FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF...

FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF POWER

AND DISTANCE ON CORE STRATEGIES AND MODIFICATION

By

EINAS HASHEM ALREFAI

Bachelor of Arts/ English Language Kuwait University

Kuwait city, Kuwait 1998

Masters of Arts/ English Langauge

Colordo State University Fort Collins, Colorado

2008

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the

Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

July, 2012

ii

FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF

POWER AND DISTANCE ON CORE STRATEGIES AND

MODIFICATION

Dissertation Approved:

Dr. Gene Halleck

Dr. Dennis Preston

Dr. Ravi Sheorey

Dr. Stephen Perkins

Dr. Sheryl A. Tucker

Dean of the Graduate College

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

Speech Act Research ......................................................................................................................... 2 Politeness Theory .............................................................................................................................. 4 Arabic Speech Acts ........................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................................. 6 Organization of the Dissertation........................................................................................................ 6 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................................................. 8 Speech Act Theory ............................................................................................................................ 8 Politeness Theory ............................................................................................................................ 10 Speech Act of Request .................................................................................................................... 13 Speech Act of Favor Asking ........................................................................................................... 16 Research on Arabic Speech Acts .................................................................................................... 17 Pragmalinguistic Data Collection Methods ..................................................................................... 19 Field Observations of Spontaneous Speech ............................................................................... 19 Role-plays .................................................................................................................................. 20 Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) ......................................................................................... 22 Research Gaps Addressed by the Present Study ............................................................................. 23 III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 24 Participants ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Instrument – Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) ......................................................................... 25 Pilot Study ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Final DCT ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Data Coding – Core Strategies and Modification ............................................................................ 29

iv

Chapter Page

IV. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Core Strategy Use Across All Scenarios ......................................................................................... 34 Modifications Across All Scenarios ................................................................................................ 36 Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P) .................................................................................. 39 Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P) ................................................................................... 49 Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P) .................................................................................... 59 V. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 70 Core Strategy Use Across All Scenarios ......................................................................................... 70 Modifications Across All Scenarios ................................................................................................ 72 Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P) .................................................................................. 73 Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P) ................................................................................... 76 Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P) .................................................................................... 77 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 82 Implications of the Study ................................................................................................................ 82 Comparison with Previous Studies on Requests ............................................................................. 83 Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................................. 84 Directions for Future Research ....................................................................................................... 85 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 86 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 107

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Searle’s (1969) speech act classifications .......................................................................................... 9 2 Scenarios in final DCT ..................................................................................................................... 28 3 Direct strategies for asking core favor .............................................................................................. 29 4 Conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor ..................................................................... 30 5 Non-conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor .............................................................. 30 6 Modifications to core request ........................................................................................................... 31 7 Additional modifications outside the CCSARP coding scheme ....................................................... 33 8 Strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios ......................................................................................... 35 9 Strategy use in +D and –D scenarios ................................................................................................ 35 10 Modifications per favor .................................................................................................................. 36 11 Modifier use across all power relations .......................................................................................... 37 12 Modifier frequency by distance ...................................................................................................... 38 13 Core strategy use in +P scenarios ................................................................................................... 39 14 Modification in +P scenarios .......................................................................................................... 40 15 Modification in Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................. 41 16 Modification in Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................. 43 17 Modification in Scenario 3 ............................................................................................................. 45 18 Modification in Scenario 4 ............................................................................................................. 47 19 Core strategy use in –P scenarios ................................................................................................... 49 20 Modification in –P scenarios .......................................................................................................... 50 21 Modification in Scenario 5 ............................................................................................................. 51 22 Modification in Scenario 6 ............................................................................................................. 53 23 Modification in Scenario 7 ............................................................................................................. 55 24 Modification in Scenario 8 ............................................................................................................. 57 25 Core strategy use in =P scenarios ................................................................................................... 60 26 Modification in =P scenarios .......................................................................................................... 60 27 Modification in Scenario 9 ............................................................................................................. 61 28 Modification in Scenario 10 ........................................................................................................... 64 29 Modification in Scenario 11 .......................................................................................................... 66 30 Modification in Scenario 12 ........................................................................................................... 68 31 Core strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios ............................................................................... 71 32 Core strategy use in +D and –D scenarios ...................................................................................... 71 33 Modifiers affected by distance ....................................................................................................... 73 34 Description of +P scenarios ............................................................................................................ 74 35 Core strategy use in +P scenarios ................................................................................................... 74 36 Core strategy directness in +P scenarios ........................................................................................ 75

vi

Table Page 37 Modifier frequency in +P scenarios........................................................................ ........................ 75 38 Description of –P scenarios .................................................................................... ........................ 76 39 Core strategy directness in –P scenarios................................................................. ........................ 77 40 Description of =P scenarios………........................................................................ ........................ 77 41 Core strategy directness in =P scenarios................................................................. ........................ 78

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates favor asking in Kuwaiti Arabic, with a focus on how social

power and distance affect the performance of the speech act. The primary goal of the study is

to see the effect of the variables of power and distance on core strategies and modifications in

the speech act of favor asking.

Speech acts are utterances intended to perform communicative actions, and have been

defined as the “basic minimal units of linguistic communication” (Searle, 1976, p.16). Their

study provides critical insight into the social and linguistic norms of speech communities

(Meier, 1995, 1997; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985; Schmidt, 1983). Cross-cultural research

on speech acts investigates how speakers of different languages use different linguistic

features to perform similar communicative functions, in order to reflect culturally defined

standards of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Such studies can be useful in reducing

stereotyping and potential communication difficulties between cross-cultural interlocutors

(Meier, 1995; Takahashi & Beebe, 1993).

This chapter provides a brief background on speech act research, paying specific

attention to the speech acts of requests and favor asking. It also provides background on

politeness theory and discusses existing research on speech acts in Arabic. This will be

followed by a description of the rationale for the current study, as well as the research design

and methods of data collection and analysis. The final section of the chapter provides an

overview of how this dissertation is organized.

2

Speech Act Research

Studies investigating speech acts have typically focused on requests (Blum-Kulka,

1982a; House & Kasper, 1987; Koike, 1989; Takahashi, 1996), suggestions (Bardovi-Harlig

& Hartford, 1990; Koike, 1996), complaints (Boxer, 1996), refusals (Beebe, Takahashi &

Uliss-Welts, 1990; Houk & Gass, 2006) and apologies (Eslami-Rusekh & Mardani, 2010;

Mulamba, 2009). Examining the production of these and other speech acts is an essential tool

for gaining cultural knowledge (Al-Issa, 1998; Rubin, 1989), as “lack of knowledge of

speech act realization patterns and strategies across cultures can lead to breakdowns” (Rubin,

p. 12).

Studies investigating speech acts generally fall into one of four categories: learner-

focused, methodological, cross-cultural, and intralingual. Learner-focused studies examine

how second and foreign language learners develop pragmatic competence in the target

language (Mey, 1993; Thomas, 1995). Methodological studies explore the effectiveness of

different means of data collection (Golato, 2003; Yuan, 2001). Cross-cultural studies

compare speech act performance across two or more cultures (Al-Ali & Al-Awneh, 2010;

Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Nelson, Carson, Al-Batal & El-Bakary, 2002), while

intralingual studies focus on a single language or culture (Demeter, 2007; Farghal & Al-

Khatib, 2001; Farghal & Haggan, 2006; Hahn, 2006; Nureddeen, 2008). As this dissertation

examines favor asking in a single language, Kuwaiti Arabic, it thus falls within the category

of intralingual research.

Studies on the speech act of requests have recently become a popular topic and have

gained the interest of people in the speech act research community. Favors are a specialized

type of request, with a higher degree of imposition that typically necessitates reciprocity.

3

Though there has been extensive investigation of requests, relatively few linguists have

specifically investigated the speech act of favor asking.

The most common framework for examining requests is to analyze the frequency of

nine strategies first identified in Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) Cross Cultural Speech

Act Realization Project (CCSARP). One of the most significant contributions of the study

was to classify different strategies for making the “core” or obligatory portion of the request.

Three types of strategies were identified: direct, conventional indirect, and nonconventional

indirect. They also looked at 22 kinds of modifications to the core request, which are non-

obligatory portions of the speech act designed to modify its force and get the hearer to

comply.

The effect of social power and distance on speech acts has been researched in a

number of studies (e.g., Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000; Spencer-Oaty, 1996; Wolfson, 1989).

The results of these studies have proven that speech acts, such as invitations, requests, offers,

and suggestions, are influenced by social power. Wolfson (1989) found that variables like

social status influence the length of refusals, and that people who are familiar with each other

tend to make more elaborate refusals. Demographic variables that influence speech act

strategies include age, gender, and education, but this study focuses on the variables of power

and distance. Power refers to level of social control possessed by the speaker (Blau, 1964;

Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Emerson, 1962). Compared

to the hearer, the speaker can either have more power (+P), less power (–P), or equal power

(=P). Distance refers to the level of familiarity between speaker and hearer. If interlocutors

are unfamiliar with each other, as with strangers, there is said to be distance between them

(+D). But if the interlocutors are familiar, as in the case of friends or family, there is no

4

distance (–D). Social power and distance have been shown to affect speech acts such as

invitations, requests, offers, and suggestions (Spencer-Oaty, 1996; Lee, Pillutla, & Law,

2000). For example, +P speakers give shorter refusals, whereas –D speakers tend to give

elaborate refusals (Wolfson, 1989).

Politeness Theory

The linguistic forms used to perform speech acts are determined by standards of

politeness. Though politeness is a universal human trait, it is always culturally specific

(Brown & Levinson, 1987). Generally speaking, to be polite a speaker must reduce

imposition on the hearer, provide the hearer with options, and make the hearer feel

comfortable (Lakoff, 1973). By doing so, the speaker enables the hearer to maintain face,

which is defined as the “public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”

within the speech community (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61).

Brown and Levinson’s explanation of politeness (1987) involves two types of face,

both positive and negative. Positive face refers to how people want to project themselves to

others, while negative face involves ensuring that one’s actions remain “unimpeded by

others” (p. 62). To be polite, speakers must preserve their own face and avoiding threatening

that of the hearer (Stabb, 1983). In favor asking, the greatest potential threat to the speaker’s

face would be if the favor were refused, while the greatest threat to the hearer’s face would

be if the favor was perceived as an imposition (Goldshmidt, 1993).

Like other aspects of politeness, perceptions of face are culturally defined.

Researchers have found that some of the features described by Brown and Levinson do not

apply in cultures with a collectivist rather than individualistic perspective, such as the Polish

5

(Wierzbicka, 1985), Japanese (Matsumoto, 1988), and Chinese (Gu, 1990) speech

communities. But despite these and other limitations of politeness theory, most studies have

found that it is a useful analytical framework for understanding the performance of speech

acts (Pop, 2009).

Arabic Speech Acts

Over the last decade an expanding interest has developed in an attempt to learn and

understand the Arabic language (Al-Batal, 2007; Badawi, 2006; Liu, 2004; Abboud, 1995).

An increasing number of books are translated every year from Arabic to English (Buchler &

Guthrie, 2011), and a recent survey of US universities showed that the number of Arabic

language learners had tripled from 2003-2009 (Modern Language Association, 2010).

The body of literature on Arabic speech acts is small but growing. In the last few

years there has been an increasing amount of research on speech acts in Arabic, including

apologies (Ghawi,1993; Hussein & Hammouri,1998), compliments (Nelson, El-Bakary &

Al-Batal, 1993), requests (Al- Eryani, 2007; Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009; Al-Momani,

2009; Sattar, Lah, & Suleiman, 2009; Umar, 2004), and refusals (Al-Shalawi, 1997; Al-

Eryani, 2007; Stevens, 1993). Most of the research has focused on Jordanian and Egyptian

Arabic, with a few investigations of Yemeni and Iraqi Arabic.

However, studies situated in the Gulf region (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United

Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman) have been scarce. Among the few noteworthy studies

have been Taylor-Hamilton’s (2002) investigation of directives in Emirati Arabic, and

Enssaif’s (2005) examination of compliments in Saudi Arabic. The absence of speech act

research in this region constitutes a gap in the literature that requires further investigation.

6

Although all Arab countries share a common language and a religion, they speak different

dialects and have differing cultural norms (Al-Eryani, 2007; Al-Issa, 1998; Al-Shalawi,

1997; Feghali, 1997).

This study explores speech act performance in a single Gulf country, Kuwait. It

attempts to add new knowledge to the body of current research about linguistic and cultural

norms in a region of growing international influence.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The primary aim of this study is to gain insight on the linguistic and social

distribution of the speech act of favor asking, particularly among speakers of

Kuwait Arabic. Through an in-depth analysis of the speech act of favor asking we may gain

important insight into certain aspects of this culture, particularly the impact of social power

and social distance. The study therefore intends to answer the following research questions:

1. What core strategies do Kuwaiti Arabic speakers use to perform the speech act of

favor asking, and are these strategies affected by social power and distance?

2. What modifications to the core favor do Kuwaiti Arabic speakers use to perform the

speech act of favor asking, and are these modifications affected by social power and

distance?

Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter One is the introduction. It provides general background information on topics

relevant to this research, all of which will be examined in more detail in the literature review.

Chapter Two provides a review of relevant literature. It explains theories of speech acts

7

and politeness before looking more closely at the speech acts of both request and favor

asking. Speech act research in other Arabic cultures is summarized, followed by a discussion

of appropriate methods of pragmalinguistic data collection.

Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the study. It

describes the recruiting of participants, development of the instrument (a discourse

completion test), administration of the pilot study, and coding of the data.

Chapter Four provides the results of the study. It describes overall trends in the use of

core strategies and modification, as well as the effects of power and distance. It then

examines the participants’ responses to each of 12 individual scenarios from the discourse

completion test.

Chapter Five provides a discussion of the most significant findings from the study. It

attempts to provide a rationale for Kuwaiti Arabic speakers’ use of core request strategies

and modification during the speech act of favor asking.

Chapter Six provides a conclusion that describes the limitations of the study and

makes suggestions for future research.

8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter discusses scholarship relevant to the current study. It begins with an

overview of speech act theory and politeness theory, then moves to a summary of the

literature on the speech acts of requests and favor asking. Speech act research on Arabic

is discussed, and three types of pragmalinguistic data collection methods are outlined:

field observations of spontaneous speech, role-plays, and discourse completion tests

(DCTs). The chapter concludes by identifying research gaps addressed by the current

study.

Speech Act Theory

Identifying speech acts as particular units of discourse was first proposed in the

1930s by Austin (1962), though the concept remained relatively unexplored until much

later (Austin, 1962 ). Austin believed that “in saying something, we are doing something”

(1962, p.12), and his resulting speech act theory emphasized the socially active nature of

language.

This emphasis on language as an active system, not just an abstract entity, led to a

fundamental shift in perception among philosophers of language. Searle (1969) expanded

on Austin’s theory by emphasizing the importance of an utterance’s conversational

context. He saw the speech act as “the basic unit of linguistic

9

communication” (1969, p. 136), and identified five separate types of acts: directives,

assertives, commissives, declaratives, and expressives. See Table 1 for definitions and

examples.

Table 1

Searle’s (1969) speech act classifications

Category Definition

Directive Attempt to get hearer to perform an action (examples: ordering, requesting)

Assertive Attempt to represent actual state of affairs (examples: informing, predicting)

Commissive Attempt to get speaker to commit to a course of action (examples: promising, threatening)

Declarative Attempt to bring about change in an official state of affairs (examples: declaring war, performing a marriage)

Expressive Attempt to express one’s psychological state (examples: thanking, complaining)

An understanding of speech acts was also central to Hymes’ (1974) influential

notion of communicative competence, which he defined as knowing what to say, when

and how to say it, and to whom to say it, in a socially appropriate way. To do so

effectively, he asserted that a speaker needed extensive knowledge of the cultural norms

of the surrounding discourse community.

Hymes theorized (1974) that there were three distinct units to any conversation:

speech situations, speech events and speech acts. Speech situations are generic scenarios

that reoccur frequently, such as the interaction between a waiter and restaurant patron.

Speech events are what occur in a specific time and place, such as a single interaction

10

between waiter and patron. Speech acts are goal-focused portions of discourse that arise

within the speech event, such as the patron requesting another drink, or the waiter

apologizing for a service delay.

