BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2007, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 119 - 141, 23.03.2012

Sohrab Rezaei

Abstract

References

  • Asdjodi, M. (2001). A comparison between ta'arof in Persian and limao in Chinese. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 148, pp. 71-92.
  • Austin, J.L. (1998). How to do things with words. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics:
  • Critical concepts: Vol. 2. Speech act theory and particular speech acts
  • (pp. 7-28). London: Routledge -. 10
  • Babaii, E. (1998) On the role of context in selecting politeness strategies: the case of social status and degree of familiarity. Unpublished manuscript, Shiraz University, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages.
  • Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic Variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21, (4), 517-552.
  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3,29-59.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J . & Kaspers, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Brown, P & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universats in language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Council of Europe. (2000). A common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
  • Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J . Morgan (Eds.)Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3 {pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Pragmatics, 26, 613-634.
  • Koutlaki, S. A. (1997). Persian system of politeness and the Persian concept of face with some reference to EFL teaching to Iranian native speakers, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff.
  • KoutlakvS.-A^(2002) ^Offersand-expiessions-of4han ks-as-f ace-en hanGing-actsf
  • tae'arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,1733-1756.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English {2001). London: Longman.
  • O'Driscoll, J . (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 1-32.
  • Rafiee, A. (1992). Variables of communicative incompetence in the performance of Iranian learners of English and English learners of Persian.
  • Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London: University of London.
  • Rose, K.R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western Contexts. Applied Linguistics, 75(1), 1-14.
  • Sahragard, R. (2000). Politeness in Persian: A cultural pragmatic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester, School of Education, Leicester.
  • Searie, J.R. (1976). A classification of iliocuiionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1), 1-24.
  • Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in Greece and England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,1 -24.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech Acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language Society, 15, 349-374.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction, Trends in linguistics studies and monographs 53. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Zimin, S. (1981). Sex and politeness: Factors in first- and second-language use. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 35-58.

Year 2007, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 119 - 141, 23.03.2012

Sohrab Rezaei

Abstract

Kültür ve dil arasındaki bağımlılığı kolaylıkla göstermesi
bakımından, son yıllarda birçok disiplinde nezaket stratejileri üzerine
çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmada da, farklı iki dil kullanıcıları olan Türk
ve İranlı öğrenciler üzerinde kültürel farklılıkların etkisinin ortaya
çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Kuramsal boyutu Brown ve Levinson tarafından
önerilen araştırma, İranlı ve Türk erkek-kadın öğrencilerin farklı
durumlarda etkileşim içinde oldukları erkek ve kadınlara yönelik nezaket
stratejileri kullanımını göstermek üzere uyarlanmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları
katılımcılar arasında cinsiyet ve kültürten kaynaklanan Önemli farklar
olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Dil Kültür Nezaket Stratejileri Olumlu Nezaket Olumsuz Nezaket Cinsiyet

References

  • Asdjodi, M. (2001). A comparison between ta'arof in Persian and limao in Chinese. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 148, pp. 71-92.
  • Austin, J.L. (1998). How to do things with words. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics:
  • Critical concepts: Vol. 2. Speech act theory and particular speech acts
  • (pp. 7-28). London: Routledge -. 10
  • Babaii, E. (1998) On the role of context in selecting politeness strategies: the case of social status and degree of familiarity. Unpublished manuscript, Shiraz University, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages.
  • Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic Variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21, (4), 517-552.
  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3,29-59.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J . & Kaspers, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Brown, P & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universats in language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Council of Europe. (2000). A common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
  • Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J . Morgan (Eds.)Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3 {pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Pragmatics, 26, 613-634.
  • Koutlaki, S. A. (1997). Persian system of politeness and the Persian concept of face with some reference to EFL teaching to Iranian native speakers, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff.
  • KoutlakvS.-A^(2002) ^Offersand-expiessions-of4han ks-as-f ace-en hanGing-actsf
  • tae'arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,1733-1756.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English {2001). London: Longman.
  • O'Driscoll, J . (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 1-32.
  • Rafiee, A. (1992). Variables of communicative incompetence in the performance of Iranian learners of English and English learners of Persian.
  • Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London: University of London.
  • Rose, K.R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western Contexts. Applied Linguistics, 75(1), 1-14.
  • Sahragard, R. (2000). Politeness in Persian: A cultural pragmatic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester, School of Education, Leicester.
  • Searie, J.R. (1976). A classification of iliocuiionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1), 1-24.
  • Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in Greece and England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,1 -24.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech Acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language Society, 15, 349-374.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction, Trends in linguistics studies and monographs 53. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Zimin, S. (1981). Sex and politeness: Factors in first- and second-language use. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 35-58.

Year 2007, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 119 - 141, 23.03.2012

Sohrab Rezaei

Abstract

References

  • Asdjodi, M. (2001). A comparison between ta'arof in Persian and limao in Chinese. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 148, pp. 71-92.
  • Austin, J.L. (1998). How to do things with words. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics:
  • Critical concepts: Vol. 2. Speech act theory and particular speech acts
  • (pp. 7-28). London: Routledge -. 10
  • Babaii, E. (1998) On the role of context in selecting politeness strategies: the case of social status and degree of familiarity. Unpublished manuscript, Shiraz University, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages.
  • Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic Variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21, (4), 517-552.
  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3,29-59.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J . & Kaspers, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Brown, P & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universats in language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Council of Europe. (2000). A common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
  • Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper Colophon.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J . Morgan (Eds.)Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3 {pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Pragmatics, 26, 613-634.
  • Koutlaki, S. A. (1997). Persian system of politeness and the Persian concept of face with some reference to EFL teaching to Iranian native speakers, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff.
  • KoutlakvS.-A^(2002) ^Offersand-expiessions-of4han ks-as-f ace-en hanGing-actsf
  • tae'arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,1733-1756.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English {2001). London: Longman.
  • O'Driscoll, J . (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 1-32.
  • Rafiee, A. (1992). Variables of communicative incompetence in the performance of Iranian learners of English and English learners of Persian.
  • Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London: University of London.
  • Rose, K.R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western Contexts. Applied Linguistics, 75(1), 1-14.
  • Sahragard, R. (2000). Politeness in Persian: A cultural pragmatic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester, School of Education, Leicester.
  • Searie, J.R. (1976). A classification of iliocuiionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1), 1-24.
  • Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in Greece and England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,1 -24.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech Acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language Society, 15, 349-374.
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction, Trends in linguistics studies and monographs 53. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Zimin, S. (1981). Sex and politeness: Factors in first- and second-language use. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 35-58.
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Sohrab Rezaei This is me

Publication Date March 23, 2012
Published in Issue Year 2007 Volume: 4 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Rezaei, S. (2012). HAYEF Journal of Education, 4(2), 119-141.
AMA Rezaei S. HAYEF Journal of Education. March 2012;4(2):119-141.
Chicago Rezaei, Sohrab. HAYEF Journal of Education 4, no. 2 (March 2012): 119-41.
EndNote Rezaei S (March 1, 2012) HAYEF Journal of Education 4 2 119–141.
IEEE S. Rezaei, HAYEF Journal of Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 119–141, 2012.
ISNAD Rezaei, Sohrab. HAYEF Journal of Education 4/2 (March 2012), 119-141.
JAMA Rezaei S. HAYEF Journal of Education. 2012;4:119–141.
MLA Rezaei, Sohrab. HAYEF Journal of Education, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012, pp. 119-41.
Vancouver Rezaei S. HAYEF Journal of Education. 2012;4(2):119-41.