Content uploaded by Nasim Boustani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nasim Boustani on Aug 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness
Strategies in English
1
Hamid Allami
2
& Nasim Boustani
3
Received: 10/01/2016 Accepted: 14/07/2016
Abstract
The present study examined the different levels of (im)politeness strategies in
expressing request, apology, and refusal speech acts across intermediate and
advanced Iranian EFL learners to identify their attitudinal ratings of their produced
structures in terms of pragmatic success and (im)politeness mannerism. A discourse
completion test including 2 Likert scales on attitudinal appropriateness and
an(im)politeness mannerism test for every item was distributed among 110
participants (10 native and 100 nonnative English speakers), engaging them in
addressing the speech acts to interlocutors of lower, equal, and higher social statuses
with intimate or strange distance. Results indicated that despite having a high
command of English, the learners showed deficiencies in the use of
(im)politenessstrategies that may call for the inclusion of such strategies in EFL
instruction programs.
Keywords: Awareness; Pragmatics; (Im)politeness Strategy; Request; Apology;
Refusal; Iranian EFL Learners
1. Introduction
Appreciation and production of speech acts demand for sociocultural and
sociolinguistic knowledge. (In)adequacy and/or (in)efficiency of either of these
kinds of knowledge may result in pragmatic success and/or pragmatic failure.
Thomas (1983) refers to pragmatic failure as inability to recognize correct and/or
incorrect or polite and/or impolite behavior. As such, language use awareness is
fundamental in order to manage communication actions appropriately. It is even
1
Please cite this paper as follows:
Allami, H., & Boustani, N. (2017). Iranian EFL learners’ awareness of
(im)politeness strategies in English. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics,
8(1), 89-108.
2
Corresponding author, Yazd University; hamid_allami@yahoo.com
3
Yazd University; boustani.nassim@gmail.com
90 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
more substantial for language learners because they should be aware of cross-
cultural differences to avoid pragmatic failure.
Due to such importance, the present study aimed to investigate Iranian
English learners’ awareness of (im)politeness strategies in performing three speech
acts of request, apology, and refusal. Stressing the target, the present study sought to
specifically discover awareness of English-culture speech acts. Earlier research
merely aimed at eliciting EFL learners’ knowledge of speech acts not heeding
confident of responses provided in terms of attitudinal ratings of appropriateness nor
taking (im)politeness mannerism into account.
To efficiently meet the purposes of the study, Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) three social variables of distance, power, and imposition in politeness studies,
as well as Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper
(1989), and Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz’s (1990) rationales were taken into
consideration on the grounds that (1) labeling the speeches makes qualitative and
quantitative analyses more manageable, (2) establishing a realization pattern
facilitates inquiry into similarities and differences for supportive moves across
languages . We also took advantage of Spencer-Oatey’s (2008) face and rapport
management model. The study set out to answer three research questions:
1. To what extent are EFL learners aware of (im)politeness strategies?
2. What is the effect of language proficiency on using (im)politeness
strategies?
3. What is the effect of gender on using (im)politeness strategies?
1.1 Background
Communicative competence refers to the knowledge and ability to use
language. Bachman (1990) branches it into organizational and pragmatic
competence. The former consists of grammatical and textual competence, whereas
the latter includes sociolinguistic and illocutionary competence. The key suggestion
of the model is defining language ability as an interaction between linguistic and
contextual knowledge. Spencer-Oatey (2008) features inclusive keys are
communication perception and production of messages, linguistic and/or
nonlinguistic, which are made on previous schematic experiences and correct match
with the context in view of cultural conventions. Thus, a successful interactant is
one that has a careful consideration of these rules; otherwise, communication failure
may occur. Hence, pragmatic competence has come under the spotlight of many
recent studies.
Analyzing cultural and strategic phenomena like (im)politeness is not
inherent in a language. As a matter of fact, they are created as a result of various
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 91
contextual factors during communicative actions. Hence context and contextual
factors are determining elements. Taguchi (2015) introduces three contexts in which
recent pragmatic research occurs: (1) the target language community, (2) formal
classroom environment, (3) digitally mediated contexts. The point is far from
negligence that contexts are built up through interaction and communication. Isurin,
Furman, and White (2015) suggest that communication failure “often leads to
broken relationships, hurt feelings, culture shock, and diplomatic failure” (p. 38).
This witnesses more emphasis on awareness raising of pragmatic domain. As such,
(im)politeness and face as the central issues have been contended to play a vital role
in this regard.
