Download Report

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org INVESTIGATING PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN PERSUASION
STRATEGIES USED BY NATIVE AND NONNATIVE
SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH
Masoumeh Fazeli
Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Iran
E-Mail: masoumeh.fazeli2014@gmail.com
Sajad Shafiee (Corresponding author)
Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Email: shafiee_sajad@.yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The present study aimed at identifying native English speakers’, native Persian speakers’, and
Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ persuasion strategies and any possible
pragmatic transfer from the EFL learners’ mother tongue (Persian) to their L2. The participants
of the study included 10 native English speakers, 30 learners of English, and 30 native Persian
speakers, all of whom were university students. The classification of persuasion strategies
utilized in this study was based on Hardin’s classification of lexical and pragmatic realization of
persuading speech act. The data were collected by means of a discourse completion task. The
Chi-square test was used to compare frequencies of use of persuasion strategies by all the
participants. Results indicated that although all the three groups used recommendation
strategy most frequently and consolation and condolence strategies least frequently, the
learners of English group and native Persian group made use of opinion-proving, request,
advice, and suggestion strategies more frequently than the native English group. Iranian EFL
learners were apt to express persuasion with care and/or caution represented by the
mentioned strategies. Additionally, they were reluctant to use direct speech act, and they
avoided imposition on the hearer. Avoidance and substitution strategies were among the
more frequent pragmatic strategies which were transferred from Persian to English. The
findings could be of importance for material developers and teachers in their development of
instructional strategies as they interact with students during teaching English as a foreign
language.
KEYWORDS: Interlanguage pragmatics, Pragmatic transfer, Persuasion strategies, EFL learners
INTRODUCTION
Pragmatics can be defined as the study of the relationship between language, its communication,
and its contextualized use (Koike, 1996). Interlanguage is referred to as the learners’ language
system that is not consistent with the native speakers’ language system (Selinker, 1972). Kasper
(1998) combines the study of the two areas of pragmatics and interlanguage, and defines
interlanguage pragmatics as the study of nonnative speaker’s comprehension, production, and
92
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org acquisition of linguistic action when they do things with words. Pragmatic transfer is a research
branch of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatic transfer refers to the influence exerted by learners’
pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than second language on their
comprehension, production and learning of second language pragmatic knowledge (Kasper,
1992). Here pragmatic knowledge can be understood as a particular component of language
users’ general communicative knowledge, that is, the knowledge of how verbal acts are
understood and performed in accordance with a speaker’s intention under contextual and
discoursal constraints (Faerch & Kasper, 1984). When people from different cultures
communicate with each other without perceiving their different pragmatic knowledge,
miscommunication may happen. Such phenomenon is due to transfer of native pragmatic
knowledge in situations of intercultural communication (Zegarac & Pennington, 2000).
As noted by Leech (1983), there are two perspectives on pragmatic transfer. One is
sociopragmatic transfer, and the other is pragmalinguistic transfer. According to Kasper (1992),
sociopragmatic transfer operates when the social perceptions underlying language users'
interpretation and performance of linguistic action in a second language are influenced by their
assessment of their subjectively equivalent first language context. On the other hand,
pragmalinguistic transfer designates the process whereby illocutionary force or politeness value
assigned to particular linguistic materials in first language influences learners' perception and
performance of form-function mappings in second language (Kasper, 1992).
For language use, pragmatic rules, as a matter of fact, are mostly subconscious and are not
noticed by L2 learners until they are broken, i.e. feelings get hurt and offence takes place (Hanlig
& Taylor, 2003). Accordingly L2 learners must realize that what is accepted in their NL at a
given context may not necessarily be the case in another language when they contact with its
native speakers (NSs). One area of pragmatic transfer which can possibly occur in Iranian
learners of English language production is the speech act of persuasion. Persuasion is defined by
Lakoff (1982) as the nonreciprocal attempt or intention of one party to change the behavior,
feelings, intentions, or viewpoint of another by communicative means. Advertising, propaganda,
political rhetoric, court language and religious sermons are obvious examples of persuasive
discourse; however, persuasion may also occur in conversation. Persuasion is recognized as a
directive speech act which, according to Searle (1969, as cited in Pishghadam & Rasouli, 2011) is
that in which the speaker's purpose is to get the hearer to commit him/herself to some course of
action. In other words, persuasion is an attempt to make the world match the words.
