Loading...

American Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language

The Speech Act of Refusal in Egyptian Arabic

by Nader Morkus (Author)
©2018 Monographs XVI, 286 Pages

Summary

The book investigates how American learners of Arabic realize the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic in different speech situations, varying by setting, topic, social distance, and interlocutor status. Two groups of learners, one at the intermediate level and the other at the advanced level of Arabic proficiency, and two baseline groups of native speakers of Egyptian Arabic and native speakers of American English participated in the study.
Data were collected using the role-play method, which allowed for the elicitation and analysis of refusals at the discourse level. This type of analysis, which helps us reach a better understanding of the distribution and recycling of refusal strategies over a number of turns to achieve communicative goals, is rarely done in speech act research in general and in Arabic speech act research in particular. This study provides evidence of negative pragmatic transfer from L1 among American learners of Arabic. It also provides evidence that pragmatic transfer occurred more frequently among the advanced learners. The advanced learners, however, exhibited an overall higher level of pragmatic competence than their intermediate counterparts. This book is an excellent resource for instructors of Arabic as a foreign language as well as Arabic textbook writers and curriculum designers.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author(s)/editor(s)
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • List of Tables
  • List of Figures
  • Chapter One: Introduction
  • Speech Act Research
  • Arabic Speech Act Studies
  • Rationale and Statement of the Problem
  • Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
  • Design of the Study: Data Collection and Analysis
  • Significance of the Study
  • Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
  • Organization of the Book
  • Definition of Terms
  • References
  • Chapter Two: Literature Review
  • Introduction
  • Speech Act Theory
  • Communicative Competence
  • Pragmatic Competence
  • Pragmatic Transfer
  • Politeness
  • Brown and Levinson’s Theory of Politeness
  • Speech Act Research
  • Arabic Speech Act Studies
  • Arabic Refusal Studies
  • Other Relevant Refusal Studies
  • Data Collection Methods in Speech Act Research
  • Observation of Authentic Speech
  • Discourse Completion Task/Test (DCT)
  • Role Plays
  • Chapter Summary
  • References
  • Chapter Three: Research Method
  • Introduction
  • Participants
  • American Learners of Arabic
  • Native Speakers of American English
  • Native Speakers of Egyptian Arabic
  • Data Collection Instrument
  • Enhanced Open-Ended Role Plays
  • Design of the Role Plays
  • Role Play 1—Request: Equal Status
  • Role Play 2—Request: Low to High
  • Role Play 3—Request: High to Low
  • Role Play 4—Offer: Low to High
  • Role Play 5—Offer: Equal Status
  • Role Play 6—Offer: High to Low
  • Role Plays and the Pilot Study
  • Translating the Role Plays
  • Background Questionnaires
  • Equipment, Props, and Space
  • Data Collection Procedures
  • Determining the Arabic Proficiency of the American Learners
  • Conducting the Role Plays
  • American Learners of Arabic
  • Native Speakers of American English
  • Native Speakers of Egyptian Arabic
  • Data Analysis
  • Introduction
  • Quantitative Analysis
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Answering the Research Questions
  • Research Question One (A)
  • Research Question One (B)
  • Research Question Two (A)
  • Research Question Two (B)
  • Data Transcription and Coding
  • Classification Scheme of Refusal Strategies
  • Direct Refusals
  • Indirect Refusals
  • Statement of Regret
  • Request for Information/Clarification.
  • Let Interlocutor off the Hook
  • Criticism/Reprimand
  • Postponement
  • Giving Advice/Lecturing
  • Wish
  • Request for Consideration or Understanding
  • Repetition of Part of the Request
  • Self-Defense
  • Negative Consequences to Requester
  • Statement of Alternative
  • Excuse/Reason/ Explanation
  • Promise of Future Acceptance
  • Setting Conditions for Acceptance
  • Lack of Empathy
  • Proverb/Common Saying
  • Hedging
  • Statement of Principle or Philosophy
  • Topic/Focus Switch
