+P). But
the study was extensively criticized for failing to analyze modification to the core
request, and for drawing on a heterogeneous group of Arabic speakers comprised of
Saudis, Sudanese, Jordanians, and many other nationalities (Al-Momani, 2009). This
approach neglects “the importance of taking participant sociocultural and regional
differences into account” (Al-Momani, p. 53).
However, very few studies have limited their scope to a homogeneous sample of
Arabic speakers. Alaoui (2011) found that Moroccan Arabic speakers favored address
alerters and politeness markers to modify requests, while Al-Fattah & Ravindranath
(2009) studied Yemeni EFL learners and found that they used extensive politeness
markers and favored conventionally indirect strategies. Al-Momani (2009) examined
Jordanian EFL learners and monolingual speakers of Jordanian Arabic and found that
both preferred conventional indirect strategies, and the EFL learners used more modifiers
19
to the core request than American English speakers. Jordanians also used more direct
strategies in scenarios where the speaker had higher social power.
Pragmalinguistic Data Collection Methods
Conflict over appropriate methods of data collection “remains a lasting concern in
pragmatics research” (Kasper, 2002, p. 340). The particular elicitation instrument
researchers choose to employ can have a strong influence on the type and quality of data
they are able to obtain (Alcón & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Nurani, 2009). For this reason, the
field has experienced a constant evolution in research methodology (Bardovi-Harlig,
1999; Cohen, 2008; Félix-Brasdefer & Bardovi-Harlig, 2010; Kasper, 2000; Kasper &
Dahl, 1991; Kasper & Roever, 2005). Despite these developments, researchers still call
for further investigation of appropriate data collection techniques (Martinez-Flor, 2006;
Trosborg, 2010).
The three most widely used methods are field observation of spontaneous speech,
role-plays, and discourse completion tests (DCTs). The following section discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of these methods and provides justification for the use of
DCTs in the current study.
Field Observation of Spontaneous Speech
Many researchers consider the field observation of spontaneous speech to be the
best collection method, as it reflects authentic language use, rather than just an
approximation (Tran, 2004). This method was pioneered by Wolfson and Manes (1980)
and is used predominantly in ethnographic research conducted in sociolinguistics and
communication studies. Researchers must take field notes on verbal exchanges that they
20
observe in their daily life, including what was said, who said it, and any known
demographic/background /contextual information (such as age, sex, or location). This
method enables investigators to collect data in a wide variety of settings (Kasper & Dahl,
1991), but its principal drawback is that it can be extremely time consuming to record a
sufficient number of exchanges (Kasper & Dahl, 1991).
Another potential drawback is that it is difficult to control for variables such as
power, status, age, and gender (Yuan, 2001), which can make the data unsystematic
(Beebe & Cummings, 1996). This flaw also makes replication studies nearly impossible,
which makes it difficult to compare speech act performance across different cultures and
languages (Beebe, 1992). In addition, researchers taking field notes typically reconstruct
spontaneous speech from memory after the fact, and often forget to include discourse
features such as hedges, intensifiers, and modifiers (Golato, 2003). Kasper (2002)
therefore suggests that audio or video data replace field notes if the aim of the study is to
investigate such interactional discourse features. Researchers’ memory can also be
problematic with long utterances or negotiated sequences, as “the researcher cannot
accurately remember what exact words were said in which order and how many turns
there were" (Beebe, 1994, p. 15).
In the present study, more practical concerns were behind the decision not to
consider analysis of spontaneous speech. There were simply not enough Kuwaiti Arabic
speakers in the local area to facilitate the collection of a large enough data sample.
Role-plays
Role-plays are “simulations of social interactions in which participants assume
and enact described roles within specified situations” (Tran, 2006, p. 3). There are two
21
main types, closed and open. In closed role-plays, the participant typically takes a single
speech turn, in response to an initial turn by an interlocutor played by the researcher. In
open role-plays, participants take multiple turns, each in response to that of the
interlocutor, who may or may not be portrayed by the researcher.
Data elicited through role-plays are a reasonable approximation of authentic
speech, as they are typically rich in pragmatic features such as politeness, mitigation, and
indirectness (Cohen, 1996, 2005; Demeter, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003; Kasper, 2000;
Tran, 2004). This method allows researchers to analyze not only the content of a
respondent’s utterance, but also conversational features such as intonation, tone, and
pauses (Margalef-Boada, 1993). A researcher’s control over social variables also
facilitates replication studies (Raybourn, 2002; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989).
Despite the many positive features of role-plays, they also have disadvantages.
Although they allow the collection of a large amount of data in a short period of time
(Tran 2006; Boxer, 1996), analyzing the data requires that all responses first be
transcribed, which can be extremely time-consuming (Jung, 2004; Kasper & Dahl, 1991).
Critics also claim that elicited data may be less natural than proponents believe, since the
participants may say only what they think they are expected to say (Olshtain & Cohen,
1998).
In the present study, this method was impractical for the same reason that field
observation was not considered. There were not enough Kuwaiti Arabic speakers in the
local area to facilitate the collection of a large data sample.
22
Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs)
DCTs are written or spoken presentations of scenarios in which “respondents are
expected to produce what they deem to be appropriate for that particular situation”
(Rasekh, 2012, p. 80). Since their introduction to the field by Blum-Kulka (1982a,
1982b), they have become the most widely used method in pragmatic research
(Bharuthram, 2003; Chaudron, 2005; Cheng, 2011; Farina & Suleiman, 2009; Geluyken
& Kraft, 2002; Shea, 2003; Rasekh, 2012; Wouk, 2006). Researchers favor this method
because they allow for control of variables such as age, gender, and social status (Kwon,
2004), and permit the collection of data from large numbers of respondents in a variety of
different situations (Kasper, 2000). Although DCT data are considered less authentic than
that from field observations or role-plays, proponents claim that the tests do elicit socially
appropriate responses (Martinez-Flor, 2006).
Critics of this method claim that data may not approximate authentic speech,
since participants may merely be providing what they think researchers want to hear
(Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Boxer, 1996; Golato, 2003). In addition, the test typically
allows for only a single speech turn, so unlike spontaneous speech or open-ended role
plays, there is no opportunity for repetition, elaboration, and important non-verbal
features (Cohen, 1996).
Other studies claim that oral DCTs are better than written DCTs (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001; Beebe & Cummings, 1985; Golato, 2003, Yuan, 2001), but are still inferior to
natural data or field notes since they “cannot elicit elaborated negotiations and indirect
compliment exchanges seen in everyday conversation” (Yuan, 2001, p. 289).
23
Research Gaps Addressed by the Present Study
As this review of literature shows, there has been minimal investigation of the
speech act of favor asking, and none of it has been in Arabic. Furthermore, there has been
little investigation of Arabic speech acts overall and even less focusing on the cultures
and dialects of the Gulf region. This study aims to contribute to the existing body of
speech act literature by addressing these gaps through an examination of favor asking
among Kuwaiti Arabic speakers.
24
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology employed in the study. It begins with a
description of the participants, followed by an explanation of how the data collection
instrument, a discourse completion test (DCT), was chosen and designed. An initial pilot
study is described, followed by a detailed description of the final DCT. It concludes with
explanations of the methods used for data coding and statistical analysis.
Participants
The participants (N=30) who took part in the study were randomly selected from
a list of U.S.-based Kuwaiti nationals that had been provided by the Kuwaiti Embassy in
Washington, D.C. All were graduate and undergraduate students majoring in a variety of
disciplines at different U.S. universities. They ranged from 19-40 years of age, and none
had spent more than three years in the U.S. prior to the beginning of the study. All are
native speakers of Kuwaiti Arabic.
Students from the list were initially contacted via email and asked whether they
would be willing to participate in the study, whose nature and purpose were not revealed.
The email included an attached consent form, a demographic questionnaire, and the final
email included an attached consent form, a demographic questionnaire, and the final
DCT. Recipients were asked to complete the consent form, questionnaire, and the DCT
25
if they were willing to participate in the study. They were given the option to type or
write their responses, then attach a scanned or digital copy.
One limitation of the study is that all participants were male. This was because
female Kuwaiti students were reluctant to participate in the study, and very few were
even willing to respond to my requests for their participation. Since not enough women
responded to make it possible to generalize from the resulting data, it was decided that
the study would focus only on male participants.
Instrument – Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
Data were collected through a written discourse completion test (DCT)
administered in Arabic. The test contained 12 items, each of which asked respondents
what they would say in a given hypothetical scenario. See Appendix A for an untranslated
copy of the DCT, and Appendix B for an English translation. The 12 questions were
designed to reflect variations in power and distance between speaker and hearer. For each
of three power relationships (+P, –P, =P), two questions presented a scenario in which
there was distance between speaker and hearer (+D), and two more presented a scenario
in which there was no distance (–D). Responses to individual test items were analyzed
and coded using Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) CCSARP framework.
Most pragmatic research relies on DCTs for data collection (e.g., Hinkel, 1997;
Nelson, Al-Batal & El-Bakary, 2002; Nurani, 2009; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993;
Zaharna, 1995). There are many reasons for this preference, but chief among them is that
DCTs facilitate the sample of large numbers of participants in a wide variety of
situations, enabling researchers to collect a large amount of data in a short period of time
26
(Felix-Brasdefer & Bardovi-Harlig, 2010). They also allow for the control of social
variables such as age, gender, status, and social distance, enabling researchers to examine
the influence of social and psychological factors on speech act performance (Tran, 2006).
In addition, DCTs reduce participants’ anxiety and nervousness, and thus enable
researchers to elicit better responses (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986).
Despite the negative apprehensions about this method that have been discussed in
the literature (Johnston, Kasper, & Ross, 1998), DCTs can be a useful tool for eliciting
data if constructed with cultural awareness (Kasper, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 2002). The
situations described in individual test questions were therefore carefully constructed,
based on my first-hand knowledge of Kuwaiti cultural norms, so that the elicited data
could be as natural as possible.
Role-plays were initially considered as a method of data collection, but proved
difficult to administer given that the researcher is a Kuwaiti female and all participants
were Kuwaiti males. This gender difference created considerable awkwardness in many
study participants, most likely because the high degree of gender segregation in Kuwaiti
society makes inter-gender communication a source of considerable anxiety for many
Kuwaiti men. Participants showed obvious signs of discomfort during early
administrations of the role-plays, and the elicited data did not seem to reflect natural
performance of the speech acts required in the role-plays. For this reason, role-plays were
discontinued and the study relies exclusively on DCTs for eliciting data.
Pilot study
A pilot study was performed to ensure that the DCT scenarios reflected Kuwaiti
27
social norms and would therefore elicit natural speech act data. Ten Kuwaiti participants
from the Kuwaiti Embassy’s list were asked to assess 30 potential scenarios. For each
scenario, the participants were asked two questions: Do you feel that this situation would
apply in your culture? and Would you ask a favor in this situation? Situations that were
judged to be authentic were considered as potential scenarios for the final study, while
inauthentic scenarios were eliminated from consideration. In informal interviews that
followed, the pilot study participants also reported that responding to 30 DCT scenarios
would likely take more time than most were willing to commit. As a result, the final
study was limited to 12 scenarios.
Final DCT
The 12 scenarios in the final study were designed to reflect variations in social
power (P) and social distance (D), two variables that have been shown to affect speech
act performance (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Brown & Levinson,
1987; Hudson, Deitmer & Brown, 1995). Power is the social status of the speaker,
relative to the interlocutor – speakers with higher status are referred to as +P, speakers of
lesser status as –P, and speakers of equal status as =P. Distance reflects how well the
interlocutors know each other – unfamiliar interlocutors are referred to as +D, while
familiar interlocutors are considered –D. Four scenarios were constructed for each power
dynamic (+P, –P, and +P) – two in which speakers were unfamiliar (+D) and two in
which they were familiar (–D). A brief description of the 12 scenarios is provided in
Table 2. Full descriptions are provided in the Results section and in Appendix C.
28
Table 2
Scenarios in final DCT
Scenario Power and
distance
Description
1 +P, +D University dean asks unfamiliar student for help with broken-down car
2 +P, +D Department head asks unfamiliar employee for extra help with new software
3 +P, –D Older brother asks younger brother for money to purchase car
4 +P, –D Department head asks familiar employee to perform unpaid work
5 –P, +D Professor asks unfamiliar dean for a new computer
6 –P, +D Student asks unfamiliar professor for extension
7 –P, –D Younger brother asks to borrow car from older brother
8 –P, –D Student asks familiar professor for retake on a test
9 =P, +D Employee asks unfamiliar coworker to cover shift
10 =P, +D Student asks to copy homework from unfamiliar classmate
11 =P, –D Asking to borrow friend’s apartment in Mecca
12 =P, –D Graduate student in US asks friend in home country to administer research questionnaire
In designing these scenarios, I followed several suggestions from the literature
aimed at reducing the potential shortcomings of DCTs. Test instructions and individual
items did not include the words favor asking, in order to avoid guiding subject toward
answering in any particular way (Beebe & Takashi, 1989). Items did not include any
rejoinder from the interlocutor, as some researchers believe that a hearer’s response may
affect how the subject responds to the test item (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989; Rose & Ono,
29
1995; Al-Momani, 2009). Test items did not specify the interlocutor’s gender, as
knowing the hearer’s gender might bias participants (Al-Momani).