Despite large number of research done in pragmatic issues in general and speech acts in
particular, they are still among the most popular topics that researchers try to investigate because
of their dynamic features especially in the realm of teaching. The concept of this issue is reported
by Delen (2010): “speech acts are not a new topic for researchers; on the contrary, they have been
very popular since their emergence in the late 1960s” (p. 692). Finally, although a relatively large
number of studies done on issues related to different types of speech acts and based on the fact
that “research concerning L2 pragmatic competence often focuses on learners’ speech act
behavior, primarily by contrasting nonnative with native performance” (Yu, 2011, p. 1128), little
research has been done especially in the context of Iran to investigate the speech act of
93
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org persuasion among non-native speakers, and more importantly to find any sign of pragmatic
transfer.
Since Persian and English speakers have different perceptions of how persuading speech act
should be conducted, it is more likely that pragmatic transfer of Persian will occur in intercultural
communication between Persian nonnative speakers of English and native English speakers.
Utilizing a prior study by Bu (2010) as the framework, the present study aimed to compare
similarities and differences in the production of speech act of persuasion in English and Persian
languages. The focus, moreover, was on determining any signs of pragmatic transfer from the
first language to the second language. To this end, the researcher attempted to analyze the types
of persuasive strategies used in English and Persian. As the next step, it was tried to locate any
possible pragmatic transfers in persuasion strategies by Iranian learners of English.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As Hymes (1971) pointed out, communicative competence must include not only the linguistic
forms of the language but also knowledge of when, how, and to whom it is appropriate to use
these forms. Speech act has been one of the main aspects of pragmatic for a long time. Speech act
theory refers to functions and uses of the language or in other words. It includes all the acts we do
while as invitations, refusal, apologies, congratulation, persuasion and so on. According to
Halliday (1972) such activities do not only by themselves give us enough information while the
reveal much about social purposes in which people use language for ( as cited in Schcmidt &
Richards, 1980).
In this regard, pragmatic competence helps students to come up with the problems of
miscommunication in different cultures, and for effective communication in second language it is
necessary to make students familiar with the appropriate selection and production of different
speech acts in different contexts. Usually language teachers take communicative competence the
same as the knowledge of linguistic forms or the ability to carry out the linguistic interaction in
the target language, but efficient communication is beyond that. Therefore, a great deal of studies
have been conducted across different languages and cultures to address universalities and
variations in regard to speech acts such as request (Tatton, 2008), apology (Clyne, 1994),
complaint (Salmani Nodoushan, 2007), compliment (Grossi, 2009), and refusal (Al-kahtani,
2005). However, the speech act of persuasion has received little attention.
Robin Lakoff (1982) defined persuasion as the "attempt or intention of one party to change
behavior, feelings, intentions or view point of another by communicative means" (as cited in
Hardin, 2010, p. 155). Therefore, advertising, propaganda, political oratory, court language and
religious sermons are example of persuasive discourse; however, persuasion can also used in
daily interactions. Persuasion according to Searle (1969) is regarded as the directive speech act in
which the speaker’s intention is to make the hearer to commit him or herself to perform some
form of actions; in other words, persuasion is an attempt of speaker to match the world with his
or her words (as cited in Bu, 2010). Persuasion according to Brown and Levinson's (1987) is
categorized as a face threatening act, and according to Lakoff (1982) is considered as a kind of
94
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org imposition from the speaker upon the hearer; or as Searle (1969) pointed out, persuasion is a kind
of commitment or urge for accomplishments of some actions form speaker to hearer. Therefore,
having enough knowledge to infer the meaning and the ability to apply appropriate strategies for
conducting persuasion seem crucial to hinder breakdown in intercultural communication.
Previous pragmatic research on persuasion has been conducted in different fields. One of these
fields is pragmatic analysis of persuasion strategies. Rank (1988, as cited in Hardin, 2010)
suggests a basic persuasive formula for advertisements. His five components are attentiongetting, confidence-building, desire-stimulating, urgency-stressing, and response-seeking.
Combining both Rank’s (1988) and Leech’s (1966) findings, Hardin (2001) examines persuasive
discourse in Spanish language advertising and finds that memorability (making the audience
remember the message), force (emotional and logical appeals and the strength of a message), and
participation (the desire for a response or audience/hearer involvement) are primary persuasive
goals.
Barkley and Anderson (2008) studied persuasion techniques in the courtroom and found that the
persuasive effect of arguments is related not only to what is said, but also to how they are said
and when they are said. In other words, the more reputable the source of the arguments, the more
persuasive the arguments will be. The arguments delivered with confidence, persistence and
clarity will be more persuasive.