Later theorists further refined communicative competence by stating that it

consisted of three inter-related competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic

(Canale & Swain, 1980). Grammatical competence is knowledge of what is

grammatically acceptable, sociolinguistic competence is knowledge of what is socially

acceptable, and strategic competence is knowledge of “how to use one’s language to

communicate intended meaning” (Canale & Swain, p. 28). Canale (1983) later added a

fourth competency, discourse competence, which is the ability to connect separate

utterances into a meaningful whole.

According to Bardovi-Harlig (2001), speech acts have come to be one of the most

extensively researched topics in the field of pragmatics. The reason for this emphasis on

speech acts is that they are so frequent in everyday communication, and they are at the

heart of being able to communicate (Cohen, 2005). Speech acts demonstrate how we use

language to accomplish specific tasks (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003), and

successful performance requires “not only the knowledge of the language but also the

appropriate use of that language within a given culture” (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006,

p.1902).

Politeness Theory

When discussing speech acts, there is an obligation to talk about politeness theory

because the two concepts are intertwined. Successful performance of any speech act is

11

intimately related to culturally defined standards of politeness (Brown & Levinson,

1987). Some research on politeness has focused on cross-cultural comparison (Huang,

1996) but others have emphasized politeness universals (Grice, 1989; Lakoff, 1973;

Leech, 2007; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Most linguistic theories of politeness revolve

around the concept of face, defined as “the positive social value a person effectively

claims for himself…[based on what] others assume” in a particular context (Goffman,

1955, p. 213). As people interact in society, they do so not only to communicate, but also

to present a desirable self, thereby retaining face (Goffman, 1967; Mead, 1962).

The most influential theory of linguistic politeness is that of Brown and Levinson

(1987), which broadly states that cultural notions of politeness are established to help

interlocutors avoid conflict and achieve social harmony. Their formulation covers a vast

range of sociolinguistic theories, including Grice’s conversational maxims (1975) and

Searle’s speech act theory (1969). It is based on a more nuanced understanding of

Goffman’s concept of face, which they separate into two distinct types, positive and

negative. Positive face involves retaining a positive image in the eyes of others, while

negative face involves ensuring one’s freedom from outside imposition.

Brown and Levinson also differentiate between positive and negative politeness.

Positive politeness attends to the hearer’s need to retain positive face, and therefore

involves appealing to the hearer’s to be approved of or desired. This type of politeness is

expressed through positive evaluations of the hearer, such as compliments, showing

interest, and giving signals that the hearer is a friend. Similarly, negative politeness

involves attending to the hearer’s need to retain negative face, and therefore involves

avoiding any imposition on the hearer. Speakers can express this type of politeness

12

through strategies such as deference, hedging, and indirectness, all of which reduce

potential imposition and maintain the hearer’s freedom of action.

In this typology, there are four types of potentially face threatening acts (FTAs):

those that threaten the hearer’s positive face, the hearer’s negative face, the speaker’s

positive face, or the speaker’s negative face. In all such situations, interlocutors must

employ politeness strategies in order to demonstrate their good intentions. Decisions

about which strategies to employ depend on three important, culturally defined variables:

social distance, social power, and the degree of imposition of the associated act (Brown

& Levinson, 1987).

Brown and Levinson’s understanding of politeness remains influential, and has

been described as “a powerful argument for a universal politeness theory as a possible

way of understanding the social function of language use” (Gagne, 2010, p. 124). What

many studies oppose is Brown and Levinson’s notion of face, which they assume to be

universal. Gagne (2010) contests this view by claiming that what they consider as

negative face may be perceived as positive face in other cultures, and vice versa. For

example, within the Russian culture they seem to carry out positive politeness, in that

people show concern and encourage the involvement of other people in their lives,

strategies that other cultures may perceive as an imposition on others’ personal space

(Dong, 2009; Ogiermann, 2009).

An alternative classification scheme was proposed by Leech (2007), who

identified two forms of politeness scales, semantic and pragmatic. Semantic politeness

relates to how people use words, meaning that when a person says Can you help me? it is

more polite than just saying Help me?, and to be even more polite one would say Could

13

you possibly help me? The reason that the last example is considered the most polite is

that it offers the hearer a greater choice of options in response. According to Darwish

(2003) semantic politeness is important because it represents norms, social distance and

how to honor different people in society through specific words. Pragmatic politeness

refers to “politeness relative to norms in a given society, group, or situation. It is sensitive

to context, and is a bi-directional scale.” (p. 174). This means that in this situation an

action that is carried out in a particular context to show politeness may actually be

viewed as impolite in a different context. For example, the utterance Could I possibly

interrupt? can be viewed as too polite in a certain situation and it could be interpreted as

completely acceptable in a different context. Leech explains that pragmatic politeness is a

scale that registers “over politeness”, “under politeness”, and “politeness appropriate to

the situation” (p. 174).

Speech Act of Request

Searle (1976) defines requests as speech acts in which the speaker conveys his or

her desire to have the hearer perform an act that benefits the speaker. Blum-Kulka (1991)

emphasizes that requests are “pre-event” acts that are carried out to affect the hearer,

unlike “post-event” acts such as apologies and complaints. They are distinguished from

orders and commands by the fact that the speaker is not in a position of authority that

obligates the hearer to comply. Politeness strategies are important in making requests

because this speech act has the potential to threaten hearers’ need for negative face, by

interfering with their freedom of action (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

14

Requests can either be direct or indirect. In direct requests, speakers are explicit

about the task they would like hearers to perform, but in indirect requests, speakers do

not explicitly state this task (Searle, 1975). For example, when seated at the dinner table,

a speaker could make a direct request by saying “Please pass the butter”. The same

speaker might indirectly request that the butter be passed by saying “Are you finished

with that?” Although that utterance appears on the surface to be a question about the

hearer’s need for butter, it is typically intended and interpreted as a request. According to

Wierzbicka (1985), Western cultures have a general preference for indirect requests.

Brown & Levinson (1987) describe how indirect requests are typically

accompanied by linguistic devices used for hedging, apologizing, impersonalizing, and

showing deference. These strategies serve to “redress a hearer’s negative face of not

wanting to be impinged upon” (Goldschmidt, 1993, p. 40).

Generally speaking, speech act performance is affected by interlocutors’ roles,

relationships, and immediate circumstances (Cheng, 2011). The literature on requests

distinguishes between context external factors, such as social power and distance, and

context internal factors, such as the degree of imposition and the speaker’s motivation

(Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Brown & Levinson,

1987). Some studies also emphasize individual characteristics of the speaker, as even in

identical situations, different people will choose different communication strategies

(Cheng, 2011; Stiles, 1992).

Research on requests has focused on the culturally defined ways in which this

speech act is realized in a variety of languages. Language teachers and applied linguists

have been particularly interested in this speech act because it occurs frequently in

15

everyday life, often with a wide variety of interlocutors (Schauer, 2009). In addition, it

can be extremely face-threatening, making it critical for language learners to develop the

pragmatic expertise to perform it effectively (Uso-Juan, 2010). Studies on the speech act

of request have typically addressed directness and the effects of power and distance.

Some have examined only a single group of speakers, while others have attempted cross-

cultural comparison. Blum-Kulka (1982a) found Hebrew speakers to be far more direct

than speakers of American English, while House and Kasper (1987) found German

speakers to be more direct than Danes, who in turn were more direct than British English

speakers. Hassall’s examination of Indonesian EFL learners (2003) found a preference

for conventional indirect strategies, such as using modal verbs to ask the possibility of

performing a task, but minimal use of such nonconventional indirect strategies as hints.

In contrast, Rue, Zhang, and Shin (2007) found extensive use of hints among

native speakers of Korean. Power (P) was found to be an important variable, as speakers

with more social power than their interlocutors (+P) were considerably more direct than

those with less (–P). Felix-Brasdefer (2005) found a similar preference for directness

among +P Mexican EFL learners, but a much higher level of indirectness in –P scenarios.

Blum-Kulka’s early investigation of Hebrew and American English speakers

(1982) focused only on core strategies for performing requests, but later studies also

examined non-obligatory modification to the core request (House & Kaspar, 1987;

Martinez-Flor, 2005; Ogiermann, 2009).

16

Speech Act of Favor Asking

Favors have typically been classified as a subtype of request, but Goldschmidt

(1993, 1996) proposes that favor asking be considered a separate speech act worthy of

additional study on its own. She distinguishes favors from requests based on four criteria:

favors a) ask interlocutors to perform a task that is beyond their daily routine, b) require

considerable time and effort, c) do not involve any role-related obligation on the part of

the hearer, and d) often imply future reciprocity.

The first criterion addresses tasks that result from exigent circumstances requiring

a special need; as an example, Goldschmidt (1993) describes a speaker, who does not

travel frequently, asking a friend for a ride to the airport. The second criterion addresses

the degree of imposition entailed; as an example, she describes a speaker asking a friend

to take care of three cats while she is on vacation. Closely related to this type of favor is

one that involves giving or lending an item of value. The third criterion involves role-

related obligation; as an example, she describes how an executive asking his or her

secretary for a cup of coffee would not be a favor, as it is part of the secretary’s job. The

fourth criterion implies that the favor may need to be returned in the future; as an

example, she describes a situation in which the asker ends the interaction with the phrase,

“Great, I owe you” (pp. 157).

Goldschmidt (1993) concluded that favor asking is an emotional speech act,

unlike requests, in which the speaker is more detached. This is because in favor asking

people carry out the service willingly and thus are emotional when performing the favor,

out of pity for the person asking, or when declining to perform it, out of guilt for being

unable to carry it out. Another finding was that speakers have ambivalent emotions about

17

asking favors, because “though people do need people at times and feel good when this

need is attended to, they do not like to appear needy, therefore, do not like to ask favors

of others” (p.150).

Goldschmidt (1998) subsequently conducted a more wide-ranging investigation of

favor asking that focused on the pragmalinguistic choices of interlocutors, in relation to

their rights and obligations towards each other. She was able to investigate the speech act

through the use of spontaneous data, elicited through face to face or telephone

interactions from 102 participants.

More recent favor asking studies examined the cross-cultural dimensions of this

speech act. Lee, Park, Imai and Dolan (2012) found that while Americans were likely to

modify favors by expressing thanks or appreciation, Japanese speakers were much more

likely to express apology for the imposition. They explained “Japanese prefer more direct

and extreme forms of apology than do Americans…[and] also use apologies to express

their gratitude” (p.4).

Research on Arabic Speech Acts

Speech act research has focused predominantly on Western and Far Eastern

languages and cultures, with little investigation of the Middle East. A decade ago, speech

act research in Arabic was described as “still at its very beginning” (Jarbou, 2002; as

cited in Momani, 2009, p. 26). However, Arabic researchers have since investigated

speech acts such as refusals (Morkus, 2009), compliments (Farghal & Haggan, 2006;

Migdadi, 2003; Nelson, Al-Batal & Echols, 1996), and apologies (Al-Hami, 1993; Al-

Zumor, 2003; El-Khalil, 1998; Ghawi, 1993; Hussein & Hammouri, 1998; Soliman,

18

2003). Most studies have addressed cross-cultural speech act performance, typically by

comparing Arabic speakers’ speech act performance with that of native English speakers.

However a few have avoided this focus by focusing exclusively on a single culture, such

as Al-Marrani & Sazakie’s investigation of request strategies by Yemenis (2010) and

Abd-el Jawad’s (2000) study of oath-taking by Egyptians.

Only a few studies have explored the request strategies of native Arabic speakers,

but even these have focused primarily on Arabic speakers as EFL learners. In one of the

earliest pragmatic studies of Arabic speakers, Umar (2004) analyzed the requests of

Arabic-speaking EFL learners and found they were far more direct than those of native

speakers of British English, especially when speakers had higher social power (+P). But

the study was extensively criticized for failing to analyze modification to the core

request, and for drawing on a heterogeneous group of Arabic speakers comprised of

Saudis, Sudanese, Jordanians, and many other nationalities (Al-Momani, 2009). This

approach neglects “the importance of taking participant sociocultural and regional

differences into account” (Al-Momani, p. 53).

However, very few studies have limited their scope to a homogeneous sample of

Arabic speakers. Alaoui (2011) found that Moroccan Arabic speakers favored address

alerters and politeness markers to modify requests, while Al-Fattah & Ravindranath

(2009) studied Yemeni EFL learners and found that they used extensive politeness

markers and favored conventionally indirect strategies. Al-Momani (2009) examined

Jordanian EFL learners and monolingual speakers of Jordanian Arabic and found that

both preferred conventional indirect strategies, and the EFL learners used more modifiers

19

to the core request than American English speakers. Jordanians also used more direct

strategies in scenarios where the speaker had higher social power.

Pragmalinguistic Data Collection Methods

Conflict over appropriate methods of data collection “remains a lasting concern in

pragmatics research” (Kasper, 2002, p. 340). The particular elicitation instrument

researchers choose to employ can have a strong influence on the type and quality of data

they are able to obtain (Alcón & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Nurani, 2009). For this reason, the

field has experienced a constant evolution in research methodology (Bardovi-Harlig,

1999; Cohen, 2008; Félix-Brasdefer & Bardovi-Harlig, 2010; Kasper, 2000; Kasper &

Dahl, 1991; Kasper & Roever, 2005). Despite these developments, researchers still call

for further investigation of appropriate data collection techniques (Martinez-Flor, 2006;

Trosborg, 2010).

The three most widely used methods are field observation of spontaneous speech,

role-plays, and discourse completion tests (DCTs). The following section discusses the

advantages and disadvantages of these methods and provides justification for the use of

DCTs in the current study.

Field Observation of Spontaneous Speech

Many researchers consider the field observation of spontaneous speech to be the

best collection method, as it reflects authentic language use, rather than just an

approximation (Tran, 2004). This method was pioneered by Wolfson and Manes (1980)

and is used predominantly in ethnographic research conducted in sociolinguistics and

communication studies. Researchers must take field notes on verbal exchanges that they

20

observe in their daily life, including what was said, who said it, and any known

demographic/background /contextual information (such as age, sex, or location). This

method enables investigators to collect data in a wide variety of settings (Kasper & Dahl,

1991), but its principal drawback is that it can be extremely time consuming to record a

sufficient number of exchanges (Kasper & Dahl, 1991).

Another potential drawback is that it is difficult to control for variables such as

power, status, age, and gender (Yuan, 2001), which can make the data unsystematic

(Beebe & Cummings, 1996). This flaw also makes replication studies nearly impossible,

which makes it difficult to compare speech act performance across different cultures and

languages (Beebe, 1992). In addition, researchers taking field notes typically reconstruct

spontaneous speech from memory after the fact, and often forget to include discourse

features such as hedges, intensifiers, and modifiers (Golato, 2003). Kasper (2002)

therefore suggests that audio or video data replace field notes if the aim of the study is to

investigate such interactional discourse features. Researchers’ memory can also be

problematic with long utterances or negotiated sequences, as “the researcher cannot

accurately remember what exact words were said in which order and how many turns

there were" (Beebe, 1994, p. 15).

In the present study, more practical concerns were behind the decision not to

consider analysis of spontaneous speech. There were simply not enough Kuwaiti Arabic

speakers in the local area to facilitate the collection of a large enough data sample.

Role-plays

Role-plays are “simulations of social interactions in which participants assume

and enact described roles within specified situations” (Tran, 2006, p. 3). There are two

21

main types, closed and open. In closed role-plays, the participant typically takes a single

speech turn, in response to an initial turn by an interlocutor played by the researcher. In

open role-plays, participants take multiple turns, each in response to that of the

interlocutor, who may or may not be portrayed by the researcher.

Data elicited through role-plays are a reasonable approximation of authentic

speech, as they are typically rich in pragmatic features such as politeness, mitigation, and

indirectness (Cohen, 1996, 2005; Demeter, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003; Kasper, 2000;

Tran, 2004). This method allows researchers to analyze not only the content of a

respondent’s utterance, but also conversational features such as intonation, tone, and

pauses (Margalef-Boada, 1993). A researcher’s control over social variables also

facilitates replication studies (Raybourn, 2002; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989).

Despite the many positive features of role-plays, they also have disadvantages.

Although they allow the collection of a large amount of data in a short period of time

(Tran 2006; Boxer, 1996), analyzing the data requires that all responses first be

transcribed, which can be extremely time-consuming (Jung, 2004; Kasper & Dahl, 1991).

Critics also claim that elicited data may be less natural than proponents believe, since the

participants may say only what they think they are expected to say (Olshtain & Cohen,

1998).

In the present study, this method was impractical for the same reason that field

observation was not considered. There were not enough Kuwaiti Arabic speakers in the

local area to facilitate the collection of a large data sample.

