Islamic Azad University
Ilam Science And Research Branch
Faculty of Humanities, Department of English Language Teaching
Thesis for Receiving “M.A” Degree on A Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
Subject:
Investigating apology strategies among Kurdish bilinguals, a case study in Ilam
Thesis Advisor:
Gowhari Ph.D
Consulting Advisor:
Azizifar Ph.D
September 2014
برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
Contents
Dedication. I
Acknowledgments. V
Abstract V
Introduction
- overvie. 3
1.1. Statement of the Problem.. 8
1.2. Research questions. 10
1.3. Research hypothesizes. 10
1.4. Significance of the study. 11
1.5. Definition of technical terms. 11
Chapter two: Literature review
2.1 Literature review.. 17
2.2. The related empirical studies. 24
3.1. Introduction. 32
3.2.Research questions. 32
3.3. participants. 32
3.4. collection procedure 33
3.5. Data analysis. 34
4.1. Overview.. 36
4.2 .Demographic statistics. 36
4.2.1. Demographic statistics regarding the age of the participants. 36
4.2.2. Demographic statistics regarding the age of the participants. 37
4.2.3. Demographic statistics regarding the language of participants. 38
4.2.4. Demographic statistics regarding the education of the participants. 38
Table4.4: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of education group. 39
4.3. Descriptive statistics. 39
4.3. Investigating the research hypotheses. 42
4.3.1. First hypothesis. 42
4.3.2. Second hypothesis: 46
4.3.4. Fourth hypothesis. 53
4.4. As stated in chapter one, in this study four main hypothesis were formulated which are. 56
4.4.1. First hypothesis. 56
4.4.2. Second hypothesis. 58
4.4.3. Third hypothesis. 60
4.4.4. Fourth hypothesis. 61
4.4.Discussion. 62
5.1. Overview.. 66
5.2. Summary of the study. 66
5.3. Conclusion. 67
5.4. Implication for practice. 68
5.5. Limitations of study. 68
5.6. Suggestion for further research. 69
References. 71
Appendix. 78
List of Tables
Table4.1: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of Gender 36
Table4.2. Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of Age group. 37
Table4.3. Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of language. 38
Table4.4: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of education group. 39
Table4.5. the average and standard deviation of intensification scores used by all groups 39
Table 4.6.The average and standard deviation of explanation scores used by all groups: 40
Table 4.7.the average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on taking responsibility 40
Table4.8: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on concern for the hearer 41
Table 4.9: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on denial of responsibility. 41
Table4.10: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ score on offer of repair 42
Table 4.11: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and intensification strategy. 43
Table 4.12: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and explanation strategy. 43
Table 4.13: T- test for investigating the relationship between genders and taking responsibility. 44
Table 4.14: T-test for investigating the relationship between gender and concern for the hearer 44
Table 4.15: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and denial of responsibility. 45
Table .4.16: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and offer responsibility. 45
Table 4.17: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and intensification strategy. 46
Table 4.18: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and explanation strategy 47
Tabl4.19: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and taking responsibility strategy. 47
Table 4.20: T-test for investigating relationship between age and concern for the hearer strategy. 48
Table 4.21: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and denial of responsibility. 48
Table 22.4: T-test for investigating relationship between age and offer of repair strategy 49
Table 23-4: T- test for investigating the relationship between language and intensification strategy. 50
Table 24.4: T- test for investigating relationship between language and explanation strategy. 50
Table 25-4: T- test for investigating relationship between language and taking responsibility. 51
Table 4.26: T- test for investigating relationship between language and concern for the hearer. 51
Table 4.27: T- test for investigating relationship between language and denial of responsibility. 52
Table 4.28: T- test for the investigating the relationship between language and offer of repair strategy. 52
Table 4.29: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and intensification strategy. 53
Table4.30: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and explanation strategy. 54
Table4.31: T- test for investigating relationship between education and taking responsibility. 54
Table 4.32: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and concern for the hearer strategy. 55
Table 4.33: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and denial of responsibility strategy. 55
Table 4.34: T-test for investigating the relationship between education and offer of repair strategy. 56
Table 4.35. T- Test for investigating the relationship between gender and apology strategy 56
Table 4.36. T-test for investigating the relationship between age and apology strategy 58
Table 4.37. T- Test for investigating the relationship between language and apology strategies. 60
Table 4.38.To- Test for investigating the relationship between education and apology strategies. 61
List of figure
Figure 4.1. Frequency of respondents based on gender 37
Figure 4.2. Frequency of participants based on age. 37
Figure4.3. Frequency of respondents based on language. 38
Figure4.4. Frequency of participants based on education. 39
Abstract
The present study was aimed at exploring and describing apology strategies among Kurdish bilinguals in Ilam, Iran. It attempts to systematize the various strategies used for the purpose of apologizing from the pragmatic point of view. The current study involves 80 subjects of Kurdish bilinguals in Ilam, consisting of 40 male and 40 female subjects. The subjects were chosen randomly to participate in this study. The data of this study was collected through a controlled elicitation method based on questionnaire which is a modified version of ‘Discourse Compilation Test’. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques such as T-Test have been used to show the meaningfulness of the relationship between gender, age, language, and education of respondents and their apology strategies. The prime finding of this study revealed that there is no meaningful relationship between gender, age, language and apology strategies used by Ilami people. However, education of respondents was found to be an effective factor on the use of apology strategy. The results indicated that the respondents have frequent tendency toward using “explanation”, “taking responsibility” and offer of “repair strategies”. They do not, however, show much inclination toward “intensification” and “concern for the hearer”.