One of the most recent researchers on the topic under question is Bu (2010), who investigated
pragmatic transfer in persuasion strategies by Chinese learners of English. The subjects of the
study included 10 native English speakers, 10 Chinese learners of English, and 10 native Chinese
speakers, all of whom were university students. The classification of persuasion strategies was
mainly based on Hardin’s classification of lexical and pragmatic realization of persuading speech
act. The data was collected by means of a discourse complete test questionnaire The Chi-square
test was used to compare frequencies of use of persuasion strategies by the Chinese learner of
English group, the native English group, and the native Chinese group. Results indicated that
although all three groups used complaint strategy most frequently and opting out strategy least
frequently, the Chinese learner of English group displayed advice/suggestion/recommendation
strategy more frequently than the native English group. The Chinese learner of English group
also used opinion-proving strategy less frequently than the native English group and never used
consolation/condolence strategies.
Several pragmatic research studies have also been done on the use of directives in persuasive
discourse. In his study, Hardin finds that directives are commonly used in Spanish persuasive
discourse and directives may be either direct or indirect in force (Hardin, 2001). The illocutionary
force of a directive may be softened through mitigation and pragmatic strategies that delocalize
the speaker from his/her deictic center (Haverkate 1984; Koike 1992). Indirectness requires the
addressee to infer meaning and rely on shared knowledge between the speaker and him/herself.
Moreover, since persuasion may involve face threatening acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987), the
speaker must use appropriate politeness strategies to achieve the desired message. Certain forms
95
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org or constructions are conventionalized; that is, they are customarily used to perform specific
speech acts.
In the Chinese context, Tang Xia (2009) analyzed persuading speech act from the perspective of
the theory of Chinese face and indicated that Chinese persuasion strategies are human relationbased strategies. In addition, Zhai Lingzhi (2010) investigated persuasion strategies commonly
used by Chinese from the perspective of pragmatics. These strategies included the combination of
reason and emotion, analogy, encouragement, irony, praise and metaphor.
More recently, in another comparative study by Pishghadam and Rasouli (2011), the researchers
investigated the general application of persuasive strategies among Iranian learners of English as
a foreign language. To this end, 150 Iranian English learners took part in this study. The data
were collected by means of a discourse completion test, consisting of 6 questions similar to real
life persuasive situations. The Chi-square test was applied to compare the frequencies of
persuasion strategies’ application among Iranian EFL learners. The frequent use of query
preparatory by nonnative English speakers was consistent with previous studies’ results (BlumKalka & Olshtain, 1984; Hong, 2009; Tatton, 2008) which mentioned that mostly all languages
prefer the application of conventionally indirect strategies.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following questions were the center of focus in the present study:
1. Are there significant differences in the kinds of persuasion strategies used by native English
speakers, native Persian speakers, and Iranian EFL learners?
2. What types of persuasion strategies are more likely to be transferred pragmatically from L1 to
L2 by Iranian EFL learners?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The study took place in Iran and the participants consisted of three groups: the Iranian learners of
English group, the native English group, and the native Persian group. Each group of Iranians
consisted of 30 participants, and there were 10 participants in the native English speakers group.
They were university students ranging in age from 19 to 26 years old. So they showed
homogeneity in terms of age and education. The participants in this study were accesses through
convenient sampling procedure.
Instruments
The data were collected from participants by means of a discourse completion task (DCT). The
DCT consisted of 6 items in different contexts close to real life persuasive situations, three of
which were adapted from the aforementioned study by Bu (2010). Modifications were made in
the other situations to make them more appropriate in both Iranian culture and English culture
since in interlanguage pragmatics studies it is necessary to make sure that the situations in the
DCT are equivalent cross-culturally. Through the modification process, three experts in the field
96
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org of ELT were asked to examine the DCT to make certain it was as valid and reliable as possible.
In order to avoid native Persian speakers’ misunderstanding of what they were required to do in
the DCT, a translated version was given to them. As far as the scoring of the DCT was
concerned, the data were first coded according to their classification based on the Bu (2010)
framework. For the analysis of persuasion strategies utilized, descriptive statistics were employed
to count the frequency and percentage of each strategy for each group, and Chi-square test was
then used to compare the frequencies of persuasion strategies use by the Iranian nonnative
English speaker group, the native English speaker group, and the native Persian group.