22

Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs)

DCTs are written or spoken presentations of scenarios in which “respondents are

expected to produce what they deem to be appropriate for that particular situation”

(Rasekh, 2012, p. 80). Since their introduction to the field by Blum-Kulka (1982a,

1982b), they have become the most widely used method in pragmatic research

(Bharuthram, 2003; Chaudron, 2005; Cheng, 2011; Farina & Suleiman, 2009; Geluyken

& Kraft, 2002; Shea, 2003; Rasekh, 2012; Wouk, 2006). Researchers favor this method

because they allow for control of variables such as age, gender, and social status (Kwon,

2004), and permit the collection of data from large numbers of respondents in a variety of

different situations (Kasper, 2000). Although DCT data are considered less authentic than

that from field observations or role-plays, proponents claim that the tests do elicit socially

appropriate responses (Martinez-Flor, 2006).

Critics of this method claim that data may not approximate authentic speech,

since participants may merely be providing what they think researchers want to hear

(Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Boxer, 1996; Golato, 2003). In addition, the test typically

allows for only a single speech turn, so unlike spontaneous speech or open-ended role

plays, there is no opportunity for repetition, elaboration, and important non-verbal

features (Cohen, 1996).

Other studies claim that oral DCTs are better than written DCTs (Bardovi-Harlig,

2001; Beebe & Cummings, 1985; Golato, 2003, Yuan, 2001), but are still inferior to

natural data or field notes since they “cannot elicit elaborated negotiations and indirect

compliment exchanges seen in everyday conversation” (Yuan, 2001, p. 289).

23

Research Gaps Addressed by the Present Study

As this review of literature shows, there has been minimal investigation of the

speech act of favor asking, and none of it has been in Arabic. Furthermore, there has been

little investigation of Arabic speech acts overall and even less focusing on the cultures

and dialects of the Gulf region. This study aims to contribute to the existing body of

speech act literature by addressing these gaps through an examination of favor asking

among Kuwaiti Arabic speakers.

24

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology employed in the study. It begins with a

description of the participants, followed by an explanation of how the data collection

instrument, a discourse completion test (DCT), was chosen and designed. An initial pilot

study is described, followed by a detailed description of the final DCT. It concludes with

explanations of the methods used for data coding and statistical analysis.

Participants

The participants (N=30) who took part in the study were randomly selected from

a list of U.S.-based Kuwaiti nationals that had been provided by the Kuwaiti Embassy in

Washington, D.C. All were graduate and undergraduate students majoring in a variety of

disciplines at different U.S. universities. They ranged from 19-40 years of age, and none

had spent more than three years in the U.S. prior to the beginning of the study. All are

native speakers of Kuwaiti Arabic.

Students from the list were initially contacted via email and asked whether they

would be willing to participate in the study, whose nature and purpose were not revealed.

The email included an attached consent form, a demographic questionnaire, and the final

email included an attached consent form, a demographic questionnaire, and the final

DCT. Recipients were asked to complete the consent form, questionnaire, and the DCT

25

if they were willing to participate in the study. They were given the option to type or

write their responses, then attach a scanned or digital copy.

One limitation of the study is that all participants were male. This was because

female Kuwaiti students were reluctant to participate in the study, and very few were

even willing to respond to my requests for their participation. Since not enough women

responded to make it possible to generalize from the resulting data, it was decided that

the study would focus only on male participants.

Instrument – Discourse Completion Test (DCT)

Data were collected through a written discourse completion test (DCT)

administered in Arabic. The test contained 12 items, each of which asked respondents

what they would say in a given hypothetical scenario. See Appendix A for an untranslated

copy of the DCT, and Appendix B for an English translation. The 12 questions were

designed to reflect variations in power and distance between speaker and hearer. For each

of three power relationships (+P, –P, =P), two questions presented a scenario in which

there was distance between speaker and hearer (+D), and two more presented a scenario

in which there was no distance (–D). Responses to individual test items were analyzed

and coded using Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) CCSARP framework.

Most pragmatic research relies on DCTs for data collection (e.g., Hinkel, 1997;

Nelson, Al-Batal & El-Bakary, 2002; Nurani, 2009; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993;

Zaharna, 1995). There are many reasons for this preference, but chief among them is that

DCTs facilitate the sample of large numbers of participants in a wide variety of

situations, enabling researchers to collect a large amount of data in a short period of time

26

(Felix-Brasdefer & Bardovi-Harlig, 2010). They also allow for the control of social

variables such as age, gender, status, and social distance, enabling researchers to examine

the influence of social and psychological factors on speech act performance (Tran, 2006).

In addition, DCTs reduce participants’ anxiety and nervousness, and thus enable

researchers to elicit better responses (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986).

Despite the negative apprehensions about this method that have been discussed in

the literature (Johnston, Kasper, & Ross, 1998), DCTs can be a useful tool for eliciting

data if constructed with cultural awareness (Kasper, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 2002). The

situations described in individual test questions were therefore carefully constructed,

based on my first-hand knowledge of Kuwaiti cultural norms, so that the elicited data

could be as natural as possible.

Role-plays were initially considered as a method of data collection, but proved

difficult to administer given that the researcher is a Kuwaiti female and all participants

were Kuwaiti males. This gender difference created considerable awkwardness in many

study participants, most likely because the high degree of gender segregation in Kuwaiti

society makes inter-gender communication a source of considerable anxiety for many

Kuwaiti men. Participants showed obvious signs of discomfort during early

administrations of the role-plays, and the elicited data did not seem to reflect natural

performance of the speech acts required in the role-plays. For this reason, role-plays were

discontinued and the study relies exclusively on DCTs for eliciting data.

Pilot study

A pilot study was performed to ensure that the DCT scenarios reflected Kuwaiti

27

social norms and would therefore elicit natural speech act data. Ten Kuwaiti participants

from the Kuwaiti Embassy’s list were asked to assess 30 potential scenarios. For each

scenario, the participants were asked two questions: Do you feel that this situation would

apply in your culture? and Would you ask a favor in this situation? Situations that were

judged to be authentic were considered as potential scenarios for the final study, while

inauthentic scenarios were eliminated from consideration. In informal interviews that

followed, the pilot study participants also reported that responding to 30 DCT scenarios

would likely take more time than most were willing to commit. As a result, the final

study was limited to 12 scenarios.

Final DCT

The 12 scenarios in the final study were designed to reflect variations in social

power (P) and social distance (D), two variables that have been shown to affect speech

act performance (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Brown & Levinson,

1987; Hudson, Deitmer & Brown, 1995). Power is the social status of the speaker,

relative to the interlocutor – speakers with higher status are referred to as +P, speakers of

lesser status as –P, and speakers of equal status as =P. Distance reflects how well the

interlocutors know each other – unfamiliar interlocutors are referred to as +D, while

familiar interlocutors are considered –D. Four scenarios were constructed for each power

dynamic (+P, –P, and +P) – two in which speakers were unfamiliar (+D) and two in

which they were familiar (–D). A brief description of the 12 scenarios is provided in

Table 2. Full descriptions are provided in the Results section and in Appendix C.

28

Table 2

Scenarios in final DCT

Scenario Power and

distance

Description

1 +P, +D University dean asks unfamiliar student for help with broken-down car

2 +P, +D Department head asks unfamiliar employee for extra help with new software

3 +P, –D Older brother asks younger brother for money to purchase car

4 +P, –D Department head asks familiar employee to perform unpaid work

5 –P, +D Professor asks unfamiliar dean for a new computer

6 –P, +D Student asks unfamiliar professor for extension

7 –P, –D Younger brother asks to borrow car from older brother

8 –P, –D Student asks familiar professor for retake on a test

9 =P, +D Employee asks unfamiliar coworker to cover shift

10 =P, +D Student asks to copy homework from unfamiliar classmate

11 =P, –D Asking to borrow friend’s apartment in Mecca

12 =P, –D Graduate student in US asks friend in home country to administer research questionnaire

In designing these scenarios, I followed several suggestions from the literature

aimed at reducing the potential shortcomings of DCTs. Test instructions and individual

items did not include the words favor asking, in order to avoid guiding subject toward

answering in any particular way (Beebe & Takashi, 1989). Items did not include any

rejoinder from the interlocutor, as some researchers believe that a hearer’s response may

affect how the subject responds to the test item (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989; Rose & Ono,

29

1995; Al-Momani, 2009). Test items did not specify the interlocutor’s gender, as

knowing the hearer’s gender might bias participants (Al-Momani).

Data Coding – Core Strategies and Modification

There is no widely accepted framework for analyzing favor asking, as few

linguists have investigated this speech act in detail. But since favors are defined as a

specialized kind of request, I used the CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka, et al.,

1989), since it is the most widely accepted framework for analyzing the speech act of

requests. This coding scheme focuses on two aspects of the speech act: the strategy used

to make the core request, and any accompanying linguistic devices used to modify the

request. Adapting this to my study of favor asking merely required that I analyze the core

strategy for asking the favor and any accompanying modifications.

Core strategies are assessed based on their level of directness. The CCSARP

identifies nine individual strategies, which can be divided into three broad classifications:

direct, conventional indirect, and nonconventional indirect (see Tables 3, 4, and 5 for

examples). Note that two of the nine strategies (explicit performatives and mild hints) did

not appear in the data and will, therefore, be omitted from all subsequent tables in the

Results section.

Table 3

Direct strategies for asking core favor

Strategy Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers

Mood derivable Grammatical mood of the verb indicates force

Help me with my car

30

Performative Explicitly mentions force of the request

I am asking you if there is a chance I can use your apartment

Hedge performative Modifies force by hedging I would like to ask you to use your car

Explicit performative Explicitly states hearer’s obligation to perform a task

n/a*

Want statement Indicates desire that the hearer perform a task

I really wish you’d give me more time for the paper

*This strategy was not used by any of the study’s participants

Table 4

Conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor


Query preparatory Asks about possibility of performing a task, typically using modal verbs

Can you give me an extension on my paper?

Suggestory formula Suggests that hearer perform a task

How about lending me some money?

Table 5

Non-conventional indirect strategies for asking core favor


Strong hint Explicitly refers to an element necessary for completing the task

Are you using your car today?

Mild hint Does not explicitly refer to necessary elements, but can be interpreted as a request

n/a*

*This strategy was not used by any of the study’s participants

Core strategies were always included in the head act – the portion of the discourse

31

“that might serve to realize the [speech] act independently of other elements” (Blum-

Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p.200). Modifications to the head act/core strategy occurred

both before and after. In the literature on requests, modification is considered to be

optional, with only a core strategy being obligatory. Many types of modifiers can be used

with the general purpose of improving the chance that the speech act will be successful

(the hearer will grant the favor). Blum-Kulka (1989) identified 21 modifications, 19 of

which were present in the data. See Table 6 below for examples. Modifications according

to Blum-Kulka are considered non-obligatory devices whose frequency can be affected

by variables such as power and distance.

Table 6

Modifications to core request (Blum-Kulka, 1989)

Type of modification Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers

Grounder Provides reasons or justification I missed class yesterday

Appreciation Expresses gratitude for potential compliance

I would be grateful

Address alerter Addresses hearer by name, title, or other term expressing social standing

Ahmed [first name], brother, Doctor

Greeting alerter Initiates communication hello, peace be upon you

Politeness marker Conventional linguistic device for expressing politeness

excuse me, please

Small talk Informal discourse that reinforces social bond

How are you today?

Softener Reduces force of the request and potential loss of face

May Allah give you health

Play down Tones down the effect of an utterance

I was wondering if you can lend me the money?

Preparator Prepares hearer for the favor I want to ask you a favor

32

Disarmer Addresses hearer’s potential objections

I know my paper should have been done by today

Apology Expression of regret for imposing on the hearer

I apologize for coming to your office without an appointment

Imposition minimizer Reduces imposition on hearer I will return them in an orderly fashion

Consultative device Elicits the hearer’s opinion What do you think?

Affective appeal Invokes the hearer’s emotion I have no one to help me but you

Understater Adverbial modifier that under-represents some aspect of the topic

a few

just a little bit

Precommitment Gets hearer to commit to the request

Can you do me a favor?

Reward Offers compensation I’ll buy you dinner

Sweetener Compliments the hearer You’re the best brother

Conditional clause

Posits condition under which the favor might be carried out

If you are not using the car can I take it?

In analyzing the participants’ responses, I also identified one additional

modification that occurred with considerable frequency, namely oath-taking. According

to Ab-del Jawad (2000), oath-taking or oath-taking is common in Arabic-speaking

cultures, and is typically used to demonstrate sincerity or intensify trust and belief. All

tokens of oath-taking in the present study made explicit reference to god (e.g., I swear to

Allah). See Table 7 for examples.

33

Table 7

Additional modifications outside the CCSARP coding scheme

Type of modification

Definition Examples from surveyed Kuwaiti Arabic speakers

Oath-taking Offering an oath as to the truthfulness of an utterance

I swear I will bring it back I swear this is important

34

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This section begins with an overview of the findings regarding core strategy use

and modification. Afterwards, each of the three power dynamics (+P, –P, =P) are

discussed, including an analysis of all 12 individual scenarios. For each scenario, two

sample responses are presented.

Core Strategy Use Across All Scenarios

Conventional indirect strategies (221 tokens out of 360 participant responses)

were considerably more frequent than direct strategies (137 tokens), and nonconventional

indirect strategies were extremely rare (2 tokens). Kuwaiti Arabic speakers’ preference

for conventional indirectness when asking a favor is consistent with the nearly universal

preference for indirectness, by speakers of many other languages, when making requests

(House & Kasper, 1987).

Chi-squares analysis was performed to determine the effects of power and

distance on core strategy use. In both cases, the category of nonconventional indirectness

was not considered, as there were not enough tokens for valid statistical comparison.

Statistical analysis showed that power had a significant effect on strategy use, but

distance did not. Direct strategies were strongly preferred in +P scenarios, but

conventional indirect strategies were strongly preferred in both –P and =P scenarios

(χ²=74.1, df=1, p<0.0001). See Table 8 below for strategy use in all power dynamics.

Distance did not have a significant effect on the distribution of direct and conventional

35

indirect strategies (χ²=1.64, df=1, p=0.201). See Table 9 below for strategy use in +D and

–D scenarios.

Table 8

Strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios

All scenarios (N=360)

+P scenarios (N=120)

–P scenarios (N=120)

=P scenarios (N=120)

Conventional indirect 221 37 96 88

Direct 137 83 23 31

Nonconventional indirect 2 0 1 1

Table 9

Strategy use in +D and –D scenarios


+D scenarios (N=180)

–D scenarios (N=180)

Conventional indirect 221 104 117

Direct 137 74 63

Nonconventional indirect 2 2 0

Direct strategies consisted primarily of hedge performatives (69 tokens) and want

statements (51 tokens). Both mood derivables (12 tokens) and explicit performatives (5

tokens) were much less common, and occurred almost exclusively in the two +P, +D

scenarios (all but 2 tokens). The direct strategy of performatives was not used by any of

the respondents in all 16 scenarios, so it has been omitted from all subsequent tables in

order to simplify them.

36

Conventional indirect strategies consisted primarily of query preparatory (179

tokens), with much more limited use of suggestory formula (42 tokens). Nonconventional

indirect strategies were exclusively strong hints – as mild hints were not used by

respondents in any of the sixteen scenarios, they too have been omitted from all

subsequent tables.

Modification Across All scenarios

An ANOVA was performed to determine whether power affected respondents’

use of modification to the core favor. It showed highly significant differences between

their use of modification in +P, –P, and =P scenarios. Tukey’s multiple comparison

procedure was then performed on the mean number of modifications per response in each

power dynamic, and these tests also found significant differences between all three

means. See Table 10 below. +P speakers used the fewest modifiers, while =P speakers

used the most.

Table 10

Modifications per favor

Modifications per response

(mean)*

Standard error per

group

all +P scenarios 6.24a 0.092447

all –P scenarios 7.97b 0.080721

all =P scenarios 10.23c 0.098370

F value from ANOVA=718.43 df=2 and 58 p<0.0001

* Where the means have a different letter in subscript, their differences were statistically significant based on Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure.

