Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 683

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EXPRESSIVE SPEECH ACTS

(APOLOGIES, COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIMENTS): A CASE
STUDY OF PERSIAN NATIVE SPEAKERS AND EFL LEARNERS

Shahin Sheykh
Ph.D in TEFL, Faculty Member,
Payame Noor University of Rasht
Email: [email protected]

Maral Sheykh Esmaeili (corresponding author)

M.A. Student of TEFL, Payame Noor University of Rasht
Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Speaking to others is a social activity.Many people who communicate across linguistic and cultural boundaries
have experienced communication breakdowns with people from different first language (L1)
backgrounds.Language pedagogy, therefore, should promote language learners’ pragmatic awareness and
competence in the target language, especially in terms of emphasis on one of the significant pragmatic features
and speech acts. Speech acts are not an easy matter in one’s own language, and having to do them in a second or
foreign language is even more complicated. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the differences and
similarities between Persian and English concerning the way speakers use expressive speech acts in these
languages. Meanwhile, the study investigated the influence of gender on using expressive speech acts. The
participants of the study included 50 Persian native speakers, 50 EFL learners, and 50 English native speakers
from the Marefat language institute in Tehran, and the high school students of Tehran. Discourse Completion
Tasks (DTC) were used for collecting pragmatic data about apology, complaint, and compliment speech acts.
The three groups of Persian Native Speakers, EFL learners and English Native speakers used a variety of
expressive speech acts and the similarities and differences between the uses of speech acts were identified and
discussed. Also, results showed that gender does not have a significant impact on the use of expressive speech
acts. Results suggest that language teachers should examine learners’ needs considering the understanding and
production of speech acts in the target language. Learners should be made aware of native speakers' usage of
thevariety of expressions to realize a certain function, depending on the situation where they are used.

Keywords: Critical discourse analysis, speech act, expressive speech act, pragmatics, discourse completion task

1. Introduction
Since Hymes (1971) introduced the notion of communicative competence, including both the speaker’s
knowledge of the linguistic rules as well as the socio- cultural rules for appropriate use, there has been an
increasing interest in empirical research in this area and in practical applications of pragmatics studies,
especially speech act ones. People in different countries may analyze pragmatics doctrines rather differently
from each other, and these differences give rise to great tendency for conducting studies in cross-cultural and
contrastive pragmatics (as cited in Farnia, Buchheit & Salim, 2010).These cross-cultural speech act studies have
given us a better understanding of what a speaker needs to know in order to perform effectively and
appropriately in communication, and the results can let learners be more aware of the interplay of situational,
sociolinguistic, and linguistic types of knowledge (Chen & Chen, 2007).
Teachers of English as a second or foreign language have always faced a very difficult task: how to teach
communicative competence in the target language. It has become clear that teaching the grammar and

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 684

vocabulary of a language is not enough. One also needs to teach pragmatic and cultural competence.
Understanding how such socially and culturally specific aspects of language function in different languages is
also important, as learners should be aware of the differences between not only their native language and the
target language, but also between the two cultures. Being aware of such differences, but also of similarities,
would help them better understand the target culture, and thus use the target language in a socially and
culturally appropriate way.
We have different types of speech acts such as apology, compliment, invitation, greeting, promise, etc.
More than any aspect of language, speech acts are probably the most culture specific. There are numerous
definitions of speech acts, from many different perspectives, but the most common and general view of speech
acts is of utterances that when issued perform an action (Austin, 1975). The speech act that is the object of the
present study is the apology. As a generalization, an apology is the speech act that is required either when the
social norms of politeness demand the mending of a behavior or when a linguistic expression has offended
another person (Trosborg, 1995) or when somebody is offended due to the fact that personal expectations are not
fulfilled (Fraser,1981). Usually, this speech act requires the presence of two participants, namely the person who
is apologizing and the person who expects an apology, be it real or potential.
Speech acts are not an easy matter in one’s own language, and having to do them in a second or foreign
language is even more complicated. That is why studying the way people use speech acts in different languages
is important in order to understand the intricacies of language. More than that, comparative studies on
languages that are often taught as second or foreign language are essential in order to improve teaching
methods and techniques.
L2 language learners develop their L1 speech acts as they acquire their first language through social
interactions in various linguistic contexts. What seems to be significant is the fact that whether the interaction of
the learners’ L1 and target language culture has any effect on the language learners’ use of expressive speech
acts which are apologies, complains, and thanks. In other words, are speech acts similar in L1 and L2 or different
and whatever outcome we have, what is the role of formal L2 education in this regard?
Taking the above points into account, accordingly, The present study intends to examine the differences
and similarities between Persian and English concerning the way speakers use expressive speech acts in these
languages. The aim of this article is to investigate the strategies that Persian speakers apply in using such speech
acts in different situations which is shown through discourse completion task.