Procedure
To achieve the objectives of the study, the DCT was adapted and modified to fit the Iranian and
American culture. Subsequently, three groups of participants (i.e. native English speakers, native
Persian speakers, and Iranian EFL learners) were selected through convenience sampling and
asked to take part in this study. They were ‘persuaded’ to fill out the DCTs and return them to the
researchers. Once the completed DCTs were received, the data were subjected to statistical
analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As the total number of collected data comprised 30 DCTs in English by the Iranian learners of
English Group (G1), 30 DCTs in Persian by the native Persian group (G2), and 10 DCTs in
English by the native English group (G3), and there were six different persuasive situations in
these DCTs, the whole number of responses by G1, G2, and G3 amounted to 180, 180, and 60
answers for each DCT, respectively. First, the answers of the three groups to all six persuasive
situations were analyzed and tabulated in Table 1.
Strategy / Groups
Table 1: Frequencies and Percentages of Each Strategy by Three Groups
Native
English Iranian Learner of English Native
Persian
Group
Group
Group
Complaint
5 (8.33%)
14 (7.77%)
11 (6.11%)
Reaction
2 (3.33%)
8 (4.44%)
7 (3.88%)
Request
7 (11.66%)
27 (15.00%)
30 (16.66%)
Ultimatum
6 (10.00%)
4 (2.22%)
3 (1.66%)
Order
Opinion-proving
Advice
Suggestion
Recommendation
Consolation
Condolence
Opting out
Total
Pearson Chi-Square value =
7 (11.66%)
8 (4.44%)
5 (2.77%)
6 (10.00%)
31 (17.22%)
38 (21.11%)
8 (13.33%)
23 (12.77%)
19 (10.55%)
5 (8.33%)
22 (12.22%)
19 (10.55%)
8 (13.33%)
35 (19.44%)
41 (22.77%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
4 (6.66%)
8 (4.44%)
7 (3.88%)
60 (100%)
180 (100%)
180 (100%)
28.133, df = 4, Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.009
97
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org The percentage of each strategy in the performance of persuading speech act is provided
in parentheses after the frequency. The percentage numbers are rounded to two decimal,
so the sum of the percentages may be more or less than 100%.
The descriptive data shown in Table 1 indicates that the frequency and percentage of the
selection of the strategies among these three groups was not equally distributed. In order
to be more specific, regarding the claim of difference between these three groups, the
Chi-square test was run to detect the differences. The Chi-Square result is written
beneath Table 1.
Based on these results, the answer to the first question was positive. That means that
there was a significant difference in the number of persuasion strategies used by native
English speakers, native Persian speakers, and Iranian nonnative English speakers since
the groups showed discrepancy in the use of the strategies.
The research findings can be summarized as below: According to Table 1, all the three
groups used recommendation strategy most frequently and consolation and condolence
strategies least frequently. This phenomenon can be explained by the facts that in most
situations the respondents tried to persuade the interlocutor in the same manner. All the
participants of the three groups used different statements for recommendation and then
tried to persuade the hearer. The second frequently used strategy by the native English
group was advice when they performed their persuading act. Thus, advice and
recommendation strategies were used equally by this group (13.33%).
By contrast, the second frequently used strategy by the learners of English group and
native Persian group was opinion-proving (17.22%). Here the participants of both groups
started the persuasion with what they would do to convince the person to do the favor
for them. An example of the way they persuaded using opinion-proving regarding
situation number six follows:
Situation 6:
You are the owner of a big bookstore. It is the beginning of the semester, and you
are very busy. Today you want to extend business hours by an hour. So, you
decide to persuade your clerk, whom you know quite well, to stay an extra hour
more.
The learners of English, under the influence of their first language (Persian), tried to use
expressions like ‘If only you could stay a little longer, I promise to pay you more’ and other
similar expressions showing their awareness of the situation for the clerk which in some
senses were exaggerated to show their understanding. This is due to their use of
substitution strategy which results from Persian speakers as well as learners of English
highly frequent employment of recommendation to persuade the hearer to comply with
the situations.
98
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org The third prominent strategy utilized by the learners of English group and native Persian
group was that of request (G2 = 15.00%, G3 = 16.66%). The English group used it as
their fourth strategy. Here, using request strategy frequently, the learners showed lack
of knowledge and insecurity about the proper strategy to apply in assigned situations
which resulted in substitution of more polite strategy (e.g. request).