37

Grounders, appreciation, and address alerters were the most commonly used

modifiers, with rewards, sweeteners, and conditional clauses being least frequent. Power

had a significant effect on the frequency of many individual modifiers, but distance

affected only eight. See Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11

Modifier use across all power relations





Grounder 340 (94%) 110 (92%) 116 (97%) 114 (95%)

Appreciation 316 (87%) 99 (83%) 103 (86%) 114 (95%)

Address alerter 310 (86%) 76 (63%) 120 (100%) 114 (95%)

Greeting alerter 253 (70%) 95 (79%) 48 (40%) 110 (92%)

Politeness marker 250 (69%) 57 (48%) 93 (78%) 100 (83%)

Small talk 239 (66%) 66 (55%) 56 (47%) 117 (98%)

Softener 164 (46%) 51 (43%) 38 (32%) 75 (63%)

Play down 135 (38%) 46 (38%) 47 (39%) 42 (35%)

Preparator 127 (35%) 42 (35%) 43 (36%) 42 (35%)

Disarmer 121 (34%) 20 (13%) 43 (36%) 58 (48%)

Apology 119 (33%) 0 39 (33%) 80 (67%)

Imposition minimizer 117 (33%) 18 (15%) 63 (53%) 36 (30%)

Consultative device 85 (24%) 31 (26%) 19 (16%) 35 (29%)

Oath-taking 67 (19%) 0 19 (16%) 48 (40%)

Affective appeal 66 (18%) 12 (10%) 27 (23%) 27 (23%)

Understater 65 (18%) 13 (11%) 19 (16%) 33 (28%)

Precommitment 63 (18%) 18 (15%) 10 (8%) 35 (29%)

Reward 47 (13%) 0 12 (10%) 35 (29%)

Sweetener 37 (10%) 0 35 (29%) 2 (2%)

Conditional clause 16 (4%) 1 (1%) 5 (%) 10 (8%)

38

Table 12

Modifier frequency by distance



Significant?

Grounder 169 (94%) 171 (95%) No (χ²=0.02, p=.645)

Appreciation 154 (86%) 162 (90%) No (χ²=1.66, p=.198)

Address alerter 151 (84%) 149 (83%) No (χ²=0.08, p=.077)

Greeting alerter 141 (78%) 112 (62%) Yes (χ²=11.1, p<.0001)

Politeness marker 154 (86%) 96 (53%) Yes (χ²=44.0, p<.0001)

Small talk 86 (48%) 153 (85%) Yes (χ²=55.8, p<.0001)

Softener 66 (37%) 98 (54%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p<.0001)

Play down 66 (37%) 69 (38%) No (χ²=0.10, p=.743)

Preparator 27 (15%) 100 (56%) Yes (χ²=64.8, p<.0001)

Disarmer 55 (31%) 66 (37%) No (χ²=1.50, p=.219)

Apology 63 (35%) 56 (31%) No (χ²=0.61, p=.432)

Imposition minimizer 32 (18%) 85 (47%) Yes (χ²=35.5, p<.0001)

Consultative device 37 (21%) 48 (27%) No (χ²=1.86, p=.172)

Oath-taking 21 (12%) 46 (26%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p=.0007)

Affective appeal 28 (16%) 38 (21%) No (χ²=1.85, p=.173)

Understater 35 (19%) 30 (17%) No (χ²=0.46, p=.493)

Precommitment 31 (17%) 32 (18%) No (χ²=0.01, p=.889)

Reward 28 (16%) 19 (11%) No (χ²=1.98, p=.159)

Sweetener 6 (3%) 31 (17%) Yes (χ²=18.8, p<.0001)

Conditional clause 10 (6%) 6 (3%) No (χ²=1.04, p=.306)

Chi-square tests were performed to determine whether there was a significant

difference in a modifier’s frequency between +D and –D scenarios. When there was, the

final column is marked yes and entire row is bolded.

39

Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P)

In the four +P scenarios, direct strategies (83 tokens) were preferred over

conventionally indirect (37 tokens), and non-conventionally indirect strategies were not

used. Distribution of all nine strategies is depicted in Table 13. Participants used an

average of 6.29 modifiers per response. Modifier frequency across all four scenarios is

depicted in Table 14.

Table 13

Core strategy use in +P scenarios

40

Table 14

Modification in +P scenarios


Scenario 1

(+P, +D)

Scenario 2

(+P, +D)

Scenario 3

(+P, -D)

Scenario 4

(+P, -D)

Significant difference between +/–D

Grounder 28 26 27 29 No (χ²=0.43, p=.508)

Appreciation 26 24 22 27 No (χ²=0.05, p=.810)

Address alerter 7 30 9 30 No (χ²=0.14, p=.704)

Greeting alerter 27 24 14 30 No (χ²=2.47, p=.115)

Politeness marker

23 24 5 5 Yes (χ²=45.7, p<.0001)

Small talk 0 6 30 30 Yes (χ²=98.1, p<.0001)

Softener 7 7 19 18 Yes (χ²=18.0, p<.0001)

Play down 8 13 11 14 No (χ²=0.56, p=.452)

Preparator 0 4 16 22 Yes (χ²=42.3, p<.0001)

Disarmer 3 0 14 3 Yes (χ²=11.7, p=.0006)

Apology 0 0 0 0 n/a

Imposition minimizer

0 0 18 0 Yes (χ²=21.1, p<.0001)

Consultative 0 6 12 13 Yes (χ²=15.7, p<.0001)

Oath-taking 0 0 0 0 n/a

Affective appeal 1 9 2 0 Yes (χ²=5.92, p=.014)

Understater 0 3 5 5 Yes (χ²=4.22, p=.039)

Precommitment 0 3 8 7 Yes (χ²=9.41, p=.002)

Reward 0 0 0 0 n/a

Sweetener 0 0 0 0 n/a

Conditional clause

1 0 0 0 No (χ²=1.00, p=.315)

Total 131 179 212 233

All modification total

755

41

Scenario 1: Speaker of higher power, with distance (+P, +D)

Q: You are the dean of a university; your car has broken down. You see a previous

student whom you do not know well. You need to ask for help. What do you say?

Direct strategies for asking the core favor were most common (24 tokens) than

conventional indirect (6 tokens), and non-conventional indirect strategies were not used.

Respondents used an average of 4.37 modifiers to the core favor, with extensive use of

appreciation (26 tokens), grounders (28 tokens), and politeness markers (23 tokens). See

Table 15 below for examples.

Table 15

Modification in Scenario 1 (+P, +D)


f Examples

Greeting alerter 27 Peace be upon you

Address alerter 7 My son

Small talk 0

Imposition minimizer 0 I can return it by the end of the month

Disarmer 3 I hate to inconvenience you

Appreciation 26 I would be very grateful

Grounder 28 I turned it on but it doesn’t work

Softener 7 may Allah give you long life

Politeness marker 23 Excuse me

Play down 8 I wonder if

Conditional clause 1 If you are free I want you to please come look at my car

Consultative device 0

Understater 0

Preparator 0

Precommitment 0

42

Affective appeal 1 There is no one to help me but you

Sweetener 0

Apology 0

Reward 0

Oath-taking 0

Total: 131

Example response 1, from scenario 1 (+P, +D)

�� ا��م �� ا()'� &�و�". %$#" إذا ا��ر� ا��ف ا�� و��، � أ�� *(�� .�� (�آ- أآ�ن.

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter], I don’t want to interrupt your time [disarmer] But

I’d like to ask you to look at my car [hedge performative] please [politeness marker]. I

tried to turn it on but it doesn’t work [grounder]. I would really appreciate it

[appreciation].

Example response 2 (+P, +D)

� %��ر��، ا��ف ا�� ، ا��م إو��/ي ،*(��.�� (�آ- أآ�ن

Son [address alerter] peace be upon you [greeting alerter] I want you to look at my car

[want statement] please [politeness marker]. It isn’t working [grounder]. I would

appreciate it [appreciation].

Scenario 2: Speaker of higher power, with distance (+P, +D)

Q: You are the head of a computer department that has installed a piece of new software

that you are unfamiliar with. You know that one of your new employees is very

knowledgeable of how it works. You need his help. What do you say?

43

Direct strategies (22 tokens) were heavily preferred over conventional indirect (8

tokens), with no use of nonconventional indirect strategies. Respondents used 5.97

modifiers per response, with heavy use of appreciation (24 tokens) and play down (13

tokens), and limited small talk (6 tokens). See Table 16 below for examples.

Table 16

Modification in Scenario 2


f Examples

Greeting alerter 24 Hey, Hello, peace be upon you

Address alerter 30 Abdullah, Mohammed, Essa

Small talk 6 Do you have a lot of work?

Imposition minimizer 0

Disarmer 0

Appreciation 24 I would appreciate it

Grounder 26 I do not know the new software well

Softener 7 may Allah give you strength

Politeness marker 24 Please, excuse me


Conditional clause 0

Consultative device 6 How about we meet after work

Understater 3 I believe this will take very little time

Preparator 4 I would like to ask you a favor

Precommitment 3 Can I ask you for a favor

Affective appeal 9 I have no one to ask but you

Sweetener 0

Apology 0

Reward 0

Oath-taking 0

Total: 179

44

Example Response 3 (+P, +D)

7� أ6�. �/ 1 ك � ا43 أ�� إ�2-ا&1 0'/، �� ا��م � 8 �6-� -� �7 ا43 أ�� إو.ا��/9/ ا��$�� 7$:� ا(�ن إ

; �� (�آ- أآ�ن /ل، إ�:-0; ا�6 %$:". ا%�>//�� .

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Fahad [address alerter], I actually want to ask you

for a favor [preparator]. I am unfamiliar with the new software [grounder]. I’d like you

to teach me how to use them [hedge performative] I hear you know it well [grounder]. I

would appreciate you helping me with it [appreciation].

Example Response 4 (+P, +D)

� إ�:$7� 0��. ا(�19 ا%�>/م أ-ف أ6� /ل، ا��/9/ ا��-6� A& 8 ا�:-ف ا�6 %$:" أ6� إ�2-ا&1 ا��)*؟ ا(�ن �/? ه�

-Bآ- وآ�ن. %$#" إذا أآ�) ��.

Hello [greeting alerter] Abdullah [address alerter], how is work [small talk]? I actually

have heard that you know the new software well. I know it slightly [grounder]. So I want

you to please teach me more about it [want statement]. I would appreciate it

[appreciation].

Scenario 3: Speaker of higher power, no distance (+P, –D)

Q: You want to ask your younger brother for money in order to be able to buy a car. You

have been saving money, but need more to be able to make the purchase. What do you

say?

This was the only +P scenario in which conventionally indirect strategies (16

tokens) were more common than direct strategies (14 tokens). There was no use of

nonconventional indirect strategies. Respondents used an average of 7.63 modifiers per

45

response, with heavy use of small talk (30 tokens), appreciation (22 tokens), softeners (19

tokens), imposition minimizers (18 tokens), and preparators (16 tokens). See Table 17

below for examples.

Table 17



f Examples

Greeting alerter 14 Hey, Hello

Address alerter 9 Ahmed, Fahad, Jassem

Small talk 30 How are you and the family?

Imposition minimizer 18 I can return it by the end of the month



Grounder 27 I need to buy a car soon the old one keeps breaking down

Softener 19 may Allah give you long life

Politeness marker 5 please



Consultative device 12 Do you think you would be able to lend me the money?

Understater 5 A little bit

Preparator 16 I would like to ask you a favor



Sweetener 0

Apology 0

Reward 0

Oath-taking 0

Total: 212

46

Example response 5 (+P, -D)

/ى %�ر�� إ�2-ا&1 أ6� �)�ل، � ا? ا ��رك،ا�6�ء ا(��6 E$9س أ�ن إ0�� H0�� .�I-ة ��#�� ا�H�س �� %��رة ا(�-ي

J�ل �7H�� .ا�:��O:9 ;�0 ر�� N. ا��'- �M- ارده� راح ا�H�س؟ إ

Mobarak [address alerter], how are you [small talk]? I hope you are not busy [disarmer].

Honestly I have saved money to buy a car but I am still short [grounder].I wonder if [play

down] you can you lend me the money [query preparatory]? I will return it by the end of

the month [imposition miminizer]. May Allah give you health [softener].

Example response 6 (+P, -D)

�7 أ�� إ�2-ا&1 6�أ �$�م؟ (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء ا��'�ل و(�ن &$/، ا(��6 1 ا�$�P �� %��ر� ا(�-ي ��ن �P إ �$E أ6�. �/

� J�ل 0�. آ�0� �7H�� .ا�:��O:9 ;�0 ا? �N او (�-�� وآ�ن. و�" إ�R%-ع ارده� إ�/ر6� ر�� و�6* ا�$�P، إ

How are you Hamad [greeting alerter] and how are the kids I hope all is well [small

talk]. I actually want to ask you for a favor [preparator], I have saved an amount to buy a

car and it is not enough [grounder]. Is there a possibility to lend me the account [query

preparatory] and God willing I will return it as soon as possible [imposition minimizer]. I

would appreciate it [appreciation] May you always have strength [softener].

Scenario 4: Speaker of higher power, no distance (+P, –D)

Q: You are the head of a department at work. You want to ask one of your male

employees, who has been with the company for 15 years and owns an interior design

business, to help you design the interior decor for one of the office’s conference rooms.

He will not be paid for his services. What do you say?

47

In Scenario 4, direct strategies were preferred (23 tokens) over conventional

indirect (7 tokens), with no use of nonconventional indirect strategies. Respondents used

7.77 modifiers per response, with extensive use of small talk (30 tokens), appreciation

(27 tokens), softeners (18 tokens), and preparators (22 tokens). See Table 18 below.

Table 18



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Brother Seood, Bo Fahed, Jassem

Small talk 30 How are you and how is your business?


Disarmer 3 I know you may be busy at your business

Appreciation 27 We would be thankful

Grounder 29 The company is thinking of changing the interior decor





Consultative device 13 Do you think you can do the interior for us

Understater 5 It is only a little work

Preparator 22 I would like to ask a favor from you


Affective appeal 0

Sweetener 0

Apology 0

Reward 0

Oath-taking 0

48

Example response 7, (+P, -D)

�7 �)" ا�:��ل؟ و(�ن ا(��6؟ ا%:�د، ا��ي ه� ،1 /� ;0-S ت��$�UVا "�� #��U; ا��-آ1 ،*9/�� ا�$�Wا1�6 إو X$��

*9/�� .�� 6 3O� �7 *9/�� . �7� ا�/��9ر �� ،- � د�19 ��ن �-ي ا(�"، $��6�7، و��6ن أ�& A& آ��-).

Hello [greeting alerter] brother Seood [address alerter], how are you? And how are the

kids? [small talk] I would like to ask a favor from you [preparator]. The meeting room in

the company needs to be changed and because of budget restraints we can’t afford to

change it [grounder]. But we’d like to ask you to do the interior changes for us [hedge

performative]. With no demand on you [softener]. We would really appreciate it

[appreciation]. What do you think? [consultative device].It would be good publicity for

your company [reward].

Example response 8, (+P, -D)

#��1U (-آ�7� �� )��1، (-آ�� ان أدري �/ 1؟ �7 ا43 أ�/ر إ�2-ا&1 ا��)*؟ و(�ن ا ��رك �� ا(��6 *9/��

�ت A& ;0-S ا�/��9رات�$�UVأو ا �ا7��6W� �:��16، وا9/ ��$�0 � �7 ا43 أ�� .�� Y6 E0/6/ر 16/:�� ا�)-0;، ��/9* 0� إ

� �� - �Y/ر �:�Y/. أ �'9�� .�� (�آ-�9 ا��6ن �7�؟ إ

How are you bo Mobarak and how is work [greeting alerter and address alerter]?

Actually can I ask you for a favor? [pre-commitment]. I know that you have a busy

interior business [disarmer] but the company needs to change the interior of the meeting

room and we are on a tight budget so we may not be able to pay you [grounder] so I want

you to change it for us [want statement], with no demand on you [softener] do you think

you can do it? [consultative] We would appreciate it [appreciation].

49

Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P)

In the four –P scenarios, conventionally indirect strategies (96 tokens) were

heavily preferred over direct (23 tokens) and nonconventional indirect strategies (1

token). See Table 19. Participants used an average of 8.03 modifiers per response. See

Table 20 for modification in all four scenarios.