2. Review of Literature
Culture and language are closely interconnected in a way that sociocultural conventions designate
our way of thinking and speaking (Sapir, 1949; Whorf, 1956, as cited in Liu, 1995). Different nations in the world
possess their own particular cultures which demonstrate some universalities and particularities (Wei, 2009).
Many people experience communication breakdown or even communication conflict in their cross-cultural
interactions with people from different language backgrounds. Speech performances are organized by particular
cultural and social constraints (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972, as cited in Al-Issa, 2003). Therefore, people from
various sociocultural backgrounds employ their own sociocultural values in their interactions and deviate from
L2 culturally different forms. According to Thomas (1995), sociopragmatic failure occurs when the non-native
speakers fail to opt for appropriate codes due to their lack of recognizing cultural differences. Therefore,
interlocutors should attend to cultural mode of the message in addition to its form.
To be able to use the target language effectively, language learners should develop target language
communicative competence. One of the main components of the communicative competence is pragmatic
competence. Foreign language teachers in order to be able successfully to perform speech acts; they should use
functions of language contextually in communicative oral activities in different situations in order to develop
their ability in use of target language. Therefore, people use different functions differently in particular contexts
and these functions play a major role in communication and interaction .The way participants decide which
form or function to use in particular context depends on some factors such as the social distance between the
participants,their relative status, and the formality of context. Because these functions are very important in
maintaining and developing relationship, speech acts like greeting, requesting and apology and refusing have
been chosen in the present study. If one can't apply pragmatic competence appropriately, misunderstanding can
arise despite having a wide range of vocabulary and a sound knowledge of grammar. The communicative
function of an utterance corresponds to the speaker's intention in producing a given message (Alemi &

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 685

Irandoost, 2012).
It is a noteworthy fact that pragmatics plays a very significant role in the production and perception of
speech. Crystal (1985, as cited in Allami & Naeimi, 2011) defines pragmatics as ‘‘the study of language from the
point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in
social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication” (p.
240). One of the main factors in the process of communication is pragmatic competence. How interlocutors
produce and perceive speech in diverse situations is an important issue as creating inappropriate utterances
would cause misunderstanding and miscommunication (Sahragard & Javanmardi, 2011).
The lack the pragmatic knowledge of the target language by EFL/ESL learners has been frequently
observed (Eslami, 2010). Therefore, their attempt to communicate successfully with the native speakers of the
target language is likely to lead to intercultural miscommunication. One of the main reasons for the pragmatic
errors, committed by EFL/ESL learners, is negative pragmatic transfer which is the use of native language
pragmatic feature that leads to an inappropriate form in the target language, and hence miscommunication
(Atashaneh & Izadi, 2011). Since, language learners, in general, do not have enough knowledge of the target
language norms; they are influenced by their native language and transfer their first language pragmatics to the
second language (Sahragard & Javanmardi, 2011).
The pragmatic development for producing and understanding the target language speech appropriately
in various situations is very essential for language learners. Failure to do so may cause serious communication
breakdown and also label language users as insensitive and rude people (Allami & Naeimi, 2011). We should
bear in mind that while native speakers often ignore phonological, syntactic, and lexical errors, they are sensitive
to pragmatic errors (Hassani, Mardani, & Hossein, 2011).
The main source of miscommunication is the inability to perceive and produce speech acts
appropriately in the context by language learners. According to Austin (1962) as cited in Vaezi (2011), a speech
act is a functional unit in communication. It is an act that speakers implement when making utterances. All
languages have almost unique ways of performing speech acts. Although speech acts are universals, the method
used in performing speech acts is dissimilar in different cultures (Vaezi, 2011).
Successful production of the speech acts in a language needs not only the speaker's linguistic
proficiency, but also the pragmatic perception of speech acts. Performing the speech acts properly in a first and
second language is very challenging as it comes from both linguistic and cultural variations between the
languages (Hassani, Mardani, & Hossein, 2011). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the following research
questions are proposed:

2.1 Research Question

The present study tries to find an answer to each of the following questions:
1. Is there any significant difference (s) between Persian native speakers and EFL learners in using
expressive speech acts?
2. Are foreign language learners influenced by gender differences in using expressive speech acts?
3. What are the similarities and differences between the learners’ L1 expressive speech acts and EFL
expressive speech acts?