Face is well-known as the public self-image that everyone frames for
himself or herself. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) approach is based on the
assumption that face may be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interaction.
They identified two orientations of positive face, a desire that others accept you as a
friend and a member of the group, and negative face, a desire to be respected by
others and be free from unreasonable impositions from others. In this vein, they state
conversation is a constant care of face-saving act (FSA) and face-threatening act
(FTA). In their belief, (im)politeness is inherent in language.
In later studies, postmodern researchers (Culpeper, 2005; Culpeper,
Bousfield, & Wichmann, 2003; Eelen, 2001; Mills, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2005;
Watts, 2003) argue that classical (im)politeness investigations (Brown & Levinson,
1987; Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983) have ignored paralinguistic and extralinguistic
motifs in (im)politeness conceptions and criticize that grammatical realization is
inadequate and cannot respond to the fluidity of context and cross-cultural questions.
What merits the model over Brown and Levinson’s (1987) is that messages are not
intrinsically (im)polite but participants coconstruct the meaning through
conversation.
In general, Spencer-Oatey (2008) expresses that speech act sets consist of a
head act and a pre or postadditional component with the aim of downgrading or
upgrading forces. Kasper (1992) sets up an eleven-fold classification of illocutionary
speech acts: requests, suggestions, invitations, refusals, expressions of disagreement,
corrections, complaints, apologies, expressions of gratitude, compliments, and
indirect answers. The present study suffices to define request, apology, and refusal
speech acts.
Request is one of the main tools used by the speaker to stop the hearer or
get him or her to carry out an act with the ultimate aim of satisfying wants. A
request speech act has two parts of obligatory, core or head and peripheral or
additional part. In contrast to the request which may accompany social disharmony
(Brown & Levinson, 1987), apology is an end to a disharmony. It is a response to
92 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
the feelings of guilt and remorse in which the person is either the recipient or
producer of the speech act. The last term which is refusal has been defined as saying
no in response to an offerer.
In this regard, several studies have been conducted on the matters to
explicate them more. In a contrastive study, Jalilifar (2009) tried to compare Iranian
EFL learners with Australian English native speakers. The obtained results of the
study presented an imbalance use of patterns in comparison with native speakers. In
contrast to high proficient learners who overused indirect forms of request strategies,
low proficient learners overused direct forms. This evidenced that learners resorted
to overgeneralization.
In an investigation, Eslami-Rasekh and Mardani (2010) analyzed the effect
of explicit teaching on a cross-cultural analysis of apology speech act. Their results
indicated that, in general, EFL learners are not aware of sociopragmatic elements.
Besides, Allami and Naeimi (2010) established a cross-linguistic study of refusals to
compare the frequency, shift, and content of semantic formulae employed by Persian
native speakers, EFL learners, and American native speakers. In total, the study
indicated EFL learners were not aware of the refusal speech act and tended to pave
the communicative ways through transfer.
In line with previous studies, Salmani-Nodoushan and Allami (2011)
investigated request supportive moves and found out that based on the weightiness
and seriousness of the situations, the participants decided about the type and number
of moves. In addition, to fill lack of knowledge, the Iranian EFL learners transferred
indirect strategies. In line with their analysis on request speech act, Allami (2012)
conducted an investigation on offer speech act. The collected data indicated that they
had employed indirect strategies to lessen the imposition on the addressee.
In a similar study, the main objective of the study by Ahmadi, Kargar, and
Rostampour (2014) was to investigate the types of suggestion supportive moves that
Iranian EFL learners used in the target language. The results represented that there
were no significant differences among students with different proficiency levels in
the application of suggestion strategies. In addition, in a groundbreaking study,
Buchbinder, Wilbur, McLean, and Sleath (2015) extended request strategies to
medical contexts to investigate patients’ expressions of request for painkillers. They
put forward direct, indirect, and no request patterns and they employed mitigation
strategies, softening devices, and indirect utterances in requesting pain killers. In
general, Kádár and Haugh (2015) identified three ways of data gathering in
(im)politeness studies: First, written sources which rely on linguistic forms analysis;
second, metaparticipants with online evaluation of (im)politeness; and third, face-to-
face conversations without evaluation.
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 93
The present study is different from its predecessors in that it was an attempt
to investigate (1) native and nonnatives codification of request, apology, and refusal
speech act patterns, (2) attitudinal ratings of supportive moves in terms of
appropriateness, (3) determination of (im)politeness rating scales with regard to the
simulated context.
