جۆری توێژینه‌وه‌: Original Article

نوسه‌ران

1 Department of Computer, College of Science, University of Garmian

2 Department of English Language, College of Languages and Human sciences, University of Garmian

پوخته‌

the main aim of this study is to figure out whether Kurdish male and female subjects use external modification devices in request with similar percentage. Moreover, this study is an attempt to find out the effect of social factors such as the social status of participants, and the social distance between the subjects on the choice of a certain external modification device than the other. Discourse completion Tests (DCTs) which consisted of (12) situations are employed to elicit the data from 40 Kurdish participants. The translated version of the questionnaire employed in this study, which was translated by the researches to Kurdish Language, is adopted from Reiter(2000). The participants were postgraduate and undergraduate Kurdish students at the University of Garmian which consisted of 10 female and 10 male undergraduate students and 10 male and 10 female postgraduate students.
The responses are categorized and analysed within the coding scheme developed by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989). The result revealed that Kurdish female participants use most of the chosen external modification more than Kurdish Male ones.  Regarding the effect of social variables, it has been shown that both Kurdish men and women inclined toward using more external modification in situations where they had less dominant role than the requesters. Moreover, both Kurdish men and women were found to incline towards using the external modification with their request when they addressed strangers.    Limitations and implications are highlighted

وشه‌ بنچینه‌ییه‌كان

  1. Al-Ali, M. N. & Sahawneh, M. (2008) 'An investigation into the generic features of English requestive e-mail messages, Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) & Professional Communication, 8 (2): 40- 65
  2. Al-Ali, M. & Alawneh, R. (2010). Linguistic mitigating devices in American and Jordanian students' requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), pp. 311-339. Retrieved 23 Mar. 2019, from doi:10.1515/iprg.2010.014.
  3. Abdolrezapour, Parisa & Eslami-Rasekh, Abbass. (2012). The effect of using mitigation devices on request compliance in Persian and American English. Discourse Studies - DISCOURSE STUD. 14. 145-163. 10.1177/1461445611433789.
  4. Abdul Sattar, Hiba & che lah, Salasiah & Rozina, Raja. (2009). Iraqi Postgraduates’ production and perception of requests: A pilot study. International Journal of Language, Society and culture (University of Tasmania – Australia). 29. 56-70.
  5. Abdolrezapour, p & Vahid Dastjerdi H, (2013). Examining mitigation in refusals: A cross-cultural study of Iranian and American speech communities, Sociolinguistic Studies, Vol 6, No 3 (2012),  DOI: 10.1558/sols.v6i3.519.
  6. Alzeebaree, Y., Yavuz, M. A. (2017). Realization of the Speech Acts of Request and Apology by Middle Eastern EFL Learners. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7313-7327. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79603.
  7. Aldhulaee, Mohammed. (2011). Request mitigating devices in Australian English and Iraqi Arabic : a comparative study. Master of TESOL thesis, Deakin University.
  8. Baxter, J. (2000). The Joys and Justice of Housework. Sociology, 34(4), 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038500000389.
  9. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  10. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  11. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
  12. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?. Journal of Pragmatics. 11. 131-146. 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5.
  13. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Edmondson, R. & Wörner, M. (1981), Theology and Rhetoric. New Blackfriars, 62: 379-387. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.1981.tb03304.x
  15. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(1), pp. 111-137. Retrieved 23 Mar. 2019, from doi:10.1515/PR.2008.005
  16. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  17. Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2005. La mitigación en el discurso oral de mexicanos y aprendices de español como lengua extranjera. Pragmática sociocultural: Estudios sobre el discurso en cortesía en español, ed. by Diana Bravo and Antonio Briz, 285-299. Spain: Ariel.
  18. Fraser, B. (1990) Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N.
  19. Farnia  Maryam, Sohrabie .Akbar, Abdul Sattar  Hiba (2014), A pragmatic analysis of speech act of suggestion among Iranian native speakers of Farsi,Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL). V.2, Issue 2 Pages 48-61.
  20. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Garden City, New York: Anchor.
  21. Hemrashid Meruf Abdul Wahid, Aram.(2012). Politenessin Kurdish Language: Sulaimanyah, La Rya publication.
  22. Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL,) 39, 259-283.
  23. Holmes, V. M. (1984). Sentence Planning in a Story Continuation Task. Language and Speech, 27(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098402700202.

 

  1. House, J. and Kasper, G. (1981) Polietness Markers in Engllish and German. In: Coulmas, F., Ed., Conversational Routine, Mouton, The Hague.
  2. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250–1288). Tuebingen: Narr.
  3. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's. Paper from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  4. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  5. Macaulay, R. (2001), Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11: 307-309. doi:10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.307
  6. Reiter  Márquez,( 2000) Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive   study of requests and apologies, John Benjamins.
  7. Sara Mills (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress. 270 pp., ISBN Hb 0 521 81084 1.
  8. Sifianou, M. (1999), Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: a cross-cultural perspective, Clarendon Press, isbn: 9780198239727.
  9. Schauer, E. Neuner, F., Elbert, T., Ertl, V., Onyut, L. P., Odenwald, M., & Schauer, M. (2004). Narrative Exposure Therapy in Children: A Case Study. Intervention: International Journal of Mental Health, Psychosocial Work & Counselling in Areas of Armed Conflict, 2(1), 18-18. 
  10. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  11. Wierzbicka, A, (2003), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Mouton de Gruyter
  12. Woodfield, R., & Earl-Novell, S. (2006). An assessment of the extent to which subject variation in relation to the award of first class degree between the arts and sciences can explain the ‘gender gap’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(3), 355-372.
  13. Yahya Mohammed Ali Al-Marrani, Azimah Binti Sazalie, (2010), polite request strategies by male speakers of Yemeni Arabic in male-male interaction and male-female interaction, The International Journal of Language Society and Culture.