Data Coding – Core Strategies and Modification
There is no widely accepted framework for analyzing favor asking, as few
linguists have investigated this speech act in detail. But since favors are defined as a
specialized kind of request, I used the CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka, et al.,
1989), since it is the most widely accepted framework for analyzing the speech act of
requests. This coding scheme focuses on two aspects of the speech act: the strategy used
to make the core request, and any accompanying linguistic devices used to modify the
request. Adapting this to my study of favor asking merely required that I analyze the core
strategy for asking the favor and any accompanying modifications.
Core strategies are assessed based on their level of directness. The CCSARP
identifies nine individual strategies, which can be divided into three broad classifications:
direct, conventional indirect, and nonconventional indirect (see Tables 3, 4, and 5 for
examples). Note that two of the nine strategies (explicit performatives and mild hints) did
not appear in the data and will, therefore, be omitted from all subsequent tables in the
Results section.
Table 3
Direct strategies for asking core favor
Strategy Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers
Mood derivable Grammatical mood of the verb indicates force
Help me with my car
30
Performative Explicitly mentions force of the request
I am asking you if there is a chance I can use your apartment
Hedge performative Modifies force by hedging I would like to ask you to use your car
Explicit performative Explicitly states hearer’s obligation to perform a task
n/a*
Want statement Indicates desire that the hearer perform a task
I really wish you’d give me more time for the paper
*This strategy was not used by any of the study’s participants
Table 4
Conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor
Strategy Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers
Query preparatory Asks about possibility of performing a task, typically using modal verbs
Can you give me an extension on my paper?
Suggestory formula Suggests that hearer perform a task
How about lending me some money?
Table 5
Non-conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor
Strategy Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers
Strong hint Explicitly refers to an element necessary for completing the task
Are you using your car today?
Mild hint Does not explicitly refer to necessary elements, but can be interpreted as a request
n/a*
*This strategy was not used by any of the study’s participants
Core strategies were always included in the head act – the portion of the discourse
31
“that might serve to realize the [speech] act independently of other elements” (Blum-
Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p.200). Modifications to the head act/core strategy occurred
both before and after. In the literature on requests, modification is considered to be
optional, with only a core strategy being obligatory. Many types of modifiers can be used
with the general purpose of improving the chance that the speech act will be successful
(the hearer will grant the favor). Blum-Kulka (1989) identified 21 modifications, 19 of
which were present in the data. See Table 6 below for examples. Modifications according
to Blum-Kulka are considered non-obligatory devices whose frequency can be affected
by variables such as power and distance.
Table 6
Modifications to core request (Blum-Kulka, 1989)
Type of modification Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers
Grounder Provides reasons or justification I missed class yesterday
Appreciation Expresses gratitude for potential compliance
I would be grateful
Address alerter Addresses hearer by name, title, or other term expressing social standing
Ahmed [first name], brother, Doctor
Greeting alerter Initiates communication hello, peace be upon you
Politeness marker Conventional linguistic device for expressing politeness
excuse me, please
Small talk Informal discourse that reinforces social bond
How are you today?
Softener Reduces force of the request and potential loss of face
May Allah give you health
Play down Tones down the effect of an utterance
I was wondering if you can lend me the money?
Preparator Prepares hearer for the favor I want to ask you a favor
32
Disarmer Addresses hearer’s potential objections
I know my paper should have been done by today
Apology Expression of regret for imposing on the hearer
I apologize for coming to your office without an appointment
Imposition minimizer Reduces imposition on hearer I will return them in an orderly fashion
Consultative device Elicits the hearer’s opinion What do you think?
Affective appeal Invokes the hearer’s emotion I have no one to help me but you
Understater Adverbial modifier that under-represents some aspect of the topic
a few
just a little bit
Precommitment Gets hearer to commit to the request
Can you do me a favor?
Reward Offers compensation I’ll buy you dinner
Sweetener Compliments the hearer You’re the best brother
Conditional clause
Posits condition under which the favor might be carried out
If you are not using the car can I take it?
In analyzing the participants’ responses, I also identified one additional
modification that occurred with considerable frequency, namely oath-taking. According
to Ab-del Jawad (2000), oath-taking or oath-taking is common in Arabic-speaking
cultures, and is typically used to demonstrate sincerity or intensify trust and belief. All
tokens of oath-taking in the present study made explicit reference to god (e.g., I swear to
Allah). See Table 7 for examples.
33
Table 7
Additional modifications outside the CCSARP coding scheme
Type of modification
Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers
Oath-taking Offering an oath as to the truthfulness of an utterance
I swear I will bring it back I swear this is important
34
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This section begins with an overview of the findings regarding core strategy use
and modification. Afterwards, each of the three power dynamics (+P, –P, =P) are
discussed, including an analysis of all 12 individual scenarios. For each scenario, two
sample responses are presented.
Core Strategy Use Across All Scenarios
Conventional indirect strategies (221 tokens out of 360 participant responses)
were considerably more frequent than direct strategies (137 tokens), and nonconventional
indirect strategies were extremely rare (2 tokens). Kuwaiti Arabic speakers’ preference
for conventional indirectness when asking a favor is consistent with the nearly universal
preference for indirectness, by speakers of many other languages, when making requests
(House & Kasper, 1987).
Chi-squares analysis was performed to determine the effects of power and
distance on core strategy use. In both cases, the category of nonconventional indirectness
was not considered, as there were not enough tokens for valid statistical comparison.
Statistical analysis showed that power had a significant effect on strategy use, but
distance did not. Direct strategies were strongly preferred in +P scenarios, but
conventional indirect strategies were strongly preferred in both –P and =P scenarios
(χ²=74.1, df=1, p<0.0001). See Table 8 below for strategy use in all power dynamics.
Distance did not have a significant effect on the distribution of direct and conventional
35
indirect strategies (χ²=1.64, df=1, p=0.201). See Table 9 below for strategy use in +D and
–D scenarios.
Table 8
Strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios
All scenarios (N=360)
+P scenarios (N=120)
–P scenarios (N=120)
=P scenarios (N=120)
Conventional indirect 221 37 96 88
Direct 137 83 23 31
Nonconventional indirect 2 0 1 1
Table 9
Strategy use in +D and –D scenarios
All scenarios (N=360)
+D scenarios (N=180)
–D scenarios (N=180)
Conventional indirect 221 104 117
Direct 137 74 63
Nonconventional indirect 2 2 0
Direct strategies consisted primarily of hedge performatives (69 tokens) and want
statements (51 tokens). Both mood derivables (12 tokens) and explicit performatives (5
tokens) were much less common, and occurred almost exclusively in the two +P, +D
scenarios (all but 2 tokens). The direct strategy of performatives was not used by any of
the respondents in all 16 scenarios, so it has been omitted from all subsequent tables in
order to simplify them.
36
Conventional indirect strategies consisted primarily of query preparatory (179
tokens), with much more limited use of suggestory formula (42 tokens). Nonconventional
indirect strategies were exclusively strong hints – as mild hints were not used by
respondents in any of the sixteen scenarios, they too have been omitted from all
subsequent tables.
Modification Across All scenarios
An ANOVA was performed to determine whether power affected respondents’
use of modification to the core favor. It showed highly significant differences between
their use of modification in +P, –P, and =P scenarios. Tukey’s multiple comparison
procedure was then performed on the mean number of modifications per response in each
power dynamic, and these tests also found significant differences between all three
means. See Table 10 below. +P speakers used the fewest modifiers, while =P speakers
used the most.
Table 10
Modifications per favor
Modifications per response
(mean)*
Standard error per
group
all +P scenarios 6.24a 0.092447
all –P scenarios 7.97b 0.080721
all =P scenarios 10.23c 0.098370
F value from ANOVA=718.43 df=2 and 58 p<0.0001
* Where the means have a different letter in subscript, their differences were statistically significant based on Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure.
37
Grounders, appreciation, and address alerters were the most commonly used
modifiers, with rewards, sweeteners, and conditional clauses being least frequent. Power
had a significant effect on the frequency of many individual modifiers, but distance
affected only eight. See Tables 11 and 12.
Table 11
Modifier use across all power relations
All scenarios (N=360)
+P scenarios (N=120)
–P scenarios (N=120)
=P scenarios (N=120)
Grounder 340 (94%) 110 (92%) 116 (97%) 114 (95%)
Appreciation 316 (87%) 99 (83%) 103 (86%) 114 (95%)
Address alerter 310 (86%) 76 (63%) 120 (100%) 114 (95%)
Greeting alerter 253 (70%) 95 (79%) 48 (40%) 110 (92%)
Politeness marker 250 (69%) 57 (48%) 93 (78%) 100 (83%)
Small talk 239 (66%) 66 (55%) 56 (47%) 117 (98%)
Softener 164 (46%) 51 (43%) 38 (32%) 75 (63%)
Play down 135 (38%) 46 (38%) 47 (39%) 42 (35%)
Preparator 127 (35%) 42 (35%) 43 (36%) 42 (35%)
Disarmer 121 (34%) 20 (13%) 43 (36%) 58 (48%)
Apology 119 (33%) 0 39 (33%) 80 (67%)
Imposition minimizer 117 (33%) 18 (15%) 63 (53%) 36 (30%)
Consultative device 85 (24%) 31 (26%) 19 (16%) 35 (29%)
Oath-taking 67 (19%) 0 19 (16%) 48 (40%)
Affective appeal 66 (18%) 12 (10%) 27 (23%) 27 (23%)
Understater 65 (18%) 13 (11%) 19 (16%) 33 (28%)
Precommitment 63 (18%) 18 (15%) 10 (8%) 35 (29%)
Reward 47 (13%) 0 12 (10%) 35 (29%)
Sweetener 37 (10%) 0 35 (29%) 2 (2%)
Conditional clause 16 (4%) 1 (1%) 5 (%) 10 (8%)
38
Table 12
Modifier frequency by distance
+D scenarios (N=180)
–D scenarios (N=180)
Significant?
Grounder 169 (94%) 171 (95%) No (χ²=0.02, p=.645)
Appreciation 154 (86%) 162 (90%) No (χ²=1.66, p=.198)
Address alerter 151 (84%) 149 (83%) No (χ²=0.08, p=.077)
Greeting alerter 141 (78%) 112 (62%) Yes (χ²=11.1, p<.0001)
Politeness marker 154 (86%) 96 (53%) Yes (χ²=44.0, p<.0001)
Small talk 86 (48%) 153 (85%) Yes (χ²=55.8, p<.0001)
Softener 66 (37%) 98 (54%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p<.0001)
Play down 66 (37%) 69 (38%) No (χ²=0.10, p=.743)
Preparator 27 (15%) 100 (56%) Yes (χ²=64.8, p<.0001)
Disarmer 55 (31%) 66 (37%) No (χ²=1.50, p=.219)
Apology 63 (35%) 56 (31%) No (χ²=0.61, p=.432)
Imposition minimizer 32 (18%) 85 (47%) Yes (χ²=35.5, p<.0001)
Consultative device 37 (21%) 48 (27%) No (χ²=1.86, p=.172)
Oath-taking 21 (12%) 46 (26%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p=.0007)
Affective appeal 28 (16%) 38 (21%) No (χ²=1.85, p=.173)
Understater 35 (19%) 30 (17%) No (χ²=0.46, p=.493)
Precommitment 31 (17%) 32 (18%) No (χ²=0.01, p=.889)
Reward 28 (16%) 19 (11%) No (χ²=1.98, p=.159)
Sweetener 6 (3%) 31 (17%) Yes (χ²=18.8, p<.0001)
Conditional clause 10 (6%) 6 (3%) No (χ²=1.04, p=.306)
Chi-square tests were performed to determine whether there was a significant
difference in a modifier’s frequency between +D and –D scenarios. When there was, the
final column is marked yes and entire row is bolded.
39
Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P)
In the four +P scenarios, direct strategies (83 tokens) were preferred over
conventionally indirect (37 tokens), and non-conventionally indirect strategies were not
used. Distribution of all nine strategies is depicted in Table 13. Participants used an
average of 6.29 modifiers per response. Modifier frequency across all four scenarios is
depicted in Table 14.
Table 13
Core strategy use in +P scenarios
40
Table 14
Modification in +P scenarios
Type of modification
Scenario 1
(+P, +D)
Scenario 2
(+P, +D)
Scenario 3
(+P, -D)
Scenario 4
(+P, -D)
Significant difference between +/–D
Grounder 28 26 27 29 No (χ²=0.43, p=.508)
Appreciation 26 24 22 27 No (χ²=0.05, p=.810)
Address alerter 7 30 9 30 No (χ²=0.14, p=.704)
Greeting alerter 27 24 14 30 No (χ²=2.47, p=.115)
Politeness marker
23 24 5 5 Yes (χ²=45.7, p<.0001)
Small talk 0 6 30 30 Yes (χ²=98.1, p<.0001)
Softener 7 7 19 18 Yes (χ²=18.0, p<.0001)
Play down 8 13 11 14 No (χ²=0.56, p=.452)
Preparator 0 4 16 22 Yes (χ²=42.3, p<.0001)
Disarmer 3 0 14 3 Yes (χ²=11.7, p=.0006)
Apology 0 0 0 0 n/a
Imposition minimizer
0 0 18 0 Yes (χ²=21.1, p<.0001)
Consultative 0 6 12 13 Yes (χ²=15.7, p<.0001)
Oath-taking 0 0 0 0 n/a
Affective appeal 1 9 2 0 Yes (χ²=5.92, p=.014)
Understater 0 3 5 5 Yes (χ²=4.22, p=.039)
Precommitment 0 3 8 7 Yes (χ²=9.41, p=.002)
Reward 0 0 0 0 n/a
Sweetener 0 0 0 0 n/a
Conditional clause
1 0 0 0 No (χ²=1.00, p=.315)
Total 131 179 212 233
All modification total
755
41
Scenario 1: Speaker of higher power, with distance (+P, +D)
Q: You are the dean of a university; your car has broken down. You see a previous
student whom you do not know well. You need to ask for help. What do you say?