Table 19

Core strategy use in –P scenarios

50

Table 20

Modification in –P scenarios


Scenario 5

(–P, +D)

Scenario 6

(–P, +D)

Scenario 7

(–P, –D)

Scenario 8

(–P, –D)


Grounder 28 29 29 30 No (χ²=1.03, p=.309)


Address alerter 30 30 30 30 n/a

Greeting alerter 24 14 4 6 Yes (χ²=27.2, p<.0001)

Politeness marker

18 30 22 23 Yes (χ²=7.56, p=.005)

Small talk 18 2 26 10 Yes (χ²=8.57, p=.003)

Softener 9 8 12 9 No (χ²=0.61, p=.432)

Play down 8 19 8 12 No (χ²=1.71, p=.190)

Preparator 2 7 22 12 Yes (χ²=22.6, p<.0001)

Disarmer 14 12 8 9 No (χ²=2.93, p=.086)

Apology 0 17 0 22 No (χ²=0.94, p=.329)


9 16 20 18 Yes (χ²=5.64, p=.017)

Consultative 2 0 3 14 Yes (χ²=14.0, p=.0001)

Oath-taking 0 0 11 8 Yes (χ²=24.0, p<.0001)

Affective appeal 0 1 11 15 Yes (χ²=29.8, p<.0001)

Understater 2 14 3 0 Yes (χ²=10.5, p=.001)

Precommitment 3 0 7 0 No (χ²=1.74, p=.186)

Reward 0 0 12 0 Yes (χ²=13.3, p=.0002)

Sweetener 0 4 17 14 Yes (χ²=29.4, p<.0001)

Conditional clause

0 5 0 0 Yes (χ²=5.21, p=.022)

Total 193 230 272 260

All modification total

955

51

Scenario 5: Speaker of lower power, with distance (-P, +D)

Q: Your department provides computers to certain professors each year based on

seniority. You are not one of the professors scheduled to receive a computer soon, but the

department is always given more computers than needed. You would like to ask the dean,

whom you do not know well, for one of the computers before they are returned. What do

you say?

Conventional indirect strategies (22 tokens) were preferred over direct (7 tokens)

and nonconventional indirect strategies (1 token). Participants used an average of 6.43

modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (26 tokens), small talk (18

tokens), politeness markers (18 tokens), and disarmers (14 tokens). See Table 21 below

for examples.

Table 21



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Doctor

Small talk 18 How are you?

Imposition minimizer 9 I will not take much of your time



Grounder 28 My computer is old and I need a new one

Softener 9 may Allah give you health




Consultative device 2 Do you think

52

Understater 2 Can I take a little of your time



Affective appeal 0

Sweetener 0

Apology 0

Reward 0

Oath-taking 0

Total: 193

Example response 9

�6� �� 9 أدري. دآ��ر ��، ا��م �� 0�. وا&/ #��ج وا6� Z9�د، آ$��-ات 3�:9 ا��Y �� و��، � وا9/

J�ل 1�6�� ر إو $�7ن، وا&/؟أآ�ن ا&2* أ�/ر إ.

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter], Doctor [address alerter]. I will not take much of

your time [disarmer]. However, the department has brought in new computers and I need

one [grounder]. Is there any chance I can get one? [query preparatory] I would be very

appreciative, thank you [appreciation].

Example response 10

M\% N أ6� ا(��6؟ دآ��ر �� ا��م �U� #��ج أ6� ��. از -� O� �73 7�0". ا��)* &A 9/9/ آ$�� -0�� إذا وا&/ إ

.�� (�آ- أآ�ن. %$#"

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor, [address alerter] how are you? [small talk].

I apologize [apology] for the inconvenience [disarmer]. However, I am in need of a new

computer for work [grounder]. So I wanted to ask you to please provide one for me [want

statement], I would appreciate it [appreciation].

53

Scenario 6: Speaker with lower power, plus distance (-P, +D)

Q: You have to submit a paper to a professor who you do not know well. You have not

finished writing your paper, and you want to ask the professor for an extension. What

do you say?

Conventional indirect strategies were most common (22 tokens), followed by

direct strategies (8 tokens). Nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all.

Participants averaged 7.93 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (22

tokens), apology (17 tokens), play down (19 tokens), and imposition minimizers (16

tokens). Small talk was minimal (2 tokens). See Table 22 for examples.

Table 22



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Doctor


Imposition minimizer 16 I will not take much of your time

Disarmer 12 I don’t want to take much of your time


Grounder 29 I worked on it but it seems I need more time




Conditional clause 5 If it is all right with you can you give me more time?


54

Understater 14 I just need a little more time

Preparator 7 I need to ask you for a favor

Precommitment 0

Affective appeal 1 I really need your help on this

Sweetener 4 This is one of the classes I am most interested in

Apology 17 I am sorry to ask you this

Reward 0

Oath-taking 0

Total: 230

Example response 11

� 9��9 إن M N%\ أ6� دآ��ر، �Hا -�S /� �)�ل أآ�/ ا�6 أدري أ6�. ./ أآ$� �)�" ��. أ�4ل راح � ا6� كأو

إذا از9�د� و�" �:7�O� إ ��1�6 0�.`-وف 7/ي 0� آ�ن _ن أ�2'� �/رت � _6� إ��م، ��$'� إ�� ا��ر�1 �>�2ص

.وا9/ �� (�آ- أآ�ن. %$#"

Excuse me [politeness marker] professor [address alerter], I apologize [apology] for

coming to your office without an appointment, I know you must be busy [disarmer] I

promise I won’t be long [imposition minimizer] However, I wanted to speak to you about

the paper which is due today I was unable to finish it due to some circumstances

[grounder] So can you please give me more time [query prepartory]. I would really


Example response 12

_6�. و�" إ(�9" #��ج ��. ا��ر�1 أ%� ��ن از9�د و�" �:7�O� ودي �� M%\ أ6� ا(��6؟ دآ��ر �� ا��م

"'Uآ* و�� (�-�� أآ�ن. آ$��-ي و9; /�� .

55

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor. [address alerter] How are you? [small talk]

I am so sorry [apology] But I’d like to ask you to give me more time to submit the paper

please [hedge performative]. I just need a little more time [understater]. I had problems

with my computer last week [grounder]. I would appreciate it if you could help me

[appreciation].

Scenario 7: Speaker with lower power, no distance (-P, -D)

Q. You want to ask your older brother for his new car to go out with friends. What do

you say?

Conventional indirect strategies were heavily preferred (27 tokens) over direct (3

tokens), and nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all. Participants used an

average of 6.43 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (27 tokens),

small talk (26 tokens), imposition minimizer (20 tokens), and sweeteners (17 tokens), and

rewards (12 tokens). See Table 23 for examples.

Table 23



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Ali, Abdulrahmaan, Abdullah

Small talk 26 How is it going?

Imposition minimizer 20 We are only going to the restaurant and coming back



Grounder 29 All of my friends take me every weekend

56





Consultative device 3 What do you think of giving me your car for today?

Understater 3 I want it just for a little bit



Affective appeal 11 You’re the only one that can help me

Sweetener 17 You are great

Apology 0

Reward 12 Next week I am willing to do anything for you

Oath-taking 11 I swear I will bring it back

Total: 272

Example response 13

N إ��م :Wوم إ��ي؟أ6� �/إ(6 J�I- ه� "�� ،�J�0ر N0 1�6�� .�� (�آ- أآ�ن.إ ��- أرEU أو/ك %��ر��؟ إ��7H� إ

Hey [greeting alerter] Naser [address alerter], what are you doing [small talk]? I am

invited tonight to a gathering at a friend’s house [grounder], can I borrow your car

[query preparatory]? I promise to come early [imposition minimizer]. I would be so

grateful. [appreciation].

Example response 14

/ ه� �/ا�-&$�ن، ه��J)ي؟ إ��/ آ7" إ�U -�0إذا إن أ � J�ل 0� إ��م، (� 7/ك �7�O:� ��ن %��ر E4أ �ا�- و9،E�

.�� (�آ- أآ�ن (�7

57

Hey, [greeting alerter] Abdulrahmaan, [address alerter] so what are you up to? I was

actually thinking if you are not doing anything today [small talk] I wonder [play

down] if you can give me your car [query preparatory] to go out with friends

[grounder] I will not be long we are only going to go to one place [imposition

minimizer]. I will even wash the car before I return it [reward]. What do you say

[consultative]?

Scenario 8: Speaker with lower power, no distance (-P, -D)

Q: You are taking a course with a professor you know well. You want to ask him if

you can retake a test since you did not do well on the previous one. What do you say?

Conventional indirect strategies were heavily favored (25 tokens) over direct

strategies (5 tokens), while nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all.

Participants used an average of 7.67 modifiers per response, with extensive use of

sweeteners (14 tokens), affective appeals (15 tokens), apology (22 tokens), imposition

minimizers (18 tokens), consultative devices (14 tokens). See Table 24 for examples.

Table 24



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Dr.


Imposition minimizer 18 I won’t be long

Disarmer 9 I don’t want to impose


58

Grounder 30 I studied hard but didn’t seem to do well





Consultative device 14 Do you think that I can retake the test

Understater 0

Preparator 12 Do you think that there is a possibility

Precommitment 0

Affective appeal 15 There is no one to help me but you

Sweetener 14 This is one of the best classes I have taken

Apology 22 I am sorry to be asking you this

Reward 0

Oath-taking 8 I swear I need your help

Total: 260

Example response 15

�� 0� ز�9 وا9/ ��يإ _6� إ�2-ا&; أ6� و��، ، � وا��M /9 راح � إو. اVز�ج M N%\ أ6�. دآ��ر �� ا��م-a�# .

�� #�ن 0� ز9�% �9" Vإذا ��ف 7�0".ا_��- ا �ل 0�J /� �#�ن أV; وا?. ادر%� �� 0$#��ج.ز9�% �9"

�/ .�� (�آ- وآ�ن ا�$��

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor [address alerter]. I apologize for the

inconvenience [disarmer]. This will not take long [imposition minimizer] I have come to

talk to you because I didn’t do well on the last test [grounder]. So I wonder [play down]

if there a possibility that I can retake the exam [query preparatory]? I swear I studied for

it but didn’t do well [oath-taking] so I really need your help [affective appeal] I would


59

Example response 16

/ _6� أآ$� 9�ي أ6� ��. �)�ل ا�6 أدري ا(��6؟ دآ��ر �� ا��م�U ��&أ �6_ � �#�ن ز9�% �9" b� �إ�

�#�ن أ�/ ا6� J�ل 0� إذا ��ف 7�0".0�تVآ- أآ�ن. ا�إو ��، ( ��O:9 ;�0�:ا�.

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Doctor [address alerter], how are you? [small talk].

I know you must be busy [disarmer]. But I wanted to talk to you because I am worried

since I didn’t do well on the last test [grounder] So do you think [consultative] that there

is a possibility you would give me a retake [query preparatory]. I would appreciate it

[appreciation] and may Allah give you health [softener].

Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P)

In the four =P scenarios, conventionally indirect strategies were most common

(88 tokens), with moderate use of direct strategies (31 tokens) and limited use of

nonconventional indirect strategies (1 token). Distribution of all nine strategies is

depicted in Table 25. Modification to the core favor was typically extensive, with

participants using an average of 10.23 modifiers per response. Modifier frequency across

all four scenarios is depicted in Table 26.

60

Table 25

Core strategy use in =P scenarios

Table 26

Modification in =P scenarios


Scenario 9

(=P, +D)

Scenario 10

(=P, +D)

Scenario 11

(=P, –D)

Scenario 12

(=P, –D)


Grounder 30 28 29 27 No (χ²=0.70, p=.402)


Address alerter 24 30 30 30 Yes (χ²=6.31, p=.011)

Greeting alerter 30 24 26 30 No (χ²=0.43, p=.508)

Politeness marker

28 23 23 26 No (χ²=0.24, p=.624)

Small talk 30 30 27 30 No (χ²=3.07, p=.079)

Softener 17 18 18 22 No (χ²=0.88, p=.345)

Play down 13 5 16 8 No (χ²=1.31, p=.250)

Preparator 8 6 19 9 Yes (χ²=7.17, p=.007)

Disarmer 12 14 14 18 No (χ²=1.20, p=.273)

Apology 21 25 19 15 Yes (χ²=5.40, p=.020)


7 0 12 17 Yes (χ²=19.2, p<.0001)

61

Consultative 17 12 6 0 Yes (χ²=21.3, p<.0001)

Oath-taking 11 10 13 14 No (χ²=1.25, p=.263)

Affective appeal 9 8 4 6 No (χ²=2.34, p=.125)

Understater 14 2 5 12 No (χ²=0.04, p=.838)

Precommitment 13 12 6 4 Yes (χ²=9.07, p=.002)

Reward 13 15 2 5 Yes (χ²=, p<.0001)

Sweetener 0 2 0 0 No (χ²=2.03, p=.153)

Conditional clause

4 0 0 6 No (χ²=0.43, p=.508)

Total 331 290 298 308

All modifications total

1227

Scenario 9: Speaker of equal power, with distance (=P +D)

Q: You want to ask to ask a new co-worker to cover your shift at work because you

have a doctor’s appointment. What do you say?

Conventionally indirect strategies (25 tokens) were strongly preferred over direct

(5 tokens), and nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all. Participants used

an average of 11.03 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (30

tokens), small talk (30 tokens), apology (21 tokens), consultative devices (17 tokens),

softeners (17 tokens), precommitment (13 tokens), play down (13 tokens), and oath-

taking (11 tokens). See Table 27 for examples.

Table 27



f Examples


62

Address alerter 24 Ahmed, Jassem, Abdullah

Small talk 30 How is work?

Imposition minimizer 7 It will only be two hours

Disarmer 12 I don’t want to distract you

Appreciation 30 I would really appreciate it

Grounder 30 I need to see the doctor

Softener 17 May Allah give you strength



Conditional clause 4 If you are not very busy

Consultative device 17 Do you think it would be possible

Understater 14 I don’t have a lot of work this time

Preparator 8 I really need to ask a favor


Affective appeal 9 This would really help me

Apology 21 I apologize for asking you this

Sweetener 0

Reward 13 I hope I can repay you in the future

Oath-taking 11 I swear this is important

Total: 331

Example response 17

�Y/ر #��ج أ6� �� )�ل ا�6 ا(��6؟أدري أ&$/ ه�،1 /� �� "Hا�� A& ،. %$#" إذا إ��م�6_

��:/ أ6�. �� (�آ- أآ�ن ا�/آ��ر، &A أروح #��ج ��M أي "H) 7/كN ��ك إو.U/ام ��Jا�.

Hi [greeting alerter] Ahmed [address alerter] how are you? [small talk] I really need to

ask you a favor? [preparator]. I want you to please [politeness marker] take over my shift

for today [want statement] because I have to go to the doctor [grounder]. Do you think

63

you can do it? [consultative] I would appreciate it [appreciation] I will take over any shift

you need in the future [reward]. May Allah give you strength [softener].

Example response 18

�Y/ر ��ج # أ6� �� )�ل ا�6 ا(��6؟أدري أ&$/ ه�،1 /� �� "Hا�� A& ،. %$#" إذا إ��م�6_

��:/ أ6�. �� (�آ- أآ�ن ا�/آ��ر، &A أروح #��ج ��M أي "H) 7/ك��ك إو.U/ام N ��Jا�.






Scenario 10: Speaker of equal power, with distance (=P, +D)

Q: You have two hours to submit your homework, which you were unable to finish

because you were sick. You want to ask your classmate, who you have not known

long, if you can copy his. What would you say?

Conventional indirect strategies (21 tokens) were strongly preferred over direct (8

tokens) and nonconventional indirect strategies (1 token). Participants used an average of

9.67 modifiers per response, with extensive use of small talk (30 tokens), appreciation

(26 tokens), apology (25 tokens), softeners (18 tokens), and disarmers (14 tokens). Offers

of reward were frequent (15 tokens), though they had been nearly absent in most of the

other scenarios. See Table 28 below for examples.

64

Table 28



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Ahmed, Jassem





Grounder 28 I was very sick and couldn’t do the homework





Consultative device 12 What do you say?

Understater 2 It will take me a few minutes to copy

Preparator 6 I need to ask you a favor



Apology 25 I am so sorry

Sweetener 2 I swear I was very sick

Reward 15 I can help you with other classes

Oath-taking 10 I swear I couldn’t do it

Example response 19

/ ا6� M%\ إ��م؟أ6� ا(��6 ا #$/، ا��ي ه��U 34�7 ا آ7" _6� إ��م وا3U أ%�ي �/رت � وا? �� (�ء، ه*

.ا�:��O:9 ;�0 ا? اY6;؟ J�ل 0�.�:��ن

65

Hey [address marker] brother Mohammed [greeting alerters], how are you doing today

[small talk]? I am so sorry that I am asking you this [apology], but I swear [oath-taking]

that I wasn’t able to do today’s homework because I was sick [grounder]. I wonder [play

down] is there any way I can copy it [query preparatory]? May Allah give you health

[softener].