2.2 Research Hypothesis

1. There is no significant difference (s) between Persian native speakers and EFL learners in using
expressive speech acts.
2. Foreign language learners are not influenced by their gender differences in using expressive speech acts.

3. Methodology
3.1 Participants

The participants in this study were selected from the Marefat language institute in Tehran, and the high
school students of Tehran. The participants of the study included 50 Persian native speakers, 50 EFL learners,
and 50 English native speakers so that the total number of the participants was 150. The age of the participants

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 686

ranged from 16 to 24 years old. In each group, there were 25 females and 25 males so that we had 75 female
participants and 75 male participants among the sample of the study.The EFL learners were selected from
among institute language learners at the intermediate and upper intermediate levels who have been practicing
the pragmatic rules of language and speech acts.

3.2 Instrument
For the purpose of this study, a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was used. As Cohen (1996) states a
DCT is used for collecting pragmatic data. A Discourse-Completion Task (DCT) is a tool used in linguistics and
pragmatics to elicit particular speech acts. A DCT consists of a one-sided role- play containing a situational
prompt which a participant will read to elicit responses.
A discourse-completion task consists of scripted dialogue representing various scenarios, preceded by a
short prompt describing the setting and situation. The prompt generally includes information on social distance
between participants and pre-event background to aid the participant in constructing the scenarios. In doing so,
the kind of expressive speech acts (apologies, complains, and compliments) used by the language learners,
English native speakers and Persian native speakers were determined.

Along with the DCT, a background questionnaire was given to participants to collect some background
information about them.

3.3 Procedure
The 150 participants of this study were divided into three groups of Persian native speakers (50
participants; 25 males and 25 females), EFL learners (50 participants; 25 males and 25 females), and English
native speakers (50 participants; 25 males and 25 females). According to Blum-Kulka et al., (1989), discourse
completion tasks can be used in studies of pragmatic knowledge to investigate speech acts. The participants
were presented with discourse completion tasks to find out what type of expressive speech acts they will use.
The DCTs covered different linguistic situations not just one situation. Written DCTs were used in this study to
elicit the participant’s responses and also determine the expressive speech acts used by them. The DCTs had two
uses in this study. First, the DCTs were used to find out the kind of expressive speech acts used by Persian
native speakers and foreign language learners. The English DCTs were translated into Persian for the native
Persian speakers. Second, an attempt was made to investigate whether gender has a significant effect on the use
of expressive speech acts among the three groups or not. The expressive speech acts used by Persian native
speakers, EFL learners and English Native speakers were compared to find out if there are significant differences
among them or not. The DCTs were given to Persian native speakers, EFL learners and English native speakers
through language institutes, schools, friends, and email. Instruction was given to participants on how to answer
the DCTs appropriately. They were asked to answer each DCT in 15 minutes at most. The English DCTs were
translated into Persian and were distributed among the Persian native speakers.

3.4 Data Analysis

In order to answer the research questions, two types of analyses were carried out on the collected
data. First, quantitative analysis was done in order to determine the type of strategies speakers most often use
when they apologize, complain, and thank, and their frequency was also estimated. The second type of analysis,
a qualitative one, allowed for a more in depth look at the different strategies that EFL learners, Persian native
speakers and English native speakers used in order to use expressive speech acts in different situations.
The expressive speech acts used by EFL learners, Persian native speakers and English native speakers were
analyzed and compared to each other to see what similarities and differences they had and if there were any
differences. The effect of participants’ gender on their use of speech acts was also considered in the study. This
study focused on speech acts like apologies, complains, and thanks. We have analyzed the results of the three
groups using the SPSS19 software. We had a qualitative analysis of the Persian, English native speaker’s speech
acts and EFL learner’s speech acts to come out with the similarities and differences among the three group’s
expressive speech acts.