2. Methodology
2.1 Participants
The total participant pool was 110, including 100 nonnative and 10 native
English speakers. The purpose of the study called for working with an equal number
of male and female Iranian EFL learners to assess the possible effect of gender on
the application of strategies. They were at intermediate and high levels of language
proficiency. Their age ranged from 17 to 51 years with a mean of 34. They had no
experience of living in an English country, so they were homogenous in that they
were not exposed to foreign cultures. To obtain a valid form of answer, 10 American
native speakers of English (5 males and 5 females) whose age ranged from 23 to 51
(M = 37) were selected. They were educated at M.A. and Ph.D. levels, and their
answers were obtained via e-mail. They provided responses about the appropriate
application of strategies besides giving relevant cross-cultural examination of the
speech acts.
2.2 Instruments
Two sets of instruments were used to carry out the data collection
procedures. They were designed to gather necessary information about the
grammatical knowledge and pragmatic knowledge background of the participants. In
this regard, research data were gleaned through an Oxford Quick Placement Test
(OQPT) and a discourse completion test (DCT) to obtain the required information
for the current study. The assumption of the homogeneity of students’ language
proficiency level in each group was satisfied by checking the results obtained from
the OQPT. All the EFL learners went through the test before taking any other test.
The allocated time was 30 min and its maximum score was 60.
The second administered test was a DCT. This is a common procedure in
pragmatics-based research particularly in examining speech acts production. Kasper
(2000) suggests it is the most prominent way of pragmalinguistic and linguistic data
elicitation. The written open-ended part of the present DCT included 18 real
situations. For every speech act, six scenarios were designed to take Brown and
Levinson’s (1987) social variables (i.e., power and social distance) into
consideration. Power has three status of high, equal, and low; social distance
involves strange and intimate relations; hence, six scenarios were provided.
94 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
It should be mentioned that the scenarios were modified versions used
earlier by Allami and Naeimi (2010), Jalilifar (2009), Kuhi and Jadidi (2012), and
Tajeddin and Pirhoseinloo (2012). The minor modifications were made to make the
questionnaire appropriate in terms of controlling the intended variables to this study.
The questionnaire was analyzed quantitatively through Cronbach’s alpha and
qualitatively by two English native speakers besides two English teachers. Based on
the information obtained, it was verified that the selected questions were obvious
and left no doubt in terms of content and structures.
Furthermore, the goal of the study was fulfilled by adding two further
questions of confidence test and (im)politeness mannerism test. Confidence test
involved a scale of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% with high reliability (r = .965). The test
followed five main purposes:
To identify the learners’ attitudinal ratings of their produced structures
in terms of pragmatic success
To cast the learners’ mind back to the answers made and encourage
them to contemplate the questions and responses more
To avoid any guess that might arise as a result of surface reading of
the questions
To challenge the participants’ mind to think about their sociolinguistic
ability as well as grammatical ability
To demonstrate that language knowledge was not confined to the
confidence in grammatical competence but speech acts knowledge
was equally important
In the final analysis, to have quantitative analyses of the awareness issue,
the native speakers’ confidence ratings were considered as 100% and those of
nonnative speakers’ were measured against them. In other words, the questionnaire
distributed among the native speakers did not have confidence test rating—the
second question. In order to satisfy the targets of the project, (im)politeness rates of
the produced patterns were determined. As such, it required another part which was
entitled (im)politeness mannerism test. Thus, the third question of the study was
formed based on a five-rated Likert scale rating from very impolite to very polite,
which was designed after each scenario. The important point is that the reliability of
this test had come under notification and the results showed that the Cronbach’s
alpha value was high (r = .889). This part served three essential purposes:
To determine the extent to which the learners’ ratings of their
responses matched the pragmatic values of native-like structures
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 95
To determine the extent to which the learners were aware of the
(im)politeness strategies in communicative acts
To assess the speakers’ consideration of politeness to the semantic
patterns
In summary, to investigate the Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness,
the following assumptions were taken into consideration. Firstly, the EFL learners’
speech act patterns were representative of their pragmatic awareness. In other words,
any deviations from the native-like semantic formulae were indicative of the absence
of full pragmatic competence in applying strategies. Secondly, in the case of
confidence rating, any answer evidenced the learners’ attitude in expressing the
speech acts. Thirdly, (im)politeness mannerism held the idea about the pragmatic
values, specifically awareness, of (im)politeness strategies.
