MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

English Speech Act Realization of “Refusals” among Iranian EFL Learners

2011· article· en· W2168700989 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rahman Sahragard, Fatemeh Javanmardi

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPragmaticsPsychologySpeech actLinguisticsRealization (probability)Qualitative researchVariety (cybernetics)PopulationAction (physics)Test (biology)PedagogyMathematics educationSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 Resumé: L'acte de discours de refus a été l'un des thèmes importants dans la recherche sur le discours pragmatique des dernières décennies. En fait, la pragmatique joue un rôle très important dans le processus de communication et l'action de refus est réalisée dans notre vie quotidienne et dans une variété de situations. Par conséquent, dans la présente étude, le chercheur a tenté de déterminer comment les apprenants ALE iraniens ont suivi de différents schémas pragmatiques pour former l'acte de discours de refus et quelles stratégies ils ont utilisées dans de différentes situations et de diverses conditions. Il esssaie aussi d'examiner si leur utilisation des stratégies étaient dépendante du sexe et enfin de voir s'il y avait une différence dans le type de stratégies utilisées par les étudiants à des niveaux de l'éducation différents à l'université. Ainsi, 48 élèves, des garçons et des filles ont été sélectionnés au hasard pour représenter la population accessible des étudiants à des niveaux de l'éducation différents à l'université; soit vingt étudiants MA avec la spécialisation en EALE et vingt-huit étudiants BA avec la spécialisation en littérature anglaise à l'université de Shiraz. Ainsi, les élèves ont reçu un questionnaire sur le test de complétion de discours (TCD). Dans la présente étude, le chercheur a bénéficié d'un mode qualitatif de l'enquête pour l'analyse de la pragmatique de discours, c'est-à-dire, les données obtenues à partir des questionnaires ont d'abord été codifiées et ensuite chaque refus est classé, analysé et interprété en fonction d'une version modifiée de la la taxonomie des stratégies de refus de Beebe et al. (1990). Les résultats indiquent que les apprenants ALE iraniens ont généralement utilisé des stratégies implicites ou indirectes à parler à leurs interlocuteurs ou auditeurs et ils expriment leur sens voulu d'une manière qui ne causerait pas de tort ou de menacent face à leurs auditeurs. Par ailleurs, l'acte de discours indirect signifie habituellement la politesse dans le contexte iranien. En d'autres termes, la plupart des stratégies communes utilisées par les apprenants iraniens ont été des excuses, des explications ou des motifs qui suivent ou précèdent un sentiment de regret. En ce qui concerne les différences des sexes, comme les participants étaient principalement des femmes, le chercheur de cette étude ne pouvait pas tirer de conclusions définitives. Enfin, aucune différence n'a été observée entre les participants à ces deux niveaux de l'éducation en utilisant les stratégies ci-dessus. Mots-clés: Discours Pragmatique; Pragmatique; Acte de Discours de Refus; Stratégies 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communication→Same topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies→French-language works237,207→