4. Results and Discussions

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 687

4.1.1 The use of apology speech acts by EFL learners, Persian Native Speakers, and English Native speakers
Table 4.1 Frequency and percentage of apology speech acts used by the three groups
EFL learners Persian Native Speakers English Native speakers

Strategy Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Account 18 12% 9 6% 14 9.33%

Offer 10 6.67% 3 2% 8 5.33%

Promise 5 3.33% 5 3.33% 6 4%

Concern 4 2.67% 2 1.33% 4 2.67%

Responsibility 1 0.67% 2 1.33% 9 6%

Responsibility + 6 4% 16 10.67% 5 3.33%

Account

Account + Offer 2 1.33% 8 5.33% 3 2%

Account + Promise 3 2% 2 1.33% 1 0.67%

Responsibility + 1 0.67% 3 2% 0 0%
Concern + Offer

Total 50 100% 50 100% 50 100%

The categorization used in table 4.1 is taken from Demeter (2000) who did “a pragmatic study of apology
strategies used in Romanian”. As table 4.1 shows, different kinds of strategies are used by the three groups for
expressive speech acts. As the table indicates EFL learners and English native speakers tend to use shorter
statements for expressive speech act. Account (12%) and offer (10%) have the highest frequency among the EFL
learners and account (9.33%) and responsibility (6%) have the highest frequency among the English native
speakers. Meanwhile, responsibility + Account (10.67%) and Account + Offer (5.33%) have the highest frequency
among the Persian native speakers. This shows that Persian native speakers feel more responsible while
apologizing and tend to provide more phrases and statements that show they are really sorry for what has
happened and are more eager to express a stronger apology. However, English native speakers and EFL learners
use shorter phrases and statements and are more likely to express a quick apology and finish the conversation.
Here are some examples of the use of the overall apology strategies in the data:
1. Account:
(a) I apologize for being late. The car had a flat tire.
(b) .ilihi a ahKyKhhyhl hKhb ydahyhihlahy alynhy ahnhbayihK
(c) Oh, I'm sorry. There was a heavy traffic.

Account is used as a category for the speech act of apology to present the reason or the cause of the problem and
the speaker uses it to justify the other person(s).

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 688

2. Offer
(a) Oh, forgive me. I'll take you to the hospital.
(b) .mahhbhlKlay ahKhbyahmbhly ahbhhhybhhl hlhb
(c) Oh, sorry. I will give a ride.

3. Promise
(a) I am sorry. I'll do my best to be on time next time.
(b) .elih a ahKyKhblyml hhhylbh al
(c) I promise to be on time from now on.

4. Concern
(a) Oh, forgive me. Are you ok.? Please, let me help you.
(b) omhnlmhly ahilobhmhlhby hbh lmhly hlhb
(c) Do you need any help?

4.1.2 The use of thank speech acts by EFL learners and Persian Native Speakers and English Native speakers

Table 4.2 Frequency and percentage of thanks speech acts used by the three groups
EFL learners Persian Native Speakers English Native speakers

Strategy Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Simple thanking 11 7.33% 5 5.33% 21 14%

Thanking + 19 12.67% 18 12% 10 6.67%

intensifier

Thanking + 9 2% 3 2% 5 3.33%
intensifier + reason

Acknowledging 4 2.67% 11 7.33% 6 4%

favor

Formal 4 2.67% 5 3.33% 3 2%

Informal 3 2% 9 6% 5 3.33%

Total 50 100% 50 100% 50 100%

The categorization used in table 4.2 is taken from the two studies of Ahar and Eslami-Rasekh (2011) who
studied “the effect of social status and size of imposition on the gratitude strategies of Persian and English
native speakers” and Cheng (2010) who used a “corpus-based approach to the study of speech act of thanking”.
As indicated in table 4.2, the three groups use different kinds of strategies for expressing thank. For the EFL
learners, thanking + intensifier (12.67%) and simple thanking (7.33%) had the highest frequencies. The most
frequent strategies for English native speakers were simple thanking (14%) and thanking + intensifier (6.67%).
Meanwhile, the most frequently used strategies by the Persian native speakers were thanking + intensifier (12%)
and Acknowledging favor (7.33%). The use of thanking + intensifier is most common by Persian Native
Speakers and ELF learners. This probably shows the influence of the local culture which requires thanking
Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015
 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 689

strongly for every help and favor, either small or big, received by others. Meanwhile simple thanking is more
preferred by English Native speakers.