Strategy of order ranked fifth in the category of persuasive strategies for native English group
(11.66%), but the other two groups seemed to be reluctant in using this strategy. Strategy
of order was used with the same rate as the reaction strategy (4.44%) in the learners of
English group and it even ranked after opting-out for the native Persian group (3.88%).
Ultimatum was used occasionally after the order strategy for native English group (10.00 %);
however, the other groups used this strategy less frequently. The strategy of ultimatum was
used after opting out in the learners of English group (2.22%) and even less by native
Persian group (1.66%). The least frequently used strategy by the three groups was
consolation/condolence.
When the participants were asked about the use of recommendation/opinion
proving/request/advice/suggestion, 21 out of 30 Iranian learners of English participants
said that it was a duty for the speaker to give useful recommendations, prove their
opinions, and ask for a favor through request strategy to change the hearer’s behavior or
to make the person do something for them. When interviewed why they used a certain
formula, 18 out of 30 Iranian learners of English participants admitted that they used
substitution strategy. For example, some of them said:
‘When I needed help and I knew that this favor might bring about some difficulty for the
hearer, I wanted to comfort him by giving a recommendation or asking to do the favor in
the form of request. I would say: I promised to increase your salary to lessen the
difficulty I might impose to them.’
Here, recommending was mostly used instead of other direct and explicit strategies in
English. When they were asked about substitution strategy, they said the reason for
substituting specific strategies was that they were not willing to impose themselves on
the interlocutor through ordering or using ultimatum strategies. They also said that they
were not fully familiar with these strategies and did not know how to utilize them
properly in the required situations so they tried to avoid the strategies and substitute the
ones which were known because of their use in their first language. Thus, these learners
used two different pragmatic strategies: the first was avoidance strategy which was
defined as “omission of speech acts whose formulas are unfamiliar” (Bu, 2010, p. 100),
and the second strategy was substitution which was utilized to compensate for the
students’ lack of knowledge about the principles and rules of using these strategies
pragmatically in a foreign language context. Here, under the impact of Persian, besides
their inadequate knowledge, the learners of English group tried to select a strategy with
‘less illocutionary force’, again to avoid possible imposition on the hearer. From these
findings, the second question of the study could be answered: The persuasion strategies
99
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org which were more likely to be transferred pragmatically from L1 to L2 by Iranian nonnative
English speakers were avoidance and substitution.
Addressing the first research question
In this research, it was found that the frequency of use of persuasion strategies by
Iranian EFL learners was significantly different from that of native English speakers,
though they did share some similarities (x2 = 28.133, p = 0.009 < 0.05). Iranian EFL
learners were apt to express persuasion with care and/or caution represented by
strategies of recommendation, opinion proving, request, advice, and suggestion and
avoiding other strategies like ultimatum, ordering, complaint, reaction, consolation, and
condolence.
They did this using statement of reason/explanation, statements of sympathy, as well as
promise of compensation in the future more than native English speakers. Native
English speakers were more sensitive to their interlocutors’ higher and lower status,
whereas Iranian EFL learners acted similarly to interlocutors with different social status.
Additionally, they were reluctant to use direct speech act and they avoided imposition
on the hearer. Thus, through analysis of the responses, the researcher came to the
conclusion that the most commonly strategies used by Iranian EFL learners were
indirect strategies.
The quantitative analysis showed that the Persian learner of English group used opinionproving/ request/ advice/ suggestion more frequently than the native English group, which
means that participants in the Persian learner of English group had a tendency of
expressing their sympathetic feeling about their hearers’ situation and they preferred to
use recommendation/opinion-proving/request/advice to improve their hearer’s situation
and to comfort their hearers by being more polite and changing every situation to a
request one. On the contrary, the participants in the native English group preferred to
use recommendation/advice/suggestion to make the hearer comply with these situations.