Example response 20

اب أ&�O ا6� M%\ أ6�. -d9 وا9/ آ7" _6� �/رت � إ��م؟أ6� وا3U ا�>c �/رت أدري � (>��رك؟ إو ا�-اه��؟ ا(��6

.ا�:��O:9 ;�0 ر�� N. إ6" إ�N ا43 أ&/ 7/ي � �� ، ه��$��\

Hello, [greeting alerter] Ibrahim [address alerter], how are you [small talk]? I wonder

[play down] were you able to do today’s homework? [small talk] I wasn’t able to because

I was very sick [grounder]. I am sorry to put you in this position [apology], but I don’t

know anyone to ask but you [affective appeal]. I would really appreciate it

[appreciation]. May Allah give you strength [softener]

Scenario 11: Speaker of equal power, no distance (=P, -D)

Q: You know that your friend who owns an apartment in Mecca will not be using it

this year. You want to ask him if you can use it for a few days. What do you say?

Conventional indirect strategies were again strongly preferred (27 tokens) over

direct (3 tokens), and nonconventional indirect strategies were not used at all. Participants

used an average of 9.94 modifiers per response, with extensive use of appreciation (29

tokens), small talk (27 tokens), apology (19 tokens), preparators (19 tokens), softeners

(18 tokens), and play down (16 tokens). See Table 29 below for examples.

66

Table 29

Modification in Scenario 11 (=P, –D)


f Examples


Address alerter 30 Bo Tareq, Bo Ali, Abdulrahmaan, Ahmed


Imposition minimizer 12 It will only be for a weekend

Disarmer 14 I hope it is no bother

Appreciation 29 I would be in debt to you

Grounder 29 I want to take the family but the hotels are expensive





Consultative device 6 What do you say?

Understater 5 just a little

Preparator 19 I need to ask you a favor


Affective appeal 4 You’re the only one I can ask

Apology 19 I apologize for asking you this

Sweetener 0

Reward 2 May Allah repay you

Oath-taking 13 I swear this would help me

Total: 298

Example response 21 (=P, –D)

آ�10، �0'� آ�ن � إذا. �1 0� إ�� (��Y إ%�>/ام �7 ا43 ودي أ6� �$�م؟ (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء زو��U؟ إو ا(��6 0'/ �� ه�

.�� (�آ- وآ�ن. وا9/ � او0- راح

67

Hey [greeting alerter], Bo Fahad [address alerter] how are you and the wife, I hope all is

well [small talk]? I’d like to ask you to use the Mecca apartment [hedge performative]. If

it is not an inconvenience can I use it [query preparatory] would save me a lot of money

[grounder] and I would appreciate it [appreciation].


ا��م�� ،/$# ا�:�1 أ�� أ�� _ن ، �0 1� ��Y) ا%�>/م J�ل 0� إذا ��ف آ7" إ�2-ا&1 أ6� �)�ل؟ � ا? إ�6�ء

.��-ك از9/ ر�� N او. �� (�آ- ا()"؟أآ�ن. اه7�ك

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Bo Mohamad [address alerter], I hope you are not

busy? [disarmer] Actually I wanted to see if it would be possible to use the apartment in

Mecca [query preparatory], since I would like to take my family there [grounder]. What

do you say? [consultative] I would really be grateful [appreciation]. May Allah give add

to your wealth [softener].

Scenario 12: Speaker of equal power, no distance (=P, –D)

Q: You are a graduate student in a foreign country and need to ask a friend in your

home country to administer a questionnaire for your research. What do you say?

In this scenario, respondents showed an equal preference for direct (15 tokens)

and conventionally indirect strategies (15 tokens). Nonconventional indirect strategies

were not used. Responses averaged 10.27 modifiers per favor, with extensive use of small

talk (30 tokens), appreciation (29 tokens), softeners (22 tokens), disarmers (18 tokens),

imposition minimizers (17 tokens), apology (15 tokens), and understaters (12 tokens).

See Table 30 below for examples.

68

Table 30



f Examples


Address alerter 30 Bo Tareq, Bo Ali, Abdulrahmaan


Imposition minimizer 17 It will only take 20 minutes

Disarmer 18 I hope I am not taking much of your time


Grounder 27 I have a study that I need to do

Softener 22 May Allah not take you away from us

Politeness marker 26 Please

Play down 8 I wonder

Conditional clause 6 If you are free I was wondering if you can distribute the questionnaire for me


Understater 12 it will take a little of your time

Preparator 9 I want to ask you for a favor


Affective appeal 6 I really need your help

Apology 15 I am sorry

Sweetener 0

Reward 5 May Allah give us the strength to repay you

Oath-taking 14 I swear by Allah

Total: 308

69

Example response 23

�� ا��م ،/$# � إ��آ" �� داج � ا�6* ا�/وام؟ و(�ن ا(��6 3%�7 �7 ا43 داق أ6� إ�1&-2. 1 7/ي أ6�. �/

/ دراA& 1% ��9زع gزم ا%��ن�U �'9�%ذا. أh0 "7آ �`�ر 0/Y� 1 � Y6/ر ا? ا�6�ء. �� (�آ- ��؟أآ�ن إ��ز/<6 �0

*�Y��$ك إو. ا�� Yا�.

Peace be upon you [greeting alerter] Mohammed [address alerter], how are and how is

work? [small talk] I hope that I am not calling you at a bad time [disarmer]. I actually

want to ask you for a favor [preparator] I have a questionnaire that needs to be

distributed for a study [grounder]. So if you are free [conditional clause] can you

distribute it for me [query preparatory]. I would really appreciate it [appreciation] May I

be able to repay you in the future for any need [reward] and may Allah give you health

[softener].

Example response 24

#��ج �� RJ0ة، 4�� إن أدري ا_ه*؟ E او ا�/وام 0� �$�م (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء 0'/، �� ا(��6 ��/�� ا%��ن أوزع أ��.

.ا�:��O:9 1�0 ا? إو ��، (�آ- ا(Y"؟أآ�ن 7/ي،

Hello [greeting alerter] Bo Fahad [address alerter] I hope that you are doing well at

work, and god willing the family is doing well? [small talk] I know that this is short

notice [disarmer] so I will be very quick [imposition minimizer] but I really need your

help [affective appeal]. I want you to distribute the questionnaires that I have please

[Want statement + politeness marker], what do you say? [consultative] I would

appreciate it [appreciation]. May Allah give you health [softener].

70

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

This section begins with a discussion of the overall findings in regards to the use

of core strategies and modifications. Next, Kuwaiti favor asking is compared to requests

by speakers of other varieties of Arabic. The three power dynamics (+P, –P, =P)

examined in the study will then be discussed, including sample responses from each. The

chapter concludes by offering suggestions for future research.

Core Strategy Use Across All Acenarios

Statistical analysis showed that power had a significant effect on strategy use, but

distance did not. Direct strategies were strongly preferred in +P scenarios, but

conventional indirect strategies were strongly preferred in both –P and =P scenarios

(χ²=74.1, df=1, p<0.0001). See Table 31. However, frequency of both strategy types did

not significantly vary from +D to –D scenarios (see Table 32). In all scenarios combined,

Kuwaitis showed an overall preference for conventional indirect strategies over direct

ones. This is consistent with a similar preference among speakers of numerous other

languages (e.g., Jalilifar, 2009; Perez-Parent, 2001; Tabar, 2012). From a pedagogical

perspective, one might therefore be inclined to emphasize both direct and indirect favor

asking strategies to Arabic learners, accompanied by a discussion of how social

relationships could influence which type of strategy was appropriate.

71

Table 31

Strategy use in +P, – P, and =P scenarios





Significant?

Conventional indirect

221 37 96 88 Yes (χ²=74.1, df=1, p<0.0001)

Direct 137 83 23 31

Nonconventional indirect

2 0 1 1 *

* Insufficient tokens for statistical comparison

Table 32

Strategy use in +D and –D scenarios




Significant?

Conventional indirect 221 104 117 No (χ²=1.64, df=1, p=0.201) Direct 137 74 63

Nonconventional indirect 2 2 0 *

* Insufficient tokens for statistical comparison

Direct strategies were preferred only in +P scenarios, which suggests that being

direct is more acceptable for speakers with superior social status. Nonconventional

indirect strategies (hints) were extremely rare, with only 2 tokens from 360 responses.

Kuwaiti culture may be one of many that considers hints to be impolite “because they

indicate a lack of concern for pragmatic clarity” (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p.131). For

72

example, Lee-Wong (2000) found that hints were “the least preferred by Chinese native

speakers” (p. 75).

But the absence of hinting in the present may also be caused by the nature of the

speech act itself, as favor asking, by definition, requires a high degree of imposition and

occurs outside the daily routine (Goldschmidt, 1993). Because of this, a hint will not be

sufficient to cue the listener to what the speaker needs. In a typical every day situation,

such as eating dinner, a hint may be enough to cue the hearer to what the speaker wants

to ask for. If a speaker says, “Are you finished with that?”, the hearer will recognize the

utterance as an indirect request that the item in question be passed to the speaker. Since

requests such as this also require little imposition on the hearer, hearers almost always

comply, but favors’ higher degree of imposition can make listeners less eager to comply.

They might do so if asked, but they are far less likely to offer unless they are explicitly

asked to do so.

Modifications Across All Scenarios

In the literature on requests, modifications are considered non-obligatory

additions to the core strategy. However the present data shows that in Kuwaiti favor

asking, some form of modification should be considered obligatory. Across all scenarios,

every participant response (N=360) included modification to the core strategy, with an

average of 6.24 modifications per response in +P scenarios, 7.97 in –P scenarios, and

10.23 in =P scenarios.

+P speakers completely avoided four modifications: sweeteners, rewards,

apologies, and oath-taking (0 tokens total). In Kuwaiti culture, these modifications may

73

be considered too face-threatening for speakers accustomed to positions of higher status,

who may associate these devices with weakness.

Distance had a significant effect on the frequency of 8 of the 20 modifications

(see Table 33 below). Greeting alerters and politeness markers were more common in +D

scenarios, while small talk, softeners, preparators, imposition minimizers, oath-taking,

and sweeteners were all more frequent in –D scenarios.

Table 33

Modifiers affected by distance



Significant difference between + /–D?

Greeting alerter 141 (78%) 112 (62%) Yes (χ²=11.1, p<.0001)

Politeness marker 154 (86%) 96 (53%) Yes (χ²=44.0, p<.0001)

Small talk 86 (48%) 153 (85%) Yes (χ²=55.8, p<.0001)

Softener 66 (37%) 98 (54%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p<.0001)

Preparator 27 (15%) 100 (56%) Yes (χ²=64.8, p<.0001)

Imposition minimizer 32 (18%) 85 (47%) Yes (χ²=35.5, p<.0001)

Oath-taking 21 (12%) 46 (26%) Yes (χ²=11.4, p=.0007)

Sweetener 6 (3%) 31 (17%) Yes (χ²=18.8, p<.0001)

Scenarios with Higher Power Speakers (+P)

The four +P scenarios are described in Table 34 below. In these scenarios,

Kuwaiti participants strongly preferred direct strategies over indirect for asking the core

favor (see Table 35). This has been shown to be the case in other cultures as well.

Wierzbicka (1991) explains that in the Polish culture there is more use of directness in

74

order to show sincerity as opposed to what many would consider as impoliteness.

Wierzbicka also continues that directness and politeness are best viewed side by side

along a continuum on which directness and politeness can be seen differently across

languages and cultures.

Table 34

Description of +P scenarios

Scenario 1 (+P, +D)

Dean asks unfamiliar student for help with broken down car

Scenario 2 (+P, +D)

Boss asks unfamiliar employee to teach him new software

Scenario 3 (+P, –D)

Older brother asks younger brother to lend money to buy a car

Scenario 4 (+P, –D)

Boss asks familiar employee to do unpaid design work for company

Table 35

Core strategy use in +P scenarios (N=120)

Conventional indirect 37

Direct 83

Nonconventional indirect 0

However, the overall preference for direct strategies was not reflected in all four +P

scenarios. In Scenario 3, asking a younger brother for money to buy a car, conventional

indirect strategies were slightly more common (see Table 36 below). In this case the less

direct approach may be caused by the degree of imposition, a variable not fully accounted

for in the design of the present study. Despite that unquestioned higher status accorded to

75

older siblings in Kuwaiti culture, the high degree of imposition may cause speakers to

adopt a politeness stance more in line with that of speakers of equal or lesser status.

Table 36

Core strategy directness in +P scenarios

Core strategy type

Scenario 1

(+P, +D)

Scenario 2

(+P, +D)

Scenario 3

(+P, –D)

Scenario 4

(+P, –D)

Direct 24 22 14 23


A similarly high degree of imposition was present in Scenario 4, in which a boss

asks his employee to perform unpaid work designing the office’s interior decor. Although

participants preferred direct strategies here, as they had in Scenarios 1 and 2, they used

considerably more modification than speakers in those two scenarios (see Table 37

below), at approximately the same frequency found in Scenario 3. Because the degree of

imposition was not fully accounted for in the study design, it is difficult to say whether

the higher modifier frequency in Scenarios 3 and 4 was caused by the distance, the degree

of imposition, or perhaps a combination of the two.

Table 37

Modifier frequency in +P scenarios

Scenario 1

(+P, +D)

Scenario 2

(+P, +D)

Scenario 3

(+P, –D)

Scenario 4

(+P, –D)

Modifiers per response 4.37 6 7.07 7.77

76

Scenarios with Lower Power Speakers (–P)

The four–P scenarios are described in Table 38 below. Conventional indirect

strategies were strongly preferred by respondents (see Table 39). This suggests that in –P

scenarios Kuwaitis prefer to be less direct since indirectness is expected to show respect

to the person in a higher position. In Kuwaiti culture it is not acceptable to speak directly

and bluntly to a person who is older or holds position of power. Therefore people in the

culture opt to use more indirect requests, as “politeness is the most prominent motivation

for indirectness in requests, and certain forms tend to become the conventionally polite

ways of making indirect requests” (Searle, 1975, p.76). In these scenarios, indirectness

was used to mitigate the illocutionary force of the favor and smooth the conversational

interaction between interlocutors.

Table 38

Description of –P scenarios

Scenario 5 (–P, +D)

Professor asks unfamiliar dean for a computer

Scenario 6 (–P, +D)

Student asks unfamiliar professor for an extension

Scenario 7 (–P, –D)

Younger brother asks to borrow older brother’s car

Scenario 8 (–P, –D)

Student asks familiar professor for a retake on a test

77

Table 39

Core strategy directness in –P scenarios

Core strategy type

Scenario 5

(–P, +D)

Scenario 6

(–P, +D)

Scenario 7

(–P, –D)

Scenario 8

(–P, –D)

Direct 7 8 3 5


In the two –P, +D scenarios, there was an unusually high use of disarmers (26

tokens) (e.g., I know that this is short notice). This suggests that Kuwaitis in –P positions

need to show that they know they are imposing on the hearer by asking a favor.

Understaters (e.g., just a few minutes) were also used in +D responses in order to show

respect towards the hearer’s valuable time.

Scenarios with Equal Power Speakers (=P)

The four =P scenarios are described in Table 40 below. As in the –P scenarios,

participants preferred conventional indirect strategies (see Table 41). This similarity is

consistent with Al-Momani’s (2009) finding that Jordanians responded identically in =P

and –P scenarios.

Table 40

Description of =P scenarios

Scenario 9 (=P, +D)

Asking unfamiliar co-worker to cover your shift at work

Scenario 10 (=P, +D)

Asking friend to copy his homework.

78

Scenario 11 (=P, –D)

Asking to borrow friend’s apartment in Mecca.

Scenario 12 (=P, –D)

Graduate student in US asks friend in Kuwait to distribute research questionnaire

Table 41

Core strategy directness in =P scenarios

Core strategy type

Scenario 9

(=P, +D)

Scenario 10

(=P, +D)

Scenario 11

(=P, –D)

Scenario 12

(=P, –D)

Direct 7 11 3 15


Nonconventional indirect

0 1 0 0

The modification of reward was used relatively extensive in =P scenarios, with 35

tokens compared to a total of just 12 in the +P and –P scenarios combined. This is

because the Kuwaiti culture is based on reciprocity, particularly among people of equal

power. Therefore, rewarding the person who will carry out a favor for you is necessary in

order to reflect appreciation for the person’s time and effort, either by praying for him or

explaining that his favor will be returned one day. Several respondents who used reward

used the phrase “may Allah enable us to repay you,” which makes the person obligated in

the future to reciprocate the favor.