Here are some examples of the use of the overall thanking strategies in the data:
1. Simple thanking: The speakers tend to express thanks in a short word(s)
(a) Thanks
(b)‫ممنون‬
(c) Thank you

2. Thanking + intensifier:
(a) Thank you very much indeed
(b) .dalynhynhmly hhKhK
(c) Thanks a lot.
3. Thanking + intensifier + reason:
(a) Thank you very much. I bothered you again.
(b) .mhblhlyhmy hbh lymhyhKlmyahbh alymhhhymhymhabhmybhlKhmhb
(c) Thanks so much. You have always been nice to me.
4. Acknowledging favor:
(a) You did a great favor.
(b) .dalynhynhmly hhKhK
(c) Thanks for your help.

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 690

4.1.3 The use of complaint speech acts by EFL learners and Persian Native Speakers and English
Native speakers
4.1.4
Table 4.3 Frequency and percentage of complaint speech acts used by the three groups
EFL learners Persian Native Speakers English Native speakers

Strategy Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Hints 21 14% 14 9.33% 8 5.33%

Express annoyance 9 6% 5 3.33% 18 12%

Blame 10 10.67% 7 4.67% 16 10.67%

Consequence 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 3 2%

Threat 4 2.67% 3 2% 3 2%

Dissatisfaction 4 2.67% 5 3.33% 2 1.33%

Total 50 100% 50 100% 50 100%

The categorization used in table 4.3 is taken from the two studies of AYu. T and Sukyadi (2011) who
studied “complaining in EFL learners: Differences of realizations between men and women” and Bikmen and
Marti (2013) who studied “complaint speech act in Turkish learners of English”. As the above table shows, the
three groups use different kinds of strategies for expressing thank. For the EFL learners, hints (14%) and blame
(10.67%) had the highest frequencies. The most frequent strategies for English native speakers were express
annoyance (12%) and blame (10.67%). Meanwhile, the most frequently used strategies by the Persian native
speakers were consequence (10.67%) and hints (9.33%). Hint strategy was more used by EFL learners which
might be due to the fact that they tend to avoid being rude. Persian Native speakers focus more on consequence
strategy to indirectly show others that they complain about an issue. Again, the use of this strategy is influenced
by politeness and trying to be polite. On the other hand, English native speakers mostly used express annoyance
strategy which shows how they complain directly and being direct is more favored in their culture.
Here are some examples of the use of the overall complaint strategies in the data:
1. Hints: The speaker tries not to mention what he wants directly in the situation to avoid conflict.
(a) I wonder why I got a low score in the exam? Can you tell me the reason?
(b) .mhbalhlyhmyhlylhbhlay alynhymhh hiybh hlhb
(c) I can not figure out getting such a low score.
2. Express annoyance:
(a) It’s a noisy class. I don’t like it.
(b) .d nhlyhmyhl hy ah ahbyllbhyhK
(c) I hate such a situation.
3. Blame:
(a) It was your fault.
(b) .mhbh aymhba hhlymhyihK
(c) You did it wrong.
4. Consequence:
(a) That takes a lot of time to get well.
Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015
 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 691

(b) .dl hhhyihhhylybhlybh a lnyrh aybhyhK

(c) It involves negative consequences.

4.2 Result of the second research question

RQ2: Is there any significant difference (s) among Persian native speakers, English native speakers, and EFL
learners at institute in using expressive speech acts?
To find out if there was a significant difference among the three groups a test of chi-square was run. The
following table shows the result.

Table 4.3
Result of the Chi-Square Test among the three Groups for Speech Act of Apology

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 153.500a 22 .000

Likelihood Ratio 183.996 22 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.770 1 .096

N of Valid Cases 150

a. 21 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.00.

As table 4.3 above shows, there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups of Persian native
speakers, English native speakers, and EFL learners at institute in using speech act of apology (χ(22) = 153.50, p =
.000˂.05). To find out if there was a significant difference among the three groups of Persian native speakers,
English native speakers, and EFL learners at institute in using speech act of compliment, a test of chi-square was
run among the three groups. The following table shows the result.

Table 4.4
Result of the Chi-Square Test among the three Groups for Speech Act of Compliment
Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 266.000a 24 .000

Likelihood Ratio 297.672 24 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.037 1 .154

N of Valid Cases 150

a. 27 cells (69.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .67.

As table 4.4 above shows, there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups of Persian
native speakers, English native speakers, and EFL learners at institute in using speech act of compliment (χ(24) =
266, p = .000˂.05).

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 692

4.3 Result of the third research question

RQ3: Are foreign language learners influenced by gender differences in using expressive speech acts?
To find out if foreign language learners were influenced by gender differences in using expressive speech
acts, a test of chi-square was run among male and females. The following table shows the result.

