How Do Speech Acts Change with Regard to Gender of the Interlocutors?

Öz

Gender differences in refusal strategies have long been investigated with regard to gender of the speakers, however, adopted strategies may change with regard to gender of the listener as well. Bearing this in mind, this qualitative study aimed to investigate gender differences in refusal strategies focusing both on the gender of the speaker and the listener. It further investigated how the strategies differed when responding to interlocutors of different power statuses. The participants of the study consisted of 13 female and 10 male students studying at the faculty of education at a foundation university in Turkey. The data was collected through a discourse completion test that included situations that were likely to be refused and were close to natural contexts. The discourse completion test was in Turkish, the data was collected in Turkish and analysed by the taxonomy developed by Beebe et al. (1990). The findings revealed that both female and male participants mainly used indirect strategies in their refusals, however, regardless of gender of the interlocutors, female participants used direct strategies less than male participants. In addition, regardless of the gender, female participants were more direct to equal-status interlocutors. Male participants, on the other hand, aligned their strategies with the gender of the listener; they were more direct to male interlocutors. Their directness of male participants was not affected by the higher status of the listener.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• speech acts
• refusal strategies
• gender differences
• gender of the speaker

Kaynakça

1. Boynuegri, E. (2018). The effect of cultural environment on refusal strategies: A cross-cultural study on performance in British English and Turkish. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Hacettepe University, Ankara.
2. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
3. Canale, M. (2013). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (Seventh Impression) (Pp. 2-29). New York: Routledge
4. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
5. Chang, Y. F. (2009). How To Say No: An Analysis of Cross-Cultural Difference and Pragmatic Transfer. Language Sciences, 31(4), 477-493.
6. De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model: Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 85-110.
7. De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural consumer behavior: A review of research findings. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 181-192.
8. Félix‐Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage Refusals: Linguistic Politeness and Length of Residence in the Target Community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587-653.

9. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic Politeness in Mexico: Refusal Strategies among Male Speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158-2187.
10. Forbes, G., Zhang, X., Doroszewicz, K., & Haas, K. (2009). Relationships between Individualism-Collectivism, Gender, and Direct or İndirect Aggression: A Study in China, Poland, and The US. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 24-30.
11. Goffman, E. (1967). On Face-Work. Interaction Ritual, 5-45.
12. Hochstetler, G. (2011). Lingo: Locutionary,Illlocutionary, and Perlocutionary Acts. From Retrieved August 23, 2015.
13. Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 75-89.
14. Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia pacific journal of management, 24(4), 411-420.
15. Hymes, D. (2004). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality toward an Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor & Francis.
16. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1997). Individualism and collectivism.Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 3, 1-49
17. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2017). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge.
18. Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (2013). Family, Self, and Human Development across Cultures: Theory and Applications. Routledge.
19. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Introduction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (Pp. 3-17). New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Kaya, C. T. (2012). Bilingual Pragmatic Competence. Ph. D. Thesis. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen.
21. Kowner, R., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Culture and Status-Related Behavior: Japanese and American Perceptions of Interaction in Asymmetric Dyads.Cross-Cultural Research, 37(2), 178-210.
22. Liao, C. C., & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin Refusal Strategies. Language Sciences, 18(3), 703-727.
23. Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics (77-107) . In Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. E., & Schneider, K. P. (Eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (Vol. 1). Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
24. Merkin, R. (2015). The Relationship between Individualism/Collectivism.Journal of Intercultural Communication, (39).
25. Sadler, R. W., & Eroz, B. (2001). " I Refuse You!" An Examination Of English Refusals By Native Speakers Of English, Lao, And Turkish. Arizona Working Papers In SLAT, Volume 9, 53-90.
26. Sahin, S. (2011). American English, Turkish and Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Communıcation and Interlanguage Pragmatics Study . Master’s Thesis. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
27. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach (Second Edition). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
28. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts (Pp. 59-82). na.
29. Searle, J. R. (2003). Minds, Brains and Science (Thirteenth Edition). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The Development of Pragmatic Competence by Japanese Learners of English. JALT Journal, 8(2), 131-155.
30. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.
31. Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Japanese Communication Patterns: Insider Versus the Outsider Perspective.
32. Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225.
33. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview press.
34. Wolfson, Nessa, [989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.