2.3 Data Collection Procedure
To check the learners’ language proficiency level, one point was allocated
to each OQPT question, so the total number of correct answers for each student was
calculated out of 60. According to the OQPT cut-off score, the learners whose
scores ranged from 30 to 60 were considered as appropriate participants for the
purpose of this study. In order to have a sound analysis of native and nonnative
English speakers’ DCT data, the requests, apologies, and refusals produced were
codified into strategies based on the taxonomy of semantic formulae (Beebe et al.
1990; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). Codifying the speech
acts into formulae followed three prominent advantages: qualifying the data,
quantifying the data, and freeing the researcher from possible bias in descriptive
analysis.
To meet the aim of confidence test and (im)politeness mannerism test, the
responses employed by the nonnative speakers were analyzed and measured against
those of the natives and the percentages to each question were fed into SPSS
software separately for analysis.
3. Results
The frequency of the participants’ responses in applying each code was
counted separately. It should be noted that choosing each code refers to the actual
answer of the participants which is representative of their sociocultural awareness.
To make judgments about the collected samples, descriptive statistics enable
measurement through mean and frequency. In order to meet the target of the study,
the distribution of each supportive move was counted in a careful manner and then
listed in three tables. The horizontal row of the table presents the statistical
population, which is divided into five groups of participants. The vertical column
96 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
specifies the distribution of the formulae, and the content of the table elaborates the
frequency. To keep a meticulous record of the request speech act, Table 1 makes the
comparison more palpable:
Table 1 Frequency and Shift of Semantic Formulae in Request Speech Act (Situations 1 to 6)
Table 1 shows that the highest frequency among the groups belongs to the
query preparatory formula which is a specific form of conventionally indirect
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 97
strategy. In this strategy, the request is expressed in a question form through modal
verbs (e.g., can, could, would, may, etc.). As an example,
Question # 3: You and your classmate would like to take a photo together
to remember this happy moment. You decide to ask a nearby male/female
student who is stranger to you, to do this favor. What will you say?
The answers were would you take a picture of us? or could you take a
picture of us? In terms of content, what distinguished the intermediate from the
advanced learners was the application of the modal types. The advanced learners
applied politer forms of modal verbs like would and could but the intermediate
learners employed less polite forms like can or may, however, the difference in
performance was not significant. Based on chi-square goodness of fit, there was no
significant difference among the learners, [ɑ² (3, n = 368) = 1.43, p = .69].
According to the table, the second highest frequency belongs to the mood
derivable formula. It refers to an imperative mood which is expressed in an
authoritative manner. The learners employed it in situations with higher-status
strange or intimate distance, whereas English native speakers utilized the strategy
just in high-status intimate situations. This indicated that the shift of frequency
among the learners was higher than the natives.
Question # 4: You are studying at home. Your younger brother opens the
window and the cold wind blows right into your face and bothers you. You
want to ask him to close it. What will you say?
Most of the respondents answered close the window. Taking a closer look,
chi-square goodness of fit test did not show a significant difference among the
learners, [ɑ² (3, n = 128) = 6.18, p = .10]. In addition, the general conclusion
testified that the Iranians applied a greater amount of imperatives as measured
against the Americans. Although the learners were different in terms of proficiency
level and gender, the comparison of the findings based on the chi-square goodness
of fit testified to no significant difference in their performances (p ˃ .05). The
nonsignificant interaction in terms of request suggests that the advanced learners had
a performance similar to the intermediates, and the male learners performed much
like the female learners. When the learners’ performance is compared with the
English natives, the Iranians mostly underused or overused the formulae in
comparison with the English native speakers. The second speech act is apology,
which comprised questions 7 to 12 (see Table 2):
98 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
Table 2 Frequency and Shift of Semantic Formulae in Apology Speech Act (Situations 7 to 12)
According to Table 2, the learners’ performance in some formulae (e.g.,
IFID, S expresses trait of self-deficiency, address term, and pause filler) is
significant (p ˂ .05), suggesting a difference among the four groups of learners. In
IFID, adverbial, S expresses trait of self-deficiency, explicit self-blame, offer of
repair, address term, and pause filler the advanced learners frequency of
performance slightly precede the intermediate ones. The comparative study
evidences the two most frequent supportive moves are adverbials and illocutionary
force indicating device (IFID), respectively. Adverbials are a type of intensifications
and are known through the qualifiers of very, so, and really. Table 2 shows that the
advanced learners (M = 81.5) employed adverbials more than the intermediate
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 99
learners (M = 72) although the difference was not significant, [ɑ² (3, n = 307) = 1.59,
p = .66].