Table 4.5
Result of the Chi-Square Test among the Males and Females

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 3.681a 8 .885

Likelihood Ratio 4.503 8 .809

Linear-by-Linear Association .025 1 .873

N of Valid Cases 50

a. 15 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.

As table 4.5 above shows, there was not a statistically significant difference between males and females in
their using expressive speech acts (χ(8) = 3.68, p = .885˃.05). So, the third hypothesis that is “Foreign language
learners are not influenced by their gender differences in using expressive speech acts” is accepted.

5. Conclusion
Comparing the results of the three groups of EFL learners, Persian native speakers and high school
students on using expressive speech acts showed that there was a significant difference between institute and
high school students (p˂0.05), a significant difference between institute and native speakers (p˂0.05), and also
between high school students and native speakers (p˂0.05). Also, results of the analysis of the second question
showed that foreign language learners were not influenced by their gender differences in using expressive
speech acts which means that males and females did not significantly differ in their DCT scores.
Among the apology speech acts used by EFL learners, “account” had the highest frequency (39%)and
“responsibility” had the lowest frequency (11.4%). Also, “responsibility + account” had the highest frequency
(42.3%) among Persian native speakers and “concern” had the lowest frequency (12.8%). In using apology
speech acts, Persian native speakers were affected by factors such as religious concepts. Among the English
Native speakers, “account” had the highest frequency (51.8%)and “responsibility” had the lowest frequency
(10.6%).
In using compliment speech acts, “appreciation token” had the highest frequency (46.1%) among the
EFL learners and “praise upgrade” had the lowest frequency (12.4%). Also, “appreciation token” had the highest
frequency (57.2%) among the Persian native speakers and “comment acceptance” had the lowest frequency
(13.2%). For the English native speakers, “appreciation token” had the highest frequency (52.3%) and “question”
had the lowest frequency (12.6%)
One of the conclusions that can be drawn considering the apologies is that there seems to be a
relationship between the amount of detail provided in the apologies and the seriousness of the threat that the
offense has to the face of the speaker. The seriousness of the offense is closely related to the kind of social norms
that the offender violated. Thus, the more severe the offense was perceived to be by the speaker, such as missing
the wedding ceremony, or being late for a meeting or dinner where several friends are waiting, the more
elaborate the details in providing justifications and blaming someone or something else, respectively. Also, if the
offense produced consequences beyond the interaction in the situation, the speakers considered that they
needed to offer a way to make up for such consequences in order to save their face. The qualitative analysis of
the data has also shown that the respondents not only tried to save their own face in their apologies, but were
Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015
 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 693