  • Unspecified or Indefinite Reply
  • Joke
  • Appeal to a Third Party
  • Adjuncts to Refusal
  • Gratitude/Appreciation
  • Statement of Positive Opinion, Feeling or Agreement
  • Invoking the Name of God
  • Getting Interlocutor’s Attention
  • Statement of Empathy/Concern
  • Pilot Study
  • Participants
  • Elicitation Instrument
  • Data Collection Procedures
  • Data Analysis Procedures
  • Chapter Summary
  • References
  • Chapter Four: Results
  • Quantitative Findings
  • Total Number of Words
  • Number of Turns and Turn Length
  • Strategy Use by Role Play
  • Role Play 1
  • Role Play 2
  • Role Play 3
  • Role Play 4
  • Role Play 5
  • Role Play 6
  • Direct Strategies
  • Direct Strategies by Role Play
  • Direct Strategies by Status
  • Flat No
  • Flat No by Role Play
  • Flat No by Status
  • Indirect Strategies
  • Indirect Strategies by Role Play
  • Indirect Strategies by Status
  • Selected Indirect Strategies by Status
  • Indirect Strategies by Refusal Type.
  • Adjuncts to Refusal
  • Adjuncts to Refusal by Status
  • Adjuncts to Refusal by Refusal Type
  • Qualitative Findings
  • Content of Excuses and Reasons
  • Role Play 1
  • Role Play 2
  • Role Play 3
  • Role Play 4
  • Role Play 5
  • Role Play 6
  • Refusal Stages I & II
  • Role Play 1
  • Role Play 2
  • Role Play 3
  • Role Play 4
  • Role Play 5
  • Role Play 6
  • Discourse Analysis of Selected Interactions
  • Strategy Selection
  • Individual Differences
  • Language Proficiency and Pragmatic Competence
  • Direct and Indirect Strategies in Higher Status Situations
  • References
  • Chapter Five: Discussion
  • Discussion of Quantitative Findings
  • Total Number of Words
  • Number of Turns and Turn Length
  • Strategy Use
  • Strategy Use and Language Proficiency
  • Frequency of Strategies and Strategy Selection
  • Direct Strategies
  • Indirect Strategies
  • Adjuncts to Refusal
  • Discussion of Qualitative Findings
  • Types of Excuses
  • Stages of Refusal
  • Discussion of Findings from Selected Interactions
  • Strategy Selection
  • Individual Differences
  • Language Proficiency and Pragmatic Competence
  • Direct and Indirect Strategies in Higher-Status Situations
  • Research Question I: Discussion of Findings
  • Discussion of Quantitative Findings
  • Discussion of Qualitative Findings
  • Research Question II: Discussion of Findings
  • Discussion of Quantitative Findings
  • Discussion of Qualitative Findings
  • Comparing the Findings of the Study to Other Refusal Studies
  • Comparing the Findings of the Study to Arabic Refusal Studies
  • Pedagogical Implications
  • Directions for Future Research
  • References
  • Appendices
  • Appendix A: Background Questionnaire A
  • Contact Information
  • Education and Languages
  • Appendix B: Background Questionnaire B
  • Contact Information
  • Education and Languages
  • Appendix C: Background Questionnaire C
  • Personal information
  • Education and Occupation
  • Languages
  • Appendix D: Background Questionnaire C (ArabicVersion)
  • Appendix E: Enhanced Open-Ended Role Plays
  • Instructions
  • Role Play 1
  • Role Play 2
  • Role Play 3
  • Role Play 4
  • Role Play 5
  • Role Play 6
  • Appendix F: Enhanced Open-Ended Role Plays (Arabic Version)
  • Appendix G: Role Play Evaluation
  • Appendix H: Consent Form
  • Purpose and Benefits
  • Procedures
  • Risks, Stress, or Discomfort
  • Confidentiality
  • Voluntary Participation
  • Contact Information and Questions
  • Participant’s Statement
  • Investigator’s Statement
  • Appendix I: Number of Words, Turns, and Turn Length: NNSI Group
  • Appendix J: Number of Words, Turns, and Turn Length: NNSA Group
  • Appendix K: Number of Words, Turns, and Turn Length: NSA Group
  • Appendix L: Number of Words, Turns, and Turn Length: NSE Group
  • Appendix M: Overall Strategy Use by Group: Role Play 1
  • Appendix N: Overall Strategy Use by Group: Role Play 2
  • Appendix O: Overall Strategy Use by Group: Role Play 3
  • Appendix P: Overall Strategy Use by Group: Role Play 4
  • Appendix Q: Overall Strategy Use by Group: Role Play 5
  • Appendix R: Overall Strategy Use by Group: Role Play 6
  • Appendix S: Participants’ Demographic Information: NNSI Group
  • Appendix T: Participants’ Demographic Information: NNSA Group
  • Appendix U: Participants’Demographic Information: NSA Group
  • Appendix V: Participants’ Demographic Information: NSE Group
  • Index