The second largest value belongs to IFID which refers to the formulaic
expressions of regret (i.e., sorry, excuse, apologize, forgive, regret, and pardon).
Accordingly, the mean score of the intermediate learners (M = 59) was less than that
of the advanced learners (M = 66). Generally, the learners did not have a specific
pattern in using IFID and the shift of frequency among them was high, although this
occurrence among the English native speakers was more controlled.
Question # 10: You borrow the car of your younger brother. When you are
backing out of the parking place, you accidentally bump into a tree and
make dent on the side of the car. You feel terrible about it. How do you
apologize?
Answer: I’m sorry I dented your car.
The results of the chi-square showed there was a significant difference
among the learners, [ɑ² (3, n = 250) = 11.18, p = .01]. In addition, the comparison
between adverbials (M = 70.4) and IFID (M = 51.8) demonstrated that both the
native and nonnative groups had more tendency towards the application of the
former strategy rather than the latter one. The results of the frequency report that this
strategy is not as common among the natives (5.3%) as among the learners
(19.45%). In fact, one noteworthy difference occurs in the application of IFID and
offer of repair. The EFL learners normally use a greater proportion of IFID semantic
formula per response than the native speakers of English. The most frequent strategy
used by the English speakers (17%) is providing offer of repair. Truly, the English
apologizers assume offer of repair is the best way of expressing regret. In this
prominent case, Iranians’ performance (15.82%) is not similar to that of the English.
In addition, the results displayed that instead of attaching an alternative or additional
to IFID, Iranians repeat apologetic formulae like extreme apology and repetition,
whereas this is not the case among the natives. To provide an account for refusal
speech act, the supportive moves were counted and tabulated in a carful manner (see
Table 3):
100 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
Table 3 Frequency and Shift of Semantic Formulae in Request Speech Act (Situations 13 to 18)
Multiple answers were given to the six kinds of refusal situations. The most
common semantic formulae applied by the Iranian EFL learners with regard to the
power and social distance variables are statement of regret (30.07%) and
excuse/reason/explanation (28.72%). Although all the participants displayed a
considerable level of indirectness, there were also signs of application of direct
strategies (i.e., nonperformative statement no and negative willingness/ability). The
results indicated that the English native speakers (0%) do not refuse an offer directly
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 101
through performative no strategy but the learners (3.42%) normally use it. In other
words, the learners seemed to be unaware that the English people do not usually
answer directly negatively in response to an offer. The inappropriate application was
especially common among the intermediate learners.
Besides, based on the chi-square goodness of fit the learners performed
significantly (p ˂ .05) in applying formulae like performative no, set condition for
future or past, promise of future acceptance, and postponement, which meant that
the learners’ group performances were different from one another. In applying some
of the strategies (e.g., nonperformative, statement of wish and promise of future
acceptance) the advanced learners slightly preceded the intermediate respondents. It
meant that the former group applied these moves more than the latter group.
The chi-square test for independence was applied among the two
categorical variables of group (i.e., male intermediate, female intermediate, male
advanced, and female advanced) and move type and the continuous variable of
frequency. The Pearson correlation value (p = .0001) for request was significant and
the result showed that there was an association between group and the selection of
request move type, [ϰ² (76) = 1.729, p ≤ 0.05]. The value of the Cramar’s V is .181,
which reported a moderate effect size.
The Pearson chi-square value was significant (p = .0001) and the
examination of the data indicated that there was an association between group and
move type, [ϰ² (40) = 1.241, p ≤ 0.05]. Based on the Cramar’s V value (.146), the
effect size was small. Besides, the Pearson chi-square value was reported significant
(p = .0001) for refusal speech act. The explanation was that the impact of group on
supportive moves is significant, [ϰ² (60) = 1.379, p ≤ 0.05]. In addition, the effect
size is small (Cramer’s V = .16).
In sum, the results of chi-square tests for request, apology, and refusal
speech act were significant, which meant that there was an association between
group (i.e., male intermediate, female intermediate, male advanced, and female
advanced) and the selection of request move type.
A two-way between groups ANOVA was conducted to measure the mean
differences between the two independent variables of group (i.e., intermediate,
advanced, and English native speakers) and gender. The central focus of the
intended SPSS technique was to understand if there existed any interaction between
the two independent variables on the dependent variables (i.e., attitudinal
appropriateness and (im)politeness mannerism). The results indicate that the
intermediate learners (M = 70.58, SD = 12.94) were more confident of their
responses than the advanced learners (M = 70.19, SD = 18.60). Besides, based on the
102 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
Levene’s test, the result of descriptive statistics on confidence test was significant, F
(5, 104) = 6.79, p = .0001.