Direct strategies for asking the core favor were most common (24 tokens) than
conventional indirect (6 tokens), and non-conventional indirect strategies were not used.
Respondents used an average of 4.37 modifiers to the core favor, with extensive use of
appreciation (26 tokens), grounders (28 tokens), and politeness markers (23 tokens). See
Table 15 below for examples.
Table 15
Modification in Scenario 1 (+P, +D)
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 27 Peace be upon you
Address alerter 7 My son
Small talk 0
Imposition minimizer 0 I can return it by the end of the month
Disarmer 3 I hate to inconvenience you
Appreciation 26 I would be very grateful
Grounder 28 I turned it on but it doesn’t work
Softener 7 may Allah give you long life
Politeness marker 23 Excuse me
Play down 8 I wonder if
Conditional clause 1 If you are free I want you to please come look at my car
Consultative device 0
Understater 0
Preparator 0
Precommitment 0
42
Affective appeal 1 There is no one to help me but you
Sweetener 0
Apology 0
Reward 0
Oath-taking 0
Total: 131
Example response 1, from scenario 1 (+P, +D)
��� ا���م �� � �� ا()'� &�و�". %$#" إذا ا����ر� ا���ف ا��� �� و���، � أ�� *(��� .�� (�آ- أآ�ن.
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter], I don’t want to interrupt your time [disarmer] But
I’d like to ask you to look at my car [hedge performative] please [politeness marker]. I
tried to turn it on but it doesn’t work [grounder]. I would really appreciate it
[appreciation].
Example response 2 (+P, +D)
� %��ر��، ا���ف ا��� ���، ا���م إو��/ي ،*(���.�� (�آ- أآ�ن
Son [address alerter] peace be upon you [greeting alerter] I want you to look at my car
[want statement] please [politeness marker]. It isn’t working [grounder]. I would
appreciate it [appreciation].
Scenario 2: Speaker of higher power, with distance (+P, +D)
Q: You are the head of a computer department that has installed a piece of new software
that you are unfamiliar with. You know that one of your new employees is very
knowledgeable of how it works. You need his help. What do you say?
43
Direct strategies (22 tokens) were heavily preferred over conventional indirect (8
tokens), with no use of nonconventional indirect strategies. Respondents used 5.97
modifiers per response, with heavy use of appreciation (24 tokens) and play down (13
tokens), and limited small talk (6 tokens). See Table 16 below for examples.
Table 16
Modification in Scenario 2
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 24 Hey, Hello, peace be upon you
Address alerter 30 Abdullah, Mohammed, Essa
Small talk 6 Do you have a lot of work?
Imposition minimizer 0
Disarmer 0
Appreciation 24 I would appreciate it
Grounder 26 I do not know the new software well
Softener 7 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 24 Please, excuse me
Play down 13 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 6 How about we meet after work
Understater 3 I believe this will take very little time
Preparator 4 I would like to ask you a favor
Precommitment 3 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 9 I have no one to ask but you
Sweetener 0
Apology 0
Reward 0
Oath-taking 0
Total: 179
44
Example Response 3 (+P, +D)
7� أ6�. �/ 1 ك � ا43 أ�� إ�2-ا&1 0'/، ��� ا���م � 8 �6-� -� �7 ا43 أ�� إو.ا��/9/ ا��$��� �7$:� ا(�ن إ
; �� (�آ- أآ�ن /ل، إ�:-0; ا�6 %$:". ا%�>//�� .
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Fahad [address alerter], I actually want to ask you
for a favor [preparator]. I am unfamiliar with the new software [grounder]. I’d like you
to teach me how to use them [hedge performative] I hear you know it well [grounder]. I
would appreciate you helping me with it [appreciation].
Example Response 4 (+P, +D)
� إ�:$7� 0����. ا(�19 ا%�>/م أ-ف أ6� /ل، ا��/9/ ا��-6� A& 8 ا�:-ف ا�6 %$:" أ6� إ�2-ا&1 ا��)*؟ ا(�ن �/? ه�
-Bآ- وآ�ن. %$#" إذا أآ�) ��.
Hello [greeting alerter] Abdullah [address alerter], how is work [small talk]? I actually
have heard that you know the new software well. I know it slightly [grounder]. So I want
you to please teach me more about it [want statement]. I would appreciate it
[appreciation].
Scenario 3: Speaker of higher power, no distance (+P, –D)
Q: You want to ask your younger brother for money in order to be able to buy a car. You
have been saving money, but need more to be able to make the purchase. What do you
say?
This was the only +P scenario in which conventionally indirect strategies (16
tokens) were more common than direct strategies (14 tokens). There was no use of
nonconventional indirect strategies. Respondents used an average of 7.63 modifiers per
45
response, with heavy use of small talk (30 tokens), appreciation (22 tokens), softeners (19
tokens), imposition minimizers (18 tokens), and preparators (16 tokens). See Table 17
below for examples.
Table 17
Modification in Scenario 3
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 14 Hey, Hello
Address alerter 9 Ahmed, Fahad, Jassem
Small talk 30 How are you and the family?
Imposition minimizer 18 I can return it by the end of the month
Disarmer 14 I hate to inconvenience you
Appreciation 22 I would be very grateful
Grounder 27 I need to buy a car soon the old one keeps breaking down
Softener 19 may Allah give you long life
Politeness marker 5 please
Play down 11 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 12 Do you think you would be able to lend me the money?
Understater 5 A little bit
Preparator 16 I would like to ask you a favor
Precommitment 8 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 2 I have no one to ask but you
Sweetener 0
Apology 0
Reward 0
Oath-taking 0
Total: 212
46
Example response 5 (+P, -D)
/ى %�ر�� إ�2-ا&1 أ6� �)�ل، � ا? ا ��رك،ا�6�ء ا(��6 E$9س أ�ن إ0�� H0�� .�I-ة ��#�� ا�H�س �� %��رة ا(�-ي
J�ل �7H�� .ا�:���O:9 ;�0 ر�� �N. ا��'- �M- ارده� راح ا�H�س؟ إ
Mobarak [address alerter], how are you [small talk]? I hope you are not busy [disarmer].
Honestly I have saved money to buy a car but I am still short [grounder].I wonder if [play
down] you can you lend me the money [query preparatory]? I will return it by the end of
the month [imposition miminizer]. May Allah give you health [softener].
Example response 6 (+P, -D)
�7 أ�� إ�2-ا&1 6�أ �$�م؟ (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء ا��'�ل و(�ن &$/، ا(��6 1 ا�$�P �� %��ر� ا(�-ي ��ن �P إ �$E أ6�. �/
� J�ل 0�. آ�0� �7H�� .ا�:���O:9 ;�0 ا? �N او (�-�� وآ�ن. و�" إ�R%-ع ارده� إ�/ر6� ر�� و�6* ا�$�P، إ
How are you Hamad [greeting alerter] and how are the kids I hope all is well [small
talk]. I actually want to ask you for a favor [preparator], I have saved an amount to buy a
car and it is not enough [grounder]. Is there a possibility to lend me the account [query
preparatory] and God willing I will return it as soon as possible [imposition minimizer]. I
would appreciate it [appreciation] May you always have strength [softener].
Scenario 4: Speaker of higher power, no distance (+P, –D)
Q: You are the head of a department at work. You want to ask one of your male
employees, who has been with the company for 15 years and owns an interior design
business, to help you design the interior decor for one of the office’s conference rooms.
He will not be paid for his services. What do you say?
47
In Scenario 4, direct strategies were preferred (23 tokens) over conventional
indirect (7 tokens), with no use of nonconventional indirect strategies. Respondents used
7.77 modifiers per response, with extensive use of small talk (30 tokens), appreciation
(27 tokens), softeners (18 tokens), and preparators (22 tokens). See Table 18 below.
Table 18
Modification in Scenario 4
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 30 Hey, Hello
Address alerter 30 Brother Seood, Bo Fahed, Jassem
Small talk 30 How are you and how is your business?
Imposition minimizer 0
Disarmer 3 I know you may be busy at your business
Appreciation 27 We would be thankful
Grounder 29 The company is thinking of changing the interior decor
Softener 18 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 5 please
Play down 14 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 13 Do you think you can do the interior for us
Understater 5 It is only a little work
Preparator 22 I would like to ask a favor from you
Precommitment 7 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 0
Sweetener 0
Apology 0
Reward 0
Oath-taking 0
48
Example response 7, (+P, -D)
�7 �)" ا�:��ل؟ و(�ن ا(��6؟ ا%:�د، ا��ي ه� ،1 /� ;0-S ت��$�UVا "�� #��U; ا��-آ1 ،*9/�� � ا�$�Wا1�6 إو X$��
*9/����� .�� ��6 3O� �7 *9/�� �. �7� ا�/��9ر �� ،- � د�19 ���ن �-ي ا(�"، $��6�7، و��6ن أ�& A& آ��-).
Hello [greeting alerter] brother Seood [address alerter], how are you? And how are the
kids? [small talk] I would like to ask a favor from you [preparator]. The meeting room in
the company needs to be changed and because of budget restraints we can’t afford to
change it [grounder]. But we’d like to ask you to do the interior changes for us [hedge
performative]. With no demand on you [softener]. We would really appreciate it
[appreciation]. What do you think? [consultative device].It would be good publicity for
your company [reward].
Example response 8, (+P, -D)
#��1U (-آ�7� �� �)��1، (-آ�� ان أدري �/ 1؟ �7 ا43 أ�/ر إ�2-ا&1 ا��)*؟ و(�ن ا ��رك �� ا(��6 *9/��
�ت A& ;0-S ا�/��9رات�$�UVأو ا �ا7��6W� �:��16، وا9/ ��$�0 � �7 ا43 أ�� �� .�� Y6 E0/6/ر 16/:�� ا�)-0;، ��/9* 0� إ
� �� - �Y/ر �:�Y/. أ �'9��� .�� (�آ-�9 ا��6ن �7�؟ إ
How are you bo Mobarak and how is work [greeting alerter and address alerter]?
Actually can I ask you for a favor? [pre-commitment]. I know that you have a busy
interior business [disarmer] but the company needs to change the interior of the meeting
room and we are on a tight budget so we may not be able to pay you [grounder] so I want
you to change it for us [want statement], with no demand on you [softener] do you think
you can do it? [consultative] We would appreciate it [appreciation].
49
Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P)
In the four –P scenarios, conventionally indirect strategies (96 tokens) were
heavily preferred over direct (23 tokens) and nonconventional indirect strategies (1
token). See Table 19. Participants used an average of 8.03 modifiers per response. See
Table 20 for modification in all four scenarios.
Table 19
Core strategy use in –P scenarios
50
Table 20
Modification in –P scenarios
Type of modification
Scenario 5
(–P, +D)
Scenario 6
(–P, +D)
Scenario 7
(–P, –D)
Scenario 8
(–P, –D)
Significant difference between +/–D
Grounder 28 29 29 30 No (χ²=1.03, p=.309)
Appreciation 26 22 27 28 No (χ²=3.35, p=.066)
Address alerter 30 30 30 30 n/a
Greeting alerter 24 14 4 6 Yes (χ²=27.2, p<.0001)
Politeness marker
18 30 22 23 Yes (χ²=7.56, p=.005)
Small talk 18 2 26 10 Yes (χ²=8.57, p=.003)
Softener 9 8 12 9 No (χ²=0.61, p=.432)
Play down 8 19 8 12 No (χ²=1.71, p=.190)
Preparator 2 7 22 12 Yes (χ²=22.6, p<.0001)
Disarmer 14 12 8 9 No (χ²=2.93, p=.086)
Apology 0 17 0 22 No (χ²=0.94, p=.329)
Imposition minimizer
9 16 20 18 Yes (χ²=5.64, p=.017)
Consultative 2 0 3 14 Yes (χ²=14.0, p=.0001)
Oath-taking 0 0 11 8 Yes (χ²=24.0, p<.0001)
Affective appeal 0 1 11 15 Yes (χ²=29.8, p<.0001)
Understater 2 14 3 0 Yes (χ²=10.5, p=.001)
Precommitment 3 0 7 0 No (χ²=1.74, p=.186)
Reward 0 0 12 0 Yes (χ²=13.3, p=.0002)
Sweetener 0 4 17 14 Yes (χ²=29.4, p<.0001)
Conditional clause
0 5 0 0 Yes (χ²=5.21, p=.022)
Total 193 230 272 260
All modification total
955
51
Scenario 5: Speaker of lower power, with distance (-P, +D)
Q: Your department provides computers to certain professors each year based on
seniority. You are not one of the professors scheduled to receive a computer soon, but the
department is always given more computers than needed. You would like to ask the dean,
whom you do not know well, for one of the computers before they are returned. What do
you say?