| xiii →

Tables

Table 2-1 Arabic Studies Investigating the Speech Act of Refusal

Table 3-1 Refusal Role Play Situations

Table 3-2 Summary of Data Collection Process

Table 3-3 Refusal Strategies Found in the Data

Table 4-1 Total Number of Words and Individual Variation

Table 4-2 Total Number of Words by Group

Table 4-3 Total Number of Turns and Average Turn Length by 114Role Play

Table 4-4 Overall Strategy Use by Group

Table 4-5 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group

Table 4-6 Most Frequently Used Adjuncts by Group

Table 4-7 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group in Role Play 1

Table 4-8 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group in Role Play 2

Table 4-9 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group in Role Play

Table 4-10 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group in Role Play 4 ← xiii | xiv →

Table 4-11 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group in Role Play 5

Table 4-12 Most Frequently Used Indirect Strategies by Group in Role Play 6

Table 4-13 Direct Strategies by Role Play

Table 4-14 Flat No by Role Play

Table 4-15 Indirect Strategies by Role Play

| xv →

Figures

Figure 4-1 Total Number of Words by Refusal Type

Figure 4-2 Total Number of Words by Status

Figure 4-3 Total Number of Turns by Role Play

Figure 4-4 Average Turn Length by Role Play

Figure 4-5 Number of Turns by Refusal Type

Figure 4-6 Average Turn Length by Refusal Type

Figure 4-7 Number of Turns by Status

Figure 4-8 Average Turn Length by Status

Figure 4-9 Overall Use of Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group

Figure 4-10 Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group in Role Play 1

Figure 4-11 Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group in Role Play 2

Figure 4-12 Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group in Role Play 3

Figure 4-13 Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group in Role Play 4

Figure 4-14 Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group in Role Play 5 ← xv | xvi →

Figure 4-15 Direct and Indirect Strategies and Adjuncts by Group in Role Play 6

Figure 4-16 Direct Strategies by Role Play

Figure 4-17 Direct Strategies by Status

Figure 4-18 Flat No by Role Play

Figure 4-19 Flat No by Status

Figure 4-20 Indirect Strategies by Role Play

Figure 4-21 Indirect Strategies by Status

Figure 4-22 Excuse/Reason by Status

Figure 4-23 Statement of Regret by Status

Figure 4-24 Indirect Strategies by Refusal Type

Figure 4-25 Adjuncts to Refusal by Status

Figure 4-26 Adjuncts to Refusal by Refusal Type

| 1 →

Introduction

Over the past thirty-five years, linguists have investigated the realization strategies of speech acts across a number of languages and cultures. The concept of the speech act was first introduced by Austin (1962), and it captures an important feature of language: saying something can also involve doing something. For example, by saying “I am sorry,” transpose a speaker is not only uttering a phrase in English but is also performing an act, that of apologizing. Speech acts that have been frequently investigated in the literature include apologies, requests, compliments, compliment responses, complaints, expressions of gratitude, refusals, and disagreements.