Moreover, language proficiency affected the appropriateness response but
gender did not. Furthermore, gender did not moderate the relationship between
group and appropriateness, F(1, 104) = .23, p = .632, partial eta squared = .002.
However, group moderated the relationship between gender and appropriateness, F
(2, 104) = 16.70, p = .0001, partial eta squared= .243. Also, the result of the
interaction was not significant and the effect size was low, F(2, 104) = .364, p =
.696, partial eta squared= .007.
Concerning the (im)politeness mannerism test, the relationship between the
intermediate and native participants as well as the relationship between the advanced
and native speakers was significant (p = .0001). The total mean and standard
deviation of the intermediate, advanced, and native participants were (M = 3.55, SD
= .47), (M = 3.70, SD = .44), and (M = 3.86, SD = .26), respectively. It testified that
the participants’ mean score differences were very low. In addition, the value of the
Levene’s test was not significant (p = .355).
Also, the results indicated that the effect of gender on (im)politeness test
was not significant, and the partial eta squared value indicated a low effect size, F(1,
104) = .67, p = .41, partial eta squared= .006, and p ˃ .05. The group’s report is, F(2,
104) = 2.58, p = .08, partial eta squared= .04. Therefore, the effect of group on
mannerism was not significant (p ˃ .05), and the effect size was low. A further
important point was that gender and group interaction output was F(2, 104) = .007, p
= .99, partial eta squared= .0001, and p ˃ .05, indicating that the interaction had no
effect on mannerism.
The relationship between the intermediate and native participants was
significant (p ˂ .05), but the relationship between the advanced and native speakers
was not significant (p ˃ .05). Next, because the DCT’s scenarios were organized into
two social distances and three power statuses, six various contexts (i.e., high-status
strange speaker, equal-status strange interlocutors, low-status strange speaker, high-
status intimate speaker, equal-status intimate speaker, and low-status intimate
speaker) came under study. To this end, six correlation tests were designed based on
the six situations. The results of the analyses based on the various scenarios in terms
of power and social distance were significant (p ˂ .05), meaning that the more
confident the participants were in answering the appropriateness percentages, the
politer their response to the (im)politeness mannerism could be.
ANOVA was used to determine whether there were any significant
differences in the mean scores of the intermediate, advanced, and English native
speakers. The results indicated that the highest mean score belonged to the native
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 103
speakers (M = 3.86, SD = .26), then to the advanced learners (M = 3.70, SD = .44),
and the lowest one to the intermediate learners (M = 3.55, SD= .47). Further, the
value was not significant, F(2, 107) = 2.63, p = .07.
Two different independent samples t tests were conducted to check the
effect of language proficiency level and gender on (im)politeness strategies. The
statistical test aimed to determine any possible differences between the advanced
and intermediate learners as well as the male and female participants on pragmatic
awareness. The results indicated the difference between the two proficiency levels
did not turn out to be statistically significant, (t = 1.602, p = .505, df = 97.469). The
magnitude of difference in the mean scores was small (eta squared = .025). The
finding was evidence to the claim that the learners had similar performance in
responding to the speech acts.
The results of the second test indicated that the difference between the male
and female participants was not significant, (t = .986, p = .138, df = 104.248). The
noteworthy point is that gender was not an influential factor in producing
appropriate formulaic expressions in response to the intended speech acts.
4. Discussion
The general aim of this study was to examine the Iranian EFL learners’
awareness of (im)politeness strategies. The results indicate that the learners seemed
unaware of the frequency of the strategies in request, apology, and refusal speech
acts. In fact, the strategies common between both English native speakers and
Iranian EFL learners manifested some differences. An example is the mood
derivable formula as a striking move in requests. The application of the mood
derivable formula was frequent among the learners in various contextual
circumstances, whereas it was only observable in requesting high-status intimate
speakers among the English natives. Explicating the claim more, the results of the
descriptive statistics suggest that IFID and adverbials possessed a high degree of
frequency among the natives and nonnatives, though IFID was more common
among the learners than the natives. Another prominent example is that the learners
were aware of offer of repair strategy, but it was more frequent among the English
people than the Iranian learners. It was also found that learners were only slightly
aware of the most frequent strategies in refusals (i.e., excuse/reason/explanation, and
statement of regret strategies); however, this was not the case for other strategies.