Such differences may result from their different perceptions of these situations. In the
Iranian culture, making recommendation, opinion-proving, request, and advice is regarded
as rapport-building. Although opinion-proving, request, and advice are also available in
English culture for these situations, they were rarely used by native English speakers for
the same situations compared to the answers given by Iranian groups. This is not
surprising because English society is one of typical instances of individualist societies
(Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey & Chua, 1988; Hofstede, 1991). Extending business hours by an
hour, or persuading a person’s little brother to pay the bill on her/his behalf are different
matters for native English speakers as they behaved totally differently to these
situations. They preferred to use ordering strategy more than the other two groups did,
indicating their choice towards a more direct way for persuasion in these situations
Table 1 indicated that frequency of strategy use by the Iranian learner of English group
and the native Persian group was similar in the use of recommendation, opinion-proving,
request, advice, and suggestion. This phenomenon was due to the fact that in our society,
100
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org harmonious social relationship is highly valued. Advice-making, opinion-proving, and
request-making are not only a method of keeping harmonious relations among people,
but also a duty of benefiting the society. This positive culture orientation of such
strategy results in the tendency that Iranian EFL learners of English group display
similar frequencies to the native Persian group and more frequencies than the native
English group in the use of recommendation, opinion-proving, request, advice, and
suggestion. The similarity between the Iranian learners of English group and the native
Persian group in the use of recommendation, opinion-proving, and request can explain the
difference in the use of these strategies between the Iranian learner of English group and
the native English group.
As far as opinion-proving strategy is concerned, the EFL learners of English group used
this strategy more frequently than the native English group, which could be due to the
fact that they were still influenced by Persian thinking pattern when they persuaded
their hearers. Strategy of order, as another example, was used rarely in the learners of
English group and it even ranked after opting out for native Persian group. This could
be attributed to the fact that EFL learners, under their mother tongue influence, were not
willing to use this strategy even when they were dealing with people from lower social
level or when they were speaking to their family members. Instead of embarking on the
utilization of the required strategies, EFL learners tried to show their politeness and
understanding of the situation of the interlocutors, exaggerating their feeling in some
situations, which in most of the cases were the reasons for which their utterances were
colored and halfway between Persian and English.
In all situations, native Persian speakers and EFL learners of English similarly tried to
show their understanding of the situation and difficulty they may bring for the
interlocutors upon helping them with their problem; thus, opinion-proving, request, advice,
and suggestion are encouraged to use when such situations are dealt with according to
Iranian culture. It has also previously been confirmed that indirect speech act usually
denoted politeness in the Iranian context as well. According to Allami and Naeimi
(2010), in a high-context culture such as Iran, people tend to use indirect, symbolic,
vague, and implicit style of communication whereas a low-context culture is generally
represented by direct, lucid, accurate, and explicit communication approach. This result
is not consistent with Hardin’s (2010) finding that, nonnative speakers use explicit
speech act verbs in persuasive discourse, and the use of these verbs may be less
dominant among native speakers.
Addressing the second research question
From the above-mentioned findings, the researchers deduced that there were a number of factors
that partake in the weakness of the Iranian EFL learners in English language selection of correct
persuasion strategy; influence from Persian and lack of pragmatic knowledge of English language
stood ahead of them. Thus, based on these findings, the second hypothesis stating “there is no
pragmatic transfer in persuasion strategies by Iranian EFL learners in their intercultural
communication” could safely be rejected.
101
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org However, more salient pragmatic transfer of Iranian learners of English was one to one principle
strategy, while based on the findings of the present study, avoidance and substitution were among
the most frequent strategies which were pragmatically transferred from Persian into English by
Iranian EFL learners.
CONCLUSION
The above-mentioned results demonstrated that there were some differences in
persuasion strategies between the learners of English group and the native English
group, while there were some similarities in persuasion strategy use between the learner
of English group and the native Persian group. These research results provided an
affirmative answer to the first question: there is a significant difference in the kind of
persuasion strategies used by native English speakers and Iranian nonnative English speakers.
It is worth reminding again that the use of rules of speaking from one’s speech act
community when interacting or when speaking in a second or a foreign language is
known as pragmatic transfer. There was also pragmatic transfer in the use of persuasion
strategies by Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. However, it was
impossible to provide evidence of pragmatic transfer without simultaneously describing
what was transferred.
As discussed above, the persuasion strategies that were mostly used by Iranian learner
of English group and Persian native speakers were: recommendation, opinion proving,
request, advice, and suggestion. The Iranian learners of English group also displayed
some features of their pragmatic transfer of strategies of avoidance and substitution
when they conducted a certain type of speech act. Avoidance and substitution of
particular speech act were due to the learners’ lack of skill or explicit training, for
example, in the way to form appropriate advice, or indirect commands. Moreover,
learners tended to avoid or substitute for the level of directness appropriate for each
context, either because they were unaware or because they lacked the necessary skills to
do so (Koike 1994).