Keyword: apology strategy, gender, bilinguals, speech act, Kurdish
Chapter one
Introduction
1. Overview
“Apologies are defined as primarily social acts, carrying effective meaning “(Holmes, 1990, P.1550). According to Brown and Levinson, apologies are politeness strategies. An apology is primarily a social act. It is aimed at maintaining good relation between participants. To apologize is to act politely, both in vernacular sense and in more technical sense of paying attention to the addressee’s face needs (Brown and Levinson, 1987). An apology is a fundamental speech act which is a part of human communication occurs in every culture to maintain good relations between interlocutors.
Goffman (1967, p. 14) referred to an apology as a remedy, the one essential element in a remedial interchange. This term nicely highlights the central function of apologies to provide remedy for an offense and restore social equilibrium or harmony (Edmonson 1981, p. 280, leech, 1983, p. 25) (cited in Holmes, 1990, p. 159). Holmes(1990) defines an ‘apology’ is a speech act addressed to B’s face needs and intended to remedy an offense for which it takes responsibility , and thus to restore equilibrium between A and B (where A is the apologizer and B is the person offended). Apologies, like compliments, are primarily aimed at maintaining on supporting the addressee’s and in some cases the apologizer’s “face” (Goffman 1967). According to Brown and Levinson (1987), apologies are negative politeness strategies because they are face treating to the apologizer.
”
Olshtain (1985, p.184) defines an apology as “a speech act which to intended to provide support for the hearer who was actually or potentially affected by violation”. when one offers an apology ,one shows willingness to humiliate oneself to an extent that make an apology a face-saving act for the hearer and face-threatening act for speaker. Apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate their attitude. In order for an apology to have an effect, it should reflect true feelings. One cannot effectively apologize to another and truly reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for whatever one has done (Gooder and Jacobs, 2000).
Apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speaker attempt to indicate their state or attitude. In order for an apology to have an effect, it should reflect true feelings. One cannot effectively apologize to another and truly reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for whatever one has done” (fahmi, R. & fahmi, Rula, 2006, p.193).
An apology for Goffman (1971, p.140) is one type of ‘remedy’ among other. For Holmes (1995, p.155) it is a speech act that is intended to remedy the offense for which the apology take responsibility and as a result, to rebalance social relation between interlocutors”( Holmes 1995, cited in Nureeden 1993, p.281).
According to Olshtain and Cohen (1983, p.20) an apology is called for when social norms have been violated whether the offense is real or perceived. Every society has its own socio-cultural and communicative behaviors that relate to face (Goffman,1967) and politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987) cognizant of the fact that interlocutors would under normal circumstances want to maintain the social face and be friendly and thus be liked (positive politeness). Interlocutors pay extra attention to their face need as well as the face-needs of all other international participants, interacts thus make every effort to save the face of all possible interactional participants. Leech (1983) labels this communicative strategy’ the tact maxim ̓ and notes that it is a strategy for avoiding conflict, specifically the goal of an apology as communicative strategy is the maintenance of harmony between interlocutors (Obeng 1999, p.712).
Olshtain and Cohen (1983, p.22) perceive apology as a social event when they point out that is performed when social norms are violated. Bergman and kasper (1993, p. 82) emphasize this view as they see that the purpose of apology is to reestablish social relation harmony after the offense is committed.
For her part, Lakoff (1997) notes that politeness and apologies are devices employed by interactants to help reduce friction in interpersonal communication. Thus, apologies provide a remedy for an offense and help restore harmony as well as social equilibrium (Holmes, 1995: Edmondson, 1981: Leech, 1993).
“Apologies are like other speech acts in that they are often performed through conventionalized or ritualized utterances. According to Hudson (1980:52) conventionalizing any linguistic pattern is a matter of historical accident. Once expressions are selected in preference to others to be used to perform certain acts, it becomes a necessity that they be used and interpreted as such. Certain forms are more conventional used more often others, such as (I am sorry) means “forgiveness” (Blum Kulka and Olshtain, 1984).
Blum-Kulka and Kasper (1993, p.59) state that speech acts differ in the extent to which conventionalized linguistic form are used; some speech acts, such as apologizing and thanking, exhibit more conventional usage than others do.
It is in the area of negative and positive politeness strategies that deviated from Brown and Levinson‘s framework begin to appear. Leech (1983), for example, would classify apologies as positive politeness strategies. Holmes (1990) argues that apologies can address both positive and negative face needs.
One of the most influential views on the classification of apologies is Goffman’s (1971), in which he distinguishes two type of compensations: ritual and substantive’ (Nureddeen, 2008, p.282). Following this distinction , Fraser (1981:265) provide two motivations associated with substantive and ritualistic apologies; in substantive apology the speaker want to remedy the damage or harm caused by the offense while the ritual may be produced as a kind of habit associated with certain routines or when the respondent is not responsible for the offense .
However, Obeng (1999) adds a compound apology (implicit apology+ explicit apology), which can be seen as a fourth type of apology within the same paradigm (cited in Nureddeen, 2008, p.282).
People usually apologize by means of semantically different types of expression; therefore, apology strategies are often described according to their semantic formulae. Different classifications provide by different scholars often overlap and while some lists are extended and detailed, other are rather broad. It is also worth mentioning here that newer classifications build on and consequently provide more comprehensive views than previous categorization models such as (Frasher, 1981; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983; Blum –Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Holmes, 1989; Bergman and Kasper, 1993).
Bergman and Kasper (1993, p.94) used another model to analyze their data: IFID, downgrading (reducing the severity of offense, and reducing responsibility– including excuse and justification, claiming ignorance and denial); upgrading of use of adverbial (i. e. intensifying of IFID); taking on