The next notable result is about the content of the speech acts. Comparing
the content between the Iranian learners and the English natives showed that the
natives alleviated their content of request more than the learners. This is supportable
through the high application of query preparatory, modifiers, and so on among the
natives. Also, the results of the Iranian learners indicated that in order to fill the gap
104 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
of pragmatic knowledge, they attempted to apply the IFID and adverbial formulae
repeatedly; however, they neglected the fact that there were other various strategies
to express the feeling of regret. Another point is that in the content of offer of repair:
Unlike the EFL learners, the English native speakers usually provided a choice for
the receiver. For example, they asked would you prefer it if I do X or Y?, whereas
this was not the case among the Iranian learners. The results showed that the natives
brought excuse in more details than the Iranian learners: They attempted to provide
reasons through explicating their explanations (e.g., stating the time and/or place).
The second difference was in the type of reason. The English native speakers were
more explicit in bringing excuses/reasons/explanations, but the Iranian EFL learners
were more implicit. English speakers mostly brought appointment as an excuse with
giving the time, but the learners did not obviate their excuse; for instance, the EFL
learners said I have work to do and I should go.
In the request speech act, the learners employed formulae such as mood
derivable, query preparatory, apology and address term in almost all the
circumstances, without concentrating on the contextual variables; however, the
natives took the contextual factors into notice and employed the moves in a
controlled manner. Or, in apology speech act, the learners did not follow a specific
pattern of use in using the three prominent formulae (i.e., adverbial, IFID, and offer
of repair). An example for refusal is that the English speakers’ patterns for
nonperformative negative willingness/ability were quite consistent, and the highest
one was addressed towards intimate high-power speakers, whereas the learners
shifted through various contexts. The same case can be addressed for
excuse/reason/explanation formulae.
Moreover, this study was an attempt to clarify the effect of language
proficiency level on (im)politeness awareness. The statistical results indicated no
remarkable sign of priority of a group over another (p ˃ .05). This finding was
unexpected and suggests that in spite of the full grammatical command, the
advanced and the intermediate learners could not handle the various conditions
successfully. The results are in contrast with Kuhi and Jadid’s (2012) notion that
learners have enough knowledge about speech acts and strategies. However, the
results of the current study are consistent with those of Jalilifar (2009) and Ahmadi
et al. (2014) who found that learners with different language proficiency levels are
ignorant of appropriate target language pragmatic schemes. The findings also
evidence that group (intermediate, advanced, and English native speakers) plays a
significant role in the confidence test. Hence, there is a difference between the
intermediate, advanced, and native speakers’ percentages in confidence test, whereas
the findings of the politeness mannerism test indicated that group had no role in
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 105
rating (im)politeness scale. In other words, there was no significant difference
among the participants on the mannerism test.
Concerning the effect of gender on (im)politeness strategies, contrary to
expectations, this study did not find any significant difference between the males
and females Iranian EFL learners (p ˃ .05). It highlights that both groups employed
nonnative request, apology, and refusal semantic formulae. These results contradict
Mills’ (2003) claim that females are politer than males, but it is broadly consistent
with Ahmadi et al.’s (2014) investigation of speech act. The results also differ from
Kuhi and Jadidi’s (2012) study that found gender as a cultural variable to have a
remarkable effect on selecting strategies. Furthermore, the results showed that
gender was not effective on the confidence test responses. Thus, the males and
females’ assurance of the appropriateness matter was the same.
In terms of face sensitivities, the present study evidences that in applying
the request speech act, the respondents attempted to alleviate the FTA of an order or
a want through bringing supportive moves like imposition minimizer, appreciation,
apology, politeness marker, and so on. In apologizing situations, the producer of the
apology employs the strategies like IFID, adverbial intensifications, offer of repair,
and so on. Besides, in the refusal speech act, the rejecter uses statement of regret,
statement of wish, excuse/reason/explanation, and so on. The common motif based
on Spencer-Oatey’s (2008) management of face sensitivities is that the moves are
employed by the speaker to be evaluated positively from the hearer’s point of view
and to prevent FTA. With regard to the relational face management, the study met
this issue through considering subsets such as strange-intimate distance and equal-
unequal power. Further, in social identity management, the requestor, apologizer,
and refuser respond with accepting the speaker’s social identity and position in
relation to himself or herself. In managing the interactional goal, the respondent may
enhance maintain, neglect, or challenge the interlocutor’s face.