Conventional indirect strategies (22 tokens) were preferred over direct (7 tokens)
and nonconventional indirect strategies (1 token). Participants used an average of 6.43
modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (26 tokens), small talk (18
tokens), politeness markers (18 tokens), and disarmers (14 tokens). See Table 21 below
for examples.
Table 21
Modification in Scenario 5
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 24 Peace be upon you
Address alerter 30 Doctor
Small talk 18 How are you?
Imposition minimizer 9 I will not take much of your time
Disarmer 14 I hate to inconvenience you
Appreciation 26 I would be very grateful
Grounder 28 My computer is old and I need a new one
Softener 9 may Allah give you health
Politeness marker 18 Please, excuse me
Play down 8 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 2 Do you think
52
Understater 2 Can I take a little of your time
Preparator 2 I would like to ask a favor from you
Precommitment 3 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 0
Sweetener 0
Apology 0
Reward 0
Oath-taking 0
Total: 193
Example response 9
�6� �� ��9 أدري. دآ��ر ���، ا���م ��� 0�. وا&/ #��ج وا6� Z9�د، آ$����-ات 3�:9 ا���Y �� و���، � وا9/
J�ل 1�6�� ���ر إو $�7ن، وا&/؟أآ�ن ا&2* أ�/ر إ.
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter], Doctor [address alerter]. I will not take much of
your time [disarmer]. However, the department has brought in new computers and I need
one [grounder]. Is there any chance I can get one? [query preparatory] I would be very
appreciative, thank you [appreciation].
Example response 10
M\% N أ6� ا(��6؟ دآ��ر ��� ا���م �U� #��ج أ6� ��. از -� O� �73 7�0". ا��)* &A 9/9/ آ$��� ��-0�� إذا وا&/ إ
.�� (�آ- أآ�ن. %$#"
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor, [address alerter] how are you? [small talk].
I apologize [apology] for the inconvenience [disarmer]. However, I am in need of a new
computer for work [grounder]. So I wanted to ask you to please provide one for me [want
statement], I would appreciate it [appreciation].
53
Scenario 6: Speaker with lower power, plus distance (-P, +D)
Q: You have to submit a paper to a professor who you do not know well. You have not
finished writing your paper, and you want to ask the professor for an extension. What
do you say?
Conventional indirect strategies were most common (22 tokens), followed by
direct strategies (8 tokens). Nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all.
Participants averaged 7.93 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (22
tokens), apology (17 tokens), play down (19 tokens), and imposition minimizers (16
tokens). Small talk was minimal (2 tokens). See Table 22 for examples.
Table 22
Modification in Scenario 6
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 14 Peace be upon you
Address alerter 30 Doctor
Small talk 2 How are you?
Imposition minimizer 16 I will not take much of your time
Disarmer 12 I don’t want to take much of your time
Appreciation 22 I would appreciate it
Grounder 29 I worked on it but it seems I need more time
Softener 8 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 30 Please, excuse me
Play down 19 I wonder if
Conditional clause 5 If it is all right with you can you give me more time?
Consultative device 0
54
Understater 14 I just need a little more time
Preparator 7 I need to ask you for a favor
Precommitment 0
Affective appeal 1 I really need your help on this
Sweetener 4 This is one of the classes I am most interested in
Apology 17 I am sorry to ask you this
Reward 0
Oath-taking 0
Total: 230
Example response 11
� 9��9 إن M N%\ أ6� دآ��ر، �Hا -�S /� �)�ل أآ�/ ا�6 أدري أ6�. ./ أآ$� �)�" ��. أ�4ل راح � ا6� كأو
إذا از9�د� و�" �:7�O� إ ��1�6 0�.`-وف 7/ي 0� آ�ن _ن أ�2'� �/رت � _6� إ���م، ���$'� إ�� ا��ر�1 �>�2ص
.وا9/ �� (�آ- أآ�ن. %$#"
Excuse me [politeness marker] professor [address alerter], I apologize [apology] for
coming to your office without an appointment, I know you must be busy [disarmer] I
promise I won’t be long [imposition minimizer] However, I wanted to speak to you about
the paper which is due today I was unable to finish it due to some circumstances
[grounder] So can you please give me more time [query prepartory]. I would really
appreciate it [appreciation].
Example response 12
_6�. و�" إ(�9" #��ج ��. ا��ر�1 أ%� ��ن از9�د و�" �:7�O� ودي �� M%\ أ6� ا(��6؟ دآ��ر ��� ا���م
"'Uآ* و�� �� (�-�� أآ�ن. آ$����-ي و9; /�� .
55
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor. [address alerter] How are you? [small talk]
I am so sorry [apology] But I’d like to ask you to give me more time to submit the paper
please [hedge performative]. I just need a little more time [understater]. I had problems
with my computer last week [grounder]. I would appreciate it if you could help me
[appreciation].
Scenario 7: Speaker with lower power, no distance (-P, -D)
Q. You want to ask your older brother for his new car to go out with friends. What do
you say?
Conventional indirect strategies were heavily preferred (27 tokens) over direct (3
tokens), and nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all. Participants used an
average of 6.43 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (27 tokens),
small talk (26 tokens), imposition minimizer (20 tokens), and sweeteners (17 tokens), and
rewards (12 tokens). See Table 23 for examples.
Table 23
Modification in Scenario 7
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 4 Hey, Hello
Address alerter 30 Ali, Abdulrahmaan, Abdullah
Small talk 26 How is it going?
Imposition minimizer 20 We are only going to the restaurant and coming back
Disarmer 8 I hate to inconvenience you
Appreciation 27 I would be very grateful
Grounder 29 All of my friends take me every weekend
56
Softener 12 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 22 please
Play down 8 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 3 What do you think of giving me your car for today?
Understater 3 I want it just for a little bit
Preparator 22 I would like to ask a favor from you
Precommitment 7 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 11 You’re the only one that can help me
Sweetener 17 You are great
Apology 0
Reward 12 Next week I am willing to do anything for you
Oath-taking 11 I swear I will bring it back
Total: 272
Example response 13
N إ���م :Wوم إ���ي؟أ6� �/إ(6 J�I- ه� "�� ،�J�0ر N0 1�6�� .�� (�آ- أآ�ن.إ ��- أرEU أو/ك %��ر��؟ إ��7H� إ
Hey [greeting alerter] Naser [address alerter], what are you doing [small talk]? I am
invited tonight to a gathering at a friend’s house [grounder], can I borrow your car
[query preparatory]? I promise to come early [imposition minimizer]. I would be so
grateful. [appreciation].
Example response 14
/ ه� �/ا�-&$�ن، ه��J)ي؟ إ���/ آ7" إ�U -�0إذا إن أ � J�ل 0� إ���م، (� 7/ك �7�O:� ����ن %��ر E4أ �ا�- و9،E�
.�� (�آ- أآ�ن (�7
57
Hey, [greeting alerter] Abdulrahmaan, [address alerter] so what are you up to? I was
actually thinking if you are not doing anything today [small talk] I wonder [play
down] if you can give me your car [query preparatory] to go out with friends
[grounder] I will not be long we are only going to go to one place [imposition
minimizer]. I will even wash the car before I return it [reward]. What do you say
[consultative]?
Scenario 8: Speaker with lower power, no distance (-P, -D)
Q: You are taking a course with a professor you know well. You want to ask him if
you can retake a test since you did not do well on the previous one. What do you say?
Conventional indirect strategies were heavily favored (25 tokens) over direct
strategies (5 tokens), while nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all.
Participants used an average of 7.67 modifiers per response, with extensive use of
sweeteners (14 tokens), affective appeals (15 tokens), apology (22 tokens), imposition
minimizers (18 tokens), consultative devices (14 tokens). See Table 24 for examples.
Table 24
Modification in Scenario 8
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 6 Hey, Hello, peace be upon you
Address alerter 30 Dr.
Small talk 10 How are you?
Imposition minimizer 18 I won’t be long
Disarmer 9 I don’t want to impose
Appreciation 28 I would be very grateful
58
Grounder 30 I studied hard but didn’t seem to do well
Softener 9 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 23 please
Play down 12 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 14 Do you think that I can retake the test
Understater 0
Preparator 12 Do you think that there is a possibility
Precommitment 0
Affective appeal 15 There is no one to help me but you
Sweetener 14 This is one of the best classes I have taken
Apology 22 I am sorry to be asking you this
Reward 0
Oath-taking 8 I swear I need your help
Total: 260
Example response 15
�� 0� ز�9 وا9/ ��يإ _6� إ�2-ا&; أ6� و���، ، � وا��M /9 راح � إو. اVز�ج M N%\ أ6�. دآ��ر ��� ا���م-a�# .
�� � �#�ن 0� ز9�% �9" Vإذا ���ف 7�0".ا_��- ا �ل 0�J /� �#�ن أV; وا?. ادر%� �� � 0$#��ج.ز9�% �9"
�/ .�� (�آ- وآ�ن ا�$��
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor [address alerter]. I apologize for the
inconvenience [disarmer]. This will not take long [imposition minimizer] I have come to
talk to you because I didn’t do well on the last test [grounder]. So I wonder [play down]
if there a possibility that I can retake the exam [query preparatory]? I swear I studied for
it but didn’t do well [oath-taking] so I really need your help [affective appeal] I would
appreciate it [appreciation].
59
Example response 16
/ _6� أآ$� 9�ي أ6� ��. �)�ل ا�6 أدري ا(��6؟ دآ��ر ��� ا���م�U ��&أ �6_ � �#�ن ز9�% �9" b� �إ�
�#�ن أ�/ ا6� J�ل 0� إذا ���ف 7�0".0�تVآ- أآ�ن. ا�إو ��، ( ��O:9 ;�0�:ا�.
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor [address alerter], how are you? [small talk].
I know you must be busy [disarmer]. But I wanted to talk to you because I am worried
since I didn’t do well on the last test [grounder] So do you think [consultative] that there
is a possibility you would give me a retake [query preparatory]. I would appreciate it
[appreciation] and may Allah give you health [softener].
Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P)
In the four =P scenarios, conventionally indirect strategies were most common
(88 tokens), with moderate use of direct strategies (31 tokens) and limited use of
nonconventional indirect strategies (1 token). Distribution of all nine strategies is
depicted in Table 25. Modification to the core favor was typically extensive, with
participants using an average of 10.23 modifiers per response. Modifier frequency across
all four scenarios is depicted in Table 26.
60
Table 25
Core strategy use in =P scenarios
Table 26
Modification in =P scenarios
Type of modification
Scenario 9
(=P, +D)
Scenario 10
(=P, +D)
Scenario 11
(=P, –D)
Scenario 12
(=P, –D)
Significant difference between +/–D
Grounder 30 28 29 27 No (χ²=0.70, p=.402)
Appreciation 30 26 29 29 No (χ²=0.70, p=.402)
Address alerter 24 30 30 30 Yes (χ²=6.31, p=.011)
Greeting alerter 30 24 26 30 No (χ²=0.43, p=.508)
Politeness marker
28 23 23 26 No (χ²=0.24, p=.624)
Small talk 30 30 27 30 No (χ²=3.07, p=.079)
Softener 17 18 18 22 No (χ²=0.88, p=.345)
Play down 13 5 16 8 No (χ²=1.31, p=.250)
Preparator 8 6 19 9 Yes (χ²=7.17, p=.007)
Disarmer 12 14 14 18 No (χ²=1.20, p=.273)
Apology 21 25 19 15 Yes (χ²=5.40, p=.020)
Imposition minimizer
7 0 12 17 Yes (χ²=19.2, p<.0001)
61
Consultative 17 12 6 0 Yes (χ²=21.3, p<.0001)
Oath-taking 11 10 13 14 No (χ²=1.25, p=.263)
Affective appeal 9 8 4 6 No (χ²=2.34, p=.125)
Understater 14 2 5 12 No (χ²=0.04, p=.838)
Precommitment 13 12 6 4 Yes (χ²=9.07, p=.002)
Reward 13 15 2 5 Yes (χ²=, p<.0001)
Sweetener 0 2 0 0 No (χ²=2.03, p=.153)
Conditional clause
4 0 0 6 No (χ²=0.43, p=.508)
Total 331 290 298 308
All modifications total
1227
Scenario 9: Speaker of equal power, with distance (=P +D)
Q: You want to ask to ask a new co-worker to cover your shift at work because you
have a doctor’s appointment. What do you say?
Conventionally indirect strategies (25 tokens) were strongly preferred over direct
(5 tokens), and nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all. Participants used
an average of 11.03 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (30
tokens), small talk (30 tokens), apology (21 tokens), consultative devices (17 tokens),
softeners (17 tokens), precommitment (13 tokens), play down (13 tokens), and oath-
taking (11 tokens). See Table 27 for examples.
Table 27
Modification in Scenario 9
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 30 Hey, Hello, peace be upon you
62
Address alerter 24 Ahmed, Jassem, Abdullah
Small talk 30 How is work?