In the field of speech act research, a number of theories and concepts have formed the theoretical framework for the empirical investigation of speech acts cross-culturally. The work of language philosophers such as Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) has formed the basis of our understanding of speech acts. Other important concepts and theories include communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1974), pragmatic competence (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), theories of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and to some extent theories of culture and intercultural communication (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Some of these concepts and theories are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

Speech acts have been investigated for a number of reasons. Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) explain that the empirical investigation of speech acts can ← 1 | 2 → provide a better understanding of how human communication is carried out through the use of linguistic behavior. In addition, a major objective of cross-cultural speech act research is to describe similarities and differences in the way communicative interactions are carried out under similar circumstances across different languages and cultures. Speech act research can also have an important role in identifying the social and cultural norms and beliefs that inform speech act realization in a given speech community (Meier, 1995, 1997; Richards & Schmidt, 1983). In addition, it can provide empirical data against which theories of politeness (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987) and of intercultural communication (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Triandis, 1995) can be evaluated. Finally, cross-cultural speech act research is particularly important in the field of foreign and second language teaching and learning. Findings from speech act studies can be an invaluable source for foreign language teachers and developers of teaching materials (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996). It has been observed that teaching these pragmatic aspects of language can minimize intercultural communication breakdowns and help reduce cultural stereotyping (Meier, 1995; Takahashi & Beebe, 1993).

In the following paragraphs a brief overview of speech act research is provided with particular attention paid to Arabic speech act studies, and refusal studies. This is followed by an explanation of the rationale for the present study, then a description of the design of the study, including data collection and methods of data analysis. The last section of this chapter provides a description of the limitations and delimitations of the study as well as information on how the proposal is organized. Finally, a short glossary of terms is provided.

Speech Act Research

Speech act studies can be classified into four broad categories. First, there are those studies that are referred to as intra-lingual as they focus on examining speech acts within a single language or culture, such as apologies in Korean (Hahn, 2006) or compliments in Chinese (Yuan, 1998). A second group of studies is referred to as cross-cultural, and these examine the realization of speech acts in two or more languages or cultures; for example, comparing the speech act of apology in Arabic and American English (Bataineh, 2004), or examining refusal strategies in German and American English (Beckers, 1999). A third group of studies examines the effectiveness of different data collection methods in speech act research, such as comparing writing-based data collection instruments to observation of naturally-occurring speech (Golato, 2003). A fourth group of studies focuses on the language learner by examining how learners perform speech acts and how their performance compares to that of native speakers of L1 and L2. ← 2 | 3 → These learner-centered studies are generally referred to as interlanguage pragmatic studies.

Interlanguage pragmatic studies can also be further subdivided into four sub-categories: descriptive studies, instruction-based studies, study-abroad studies, and studies investigating the realization of speech acts online. The descriptive studies describe the strategies used by learners and compare them to those used by native speakers of L1 and L2. The word strategies here refers to the semantic formulas speakers use to perform a certain speech act. For example, the strategies used for performing the speech act of refusal may include: apologizing, thanking, giving an excuse, giving an explanation, expressing hesitation, setting conditions for acceptance, expressing empathy etc. Analysis of these strategies also includes an examination of the mitigation devices speakers use to soften the illocutionary force of their refusals (e.g., hedging devices such as modifiers or quantifiers). Tamanaha (2003), for example, examined the realization of the speech acts of apology and complaint by American learners of Japanese and compared their performance to that of native speakers of Japanese and native speakers of American English. The present study falls within this sub-category of descriptive, learner-centered, speech act studies.

The second sub-category of instruction-based studies (also called interventional studies) includes studies that examine the effects of instruction on the development of the language learner’s pragmatic competence. For example, Rueda (2004) looked at whether pragmatic instruction improved Colombian EFL learners’ ability to produce the speech acts of requests, apologies and compliments appropriately and whether the effects of such instruction were retained over time.

The third sub-category of study abroad studies includes studies that are usually longitudinal and examine the effects of study abroad programs on the foreign language learner’s acquisition of pragmatic competence. For example, Warga and Scholmberger (2007) investigated the effects of immersion in the target language community on the pragmatic competence of a group of learners. They specifically examined the development of the pragmatic ability in the production of the speech act of apology by a group of Austrian learners of French who spent ten months studying at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada.

Finally the fourth sub-category of interlangauge speech act studies refers to those studies that explore how language learners realize speech acts online. This is a new but growing field of investigation. Chen (2004), for example, investigated how Taiwanese students communicated meaning successfully in their e-mail correspondence with their American counterparts. He examined how the Taiwanese students’ speech act behavior as well as their cultural background affected their communication online. Although some might argue that this group of studies belongs to the sub-category of descriptive studies, the use of the medium of ← 3 | 4 → computer-mediated communication, and what it entails in terms of the type of language used as well as other methodological implications warrants the investigation of this line of research under a separate category.