The investigation of requests, apologies, and refusals reveals that the
Iranian EFL learners are not aware of appropriate strategies. It suggests that they are
not cognizant that a specific speech act may be realized differently across various
cultures. It confirms Bardovi-Harling’s (2001) idea that the conceptualization and
verbalization of speech acts are cross-culturally different. On the whole, the Iranian
EFL learners’ poor performance can be put down to lack of the sociopragmatic and
pragmalinguistic conventions (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Therefore, the conventions
could be a major factor, if not the only, causing pragmatic failure.
5. Conclusion
As to the purpose of this study, the Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic
awareness in terms of (im)politeness strategies in the request, apology, and refusal
106 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
speech acts was checked and three research questions were proposed. The idea
behind these questions was to investigate the learners’ awareness of the three speech
acts, as well as extend of the influence of language proficiency level and gender on
(im)politeness awareness. The main reason for studying pragmatic awareness is the
fact that there has been no investigation about the Iranian EFL learners’
(im)politeness strategies in line with attitudinal and mannerism subject matters.
Results from the descriptive and inferential statistics of Iranian EFL learners
ascertain that the EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness (i.e., their knowledge of how to
produce and perceive a language based on the cultural-specific rules of
appropriateness) did not follow native-like patterns. Furthermore, the learners’
unsatisfactory results in the production of speech acts were a clear-cut indication of
their difficulty in the acquisition of the structures.
This study has important explanations for developing cultural awareness.
Spencer-Oatey (2008) claims that culture is a set of shared behavioral conventions
which shapes the meaning. This indicates that recognizing and producing the
meaning of speech acts are culturally determined factors and require high degrees of
awareness.
Awareness of speech acts is an important component in pragmatic domain
and plays a key role in communication actions. Pragmatic teaching should be an
integral part of language learning, especially for EFL who have almost no
opportunity for interaction. As such, providing an opportunity for learning the
knowledge of the routines or formulaic expressions of speech acts is a solution to
internalizing pragmatic knowledge for appropriate spontaneous production. In this
vein, to achieve an optimal pragmatic success, EFL learners need to be aware of the
frequent sociocultural strategies of the foreign language.
References
Ahmadi, M., Kargar, A. A., & Rostampour, M. (2014). Investigating the role of
gender, proficiency level and L1 on Iranian EFL learners’ production of
suggestion speech act. International Journal of Language Learning and
Applied Linguistics World, 6(3), 163-180.
Allami, H. (2012). A sociopragmatic study of offer speech act in Persian. RALs,
3(1), 110-129.
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of
pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(1), 385-406.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Iranian EFL Learners’ Awareness of (Im)politeness . . . | 107
Bardovi-Harling, 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: Cambridge University Press.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communication competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York:
Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural
study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3),
196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publications.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buchbinder, M., Wilbur, R., McLean, S., & Sleath, B. (2015). “Is there any way I
can get something for my pain?” Patient strategies for requesting analgesics.
Patient Education and Counseling, 98(2), 137-143.
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The
weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture,
1(1), 35-72.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With
special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics,
35(10), 1545-1579.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jermone
Publishing.
Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching
apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic
development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. The International Journal
of Language Society and Culture, 30(1), 96-103.
Isurin, L., Furman, M., & White, K. (2015). Talking to a stranger: Linguistic and
nonlinguistic behavior of Russian immigrants during 2010 US Census.
Language and Communication, 40, 38-51.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners
and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2015). Understanding politeness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
108 | RALs, 8(1), Spring 2017
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey
(Ed.), Culturally speaking (pp. 316- 341). London and New York: Continuum.
Kuhi, D., & Jadidi, M. (2012). A study of Iranian EFL learners’ understanding and
production of politeness in three speech acts: Request, refusal, and apology.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2624-2633.
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago
Linguistics Society, 9, 292-305.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics: New York: Longman.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. S., & Allami, H. (2011). Supportive discourse moves in
Persian requests. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 5(2), 205-
234.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im) politeness, face, and perceptions of rapport:
unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research:
Language, Behavior, Culture, 1(1), 95-119.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk
across cultures. London and New York: Continuum.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Contextually speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad,
in class, and online. System, 48, 3-20.
Tajeddin, Z., & Pirhoseinloo, M. (2012). Production of apologies in English:
Variation by L2 proficiency and apology situations. Journal of Teaching
English Language, 6(2), 129-160.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistic, 4,91-112.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