Imposition minimizer 7 It will only be two hours
Disarmer 12 I don’t want to distract you
Appreciation 30 I would really appreciate it
Grounder 30 I need to see the doctor
Softener 17 May Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 28 Please, excuse me
Play down 13 I wonder if
Conditional clause 4 If you are not very busy
Consultative device 17 Do you think it would be possible
Understater 14 I don’t have a lot of work this time
Preparator 8 I really need to ask a favor
Precommitment 13 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 9 This would really help me
Apology 21 I apologize for asking you this
Sweetener 0
Reward 13 I hope I can repay you in the future
Oath-taking 11 I swear this is important
Total: 331
Example response 17
�Y/ر #��ج أ6� �� �)�ل ا�6 ا(��6؟أدري أ&$/ ه�،1 /� ���� "Hا�� ��� A& ،. %$#" إذا إ���م�6_
��:/ أ6�. �� (�آ- أآ�ن ا�/آ��ر، &A أروح #��ج ��M أي "H) 7/كN ��ك إو.U/ام ��Jا�.
Hi [greeting alerter] Ahmed [address alerter] how are you? [small talk] I really need to
ask you a favor? [preparator]. I want you to please [politeness marker] take over my shift
for today [want statement] because I have to go to the doctor [grounder]. Do you think
63
you can do it? [consultative] I would appreciate it [appreciation] I will take over any shift
you need in the future [reward]. May Allah give you strength [softener].
Example response 18
�Y/ر ��ج # أ6� �� �)�ل ا�6 ا(��6؟أدري أ&$/ ه�،1 /� ���� "Hا�� ��� A& ،. %$#" إذا إ���م�6_
��:/ أ6�. �� (�آ- أآ�ن ا�/آ��ر، &A أروح #��ج ��M أي "H) 7/ك��ك إو.U/ام N ��Jا�.
Hi [greeting alerter] Ahmed [address alerter] how are you? [small talk] I really need to
ask you a favor? [preparator]. I want you to please [politeness marker] take over my shift
for today [want statement] because I have to go to the doctor [grounder]. Do you think
you can do it? [consultative] I would appreciate it [appreciation] I will take over any shift
you need in the future [reward]. May Allah give you strength [softener].
Scenario 10: Speaker of equal power, with distance (=P, +D)
Q: You have two hours to submit your homework, which you were unable to finish
because you were sick. You want to ask your classmate, who you have not known
long, if you can copy his. What would you say?
Conventional indirect strategies (21 tokens) were strongly preferred over direct (8
tokens) and nonconventional indirect strategies (1 token). Participants used an average of
9.67 modifiers per response, with extensive use of small talk (30 tokens), appreciation
(26 tokens), apology (25 tokens), softeners (18 tokens), and disarmers (14 tokens). Offers
of reward were frequent (15 tokens), though they had been nearly absent in most of the
other scenarios. See Table 28 below for examples.
64
Table 28
Modification in Scenario 10
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 24 Hey, Hello
Address alerter 30 Ahmed, Jassem
Small talk 30 How are you?
Imposition minimizer 0
Disarmer 14 I hate to inconvenience you
Appreciation 26 I would appreciate it
Grounder 28 I was very sick and couldn’t do the homework
Softener 18 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 23 please
Play down 5 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 12 What do you say?
Understater 2 It will take me a few minutes to copy
Preparator 6 I need to ask you a favor
Precommitment 12 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 8 I have no one to ask but you
Apology 25 I am so sorry
Sweetener 2 I swear I was very sick
Reward 15 I can help you with other classes
Oath-taking 10 I swear I couldn’t do it
Example response 19
/ ا6� M%\ إ���م؟أ6� ا(��6 ا #$/، ا��ي ه��U 34�7 ا آ7" _6� إ���م وا3U أ%�ي �/رت � وا? �� (�ء، ه*
.ا�:���O:9 ;�0 ا? اY6;؟ J�ل 0�.�:��ن
65
Hey [address marker] brother Mohammed [greeting alerters], how are you doing today
[small talk]? I am so sorry that I am asking you this [apology], but I swear [oath-taking]
that I wasn’t able to do today’s homework because I was sick [grounder]. I wonder [play
down] is there any way I can copy it [query preparatory]? May Allah give you health
[softener].
Example response 20
اب أ&�O ا6� M%\ أ6�. -d9 وا9/ آ7" _6� �/رت � إ���م؟أ6� وا3U ا�>c �/رت أدري � (>��رك؟ إو ا�-اه��؟ ا(��6
.ا�:���O:9 ;�0 ر�� �N. إ6" إ�N ا43 أ&/ 7/ي � �� ، ه��$��\
Hello, [greeting alerter] Ibrahim [address alerter], how are you [small talk]? I wonder
[play down] were you able to do today’s homework? [small talk] I wasn’t able to because
I was very sick [grounder]. I am sorry to put you in this position [apology], but I don’t
know anyone to ask but you [affective appeal]. I would really appreciate it
[appreciation]. May Allah give you strength [softener]
Scenario 11: Speaker of equal power, no distance (=P, -D)
Q: You know that your friend who owns an apartment in Mecca will not be using it
this year. You want to ask him if you can use it for a few days. What do you say?
Conventional indirect strategies were again strongly preferred (27 tokens) over
direct (3 tokens), and nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all. Participants
used an average of 9.94 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (29
tokens), small talk (27 tokens), apology (19 tokens), preparators (19 tokens), softeners
(18 tokens), and play down (16 tokens). See Table 29 below for examples.
66
Table 29
Modification in Scenario 11 (=P, –D)
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 26 Hey, Hello, peace be upon you
Address alerter 30 Bo Tareq, Bo Ali, Abdulrahmaan, Ahmed
Small talk 27 How are you?
Imposition minimizer 12 It will only be for a weekend
Disarmer 14 I hope it is no bother
Appreciation 29 I would be in debt to you
Grounder 29 I want to take the family but the hotels are expensive
Softener 18 may Allah give you strength
Politeness marker 23 please
Play down 16 I wonder if
Conditional clause 0
Consultative device 6 What do you say?
Understater 5 just a little
Preparator 19 I need to ask you a favor
Precommitment 6 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 4 You’re the only one I can ask
Apology 19 I apologize for asking you this
Sweetener 0
Reward 2 May Allah repay you
Oath-taking 13 I swear this would help me
Total: 298
Example response 21 (=P, –D)
آ�10، �0'� آ�ن � إذا. �1 0� إ�� (��Y إ%�>/ام �7 ا43 ودي أ6� �$�م؟ (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء زو��U؟ إو ا(��6 0'/ �� ه�
.�� (�آ- وآ�ن. وا9/ � او0- راح
67
Hey [greeting alerter], Bo Fahad [address alerter] how are you and the wife, I hope all is
well [small talk]? I’d like to ask you to use the Mecca apartment [hedge performative]. If
it is not an inconvenience can I use it [query preparatory] would save me a lot of money
[grounder] and I would appreciate it [appreciation].
Example response 22 (=P, –D)
ا���م��� �� ،/$# ا�:�1 أ�� أ�� _ن ، �0 1� ��Y) ا%�>/م J�ل 0� إذا ���ف آ7" إ�2-ا&1 أ6� �)�ل؟ � ا? إ�6�ء
.��-ك از9/ ر�� �N او. �� (�آ- ا()"؟أآ�ن. اه7�ك
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Bo Mohamad [address alerter], I hope you are not
busy? [disarmer] Actually I wanted to see if it would be possible to use the apartment in
Mecca [query preparatory], since I would like to take my family there [grounder]. What
do you say? [consultative] I would really be grateful [appreciation]. May Allah give add
to your wealth [softener].
Scenario 12: Speaker of equal power, no distance (=P, –D)
Q: You are a graduate student in a foreign country and need to ask a friend in your
home country to administer a questionnaire for your research. What do you say?
In this scenario, respondents showed an equal preference for direct (15 tokens)
and conventionally indirect strategies (15 tokens). Nonconventional indirect strategies
were not used. Responses averaged 10.27 modifiers per favor, with extensive use of small
talk (30 tokens), appreciation (29 tokens), softeners (22 tokens), disarmers (18 tokens),
imposition minimizers (17 tokens), apology (15 tokens), and understaters (12 tokens).
See Table 30 below for examples.
68
Table 30
Modification in Scenario 12
Type of modification
f Examples
Greeting alerter 30 Hey, Hello
Address alerter 30 Bo Tareq, Bo Ali, Abdulrahmaan
Small talk 30 How are you?
Imposition minimizer 17 It will only take 20 minutes
Disarmer 18 I hope I am not taking much of your time
Appreciation 29 I would appreciate it
Grounder 27 I have a study that I need to do
Softener 22 May Allah not take you away from us
Politeness marker 26 Please
Play down 8 I wonder
Conditional clause 6 If you are free I was wondering if you can distribute the questionnaire for me
Consultative device 0
Understater 12 it will take a little of your time
Preparator 9 I want to ask you for a favor
Precommitment 4 Can I ask you for a favor
Affective appeal 6 I really need your help
Apology 15 I am sorry
Sweetener 0
Reward 5 May Allah give us the strength to repay you
Oath-taking 14 I swear by Allah
Total: 308
69
Example response 23
��� ا���م ،/$# � إ��آ" �� داج � ا�6* ا�/وام؟ و(�ن ا(��6 3%�7 �7 ا43 داق أ6� إ�1&-2. 1 7/ي أ6�. �/
/ دراA& 1% ��9زع gزم ا%����ن�U �'9�%ذا. أh0 "7آ �`�ر 0/Y� 1 � Y6/ر ا? ا�6�ء. �� (�آ- ��؟أآ�ن إ��ز/<6 �0
*�Y��$ك إو. ا��� � ��Yا�.
Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Mohammed [address alerter], how are and how is
work? [small talk] I hope that I am not calling you at a bad time [disarmer]. I actually
want to ask you for a favor [preparator] I have a questionnaire that needs to be
distributed for a study [grounder]. So if you are free [conditional clause] can you
distribute it for me [query preparatory]. I would really appreciate it [appreciation] May I
be able to repay you in the future for any need [reward] and may Allah give you health
[softener].
Example response 24
#��ج �� RJ0ة، 4�� إن أدري ا_ه*؟ E او ا�/وام 0� �$�م (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء 0'/، �� ا(��6 ��/�� ا%����ن أوزع أ��.
.ا�:���O:9 1�0 ا? إو ��، (�آ- ا(Y"؟أآ�ن 7/ي،
Hello [greeting alerter] Bo Fahad [address alerter] I hope that you are doing well at
work, and god willing the family is doing well? [small talk] I know that this is short
notice [disarmer] so I will be very quick [imposition minimizer] but I really need your
help [affective appeal]. I want you to distribute the questionnaires that I have please
[Want statement + politeness marker], what do you say? [consultative] I would
appreciate it [appreciation]. May Allah give you health [softener].
70
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This section begins with a discussion of the overall findings in regards to the use
of core strategies and modifications. Next, Kuwaiti favor asking is compared to requests
by speakers of other varieties of Arabic. The three power dynamics (+P, –P, =P)
examined in the study will then be discussed, including sample responses from each. The
chapter concludes by offering suggestions for future research.
Core Strategy Use Across All Acenarios
Statistical analysis showed that power had a significant effect on strategy use, but
distance did not. Direct strategies were strongly preferred in +P scenarios, but
conventional indirect strategies were strongly preferred in both –P and =P scenarios
(χ²=74.1, df=1, p<0.0001). See Table 31. However, frequency of both strategy types did
not significantly vary from +D to –D scenarios (see Table 32). In all scenarios combined,
Kuwaitis showed an overall preference for conventional indirect strategies over direct
ones. This is consistent with a similar preference among speakers of numerous other
languages (e.g., Jalilifar, 2009; Perez-Parent, 2001; Tabar, 2012). From a pedagogical
perspective, one might therefore be inclined to emphasize both direct and indirect favor
asking strategies to Arabic learners, accompanied by a discussion of how social
relationships could influence which type of strategy was appropriate.
71
Table 31
Strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios
All scenarios (N=360)
+P scenarios (N=120)
–P scenarios (N=120)
=P scenarios (N=120)
Significant?
Conventional indirect
221 37 96 88 Yes (χ²=74.1, df=1, p<0.0001)
Direct 137 83 23 31
Nonconventional indirect
2 0 1 1 *
* Insufficient tokens for statistical comparison
Table 32
Strategy use in +D and –D scenarios
All scenarios (N=360)
+D scenarios (N=180)
–D scenarios (N=180)
Significant?
Conventional indirect 221 104 117 No (χ²=1.64, df=1, p=0.201) Direct 137 74 63
Nonconventional indirect 2 2 0 *
* Insufficient tokens for statistical comparison
Direct strategies were preferred only in +P scenarios, which suggests that being
direct is more acceptable for speakers with superior social status. Nonconventional
indirect strategies (hints) were extremely rare, with only 2 tokens from 360 responses.
Kuwaiti culture may be one of many that considers hints to be impolite “because they
indicate a lack of concern for pragmatic clarity” (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p.131). For
72
example, Lee-Wong (2000) found that hints were “the least preferred by Chinese native
speakers” (p. 75).
But the absence of hinting in the present may also be caused by the nature of the
speech act itself, as favor asking, by definition, requires a high degree of imposition and
occurs outside the daily routine (Goldschmidt, 1993). Because of this, a hint will not be
sufficient to cue the listener to what the speaker needs. In a typical every day situation,
such as eating dinner, a hint may be enough to cue the hearer to what the speaker wants
to ask for. If a speaker says, “Are you finished with that?”, the hearer will recognize the
utterance as an indirect request that the item in question be passed to the speaker. Since
requests such as this also require little imposition on the hearer, hearers almost always
comply, but favors’ higher degree of imposition can make listeners less eager to comply.