With regard to data collection methods, most of speech act studies have used the Discourse Completion Test (DCT), which was first introduced by Blum-Kulka (1982). This popular elicitation instrument consists of descriptions of a number of scenarios, each of which requires the participant to produce a certain speech act (e.g., apology, complaint, compliment) Participants can perform the speech act in writing (written DCT) or orally (oral DCT). Other data collection methods include the role play which involves the researcher or some other native speaker role playing, or acting out, a number of scenarios with the participants. These scenarios are designed to elicit specific speech acts. Speech act data can also be collected through observation of naturally-occurring speech. These different methods are explained in detail in Chapter 2. Data analysis in speech act research has usually included both quantitative and qualitative methods. Almost all speech act studies include frequency counts of the different strategies used by speakers in realizing speech acts. In many of these studies both descriptive and inferential statistics are used. Qualitative analysis is also used, especially in studies that use naturally-occurring data or role play data.

Arabic Speech Act Studies

A number of Arabic speech act studies have been conducted over the past 15 years and these include intralingual studies, cross-cultural studies and interlanguage studies. Nelson, El Bakary and Al-Batal (1993), for example, looked at how the speech act of complimenting is differentially realized in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Hussein and Hammouri (1998) examined the realization of the speech act of apology in Jordanian Arabic and American English. Some Arabic speech act studies also examined speech acts realized by Arab learners of English. For example, Ghawi (1993) looked at how Arabic-speaking EFL learners realized the speech act of apology and how their performance compared to that of native speakers of American English. Taylor-Hamilton (2002) also looked at how Emirati learners of English realized the speech act of giving directions in English and compared their performance to that of native speakers of Emirati Arabic and native speakers of British English. These studies have revealed interesting and important findings about how speech acts are differentially realized in Arabic and English.

With regard to studies investigating the speech act of refusal in Arabic, a number of studies have been conducted. Stevens (1993), for example, examined how Egyptian learners of English realized the speech act of refusal and compared ← 4 | 5 → their performance to that of native speakers of English and native speakers of Egyptian Arabic. Al-Shalawi (1997) also looked at how Americans and Saudis differentially realized the speech act of refusal in equal and unequal status situations. Another refusal study that looked at the language learner was conducted by Al-Eryani (2007) who looked at the refusal strategies of Yemeni EFL learners and compared their performance to that of native speakers of Yemeni Arabic and native speakers of American English. These Arabic refusal studies have revealed important and consistent differences with regard to how the speech act of refusal is realized in Arabic and English.

Rationale and Statement of the Problem

The rationale for conducting speech act research in general was outlined above, so this section starts with the rationale for selecting the speech act of refusal in particular to be the focus of the present study. First, and as explained by Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1990) refusal is a complex speech act to realize and it requires a high level of pragmatic competence to be performed successfully. It usually involves extended negotiation and the use of indirect strategies to minimize the offense to the hearer. This speech act is also sensitive to other sociolinguistic variables such as the status of the interlocutors relative to each other (e.g., refusing a request from a friend versus a supervisor at work). Beebe et al. (1990) further explain that this speech act reflects “fundamental cultural values” and involves “delicate interpersonal negotiation” that requires the speaker to “build rapport and help the listener avoid embarrassment” (p. 68). This speech act, therefore, warrants investigation since the potential for offending the hearer and the possibility of communication breakdown are high. In addition, previous research on the speech act of refusal in Arabic has shown the potential for misunderstanding and miscommunication between Arabs and Americans (Al-Issa, 1998; Stevens, 1993).