Finally, based on the findings of the study, it could be realized that English and Persian
languages demonstrated parallel strategy in application of recommendation formula as
the most preferred strategy while they revealed different patterns in application of order
and ultimatum strategies as English people utilized them frequently; Persian speakers
used these strategies quite rarely. As a result, Iranian learners of English transferred
these habits to English not only because of the influence from their mother tongue but
also as their lack of knowledge in pragmatic utilization of these strategies in English
contexts. Moreover, evidence proved the existence of significant difference between
English native speakers and Iranian EFL males and females in application of persuasion
strategy. The results obtained from this study should be approached with caution since
this study suffers from limitations, one of which is the limited number of native English
speakers who served as the participants of the study. Future studies might be able to
102
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org make up for this limitation. It could also be suggested that future research in this area
take gender differences into consideration and explore whether males and female use
different persuasion strategies in the two speech communities under investigation or not.
REFERENCES
Allami, H. (2006). A Sociopragmatic analysis of griping: The case of Iranian students. The
Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 59-76.
Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating
factors. International Journal of Intercultural Factors, 3, 581-601.
Andersen, R. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning.
34, 77–95.
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we
count. Language Testing, 17(1), 1-42.
Barkley, E., & Anderson, D. (2008). Using the science of persuasion in the courtroom. The Jury
Expert, 8, 1-5.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with
words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.).
The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 182-192). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of
Speech Act Realization Patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196- 213.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic
failure. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 47–61.
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to
statistics and research design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.
Goody (Ed.). Questions on politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 256-289).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of
speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics,
3(1), pp. 29-60.
Bu, J. (2010). Study of Pragmatic Transfer in Persuasion Strategies by Chinese Learners of
English. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 16 (2), 93-113.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-Cultural communication at work: Cultural value in discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delen, B., & Tavil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four course books in terms of three speech acts:
Requests, refusals and complaints. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 692-697.
103
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Faerch, C., & Kasper G. (1984). Pragmatic knowledge: Rules and procedures. Applied
Linguistics, 5(3). 214-225.
Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the Effects of Teaching Apology
Speech Act, with a Focus on Intensifying Strategies, on Pragmatic Development of EFL
Learners: The Iranian Context. Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30, 96-103.
Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English thanking formulas
on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37,
526-537.
Gudykunst, W., Ting-Toomy, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Hardin, K. J. (2001). Pragmatics of persuasive discourse in Spanish television advertising.
Dallas: SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Hardin, K. (2010). Trying to persuade: Speech acts in the persuasive discourse of intermediate
Spanish learners. In K. A. Mcelhanon & Gerreesink (Eds.), A mosaic of languages and
cultures (pp.155-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech acts, speakers, and hearers: Reference and referential strategies in
Spanish. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hinkel. D. E , Wiersma, W., & Turs, S. G. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral science.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Honglin, L. (2007). A comparative study of refusal speech acts in Chinese and American English.
Canadian Social Science, 3(4), 64-67.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). American & Chinese: passage to differences. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-31.
Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Learning foreign and second
languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 183-208). New York: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Koike, D. A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigating
effects. Journal of Pragmatics 21, pp. 513–526.
Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign
language learning. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu, (Eds.). Speech acts across cultures:
Challenges to communication in a second language, (pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Lakoff, R. (1982). Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation, with examples from
advertising. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 154-169).
Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1966). English in advertising: A linguistic study of advertising in Great Britain.
London: Longmans.
Keshavarz, M. H., Eslami, Z. R., & Ghahreman, V. (2006). Pragmatic transfer and Iranian EFL
refusals: A cross-cultural perspective of Persian and English. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, G.
Kasper, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.). Pragmatics and language learning (pp.
359-403). Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
104
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 9 (1), May 2015; 92-‐105 Fazeli, M., & Shafiee, S EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Rank, H. (1988). Persuasion analysis: A companion to composition. Park Forest, IL: CounterPropaganda Press.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 10 (3), 209-231.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of Appropriateness in a Speech Act of Request in L2 English.
Pragmatics, 16 (4), 513-533.
Tanck, S. (2002). Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of Native and NonNative English Speakers’ Production. TESOL Working Papers, 4 (2), 1-22.
Tatton, H. (2008). Could You, Perhaps, Pretty Please? Request Directness in Cross-Cultural
Speech Act Realization. Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 1-4.
Zegarac, V., & Pennington, M. C. (2000). Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication. In
H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.). Cultural speaking: Managing rapport through talk across
cultures (pp.165-190). New York: Continuum.
105