They might do so if asked, but they are far less likely to offer unless they are explicitly
asked to do so.
Modifications Across All Scenarios
In the literature on requests, modifications are considered non-obligatory
additions to the core strategy. However the present data shows that in Kuwaiti favor
asking, some form of modification should be considered obligatory. Across all scenarios,
every participant response (N=360) included modification to the core strategy, with an
average of 6.24 modifications per response in +P scenarios, 7.97 in –P scenarios, and
10.23 in =P scenarios.
+P speakers completely avoided four modifications: sweeteners, rewards,
apologies, and oath-taking (0 tokens total). In Kuwaiti culture, these modifications may
73
be considered too face-threatening for speakers accustomed to positions of higher status,
who may associate these devices with weakness.
Distance had a significant effect on the frequency of 8 of the 20 modifications
(see Table 33 below). Greeting alerters and politeness markers were more common in +D
scenarios, while small talk, softeners, preparators, imposition minimizers, oath-taking,
and sweeteners were all more frequent in –D scenarios.
Table 33
Modifiers affected by distance
+D scenarios (N=180)
–D scenarios (N=180)
Significant difference between + /–D?
Greeting alerter 141 (78%) 112 (62%) Yes (χ²=11.1, p<.0001)
Politeness marker 154 (86%) 96 (53%) Yes (χ²=44.0, p<.0001)
Small talk 86 (48%) 153 (85%) Yes (χ²=55.8, p<.0001)
Softener 66 (37%) 98 (54%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p<.0001)
Preparator 27 (15%) 100 (56%) Yes (χ²=64.8, p<.0001)
Imposition minimizer 32 (18%) 85 (47%) Yes (χ²=35.5, p<.0001)
Oath-taking 21 (12%) 46 (26%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p=.0007)
Sweetener 6 (3%) 31 (17%) Yes (χ²=18.8, p<.0001)
Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P)
The four +P scenarios are described in Table 34 below. In these scenarios,
Kuwaiti participants strongly preferred direct strategies over indirect for asking the core
favor (see Table 35). This has been shown to be the case in other cultures as well.
Wierzbicka (1991) explains that in the Polish culture there is more use of directness in
74
order to show sincerity as opposed to what many would consider as impoliteness.
Wierzbicka also continues that directness and politeness are best viewed side by side
along a continuum on which directness and politeness can be seen differently across
languages and cultures.
Table 34
Description of +P scenarios
Scenario 1 (+P, +D)
Dean asks unfamiliar student for help with broken down car
Scenario 2 (+P, +D)
Boss asks unfamiliar employee to teach him new software
Scenario 3 (+P, –D)
Older brother asks younger brother to lend money to buy a car
Scenario 4 (+P, –D)
Boss asks familiar employee to do unpaid design work for company
Table 35
Core strategy use in +P scenarios (N=120)
Conventional indirect 37
Direct 83
Nonconventional indirect 0
However, the overall preference for direct strategies was not reflected in all four +P
scenarios. In Scenario 3, asking a younger brother for money to buy a car, conventional
indirect strategies were slightly more common (see Table 36 below). In this case the less
direct approach may be caused by the degree of imposition, a variable not fully accounted
for in the design of the present study. Despite that unquestioned higher status accorded to
75
older siblings in Kuwaiti culture, the high degree of imposition may cause speakers to
adopt a politeness stance more in line with that of speakers of equal or lesser status.
Table 36
Core strategy directness in +P scenarios
Core strategy type
Scenario 1
(+P, +D)
Scenario 2
(+P, +D)
Scenario 3
(+P, –D)
Scenario 4
(+P, –D)
Direct 24 22 14 23
Conventional indirect 6 8 16 7
A similarly high degree of imposition was present in Scenario 4, in which a boss
asks his employee to perform unpaid work designing the office’s interior decor. Although
participants preferred direct strategies here, as they had in Scenarios 1 and 2, they used
considerably more modification than speakers in those two scenarios (see Table 37
below), at approximately the same frequency found in Scenario 3. Because the degree of
imposition was not fully accounted for in the study design, it is difficult to say whether
the higher modifier frequency in Scenarios 3 and 4 was caused by the distance, the degree
of imposition, or perhaps a combination of the two.
Table 37
Modifier frequency in +P scenarios
Scenario 1
(+P, +D)
Scenario 2
(+P, +D)
Scenario 3
(+P, –D)
Scenario 4
(+P, –D)
Modifiers per response 4.37 6 7.07 7.77
76
Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P)
The four–P scenarios are described in Table 38 below. Conventional indirect
strategies were strongly preferred by respondents (see Table 39). This suggests that in –P
scenarios Kuwaitis prefer to be less direct since indirectness is expected to show respect
to the person in a higher position. In Kuwaiti culture it is not acceptable to speak directly
and bluntly to a person who is older or holds position of power. Therefore people in the
culture opt to use more indirect requests, as “politeness is the most prominent motivation
for indirectness in requests, and certain forms tend to become the conventionally polite
ways of making indirect requests” (Searle, 1975, p.76). In these scenarios, indirectness
was used to mitigate the illocutionary force of the favor and smooth the conversational
interaction between interlocutors.
Table 38
Description of –P scenarios
Scenario 5 (–P, +D)
Professor asks unfamiliar dean for a computer
Scenario 6 (–P, +D)
Student asks unfamiliar professor for an extension
Scenario 7 (–P, –D)
Younger brother asks to borrow older brother’s car
Scenario 8 (–P, –D)
Student asks familiar professor for a retake on a test
77
Table 39
Core strategy directness in –P scenarios
Core strategy type
Scenario 5
(–P, +D)
Scenario 6
(–P, +D)
Scenario 7
(–P, –D)
Scenario 8
(–P, –D)
Direct 7 8 3 5
Conventional indirect 23 22 27 25
In the two –P, +D scenarios, there was an unusually high use of disarmers (26
tokens) (e.g., I know that this is short notice). This suggests that Kuwaitis in –P positions
need to show that they know they are imposing on the hearer by asking a favor.
Understaters (e.g., just a few minutes) were also used in +D responses in order to show
respect towards the hearer’s valuable time.
Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P)
The four =P scenarios are described in Table 40 below. As in the –P scenarios,
participants preferred conventional indirect strategies (see Table 41). This similarity is
consistent with Al-Momani’s (2009) finding that Jordanians responded identically in =P
and –P scenarios.
Table 40
Description of =P scenarios
Scenario 9 (=P, +D)
Asking unfamiliar co-worker to cover your shift at work
Scenario 10 (=P, +D)
Asking friend to copy his homework.
78
Scenario 11 (=P, –D)
Asking to borrow friend’s apartment in Mecca.
Scenario 12 (=P, –D)
Graduate student in US asks friend in Kuwait to distribute research questionnaire
Table 41
Core strategy directness in =P scenarios
Core strategy type
Scenario 9
(=P, +D)
Scenario 10
(=P, +D)
Scenario 11
(=P, –D)
Scenario 12
(=P, –D)
Direct 7 11 3 15
Conventional indirect 23 19 27 15
Nonconventional indirect
0 1 0 0
The modification of reward was used relatively extensive in =P scenarios, with 35
tokens compared to a total of just 12 in the +P and –P scenarios combined. This is
because the Kuwaiti culture is based on reciprocity, particularly among people of equal
power. Therefore, rewarding the person who will carry out a favor for you is necessary in
order to reflect appreciation for the person’s time and effort, either by praying for him or
explaining that his favor will be returned one day. Several respondents who used reward
used the phrase “may Allah enable us to repay you,” which makes the person obligated in
the future to reciprocate the favor.
The sample response below shows the density in the use of modifiers in =P
scenarios. The speaker uses 10 modifiers, only slightly less than the average of 10.23 per
response in the four =P scenarios.
79
Sample response from Scenario 9 (=P, +D)
Example response 18
�Y/ر #��ج أ6� �� �)�ل ا�6 ا(��6؟أدري أ&$/ ه�،1 /� ���� "Hا�� ��� A& ،. %$#" إذا إ���م�6_
� أ6�. �� (�آ- أآ�ن ا�/آ��ر، &A أروح #��ج/:� ��M أي "H) 7/ك��ك إو.U/ام N ��Jا�.
Hi [greeting alerter] Ahmed [address alerter] how are you? [small talk] I really need to
ask you a favor? [preparator]. I want you to please [politeness marker] take over my shift
for today [want statement] because I have to go to the doctor [grounder]. Do you think
you can do it? [consultative] I would appreciate it [appreciation] I will take over any shift
you need in the future [reward]. May Allah give you strength [softener].
Respondents in =P, –D scenarios used more preparators than those in =P, +D
scenarios. +P, –D speakers also used this modifier more than +D speakers in both the +P
and –P scenarios. It seems that in the Kuwaiti culture preparing the hearer for the favor is
more important when the interlocutors know each other. The sample response presented
below indicates how preparators were used when a friend asks another friend to borrow
his apartment in Mecca.
Example response 21 (=P, –D)
آ�10، �0'� آ�ن � إذا. �1 0� إ�� (��Y إ%�>/ام �7 ا43 ودي أ6� �$�م؟ (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء زو��U؟ إو ا(��6 0'/ �� ه�
.�� (�آ- وآ�ن. وا9/ � او0- راح
Hey [greeting alerter], Bo Fahad [address alerter] how are you and the wife, I hope all is
well [small talk]? I’d like to ask you to use the Mecca apartment [hedge performative]. If
it is not an inconvenience can I use it [query preparatory] would save me a lot of money
[grounder] and I would appreciate it [appreciation].
80
Oath-taking was common in =P scenarios (48 tokens), and much more frequent
than it had been in –P (19 tokens) and +P scenarios (0 tokens). Kuwaiti respondents felt
the need to swear an oath in the name of Allah to show their sincerity in what they were
asking for. This is typical of religious societies in which they refer to holy entities to
reflect truthfulness, which is a common practice in everyday conversation in the Arab
Islamic world (Al-Khatib, 2006). Some Islamic countries in the Arab world may swear
oaths by their religion, their children, their prophet or even their mother’s souls, but in the
Kuwaiti context oath-taking was exclusively in the name of Allah. Schiffrin (2005)
explains that oath-taking is used in order to show a stronger commitment and sincerity
and definiteness that something is needed. Abd-el Jawad (2000) explains that oath-taking
in the Arab world has several important functions, such as “to confirm a claim one has
made, to emphasize a promise one has given, to deny an accusation, to decline an offer or
an invitation, or to intensify a threat or warning” (p. 218). In the case of =P responses by
Kuwaitis it was to reflect sincerity and to solidify the grounder that was presented in
order to get the hearer to comply with the favor.
Softeners were also common =P scenarios, such as the phrases “may Allah give
you health,” “may Allah give you strength,” and “may Allah not deprive us from you.”
The high use of softeners among equals “could be attributed to the closeness and the
solidarity between the interlocutors” (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009, p. 28). Al-Qinai
(2011) explains that the use of these softeners and others are always used in accordance
to the hearer’s age or social status. Darwish (2003) explains that the increase of
81
modifications to reflect solidarity among interlocutors of equal status makes outsiders
from other cultures view Arabic as a “flowery” language (p.50).
82
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Implications of the Study
The responses of the participants to the DCT scenarios revealed that social power
affected the core strategies and modifications used by Kuwaiti Arabic speakers. Kuwaitis
preferred direct core favor strategies in +P scenarios, but conventional indirect strategies
in =P and –P scenarios. Modification was lowest in +P scenarios, significantly higher in
–P scenarios, but highest in =P scenarios.
The preference for directness in +P scenarios may be related to that fact that the
speech act of favor asking manifests feelings of neediness and weakness. As a result,
Kuwaitis in positions of power attempted to hold on to their positive face (dignity) by
using direct strategies to reflect strength and demonstrate control. This directness was
also mirrored by the more limited use of modification by +P speakers compared to –P
and =P speakers.
In –P scenarios, speakers preferred conventional indirect over direct strategies,
similar to findings from studies on requests in a wide variety of cultures. Use of
modifications was more extensive than in +P scenarios, but still less extensive than in =P
scenarios. These four scenarios had the highest use of sweeteners (35 tokens), which
were almost nonexistent in +P (0 tokens) and =P scenarios (2 tokens). This suggests that
83
Kuwaiti culture requires a person to pay compliment to speakers of higher power, but
never to speakers of lesser or equal power. Distance had a significant effect on the
frequency of consultatives and oath-taking, both of which were more prevalent in –D
scenarios.
In =P scenarios, conventional indirectness was again preferred as a core strategy.
Modification was most extensive in these scenarios, as had previously been found among
speakers of Yemeni Arabic (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009), a finding that study’s
authors attributed to the solidarity, brotherhood, and appreciation among people of equal
status. This is the case in Eastern cultures where individuals are expected to reach out to
people in need of help and accept requests for help when people ask. Distance did not
affect the frequency of modifiers in these four scenarios.
Comparison with Previous Studies on Requests
There is very little research on favor asking to which the present study’s results
can be compared. However, it may be instructive to compare the results with those from
previous studies on requests, both in Arabic and other languages.