The speech act of refusal has been investigated in a number of languages such as Japanese (Henstock, 2003), Korean (Kwon, 2003), German (Beckers, 1999), Spanish (Ramos, 1991) and English (Sasaki, 1998). It has also been investigated in Arabic in a number of studies that looked at how native speakers of Arabic, native speakers of English, and, in some cases, Arab learners of English realize this speech act (Al-Issa, 1998; Al-Shalawi, 1997; Nelson, Carson, Al Batal, & El Bakary, 2002; Stevens, 1993). While these studies have contributed to our understanding of the strategies, or semantic formulas, commonly used in the realization of the speech act of refusal, the majority of these studies suffered from a methodological limitation: they used a writing-based data elicitation instrument, namely the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) (explained above), which elicits a ← 5 | 6 → single-turn response. The appropriate realization of the speech act of refusal, however, tends to be characterized by lengthy, dynamic interaction that stretches over a number of turns, and as Gass and Houck (1999) explain, involves negotiations of semantic, pragmatic, and social meanings. A data elicitation instrument that elicits a single-turn response cannot capture this kind of dynamic interaction, which is often characteristic of the realization of the speech act of refusal. Hence, such an instrument would not be adequate for the study of this speech act.

For this speech act to be examined properly, a different elicitation method is required: a method that would capture this kind of dynamic negotiation of meaning, and would elicit multi-turn interactional data. The method that meets these requirements is the role play method; it is explained in detail later. In addition to using this elicitation method, there is a need to use an analytic framework that can examine how this speech act is realized over a stretch of discourse. In other words, it requires a discourse-level analytic framework for analyzing interactional data in order to understand how the refusal discourse is structured and how refusals are negotiated and recycled over a number of turns. Based on this understanding of how the speech act of refusal should be properly investigated, it becomes clear that traditional approaches to the study of refusal, (e.g., using DCT) are not adequate.

A number of researchers have realized this methodological limitation in traditional speech act research using the DCT, and have, instead, conducted studies that elicited interactional data using the role play method; they also used discourse-level analytic frameworks for analyzing their data. These researchers have tended to rely exclusively on the role play method for collecting their refusal data. They examined refusals in a number of Spanish dialects including Peruvian Spanish (Garcia, 1992), Venezuelan Spanish (Garcia, 1999), Mexican Spanish (Felix-Brasdefer, 2002), Peninsular Spanish (VonCanon, 2006) as well as in the speech of Japanese EFL learners (Gass & Houck, 1999). These researchers have made valuable contributions to the field of speech act research in two ways. First, they elicited interactional data, and secondly, they developed new discourse-level analytic frameworks for analyzing their data. Developing new discourse-level analytic frameworks is particularly important since traditional data analysis techniques associated with the DCT are only designed for analyzing one-turn responses, and cannot be used for analyzing interactional data.

The present study continues this new but growing line of research of eliciting interactional data and analyzing speech acts at the level of discourse. It also made improvements on previous research studies in two ways. First, it enhanced the design of the role play in order to ensure a high level of consistency, hence validity, in the data elicitation process. This is explained in detail later. Secondly, it investigated types of refusal that were not examined previously in research using the role play method. For example, while previous studies were limited in their elicitation ← 6 | 7 → of refusals to equal status situations and situations where an interlocutor of a lower status refuses offers or requests from an interlocutor of a higher status, the present study extends the investigation to include situations in which an interlocutor of a higher status refuses offers or requests from an interlocutor of a lower status.

The present study is also the first to elicit interactional data and to examine the speech act of refusal cross-culturally at the level of discourse in a non-Western language. In addition, the present study is the first speech act study in Arabic to use the role play method for data elicitation, and it is the first to analyze speech act data at the level of discourse in Arabic. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the present study is the first Arabic speech act study in the literature to investigate how American learners of Arabic realize the speech act of refusal (or any other speech act for that matter) in Arabic.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The present study aims to investigate the speech act of refusal as realized by American learners of Arabic as a foreign language, native speakers of Egyptian Arabic, and native speakers of American English. The focus of the study is to investigate how American learners of Arabic at the intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency realize this speech act in Egyptian Arabic and how their performance compares to that of native speakers of American English and native speakers of Egyptian Arabic. The goal here is to find out if there is a relationship between the learners’ language proficiency and their pragmatic competence. Another focus of the study is to investigate the extent of pragmatic transfer from the learner’s L1, and whether there is a relationship between the degree of pragmatic transfer and the level of L2 proficiency. Also, by examining pragmatic transfer at the level of discourse, the present study is one of a very small number of studies that investigate pragmatic transfer at that level. The study specifically aims to answer the following research questions:

Research Question One (A)

In what ways if any do intermediate American learners of Arabic differ from native speakers of Egyptian Arabic in their realizations of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic in equal and unequal status situations?

