English Speech Act Realization of “Refusals” among Iranian EFL Learners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech act of refusal has been one of the important topics in the discourse pragmatic research over the past few decades. In fact, pragmatics plays a very important role in the process of communication and the action of refusal is performed in our daily lives and in a variety of situations. Therefore, in the present study, the researcher has tried to investigate how Iranian EFL learners followed different pragmatic patterns to produce the speech act of refusal and what strategies they used in different situations and under various conditions. And also to examine if their use of the strategies were dependent on gender and finally to see if there was any difference in the type of strategies used by students at different levels of education at the university. So, forty eight students, both males and females were randomly selected to be representative of the accessible population from the students studying at different levels of education at the university; that is, twenty MA students majoring in TEFL and twenty eight BA students majoring in English Literature at Shiraz University. Thus, the students were given a questionnaire on discourse completion test (DCT). In the present study, the researcher benefited from a qualitative mode of inquiry for the analysis of discourse pragmatics; that is, the obtained data from the questionnaires were first codified and then each refusal was classified, analyzed and interpreted based on a modified version of Beebe et al.’s (1990) taxonomy of refusal strategies. The results indicated that Iranian EFL learners usually followed implicit or indirect strategies to talk to their interlocutors or hearers and express their intended meaning in a way that they would not cause any offence or threaten their listener’s face. Moreover, indirect speech act usually denoted politeness in the Iranian context as well. In other words, the mostly common strategies used by Iranian learners were excuses, explanations, or reasons following or preceding a sense of regret. Regarding gender differences, due to the limited number of the participants who were mostly females, the researcher in this study could not draw any definite conclusions. Finally, no difference was found between the participants in both levels of education in using the aforementioned strategies. Key words: Discourse Pragmatic; Pragmatics; Refusal Speech Act; Refusal Strategies; Iranian Context Resume: L'acte de discours de refus a ete l'un des themes importants dans la recherche sur le discours pragmatique des dernieres decennies. En fait, la pragmatique joue un role tres important dans le processus de communication et l'action de refus est realisee dans notre vie quotidienne et dans une variete de situations. Par consequent, dans la presente etude, le chercheur a tente de determiner comment les apprenants ALE iraniens ont suivi de differents schemas pragmatiques pour former l'acte de discours de refus et quelles strategies ils ont utilisees dans de differentes situations et de diverses conditions. Il esssaie aussi d'examiner si leur utilisation des strategies etaient dependante du sexe et enfin de voir s'il y avait une difference dans le type de strategies utilisees par les etudiants a des niveaux de l'education differents a l'universite. Ainsi, 48 eleves, des garcons et des filles ont ete selectionnes au hasard pour representer la population accessible des etudiants a des niveaux de l'education differents a l'universite; soit vingt etudiants MA avec la specialisation en EALE et vingt-huit etudiants BA avec la specialisation en litterature anglaise a l'universite de Shiraz. Ainsi, les eleves ont recu un questionnaire sur le test de completion de discours (TCD). Dans la presente etude, le chercheur a beneficie d'un mode qualitatif de l'enquete pour l'analyse de la pragmatique de discours, c'est-a-dire, les donnees obtenues a partir des questionnaires ont d'abord ete codifiees et ensuite chaque refus est classe, analyse et interprete en fonction d'une version modifiee de la la taxonomie des strategies de refus de Beebe et al. (1990). Les resultats indiquent que les apprenants ALE iraniens ont generalement utilise des strategies implicites ou indirectes a parler a leurs interlocuteurs ou auditeurs et ils expriment leur sens voulu d'une maniere qui ne causerait pas de tort ou de menacent face a leurs auditeurs. Par ailleurs, l'acte de discours indirect signifie habituellement la politesse dans le contexte iranien. En d'autres termes, la plupart des strategies communes utilisees par les apprenants iraniens ont ete des excuses, des explications ou des motifs qui suivent ou precedent un sentiment de regret. En ce qui concerne les differences des sexes, comme les participants etaient principalement des femmes, le chercheur de cette etude ne pouvait pas tirer de conclusions definitives. Enfin, aucune difference n'a ete observee entre les participants a ces deux niveaux de l'education en utilisant les strategies ci-dessus. Mots-cles: Discours Pragmatique; Pragmatique; Acte de Discours de Refus; Strategies de Refus; Contexte Iranien
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it