Kuwaitis’ preference for conventionally indirect core strategies matches a similar
tendency in speakers of English, German, and Hebrew (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984).
In addition, it matches an identical preference for indirectness among speakers of other
varieties of Arabic, such as those spoken in Morocco (Alaoui, 2011), Iraq (Sataar, Lah &
Suleiman, 2009), and Yemen (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009). Other similarities to
84
speakers of Arabic varieties included Kuwaitis’ extensive use of softeners in =P
scenarios, which mirrored that of Yemenis (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath).
Limitations of the Study
The findings of this study should be interpreted in light of their limitations. The
participants were all males and the DCTs were designed to include scenarios that had
only male interaction. This means that eliciting data from female respondents or creating
scenarios in which there is more female interaction may yield results that might be
different from those of the current study. Also, accounting for the variable of age,
education and occupation may also yield different findings.
Also, the use of DCTs as a data elicitation method had a positive influence on the
study in that it helped to control for contextual variables, namely power and distance.
Another important factor was that the use of DCTs facilitated the distribution of the
instrument since there were not enough Kuwaitis in the area where the researcher
conducted research. Furthermore, this study would have been even more problematic and
awkward for the male participants to deal with a female interlocutor in the context of oral
data elicitation methods. However, if the study had included female participants I would
have preferred to use DCTs and role plays in order to compare responses elicited by both
methods.
85
Directions for Future Research
Speech act research in the Arab world is in its primary stages, and favor asking
has received little scholarly attention in any language. This is even more the case in
respect to the speech act of favor asking. This study has attempted to address both of
these gaps, but further research still remains to be done to increase our understanding of
favor asking, and of Arabic in general.
The current study could be replicated with speakers of other varieties of Arabic in
order to explore their languages and cultures. Such studies could also be done using
different methods of data elicitation, such as role-plays and questionnaires. This would
provide a pool of responses to build a broader corpus of Arabic speech act data for
comparison. Any such research should pay careful attention to how to measure the effects
of power on the performance of this speech act, as some of the previous investigation of
this variable has not taken all power relationships into account, for example by presenting
only –P and =P scenarios, while omitting +P scenarios from the study (Al-Fattah &
Ravindranath, 2009; Sattar, Lah, & Suleiman, 2009).
86
REFERENCES
Abboud, P. (1995). The teaching of Arabic in the United States: Whence and whither. In
M. Al-Batal (Ed.), The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language: Directions and
issues (pp. 35-78). Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic.
Abd-el Jawad, H. R. S. (2000). A linguistic and sociopragmatic and cultural study of
oath-taking in Arabic. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(2), 217-240.
Al-Ali, M. N., & Al-Awneh, R. (2010). Linguistic mitigating devices in American and
Jordanian students’ requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 311-339.
Al-Batal, M. (2007). Arabic and national language education policy. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(2), 268-271.
Al-Eryani, A. A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. The Asian EFL
Journal Quarterly, 9(2), 19-34.
Al-Fattah, M. H. A., & Ravindranath, B. K. (2009). Politeness strategies in the English
interlanguage requests of Yemeni learners. Iranian Journal of Language Studies,
3(3), 249-266.
Al-Hami, F. (1993). Forms of apology used by Jordanian speakers of EFL: A cross-
cultural study. (Master's thesis). University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Al-Issa, A. (1998). Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance of refusal by Jordanian
EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
87
Al-Khatib, M. (2006). The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian
society. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 272-294.
Al-Marrani, Y. M. A., & Sazakie, A. B. (2010). Politeness request strategies by male
speakers of Yemeni Arabic in male-male interaction and male-female interaction.
The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 30, 63-80.
Al-Momani, H. (2009). Caught between two cultures: The realization of requests by
Jordanian EFL learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University
of Pennsylvania, Indiana. PA.
Al-Qinai, J. (2011). Translating phatic expressions. Pragmatics, 21(1), 23-39.
Al-Shalawi, H. (1997). Refusal strategies in Saudi and American culture. (Unpublished
Master’s Thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Al-Zumor, A. (2003). A pragmatic analysis of speech acts as produced by native
speakers of Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh, India.
Alaoui, S. M. (2011). Politeness principle: A comparative study of English and Moroccan
Arabic requests, offers and thanks. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(1), 7-
15.
Alcón, S. E., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language
learning, teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 31, 313-316.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.
88
Badawi, E. (2006). Tales of King Abgar: A basis to investigate earliest Syrian Christian
syncretism, Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, 20(2), 25-44.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). From morpheme studies to temporal semantics: Tense-aspect
research in SLA. State of the art article. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
21, 341-382.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in
pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching
(pp. 13-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative
conversation: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language
Learning, 40, 476-501.
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL
university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901-1927.
Beebe, L. M. (1992). Questionable questions: The syntax is perfect, but what do you
mean? In Proceedings from TESOL 1992. Vancouver, Canada: TESOL.
Beebe, L. M. (1994). Rudeness: The neglected side of communicative competence.
Keynote speech at ALSIG conference.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the
data collection procedure? Paper presented at the TESOL convention, New York,
March.
89
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written
questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance.
In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to
communication in a second language (pp. 65-86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening
speech acts. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 199-218).
New York: Plenum.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Welts, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language (pp.55-73). New York: Heinle
& Heinle.
Bergman, M., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative
apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlangauge pragmatics (pp.
82-117). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bharuthram, S. (2003). The value on politeness by men and women in the Hindu sector
of the South African Indian English speaking community. Southern African
Linguistic and Applied Language Studies, 21(3), 87-102.
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic
variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics,
21, 517-552.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
90
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982a). Learning how to say what you mean in the second language: A
study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language.
Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982b). Performing speech acts in a second language. In S. Blum-
Kulka, R. Nir, & Y. Tobin (Eds.), Issues in the study of discourse (pp. 144-177)
Jerusalem: Academon.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?
Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests
and apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Philipsen,
E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign
language pedagogy: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 255-272).
Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross cultural study of
speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual. In S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests
and apologies (pp. 273-294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
91
Boxer, D. (1996). Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis:
The case of complaints. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across
cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 217-240).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language use.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Buchler, A., & Guthrie, A. (2011). Literary translation from Arabic into English in the
United Kingdom and Ireland. 1990-2010. Retrieved from
http://lafpublications.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/laf-study-literary-translation-
from-arabic-into-english-in-the-uk-and-ireland-1990-2010.pdf
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.
2-27). London: Longman.
Chaudron, C. (2005). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 762-827). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Cheng, D. (2011). New insights on compliment responses: A comparison between native
English speakers and Chinese L2 speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2204-14.
92
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. Gass & J. Neu
(Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second
language (pp. 21-43). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 2, 275-301.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Speaking strategies for independent learning: A focus on pragmatic
performance. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in
independent settings (pp. 119-140). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Darwish, A. (2003). The transfer factor. Melbourne: Writescope.
Demeter, G. (2007). Role-plays as a data collection method for research on apology
speech acts. Simulation & Gaming, 38(1), 83-90.
Dong, X. (2009). Requests in academic settings in English, Russian and Chinese.
(Doctoral Dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). I very appreciate: Expressions of gratitude by
native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-
185.
El-Khalil, M. H. (1998). Variation in apology strategies among friends and
acquaintances in Jordanian Arabic. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Yarmouk
University, Irbid, Jordan.
93
Enssaif, Z. A. (2005). Compliment behavior: Strategies and realization in English and
Arabic: A case study of female students of the English Department of King Saud
University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). King Saud University, Riyadh.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27,
31-40.
Eslami-Rusekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology
speech acts, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic developmet of
EFL learners: The Iranian context. The Journal of Language, Society and Culture,
30, 543-564.
Farghal, M. & Al-Khatib, M. (2001). Jordanian students’ responses to compliments: A
pilot study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1485-1502.
Farghal, M. & Haggan, M. (2006). Compliment behavior in bilingual Kuwaiti college
students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(1), 94-
118.
Farina, M., & Suleiman, R. (2009). An interlanguage pragmatic study of expressions of
gratitude by Iranian EFL learners: A pilot study. Malaysian Journal of ELT
Research , 5, 108-140
Feghali, E. (1997). Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 21, 245-378.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research:
Theory, practice, and acquisition. In P. Kempchinsky and C. E. Piñeros, Papers
94
from the 6th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium and the 5th Conference on the
Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 239-257). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In D.
Eddington (Ed.), Proceedings from the 7th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp.
66-78). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). I’m sorry - Can I think about it? The
negotiation of refusals in academic and nonacademic contexts. In D. H. Tatsuki &
N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 163-180). Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language (7th ed.).
Boston: Heinle.
Gagne, N. O. (2010). Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese socio-
linguistic politeness of request. Language and Communication, 30(2), 123-138.
Geluyken, R., & Kraft, B. (2002). Complaining in French L1 and L2: A cross-
linguistic investigation. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, T. Ruthenberg, & M. L. Poschen
(Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 2 (pp. 227-242). Canterbury, UK:
University of Canterbury.
Ghawi, M. (1993). Pragmatic transfer in Arabic learners of English. El Two Talk, 1(1),
39-52.
95
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and
recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90-121.
Goldschmidt, M. (1993). For the favor of asking: A sociolinguistic analysis.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Goldschmidt, M. (1996). From the addressee's perspective: Imposition in favor-asking. In
S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to
communication in a second language (pp. 241-256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldschmidt, M. (1998). Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences
in American English. Journal of Pragmatics. 29, 129-153.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech
acts: Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics. 14,
237-257.
Hahn, J. (2006). Apologizing in Korean. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
96
Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics,
35, 1903-1928.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied
Linguistics, 18, 1-26.
Houk, A. & Gass, S. (2006). Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. In S.
Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication
in a second language (pp. 45-63). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign
language. In W. Lorscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspective on language in
performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
Huang, M. (1996). Achieving cross-cultural equivalence in a study of American and
Taiwanese requests. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Hudson, T., Deitmer, E., & Brown, J. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-
cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Hussein, R. F., & Hammouri, M. T. (1998). Strategies of apology in Jordanian Arabic
and American English. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 49, 37-51.
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethno-graphic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native
speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1). Retrieved from
97
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/
Jarbou, S. (2002). Speech act stylistics: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study of
directive speech acts in selected Shakespearean plays and their Arabic
translation. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana,
PA.
Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross. S. (1998). The effect of rejoinders in production
questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19, 157–182.
Jung, E. H. (2004). Interlanguage pragmatics: Apology speech acts. In C. L. Moder & A.
Martinovic (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 99–116).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.),
Culturally speaking (pp. 316-341). London: Continuum.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA
Review, 19, 83-99.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-
334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatics development in a second language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
98
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Power, approach, and
inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in
interlanguage. Modern Language Journal, 73, 279-289.
Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish
foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across
cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 257-281).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua,
23, 339-364.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p's and q's. Chicago
Linguistic Society, 9, 292–305.
Lee, H. E., Park, H. S., Imai, T., & Dolan, D. P. (2008). Why Japanese are more likely to
favor apology, while Americans are more likely to favor thank you. Paper
presented at the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M. M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power distance, gender, and organizational
justice. Journal of Management, 26, 685-704.
Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness
Research, 3, 167-206.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and face in Chinese culture. New York: P. Lang.
99
Liu, B. (2004). Rise of Arabic in the U.S speaks volumes for war on terror. Financial
Times. Retrieved from www.campuswatch.org/article/id/1033.
Margalef-Boada, T. (1993). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics: An inquiry
into data collection procedures. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN.
Martinez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards
taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-
187.
Martinez-Flor, A. (2006). Task effects on EFL learners’ production of suggestions: A
focus on elicited phone messages and Emails. Journal of English and American
Studies, 33, 47-64.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena
in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Mead, G. H. (1962). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meier, A. J. (1995). Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 381-392.
Meier, A. J. (1997). Teaching the universals of politeness. ELT Journal, 51(1), 21-28.
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Migdadi, F. (2003). Complimenting in Jordanian Arabic: A sociopragmatic analysis.
(Doctoral dissertation). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
100
Morkus, N. (2009). The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by
American learners of Arabic as a foreign language. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Mulamba, K. (2009). Social beliefs for the realization of the speech acts of apology and
complaint as defined in Ciluba, French, and English. International Pragmatic
Association. 19, 543-546.
Nelson, G. L., El-Bakary, W., & Al-Batal, M. (1993). Egyptian and American
compliments: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 17, 293–313.
Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment
responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 17, 411-432
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.
Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M., & El-Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied
Linguistics, 23, 163-189.
Nurani, L. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Is discourse completion
test a reliable data collection instrument? Journal Sosioteknologi Edisi, 17, 667-
678.
101
Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese
Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 279–306.
Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of
English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research,
5(2), 189-216.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Non-native reactions to
native speech act behavior. In S. Gass (Ed.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 303-329). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of
complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics
(pp. 108-122) New York: Oxford University Press.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1998). Speech act behavior across languages. In H.W. Dechert
& M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53-67). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Perez-Parent, M. (2001). Some considerations on politeness in Catalan service
encounters. In C. Munoz, M. L. Celaya, M. Fernandez-Villanueva, T. Naves, O.
Strunk, & E. Tragant (Eds.), Trabajos en linguistica aplicada (pp. 597-604).
Barcelona: Univerbook.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York:
Harper & Row.