also concerned with maintaining the friendship with the hearer, sometimes even explicitly mentioning that their
friendship was more important than the action that brought about the apology.
Allami and Naeimi (2010) and Jalilifar (2009) found that there is a priority for indirect and embedded
communication in the Iranian culture. The overuse of Want statements and Hedge-performatives strategies by
English speakers show the dominance of direct strategy types. These findings reveal the fact that Iran belongs to
a high - context culture in which indirectness and vagueness are prevalent, whereas Canada belongs to a low -
context culture in which directness and accuracy are appreciated (Wurtz, 2005). Eslami-Rasekh et al. (2010)
states that Iranian culture has the hierarchal structure in which social hierarchy is assumed as a natural
construction and social order should be maintained among the interlocutors, whereas American culture moves
on the basis of a deference politeness system. In American society interlocutors share the equal social level and it
is believed that they should have equal rights, but in Iranian culture power is a key factor which determines the
ways of interactions among people.
Regarding the compliment speech acts, the responses to compliments seem to come from Persian
speakers’ culture and allow the addressees to avoid acceptance of compliments, which can be regarded as self-
praise. Moreover, the function of these expressions in Persian speakers’ culture is to lessen embarrassment and
tension between interlocutors (Sharifiyan, 2005). Persian speakers' participants might have regarded the
compliments put forth to them as insincere, or they might have felt embarrassed. Therefore, instead of saying
no, Persian speakers would simply use these formulas. Therefore, it can be claimed that this feature of using
formulaic expression is culture-specific. Persian speakers rarely disagree with the compliment in a flat way, but
tend to make a comment to show their modesty. Therefore, the Persian speakers’ strategies in responding to
compliment are characterized by compliment rejection motivated by Leech’s Modesty Maxim (Leech, 1983).
The speaker denies the proposition but accepts the complimenting force, thus emphasizing the value of
modesty. As mentioned earlier, if the function of the compliment is to make the hearer feel good, the function of
a response other than acceptance may be the same. The results imply that, recognizing that the compliment was
intended to make him or her feel good, the addressee asserted that he or she and the complimenter were equal
by employing the strategy of “sheckasteh- nafsi” (Sharifiyan, 2005) to avoid self-praise. When complimented by
others, many Persian speakers accept it reluctantly with a comment to show their modesty. This is very
comparable with the modesty maximum principle by Leech (1983), and Sharifiyan (2005) referred to it as Persian
cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi (modesty). This schema motivates the speakers to negate or scale down
compliments, downplay their talents, skills, achievements, etc.
Considering the role of gender on the use of compliment speech acts, it can be interpreted that male
Persian speaking respondents show a tendency to use formulaic expressions far more often than female Persian
speakers do, whereas female Persian speakers’ respondents show a preference for using appreciation token far
more often than male Persian speakers use. This preference is obvious irrespective of the subject of compliment,
whether it is the addressees' appearance, ability, or their possessions. To be specific, by choosing to avoid self-
praise, males tend to employ the formulaic expressions response type to weaken the complimentary force, but
females simply favor accepting the compliment.
The female preference for the category of questions is related to the fact that women are more concerned
about face than are men when they reject a compliment. Additionally, women probably view question-type
responses to compliments as necessary for conversational maintenance. To put it another way, compliments are
more often employed by women than by men to reinforce friendship, intimacy, and solidarity between
themselves and the complimenters(Wang & Tsai, 2003).

References
Alemi, M., & Irandoost , R. (2012). A textbook evaluation of speech acts: The case of English result series.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(6), 199-205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.6p.199.
Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(5),
581- 601.
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence
development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385-406.
Atashaneh, N., & Izadi, A. (2011). Refusals in English and Persian: A Pragmlinguistic Investigation. Iranian EFL

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015

 Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251-6204 694

journal, 7(2), 111-119.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Chen, S. C., & Chen, S. H. (2007). Interlanguage requests: A cross-cultural study of English and 
Chinese. The
Linguistics Journal, 2(2), 33-52.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching
(pp. 383 – 420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to Develop Appropriate Refusal Strategies. In A. Martinez-Flor, & E. Uso-
Juan, Speech Act Performance (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eslami-Rasekh, A., Tavakoli, M., & Abdolrezapour, P. (2010).Certainty and conventional indirectness in Persian
and American request forms. Medwell Journal, the Social Sciences, 5(4), 332-339.doi: 10.3923/sscience.2010.332.339.
Farnia, M., Buchheit, L., and Salim, Sh. B. (2010). “I need to talk to you” – A contrastive pragmatic study of
speech act of complaint in American English and Malaysian. The International Journal of Language Society and
Culture, 30, 11-24. Retrieved from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/issues/2010/30-2.pdf
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized
communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 259-271). New York: Mouton.
Hassani, R., Mardani, M., &Hossein, H. (2011). A comparative study of refusals: Gender distinction and social
status in focus. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 32, 37-46.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia, P.A.: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native
speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Liu, D. (1995). Sociocultural transfer and its effect on second language speakers’ communication. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2), 253-265.
Sahragard, R., & Javanmardi, F. (2011). English Speech Act Realization of “Refusals” among Iranian EFL
Learners. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(2), 181-198.
Thomas, J. (1995). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 91-112.
Sharifian, F. (2005). The Persian cultural schema of "shekasteh-nafsi": A study of compliment responses in
Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics and cognition, 13(2), 337-362.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vaezi, R. (2011). A contrastive study of the speech act of refusal between Iranian EFL learners and Persian native
speakers.Cross Cultural Communication, 7(2), 213-218.
Wang, Y. F. & Tsai, P. H. (2003). An empirical study on compliments and compliment responses in Taiwan
Mandarin conversation. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 29(2), 118-156.
Wei, X. (2009). On negative cultural transfer in communication between Chinese and Americans. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 21. Retrieved August, 12, 2011, from
http://www.immi.se/jicc/index.php/jicc/article/view/48.
Wurtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/wuertz.html


THE ANALYSIS OF IMPOLITENESS IN FAMILY DISCOURSE:

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.