The sample response below shows the density in the use of modifiers in =P

scenarios. The speaker uses 10 modifiers, only slightly less than the average of 10.23 per

response in the four =P scenarios.

79

Sample response from Scenario 9 (=P, +D)

Example response 18

�Y/ر #��ج أ6� �� )�ل ا�6 ا(��6؟أدري أ&$/ ه�،1 /� �� "Hا�� A& ،. %$#" إذا إ��م�6_

� أ6�. �� (�آ- أآ�ن ا�/آ��ر، &A أروح #��ج/:� ��M أي "H) 7/ك��ك إو.U/ام N ��Jا�.






Respondents in =P, –D scenarios used more preparators than those in =P, +D

scenarios. +P, –D speakers also used this modifier more than +D speakers in both the +P

and –P scenarios. It seems that in the Kuwaiti culture preparing the hearer for the favor is

more important when the interlocutors know each other. The sample response presented

below indicates how preparators were used when a friend asks another friend to borrow

his apartment in Mecca.


آ�10، �0'� آ�ن � إذا. �1 0� إ�� (��Y إ%�>/ام �7 ا43 ودي أ6� �$�م؟ (� آ* ا? ا�6�ء زو��U؟ إو ا(��6 0'/ �� ه�

.�� (�آ- وآ�ن. وا9/ � او0- راح

Hey [greeting alerter], Bo Fahad [address alerter] how are you and the wife, I hope all is

well [small talk]? I’d like to ask you to use the Mecca apartment [hedge performative]. If

it is not an inconvenience can I use it [query preparatory] would save me a lot of money

[grounder] and I would appreciate it [appreciation].

80

Oath-taking was common in =P scenarios (48 tokens), and much more frequent

than it had been in –P (19 tokens) and +P scenarios (0 tokens). Kuwaiti respondents felt

the need to swear an oath in the name of Allah to show their sincerity in what they were

asking for. This is typical of religious societies in which they refer to holy entities to

reflect truthfulness, which is a common practice in everyday conversation in the Arab

Islamic world (Al-Khatib, 2006). Some Islamic countries in the Arab world may swear

oaths by their religion, their children, their prophet or even their mother’s souls, but in the

Kuwaiti context oath-taking was exclusively in the name of Allah. Schiffrin (2005)

explains that oath-taking is used in order to show a stronger commitment and sincerity

and definiteness that something is needed. Abd-el Jawad (2000) explains that oath-taking

in the Arab world has several important functions, such as “to confirm a claim one has

made, to emphasize a promise one has given, to deny an accusation, to decline an offer or

an invitation, or to intensify a threat or warning” (p. 218). In the case of =P responses by

Kuwaitis it was to reflect sincerity and to solidify the grounder that was presented in

order to get the hearer to comply with the favor.

Softeners were also common =P scenarios, such as the phrases “may Allah give

you health,” “may Allah give you strength,” and “may Allah not deprive us from you.”

The high use of softeners among equals “could be attributed to the closeness and the

solidarity between the interlocutors” (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009, p. 28). Al-Qinai

(2011) explains that the use of these softeners and others are always used in accordance

to the hearer’s age or social status. Darwish (2003) explains that the increase of

81

modifications to reflect solidarity among interlocutors of equal status makes outsiders

from other cultures view Arabic as a “flowery” language (p.50).

82

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

Implications of the Study

The responses of the participants to the DCT scenarios revealed that social power

affected the core strategies and modifications used by Kuwaiti Arabic speakers. Kuwaitis

preferred direct core favor strategies in +P scenarios, but conventional indirect strategies

in =P and –P scenarios. Modification was lowest in +P scenarios, significantly higher in

–P scenarios, but highest in =P scenarios.

The preference for directness in +P scenarios may be related to that fact that the

speech act of favor asking manifests feelings of neediness and weakness. As a result,

Kuwaitis in positions of power attempted to hold on to their positive face (dignity) by

using direct strategies to reflect strength and demonstrate control. This directness was

also mirrored by the more limited use of modification by +P speakers compared to –P

and =P speakers.

In –P scenarios, speakers preferred conventional indirect over direct strategies,

similar to findings from studies on requests in a wide variety of cultures. Use of

modifications was more extensive than in +P scenarios, but still less extensive than in =P

scenarios. These four scenarios had the highest use of sweeteners (35 tokens), which

were almost nonexistent in +P (0 tokens) and =P scenarios (2 tokens). This suggests that

83

Kuwaiti culture requires a person to pay compliment to speakers of higher power, but

never to speakers of lesser or equal power. Distance had a significant effect on the

frequency of consultatives and oath-taking, both of which were more prevalent in –D

scenarios.

In =P scenarios, conventional indirectness was again preferred as a core strategy.

Modification was most extensive in these scenarios, as had previously been found among

speakers of Yemeni Arabic (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009), a finding that study’s

authors attributed to the solidarity, brotherhood, and appreciation among people of equal

status. This is the case in Eastern cultures where individuals are expected to reach out to

people in need of help and accept requests for help when people ask. Distance did not

affect the frequency of modifiers in these four scenarios.

Comparison with Previous Studies on Requests

There is very little research on favor asking to which the present study’s results

can be compared. However, it may be instructive to compare the results with those from

previous studies on requests, both in Arabic and other languages.

Kuwaitis’ preference for conventionally indirect core strategies matches a similar

tendency in speakers of English, German, and Hebrew (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984).

In addition, it matches an identical preference for indirectness among speakers of other

varieties of Arabic, such as those spoken in Morocco (Alaoui, 2011), Iraq (Sataar, Lah &

Suleiman, 2009), and Yemen (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath, 2009). Other similarities to

84

speakers of Arabic varieties included Kuwaitis’ extensive use of softeners in =P

scenarios, which mirrored that of Yemenis (Al-Fattah & Ravindranath).

Limitations of the Study

The findings of this study should be interpreted in light of their limitations. The

participants were all males and the DCTs were designed to include scenarios that had

only male interaction. This means that eliciting data from female respondents or creating

scenarios in which there is more female interaction may yield results that might be

different from those of the current study. Also, accounting for the variable of age,

education and occupation may also yield different findings.

Also, the use of DCTs as a data elicitation method had a positive influence on the

study in that it helped to control for contextual variables, namely power and distance.

Another important factor was that the use of DCTs facilitated the distribution of the

instrument since there were not enough Kuwaitis in the area where the researcher

conducted research. Furthermore, this study would have been even more problematic and

awkward for the male participants to deal with a female interlocutor in the context of oral

data elicitation methods. However, if the study had included female participants I would

have preferred to use DCTs and role plays in order to compare responses elicited by both

methods.

85

Directions for Future Research

Speech act research in the Arab world is in its primary stages, and favor asking

has received little scholarly attention in any language. This is even more the case in

respect to the speech act of favor asking. This study has attempted to address both of

these gaps, but further research still remains to be done to increase our understanding of

favor asking, and of Arabic in general.

The current study could be replicated with speakers of other varieties of Arabic in

order to explore their languages and cultures. Such studies could also be done using

different methods of data elicitation, such as role-plays and questionnaires. This would

provide a pool of responses to build a broader corpus of Arabic speech act data for

comparison. Any such research should pay careful attention to how to measure the effects

of power on the performance of this speech act, as some of the previous investigation of

this variable has not taken all power relationships into account, for example by presenting

only –P and =P scenarios, while omitting +P scenarios from the study (Al-Fattah &

Ravindranath, 2009; Sattar, Lah, & Suleiman, 2009).

86

REFERENCES

Abboud, P. (1995). The teaching of Arabic in the United States: Whence and whither. In

M. Al-Batal (Ed.), The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language: Directions and

issues (pp. 35-78). Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic.

Abd-el Jawad, H. R. S. (2000). A linguistic and sociopragmatic and cultural study of

oath-taking in Arabic. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(2), 217-240.

Al-Ali, M. N., & Al-Awneh, R. (2010). Linguistic mitigating devices in American and

Jordanian students’ requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 311-339.

Al-Batal, M. (2007). Arabic and national language education policy. The Modern

Language Journal, 91(2), 268-271.

Al-Eryani, A. A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. The Asian EFL

Journal Quarterly, 9(2), 19-34.

Al-Fattah, M. H. A., & Ravindranath, B. K. (2009). Politeness strategies in the English

interlanguage requests of Yemeni learners. Iranian Journal of Language Studies,

3(3), 249-266.

Al-Hami, F. (1993). Forms of apology used by Jordanian speakers of EFL: A cross-

cultural study. (Master's thesis). University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Al-Issa, A. (1998). Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance of refusal by Jordanian

EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.

87

Al-Khatib, M. (2006). The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian

society. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 272-294.

Al-Marrani, Y. M. A., & Sazakie, A. B. (2010). Politeness request strategies by male

speakers of Yemeni Arabic in male-male interaction and male-female interaction.

The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 30, 63-80.

Al-Momani, H. (2009). Caught between two cultures: The realization of requests by

Jordanian EFL learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University

of Pennsylvania, Indiana. PA.

Al-Qinai, J. (2011). Translating phatic expressions. Pragmatics, 21(1), 23-39.

Al-Shalawi, H. (1997). Refusal strategies in Saudi and American culture. (Unpublished

Master’s Thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Al-Zumor, A. (2003). A pragmatic analysis of speech acts as produced by native

speakers of Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Aligarh Muslim University,

Aligarh, India.

Alaoui, S. M. (2011). Politeness principle: A comparative study of English and Moroccan

Arabic requests, offers and thanks. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(1), 7-

15.

Alcón, S. E., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language

learning, teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 31, 313-316.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.

88

Badawi, E. (2006). Tales of King Abgar: A basis to investigate earliest Syrian Christian

syncretism, Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, 20(2), 25-44.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). From morpheme studies to temporal semantics: Tense-aspect

research in SLA. State of the art article. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

21, 341-382.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in

pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching

(pp. 13-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative

conversation: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language

Learning, 40, 476-501.

Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL

university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901-1927.

Beebe, L. M. (1992). Questionable questions: The syntax is perfect, but what do you

mean? In Proceedings from TESOL 1992. Vancouver, Canada: TESOL.

Beebe, L. M. (1994). Rudeness: The neglected side of communicative competence.

Keynote speech at ALSIG conference.

Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the

data collection procedure? Paper presented at the TESOL convention, New York,

March.

89

Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written

questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance.

In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to

communication in a second language (pp. 65-86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening

speech acts. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 199-218).

New York: Plenum.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Welts, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL

refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing

communicative competence in a second language (pp.55-73). New York: Heinle

& Heinle.

Bergman, M., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative

apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlangauge pragmatics (pp.

82-117). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bharuthram, S. (2003). The value on politeness by men and women in the Hindu sector

of the South African Indian English speaking community. Southern African

Linguistic and Applied Language Studies, 21(3), 87-102.

Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic

variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics,

21, 517-552.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

90

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982a). Learning how to say what you mean in the second language: A

study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language.

Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982b). Performing speech acts in a second language. In S. Blum-

Kulka, R. Nir, & Y. Tobin (Eds.), Issues in the study of discourse (pp. 144-177)

Jerusalem: Academon.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?

Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S.

Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests

and apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Philipsen,

E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign

language pedagogy: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 255-272).

Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross cultural study of

speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual. In S.

Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests

and apologies (pp. 273-294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

91

Boxer, D. (1996). Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis:

The case of complaints. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across

cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 217-240).

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language use.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Buchler, A., & Guthrie, A. (2011). Literary translation from Arabic into English in the

United Kingdom and Ireland. 1990-2010. Retrieved from

http://lafpublications.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/laf-study-literary-translation-

from-arabic-into-english-in-the-uk-and-ireland-1990-2010.pdf

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language

pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.

2-27). London: Longman.

Chaudron, C. (2005). Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long

(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 762-827). Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Cheng, D. (2011). New insights on compliment responses: A comparison between native

English speakers and Chinese L2 speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2204-14.

92

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. Gass & J. Neu

(Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second

language (pp. 21-43). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural

Pragmatics, 2, 275-301.

Cohen, A. D. (2008). Speaking strategies for independent learning: A focus on pragmatic

performance. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in

independent settings (pp. 119-140). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Darwish, A. (2003). The transfer factor. Melbourne: Writescope.

Demeter, G. (2007). Role-plays as a data collection method for research on apology

speech acts. Simulation & Gaming, 38(1), 83-90.

Dong, X. (2009). Requests in academic settings in English, Russian and Chinese.

(Doctoral Dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). I very appreciate: Expressions of gratitude by

native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-

185.

El-Khalil, M. H. (1998). Variation in apology strategies among friends and

acquaintances in Jordanian Arabic. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Yarmouk

University, Irbid, Jordan.

93

Enssaif, Z. A. (2005). Compliment behavior: Strategies and realization in English and

Arabic: A case study of female students of the English Department of King Saud

University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). King Saud University, Riyadh.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27,

31-40.

Eslami-Rusekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology

speech acts, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic developmet of

EFL learners: The Iranian context. The Journal of Language, Society and Culture,

30, 543-564.

Farghal, M. & Al-Khatib, M. (2001). Jordanian students’ responses to compliments: A

pilot study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1485-1502.

Farghal, M. & Haggan, M. (2006). Compliment behavior in bilingual Kuwaiti college

students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(1), 94-

118.

Farina, M., & Suleiman, R. (2009). An interlanguage pragmatic study of expressions of

gratitude by Iranian EFL learners: A pilot study. Malaysian Journal of ELT

Research , 5, 108-140

Feghali, E. (1997). Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 21, 245-378.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research:

Theory, practice, and acquisition. In P. Kempchinsky and C. E. Piñeros, Papers

94

from the 6th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium and the 5th Conference on the

Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 239-257). Somerville, MA:

Cascadilla Press.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In D.

Eddington (Ed.), Proceedings from the 7th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp.

66-78). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). I’m sorry - Can I think about it? The

negotiation of refusals in academic and nonacademic contexts. In D. H. Tatsuki &

N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 163-180). Alexandria,

VA: TESOL.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language (7th ed.).

Boston: Heinle.

Gagne, N. O. (2010). Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese socio-

linguistic politeness of request. Language and Communication, 30(2), 123-138.

Geluyken, R., & Kraft, B. (2002). Complaining in French L1 and L2: A cross-

linguistic investigation. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, T. Ruthenberg, & M. L. Poschen

(Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 2 (pp. 227-242). Canterbury, UK:

University of Canterbury.

Ghawi, M. (1993). Pragmatic transfer in Arabic learners of English. El Two Talk, 1(1),

39-52.

95

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City,

NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.

Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and

recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90-121.

Goldschmidt, M. (1993). For the favor of asking: A sociolinguistic analysis.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Goldschmidt, M. (1996). From the addressee's perspective: Imposition in favor-asking. In

S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to

communication in a second language (pp. 241-256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Goldschmidt, M. (1998). Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences

in American English. Journal of Pragmatics. 29, 129-153.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech

acts: Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics. 14,

237-257.

Hahn, J. (2006). Apologizing in Korean. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University

of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.

96

Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics,

35, 1903-1928.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied

Linguistics, 18, 1-26.

Houk, A. & Gass, S. (2006). Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. In S.

Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication

in a second language (pp. 45-63). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign

language. In W. Lorscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspective on language in

performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.

Huang, M. (1996). Achieving cross-cultural equivalence in a study of American and

Taiwanese requests. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign.

Hudson, T., Deitmer, E., & Brown, J. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-

cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Hussein, R. F., & Hammouri, M. T. (1998). Strategies of apology in Jordanian Arabic

and American English. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 49, 37-51.

Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethno-graphic approach.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jalilifar, A. (2009). Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native

speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1). Retrieved from

97

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/

Jarbou, S. (2002). Speech act stylistics: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study of

directive speech acts in selected Shakespearean plays and their Arabic

translation. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana,

PA.

Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross. S. (1998). The effect of rejoinders in production

questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19, 157–182.

Jung, E. H. (2004). Interlanguage pragmatics: Apology speech acts. In C. L. Moder & A.

Martinovic (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 99–116).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.),

Culturally speaking (pp. 316-341). London: Continuum.

Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA

Review, 19, 83-99.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-

334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatics development in a second language. Oxford:

Blackwell.

98

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Power, approach, and

inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in

interlanguage. Modern Language Journal, 73, 279-289.

Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish

foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across

cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 257-281).

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua,

23, 339-364.

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p's and q's. Chicago

Linguistic Society, 9, 292–305.

Lee, H. E., Park, H. S., Imai, T., & Dolan, D. P. (2008). Why Japanese are more likely to

favor apology, while Americans are more likely to favor thank you. Paper

presented at the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.

Lee, C., Pillutla, M. M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power distance, gender, and organizational

justice. Journal of Management, 26, 685-704.

Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness

Research, 3, 167-206.

Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and face in Chinese culture. New York: P. Lang.

99

Liu, B. (2004). Rise of Arabic in the U.S speaks volumes for war on terror. Financial

Times. Retrieved from www.campuswatch.org/article/id/1033.

Margalef-Boada, T. (1993). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics: An inquiry

into data collection procedures. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University,

Bloomington, IN.

Martinez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards

taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-

187.

Martinez-Flor, A. (2006). Task effects on EFL learners’ production of suggestions: A

focus on elicited phone messages and Emails. Journal of English and American

Studies, 33, 47-64.

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena

in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.

Mead, G. H. (1962). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meier, A. J. (1995). Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 381-392.

Meier, A. J. (1997). Teaching the universals of politeness. ELT Journal, 51(1), 21-28.

Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Migdadi, F. (2003). Complimenting in Jordanian Arabic: A sociopragmatic analysis.

(Doctoral dissertation). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

100

Morkus, N. (2009). The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by

American learners of Arabic as a foreign language. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Mulamba, K. (2009). Social beliefs for the realization of the speech acts of apology and

complaint as defined in Ciluba, French, and English. International Pragmatic

Association. 19, 543-546.

Nelson, G. L., El-Bakary, W., & Al-Batal, M. (1993). Egyptian and American

compliments: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 17, 293–313.

Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment

responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 17, 411-432

Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & El-Bakary, W. (2002). Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian

Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 26, 39-57.

Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M., & El-Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics:

Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied

Linguistics, 23, 163-189.

Nurani, L. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Is discourse completion

test a reliable data collection instrument? Journal Sosioteknologi Edisi, 17, 667-

678.

101

Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese

Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 279–306.

Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of

English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research,

5(2), 189-216.

Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Non-native reactions to

native speech act behavior. In S. Gass (Ed.), Input in second language acquisition

(pp. 303-329). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of

complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics

(pp. 108-122) New York: Oxford University Press.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1998). Speech act behavior across languages. In H.W. Dechert

& M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53-67). Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Perez-Parent, M. (2001). Some considerations on politeness in Catalan service

encounters. In C. Munoz, M. L. Celaya, M. Fernandez-Villanueva, T. Naves, O.

Strunk, & E. Tragant (Eds.), Trabajos en linguistica aplicada (pp. 597-604).

Barcelona: Univerbook.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York:

Harper & Row.

Pop, A. (2009). An analysis of politeness as function of speech acts (SAs) and target

102

reader in print medical advertising. In Language in the University of Essex (Lang

UE) 2008 proceedings (pp. 94-106). Essex: University of Essex.

Rasekh, A. E. (2012). Eliciting Persian requests: DCT and role play data. World Journal

of Education, 2(3), 80-86.

Raybourn, E. M. (2002). Toward cultural representation and identification for all in

community-based virtual environments. In N. Carbonell & C. Stephanidis (Eds.),

Lecture notes in computer science (pp.219-238). Berlin: Springer.

Rintell, E., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into

method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural

pragmatics (pp. 248-272). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Rose, K., & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of

questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45, 191-223.

Rubin, J. (1989). How learner strategies can inform language teaching. In V. Bickley

(Ed.), Proceedings from language use, language teaching and curriculum

(LULTAC). Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.

Rue, Y. J., Zhang, G., & Shin, K. (2007). Request strategies in Korean. In Proceedings

from 5th biennial Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference (pp. 112-

119). Perth: Korean Studies Association of Australasia.

Sattar, H. Q., Lah, S. C., & Suleiman, R. R. R. (2009). Iraqi postgraduates’ production

and perception of requests: A pilot study. International Journal of Language,

Society and Culture, 29, 56-70.

103

Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context.

London: Continuum.

Schiffrin, A. (2005). Modelling speech acts in conversational discourse. (Doctoral

dissertation). University of Leeds, Leeds.

Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative

competence. In A. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language

acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic

communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London:

Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan, (Eds.), Speech acts:

Syntax and semantics (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-14.

Shea, H. K. (2003). Japanese complaining in English: A study of interlanguage

pragmatics. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses. (3091292)

Soliman, A. (2003). Apology in American English and Egyptian Arabic. In Proceedings

from TESOL 3rd Annual Graduate Student Forum. Baltimore: TESOL.

Spencer-Oaty, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,

1-24.

104

Stabb, C. F. (1983). Making implicit knowledge explicit: A review of four theories for

analyzing language by function. Language Science, 5(1), 21-35.

Stevens, P. (1993). The pragmatics of “No!”: Some strategies in English and Arabic.

Ideal, 6, 87-112.

Stiles, W. B. (1992). Describing talk: A taxonomy of verbal response modes. SAGE

series in interpersonal communication. Newbury, CA: Sage.

Tabar, M. S. (2012). Cross-cultural speech act realization: The case of requests in the

Persian and Turkish speech of Iranian speakers. International Journal of Business

and Social Sciences, 3(13), 237-243.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

18(2), 189-223.

Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of

correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.

138–157). New York: Oxford University Press.

Taylor-Hamilton, C. A. (2002). Giving directions as a speech event: A cross-cultural

study of English and Emirati Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London:

Longman.

Tran, G. Q. (2004). Revisioning methodologies in cross-cultural and interlanguage

pragmatics. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 25-49.

105

Tran, G. Q. (2006). The nature and conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer

investigated through naturalized role-play. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Trosborg, A. (2010). Pragmatics across languages and culture. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Umar, A. (2004). Request strategies as used by advanced Arab learners of English as a

foreign language. Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Education and Social

Sciences and Humanities, 16(1), 42-87.

Uso-Juan, E. (2010). Requests: A sociopragmatic approach. In A. Martínez-Flor & E.

Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and

methodological issues (pp. 237-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts.

Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-179.

Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction.

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). Don't 'dear' me!. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, &

N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York:

Praeger.

Wouk, F. (2006). The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia. Journal of

Pragmatics, 38, 1456-1486.

106

Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data gathering methods: Written

DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,

33, 271-292.

Zaharna, R. S. (1995). Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication.

Public Relations Review, 21, 241-255.

Appendix A

W9Wي 3��Oا� :

� ا�'/ف إن � � ا�$>�1H ا�YB�0�ت و اتا�#Z�ر �� ا0��V�ت إ%�2Y�ء ا�/را%1 ه� i�& ب�ا_% ��O<ه�ا. ا� �� 6ً�#� إ

0� أ�6 ��>�* وأن �:7�19 ��\ آ* �Y-أ أن أرn% .�Uال ١٦ N 9#��ي اV%��ن ه�ا. ��k4; إو I#�#1 إU��1 ه7�ك و��H6 \��$0:�، ا� �o *$��#/ث آ7" �� آ$� ��\ آ* Nإ� c<ا�� *��Y$ا� �'Uو ;U�� )�1J' 1� ). ا�:�

�Uآ/ أرR�6 ا��R� "$'0 *ء آ�) � � أي أو اUV��:�9 1Y9-O� 1A %�ءال أي ��Rل أن أر�U آ$�. ��1 ا��/ء ��* ا�$��\ ه� 2/ا��; إo-اء �'� ��9ن %�ف ا�O��:�1 اU�� إن. اV%��ن ه�ا �>�2ص (�ء � .ا�:$� ا��#HI i� وإO�q'� ا�/را%1 ه�

___________________________________________________________________________

:ا_ول $��\ا�

$�/ أ6". ١ 1: �Jا� /Yو� "O:� ،��-ي %��ر 34 A��% �9/� g ;0-:� 10-: /�U ./9-��3O أن ;7 ��Yل 0$�ذا. ا�$��/ة �;؟

108

٢ ./9-��O3 أن � ��-اء �/�9 ا��ي ا�$�P إآ$�ل �� 7��9 آ� Y6/ي �SW9 P-ك ا��ي أ��ك

�;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. %��رة

�� و�Y/ ا_��م، V&/ي ا��$��- �� ر��q أ6". ٣ i9/#� 8 :-10 �/�9 �� ا��-6� 8 وه�ا �/��9، ا��$��- �-ا ;� ./9-� أن 3O� � :-R� ;9/� 10ن �:� و��ي �/�9 ا�J/د ا�$�`��H إ&/ى 1 8ا��-6 �'�ا (�� /9/Jن ا�R� 9/ر�� ;� �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا.

109

%17 ١٥ �$/ة 9:$* وا��ي ا�$�`��H ا&/ي �Rن �:�. �/��9 ا�Ug$:�ت S-10 د��9رات �)�- و�-9/ (-آ1، 0� �� ر��q أ6". ٤�O3 أن �-9/. د��9رات (-آ1 �/9; ا��-آ1 0� ;7 *$ �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا Y��* دون ا�/��9رات

�� و�Y/ ا_��م، V&/ي ا��$��- �� ر��q أ6". ٥ i9/#� 8 :-10 �/�9 �� ا��-6� 8 وه�ا �/��9، ا��$��- �-ا ;� ./9-� أن 3O� � :-R� ;9/� 10ن �:� و��ي �/�9 ا�J/د ا�$�`��H إ&/ى �� ;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. �; R� ��-Z9ن ا�J/9/ ا��-6� 8 �'�ا

110

٦ .3J9 أن �� B# Nو�� ا�/آ��ر إ� �� ء �� 7��9��6'V7; ا -d9 آ�6_ "7 ./9-��O� أن � �� 9$/د أن ا�/آ��ر ،��Yل؟ 0$�ذا ا�$/

٧ ./9-��O3 أن � �R� ��Rن �9�-ك ا��ي أ�� ;��>-ج �� ا�J/9/ة %��ر E �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا أI#��؟

111

:1 0� ا%��ذ أ6". ٨ �J9/ ا�-��O3 أن و � /�$ 1: �Jا��ي( ا� g ;0-:� 10-: �� ا��ي ا��$��-ات إ&/ي �R� ��Rن) �U/ة

�'B:� ��Y� .ذا�ل 0$�Y� �;؟

٩ ./9-��O3 أن � �#�ن R� /�:9ن ا%��ذك Vا ،�� i�& �� Y� �#�ن 0� R� /�Uداء Vا A��ذا. ا��ل 0$�Y� �;؟

112

1�# ��1 6}-ا 7; ا�6V'�ء ��E�O �� وا��ي اU��،و �� %��ن �/�9. ١٠I .ذا�ل 0$�Y� �;؟

� و�#��ج أ7U��1، دو�1 0� �� درا%�ت 43 أ6". ١١/�� ;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. �� ا%��ن ��ز� E9�Y�م ز

113

١٢ .�:��O3 أن 9/�-. ا��17 ه�� h%�>/ا '� �Y9م �� 0 1� 1Y) 9$� ا��ي R� �Y9/Iن ;7 �' �;؟ ��Yل 0$�ذا. ا%�>/

114

Appendix B

Translation of Scenarios to English

To all participants:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the following study, which will help in obtaining

helpful information about Arabs. Please answer the following scenarios as authentically

as possible. Your natural responses are crucial to achieve accurate analysis of the data.

Your time and effort is highly valued.

________________________________________________________________________

1. You are the dean of a university; your car has broken down. You see a previous

student whom you do not know well. You need to ask for help. What do you say?

115

2. You are the head of a computer department that has installed a piece of new software

that you are unfamiliar with. You know that one of your new employees is very

knowledgeable of how it works. You need his help. What do you say?

3. You want to ask your younger brother for money in order to be able to buy a car. You

have been saving money, but need more to be able to make the purchase. What do you

say?

116

4. You are the head of a department at work. You want to ask one of your male

employees, who has been with the company for 15 years and owns an interior design

business, to help you design the interior decor for one of the office’s conference rooms.

He will not be paid for his services. What do you say?

5. Your department provides computers to certain professors each year based on

seniority. You are not one of the professors scheduled to receive a computer soon, but the

department is always given more computers than needed. You would like to ask the dean,

whom you do not know well, for one of the computers before they are returned. What do

you say?

117

6. You have to submit a paper to a professor who you do not know well. You have not

finished writing your paper, and you want to ask the professor for an extension. What

do you say?

7. You want to ask your older brother for his new car to go out with friends. What do

you say?

118

8. You are taking a course with a professor you know well. You want to ask him if you

can retake a test since you did not do well on the previous one. What do you say?

9. You want to ask to ask a new co-worker to cover your shift at work because you

have a doctor’s appointment. What do you say?

119

10. You have two hours to submit your homework, which you were unable to finish

because you were sick. You want to ask your classmate, who you have not known

long, if you can copy his. What would you say?

11. You know that your friend who owns an apartment in Mecca will not be using it

this year. You want to ask him if you can use it for a few days. What do you say?

120

12. You are a graduate student in a foreign country and need to ask a friend in your

home country to administer a questionnaire for your research. What do you say?

121

Appendix C

VITA

Einas H. Alrefai

Candidate for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy/English

Thesis: FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF POWER AND DISTANCE ON

CORE STRATEGIES AND MODIFICATION

Major Field: English Education Completed the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy/English at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, July 2012. Completed the requirements for the Master of Arts in English at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, Spring 2004. Completed the requirements for the Master of Arts in Library Information Science at Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait, Spring 2000. Completed the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts in English at Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait, Fall 1997.

Experience

• Instructor of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at Telecommunication and

Navigation Institute, Shuwikh, Kuwait, 2000-2003.

• Instructor of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at Kuwait University, Kuwait

City, Kuwait, 2001.

• Intern at the Oklahoma State University English Language Institute (ELI),

Stillwater, Oklahoma, 2010. Taught English reading, writing, listening, and

speaking to International students.

Name: Einas Hashem Alrefai Date of Degree: July, 2012 Institution: Oklahoma State University Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma Title of Study: FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF POWER AND DISTANCE ON

CORE STRATEGIES AND MODIFICATION Pages in Study: 121 Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major Field: English Scope and Method of Study: Speech acts have been studied extensively in the field of pragmatics. However, there has been limited investigation of speech acts in Arabic, and minimal investigation in any language on the speech act of favor asking. In the context of growing interest in studying Arabic as a foreign language, it is therefore important to shed light on Arabic speech act performance. The aim of the current study is to examine how Kuwaitis perform the speech act of favor asking, focusing on how the variables of power and distance affect core request strategies and modification. A discourse completion test containing 12 scenarios was administered to 30 native speakers of Kuwaiti Arabic, all of whom were male graduate and undergraduate students living in the U.S. The collected data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Findings and Conclusions: The findings suggest that speakers of higher power (+P) prefer to use more direct strategies. This was suggested through the use of direct core strategies. It was also found that Kuwaitis who held more power tend to use the least modifications. On the other hand Kuwaitis who were in less power (-P) and equal power (=P) seemed to prefer more conventionally indirect strategies when selecting the core favor. More specifically it seemed that overall in both (-P) and (=P) situations Kuwaitis preferred the use of conventionally indirect core strategy (query preparatory). This is a universal finding in many languages such as English, Hebrew, Yemeni and Moroccan Arabic. As to modifications in (-P) and (=P) scenarios, the findings suggest that although (-P) scenarios had higher modifications than (+P), it seemed that the highest use of modifications were used in (=P) situations to enhance brotherhood, solidarity and sincerity.

Abstract: This study investigates favor asking in Kuwaiti Arabic. It focuses on the effect of social power and distance in the selection of core strategies and modifications to the core favor. Responses were elicited from native speakers of Kuwaiti Arabic (n=30) through discourse completion tests (DCTs) containing 12 scenarios with variations in power and distance between interlocutors. The findings of the study were that Kuwaiti core requests were influenced by power, but not by distance. The frequency of overall modifier use was also affected by power, as was the frequency of many individual modifiers. However, distance did not influence the selection of modifiers.

ADVISOR’S APPROVAL: Dr. Gene Halleck ________________

FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF...

Documents

Transcript of FAVOR ASKING IN KUWAITI ARABIC: EFFECTS OF...