Pop, A. (2009). An analysis of politeness as function of speech acts (SAs) and target
102
reader in print medical advertising. In Language in the University of Essex (Lang
UE) 2008 proceedings (pp. 94-106). Essex: University of Essex.
Rasekh, A. E. (2012). Eliciting Persian requests: DCT and role play data. World Journal
of Education, 2(3), 80-86.
Raybourn, E. M. (2002). Toward cultural representation and identification for all in
community-based virtual environments. In N. Carbonell & C. Stephanidis (Eds.),
Lecture notes in computer science (pp.219-238). Berlin: Springer.
Rintell, E., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into
method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
pragmatics (pp. 248-272). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Rose, K., & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of
questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45, 191-223.
Rubin, J. (1989). How learner strategies can inform language teaching. In V. Bickley
(Ed.), Proceedings from language use, language teaching and curriculum
(LULTAC). Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.
Rue, Y. J., Zhang, G., & Shin, K. (2007). Request strategies in Korean. In Proceedings
from 5th biennial Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference (pp. 112-
119). Perth: Korean Studies Association of Australasia.
Sattar, H. Q., Lah, S. C., & Suleiman, R. R. R. (2009). Iraqi postgraduates’ production
and perception of requests: A pilot study. International Journal of Language,
Society and Culture, 29, 56-70.
103
Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context.
London: Continuum.
Schiffrin, A. (2005). Modelling speech acts in conversational discourse. (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Leeds, Leeds.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative
competence. In A. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language
acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic
communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan, (Eds.), Speech acts:
Syntax and semantics (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-14.
Shea, H. K. (2003). Japanese complaining in English: A study of interlanguage
pragmatics. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses. (3091292)
Soliman, A. (2003). Apology in American English and Egyptian Arabic. In Proceedings
from TESOL 3rd Annual Graduate Student Forum. Baltimore: TESOL.
Spencer-Oaty, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,
1-24.
104
Stabb, C. F. (1983). Making implicit knowledge explicit: A review of four theories for
analyzing language by function. Language Science, 5(1), 21-35.
Stevens, P. (1993). The pragmatics of “No!”: Some strategies in English and Arabic.
Ideal, 6, 87-112.
Stiles, W. B. (1992). Describing talk: A taxonomy of verbal response modes. SAGE
series in interpersonal communication. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Tabar, M. S. (2012). Cross-cultural speech act realization: The case of requests in the
Persian and Turkish speech of Iranian speakers. International Journal of Business
and Social Sciences, 3(13), 237-243.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18(2), 189-223.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of
correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.
138–157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor-Hamilton, C. A. (2002). Giving directions as a speech event: A cross-cultural
study of English and Emirati Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London:
Longman.
Tran, G. Q. (2004). Revisioning methodologies in cross-cultural and interlanguage
pragmatics. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 25-49.
105
Tran, G. Q. (2006). The nature and conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer
investigated through naturalized role-play. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Trosborg, A. (2010). Pragmatics across languages and culture. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Umar, A. (2004). Request strategies as used by advanced Arab learners of English as a
foreign language. Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Education and Social
Sciences and Humanities, 16(1), 42-87.
Uso-Juan, E. (2010). Requests: A sociopragmatic approach. In A. Martínez-Flor & E.
Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and
methodological issues (pp. 237-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts.
Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-179.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). Don't 'dear' me!. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, &
N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York:
Praeger.
Wouk, F. (2006). The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia. Journal of
Pragmatics, 38, 1456-1486.
106
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data gathering methods: Written
DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,
33, 271-292.
Zaharna, R. S. (1995). Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication.
Public Relations Review, 21, 241-255.
Appendix A
W9Wي 3��Oا� :
� ا�'/ف إن � � ا�$>�1H ا�YB�0�ت و اتا�#Z�ر ��� ا0���V�ت إ%�2Y�ء ا�/را%1 ه� i�& ب�ا_% ���O<ه�ا. ا� ��� �6ً�#� إ
0� أ�6 ��>�* وأن �:7�19 ��\ آ* �Y-أ أن أرn% .�Uال ١٦ N 9#��ي اV%����ن ه�ا. ��k4; إو I#�#1 إU��1 ه7�ك و����H6 \��$0:�، ا� �o *$����#/ث آ7" �� آ$� ��\ آ* Nإ� c<ا�� *��Y$ا� �'Uو ;U�� )�1J' 1� ). ا�:�
�Uآ/ أرR�6 ا��R� "$'0 *ء آ�) � � أي أو اUV��:�9 1Y9-O� 1A %�ءال أي ��Rل أن أر�U آ$�. �������1 ا��/ء ��* ا�$��\ ه� 2/ا��; إo-اء �'� ��9ن %�ف ا�O��:�1 اU���� إن. اV%����ن ه�ا �>�2ص (�ء � .ا�:$� ا��#HI i� وإO�q'� ا�/را%1 ه�
___________________________________________________________________________
:ا_ول $��\ا�
$�/ أ6". ١ 1: �Jا� /Yو� "O:� ،���-ي %��ر 34 A��% �9/� g ;0-:� 10-: /�U ./9-��3O أن ;7 ��Yل 0$�ذا. ا�$��/ة �;؟
108
٢ ./9-��O3 أن � ��-اء �/�9 ا��ي ا�$�P إآ$�ل �� �7��9 آ� Y6/ي �SW9 P-ك ا��ي أ��ك
�;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. %��رة
�� و�Y/ ا_���م، V&/ي ا��$����- ��� ر��q أ6". ٣ i9/#� 8 :-10 �/�9 ��� ا��-6� 8 وه�ا �/��9، ا��$����- �-ا ;� ./9-� أن 3O� � :-R� ;9/� 10ن �:� و��ي �/�9 ا�J/د ا�$�`��H إ&/ى 1 8ا��-6 �'�ا (�� /9/Jن ا�R� 9/ر�� ;� �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا.
109
%17 ١٥ �$/ة 9:$* وا��ي ا�$�`��H ا&/ي �Rن �:�. �/��9 ا�Ug$:�ت S-10 د��9رات �)�- و�-9/ (-آ1، 0� ��� ر��q أ6". ٤�O3 أن �-9/. د��9رات (-آ1 �/9; ا��-آ1 0� ;7 *$ �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا Y��* دون ا�/��9رات
�� و�Y/ ا_���م، V&/ي ا��$����- ��� ر��q أ6". ٥ i9/#� 8 :-10 �/�9 ��� ا��-6� 8 وه�ا �/��9، ا��$����- �-ا ;� ./9-� أن 3O� � :-R� ;9/� 10ن �:� و��ي �/�9 ا�J/د ا�$�`��H إ&/ى �� �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. �; R� ��-Z9ن ا�J/9/ ا��-6� 8 �'�ا
110
٦ .3J9 أن ��� ��B# Nو��� ا�/آ��ر إ� �� �ء �� 7��9��6'V7; ا -d9 آ�6_ "7 ./9-��O� أن � �� 9$/د أن ا�/آ��ر ،���Yل؟ 0$�ذا ا�$/
٧ ./9-��O3 أن � �R� ��Rن �9�-ك ا��ي أ��� ;��>-ج ��� ا�J/9/ة %��ر E �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا أI#���؟
111
:1 0� ا%��ذ أ6". ٨ �J9/ ا�-��O3 أن و � /�$ 1: �Jا��ي( ا� g ;0-:� 10-: �� ا��ي ا��$����-ات إ&/ي �R� ��Rن) �U/ة
�'B:� ��Y� .ذا�ل 0$�Y� �;؟
٩ ./9-��O3 أن � �#�ن R� /�:9ن ا%��ذك Vا ،�� i�& �� �Y� �#�ن 0� R� /�Uداء Vا A��ذا. ا���ل 0$�Y� �;؟
112
1�# ���1 6}-ا 7; ا�6V'�ء ���E�O �� وا��ي اU��،و ����� %���ن �/�9. ١٠I .ذا�ل 0$�Y� �;؟
� و�#��ج أ7U��1، دو�1 0� �� درا%�ت 43 أ6". ١١/�� �� �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. �� ا%����ن ���ز� E9�Y�م ز
113
١٢ .�:��O3 أن 9/�-. ا��17 ه�� �h%�>/ا '� �Y9م �� �0 1� 1Y) 9$� ا��ي R� �Y9/Iن ;7 �' �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. ا%�>/
114
Appendix B
Translation of Scenarios to English
To all participants:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the following study, which will help in obtaining
helpful information about Arabs. Please answer the following scenarios as authentically
as possible. Your natural responses are crucial to achieve accurate analysis of the data.
Your time and effort is highly valued.
________________________________________________________________________
1. You are the dean of a university; your car has broken down. You see a previous
student whom you do not know well. You need to ask for help. What do you say?
115
2. You are the head of a computer department that has installed a piece of new software
that you are unfamiliar with. You know that one of your new employees is very
knowledgeable of how it works. You need his help. What do you say?
3. You want to ask your younger brother for money in order to be able to buy a car. You
have been saving money, but need more to be able to make the purchase. What do you
say?
116
4. You are the head of a department at work. You want to ask one of your male
employees, who has been with the company for 15 years and owns an interior design
business, to help you design the interior decor for one of the office’s conference rooms.
He will not be paid for his services. What do you say?
5. Your department provides computers to certain professors each year based on
seniority. You are not one of the professors scheduled to receive a computer soon, but the
department is always given more computers than needed. You would like to ask the dean,
whom you do not know well, for one of the computers before they are returned. What do
you say?
117
6. You have to submit a paper to a professor who you do not know well. You have not
finished writing your paper, and you want to ask the professor for an extension. What
do you say?
7. You want to ask your older brother for his new car to go out with friends. What do
you say?
118
8. You are taking a course with a professor you know well. You want to ask him if you
can retake a test since you did not do well on the previous one. What do you say?
9. You want to ask to ask a new co-worker to cover your shift at work because you
have a doctor’s appointment. What do you say?
119
10. You have two hours to submit your homework, which you were unable to finish
because you were sick. You want to ask your classmate, who you have not known
long, if you can copy his. What would you say?
11. You know that your friend who owns an apartment in Mecca will not be using it
this year. You want to ask him if you can use it for a few days. What do you say?
120
12. You are a graduate student in a foreign country and need to ask a friend in your
home country to administer a questionnaire for your research. What do you say?
121
Appendix C
VITA
Einas H. Alrefai
Candidate for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy/English
Thesis: FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF POWER AND DISTANCE ON
CORE STRATEGIES AND MODIFICATION
Major Field: English Education Completed the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy/English at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, July 2012. Completed the requirements for the Master of Arts in English at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, Spring 2004. Completed the requirements for the Master of Arts in Library Information Science at Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait, Spring 2000. Completed the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts in English at Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait, Fall 1997.
Experience
• Instructor of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at Telecommunication and
Navigation Institute, Shuwikh, Kuwait, 2000-2003.
• Instructor of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at Kuwait University, Kuwait
City, Kuwait, 2001.
• Intern at the Oklahoma State University English Language Institute (ELI),
Stillwater, Oklahoma, 2010. Taught English reading, writing, listening, and
speaking to International students.
Name: Einas Hashem Alrefai Date of Degree: July, 2012 Institution: Oklahoma State University Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma Title of Study: FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF POWER AND DISTANCE ON
CORE STRATEGIES AND MODIFICATION Pages in Study: 121 Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Major Field: English Scope and Method of Study: Speech acts have been studied extensively in the field of pragmatics. However, there has been limited investigation of speech acts in Arabic, and minimal investigation in any language on the speech act of favor asking. In the context of growing interest in studying Arabic as a foreign language, it is therefore important to shed light on Arabic speech act performance. The aim of the current study is to examine how Kuwaitis perform the speech act of favor asking, focusing on how the variables of power and distance affect core request strategies and modification. A discourse completion test containing 12 scenarios was administered to 30 native speakers of Kuwaiti Arabic, all of whom were male graduate and undergraduate students living in the U.S. The collected data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Findings and Conclusions: The findings suggest that speakers of higher power (+P) prefer to use more direct strategies. This was suggested through the use of direct core strategies. It was also found that Kuwaitis who held more power tend to use the least modifications. On the other hand Kuwaitis who were in less power (-P) and equal power (=P) seemed to prefer more conventionally indirect strategies when selecting the core favor. More specifically it seemed that overall in both (-P) and (=P) situations Kuwaitis preferred the use of conventionally indirect core strategy (query preparatory). This is a universal finding in many languages such as English, Hebrew, Yemeni and Moroccan Arabic. As to modifications in (-P) and (=P) scenarios, the findings suggest that although (-P) scenarios had higher modifications than (+P), it seemed that the highest use of modifications were used in (=P) situations to enhance brotherhood, solidarity and sincerity.
Abstract: This study investigates favor asking in Kuwaiti Arabic. It focuses on the effect of social power and distance in the selection of core strategies and modifications to the core favor. Responses were elicited from native speakers of Kuwaiti Arabic (n=30) through discourse completion tests (DCTs) containing 12 scenarios with variations in power and distance between interlocutors. The findings of the study were that Kuwaiti core requests were influenced by power, but not by distance. The frequency of overall modifier use was also affected by power, as was the frequency of many individual modifiers. However, distance did not influence the selection of modifiers.
ADVISOR’S APPROVAL: Dr. Gene Halleck ________________