Research Question One (B)

In what ways if any do advanced American learners of Arabic differ from native speakers of Egyptian Arabic in their realizations of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic in equal and unequal status situations? ← 7 | 8 →

Research Question Two (A)

What is the extent of pragmatic transfer from English when intermediate American learners of Arabic realize the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic in equal and unequal status situations?

Research Question Two (B)

What is the extent of pragmatic transfer from English when advanced American learners of Arabic realize the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic in equal and unequal status situations?

Design of the Study: Data Collection and Analysis

The present study has a descriptive design that utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis. The study used the Enhanced Open-Ended Role Play method (Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Felix-Brasdefer, 2002) for data collection. An enhanced role play differs from a traditional role play in that it includes detailed contextualized information about the setting and the interlocutors. Data were collected from three groups of participants: American learners of Arabic, native speakers of Egyptian Arabic, and native speakers of American English as shown below:

(1) 20 American learners of Arabic: 10 at intermediate and 10 at advanced level

(2) 10 native speakers of Egyptian Arabic

(3) 10 native speakers of American English

With regard to data analysis, all data were transcribed and coded according the classification scheme proposed by Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990). According to this scheme, refusal strategies are classified into Direct and Indirect refusals, in addition to Adjuncts to refusals. The Direct refusals refer to actual refusal expressions such as “No” or “I refuse.” Indirect refusals, on the other hand, refer to strategies speakers use to soften the illocutionary force of their refusals and to minimize the offense to the hearer such as excuses, alternatives, and statements of regrets. Adjuncts to refusal do not form part of the refusal itself but are external modifications to the main refusal and they soften the illocutionary force of the refusal by expressing solidarity with the hearer such as statement of positive opinion. This classification scheme is explained in detail later. Also, please refer to the section Definition of Terms at the end of this chapter for a description of this classification scheme. ← 8 | 9 →

The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For the quantitative analysis, frequency counts of the semantic formulas used in the realization of the speech act of refusal was calculated and compared across the six refusal situations, the three groups of participants and across the two proficiency levels of the language learners. Descriptive statistics was used for analyzing the data. The data were also analyzed qualitatively using discourse-level analytic frameworks in order to reach a better understanding of how refusals are negotiated and recycled over a number of turns.

Significance of the Study

Details

Pages
XVI, 286
Year
2018
ISBN (PDF)
9781433156618
ISBN (ePUB)
9781433156625
ISBN (MOBI)
9781433156632
ISBN (Hardcover)
9781433155574
DOI
10.3726/b14186
Language
English
Publication date
2018 (October)
Published
New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Oxford, Wien, 2018. XVI, 286 pp. 26 b/w ills., 19 tables

Biographical notes

Nader Morkus (Author)

Nader Morkus is Assistant Professor of Arabic, Director of the Arabic Language Program, and Academic Director of the Arabic Flagship Program at Indiana University, Bloomington. He received his Ph.D. in second language acquisition and instructional technology at the University of South Florida.

Previous

Title: American Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language
book preview page numper 1
book preview page numper 2
book preview page numper 3
book preview page numper 4
book preview page numper 5
book preview page numper 6
book preview page numper 7
book preview page numper 8
book preview page numper 9
book preview page numper 10
book preview page numper 11
book preview page numper 12
book preview page numper 13
book preview page numper 14
book preview page numper 15
book preview page numper 16
book preview page numper 17
book preview page numper 18
book preview page numper 19
book preview page numper 20
book preview page numper 21
book preview page numper 22
book preview page numper 23
book preview page numper 24
book preview page numper 25
book preview page numper 26
book preview page numper 27
book preview page numper 28
book preview page numper 29
book preview page numper 30
book preview page numper 31
book preview page numper 32
book preview page numper 33
book preview page numper 34
book preview page numper 35
book preview page numper 36
book preview page numper 37
book preview page numper 38
book preview page numper 39
book preview page numper 40
304 pages