A gendered study of refusal of request speech act in the three languages of Persian, English and Balouchi: a within language study
-
Moafian Fatemeh
,
Yazdi Naji
Abstract
This study investigated the manifestation of refusal of request speech act among Persian, English and Balouchi speakers with a focus on gender. The role of interlocutors’ social status was also studied in this regard. To this aim, 180 participants (60 persons in each language including 30 females and 30 males) took part in the study. The instrument was a discourse completion task with six real life situations. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics and Chi-square were employed. The findings revealed both similarities and differences in the realization of refusal of request speech act between males and females in the three languages.
Funding statement: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendices
Appendix A: The English DCT
Instructions: Please read the following 6 situations. In each situation you will be asked to write a response in the blank after “you.” Respond as you would in an actual conversation. Please bear in mind that you are supposed to refuse all these requests.
Situation 1: You are at the office in a meeting with your boss. It’s closing to the end of the day and you want to leave work.
Boss: If you don’t mind, I’d like you to spend an extra hour or two tonight so that we can finish up with this work.
You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Boss: That’s too bad. I was hoping you could stay.
Situation 2: You are an English teacher in a language school. One of your colleagues can’t attend one of his classes. The manager asks you to handle the class instead of him but you’ve already planned to do something.
Manager: Mrs Smith has a very important exam tomorrow and he is not well-prepared. Could you handle his class this afternoon please?
You: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Manager: Well, I have to look for someone else then.
Situation 3: You are a junior in college. You attend classes regularly and take good notes. Your friend often misses a class and asks you for the lecture notes.
Classmate: Oh God! We have an exam tomorrow but I don’t have notes from last week. I’m sorry to ask you this, but could you please lend me your notes once again?
You: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Classmate: O.K, then I guess I’ll have to ask somebody else.
Situation 4: Your friend asks to use your car to go to Duncan. Knowing that he is a careless and unskillful driver, you don’t want to lend him/her your car.
Your friend: Would you mind lending me your car to go to Duncan.
You: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Your friend: That’s too bad. I guess I have to take the bus.
Situation 5: You are the owner of a language institute. One of your teachers asks to speak to you in private.
Teacher: As you know, I have been here just over a year now, and I know you’ve been pleased with my work here, but to be quite honest, I really need an increase in pay.
You: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Teacher: Then I guess I’ll have to look for another institute.
Situation 6: You are a university professor. You have administered a linguistics midterm test but students have not got good scores .One of the students who represents others asks for another test.
Student: It seems that students have not performed well on the test. Could you administer another test please?
You: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Student:That’s too bad! So we have to study hard for the final exam.
Dear participant, thank you very much for your time and help.
Appendix B: The Gender Wise Frequency of the Refusal Strategies Used by the Persian Participants with Respect to the Interlocutors’ Social Status and the Results of Chi-Square Applied to the Data
| Frequency (Males) | Frequency (Females) | Chi-Square (Males) | Chi-Square (Females) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher | Equal | Lower | Higher | Equal | Lower | χ2 | df | P | χ2 | df | P | |
| I. Direct | ||||||||||||
| IA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IB1 | 12 | 23 | 15 | 12 | 22 | 14 | 3.880 | 2 | 0.144 | 3.500 | 2 | 0.174 |
| IB2 | 22 | 17 | 16 | 30 | 23 | 22 | 1.127 | 2 | 0.569 | 1.520 | 2 | 0.468 |
| Total | 34 | 40 | 31 | 42 | 45 | 36 | 1.200 | 2 | 0.549 | 1.024 | 2 | 0.599 |
| II. Indirect | ||||||||||||
| IIA | 46 | 27 | 20 | 52 | 28 | 14 | 11.677 | 2 | 0.003 | 23.574 | 2 | 0.000 |
| IIB | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIC | 66 | 63 | 57 | 59 | 60 | 51 | 0.677 | 2 | 0.713 | 0.859 | 2 | 0.651 |
| IID | 8 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 3.217 | 2 | 0.200 | 6.091 | 2 | 0.048 |
| IIE | 6 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 4 | 2 | – | – | – | 12.400 | 2 | 0.002 |
| IIF | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIG | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIH | 3 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 3 | – | – | – | 3.294 | 2 | 0.193 |
| III2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III3 | 0 | 19 | 17 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 18.166 | 2 | 0.000 | – | – | – |
| III4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III7* | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIJ1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIJ2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1c | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1d | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2c | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2d | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2e | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIL* | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIM* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 143 | 147 | 127 | 154 | 127 | 116 | 1.612 | 2 | 0.447 | 5.778 | 2 | 0.056 |
| III. Adjuncts to Refusals | ||||||||||||
| IIIA | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIID | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIE* | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIF* | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 3 | – | – | – | 17.385 | 2 | 0.000 |
| IIIG* | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 11 | 10 | 12 | 8 | 15 | 19 | 0.182 | 2 | 0.913 | 4.429 | 2 | 0.109 |
| Total | 188 | 197 | 170 | 204 | 187 | 171 | 2.043 | 2 | 0.360 | 2.907 | 2 | 0.234 |
Appendix C: The Gender Wise Frequency of the Refusal Strategies Used by the English Participants with Respect to the Interlocutors’ Social Status and the Results of Chi-Square Applied to the Data
| Frequency (Males) | Frequency (Females) | Chi-Square (Males) | Chi-Square (Females) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher | Equal | Lower | Higher | Equal | Lower | χ2 | df | P | χ2 | df | P | |
| I. Direct | ||||||||||||
| IA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IB1 | 5 | 14 | 16 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 5.886 | 2 | 0.053 | 3.000 | 2 | 0.223 |
| IB2 | 20 | 14 | 13 | 23 | 17 | 18 | 1.830 | 2 | 0.401 | 1.069 | 2 | 0.586 |
| Total | 25 | 28 | 29 | 27 | 27 | 28 | 0.317 | 2 | 0.853 | 0.024 | 2 | 0.988 |
| II. Indirect | ||||||||||||
| IIA | 42 | 34 | 30 | 49 | 39 | 32 | 2.113 | 2 | 0.348 | 3.650 | 2 | 0.161 |
| IIB | 2 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 3 | – | – | – | 5.545 | 2 | 0.062 |
| IIC | 51 | 43 | 40 | 61 | 59 | 43 | 1.448 | 2 | 0.485 | 3.583 | 2 | 0.167 |
| IID | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 17 | 0.471 | 2 | 0.790 | 4.647 | 2 | 0.098 |
| IIE | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIF | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIG | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIH | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III3 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 6.500 | 2 | 0.039 | – | – | – |
| III4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 12 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III7* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIJ1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIJ2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1c | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1d | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2a | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2c | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2d | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2e | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIL* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIM* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 112 | 98 | 100 | 145 | 142 | 135 | 1.110 | 2 | 0.574 | 0.374 | 2 | 0.829 |
| III. Adjuncts to Refusals | ||||||||||||
| IIIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIB | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIC | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIID | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 16 | – | – | – | 25.332 | 2 | 0.000 |
| IIIE* | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIF* | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIG* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 27 | – | – | – | 21.050 | 2 | 0.000 |
| Total | 141 | 129 | 135 | 178 | 176 | 190 | 0.533 | 2 | 0.766 | 0.632 | 2 | 0.729 |
Appendix D: The Gender Wise Frequency of the Refusal Strategies Used by the Balouch Participants with Respect to the Interlocutors’ Social Status and the Results of Chi-Square Applied to the Data
| Frequency (Males) | Frequency (Females) | Chi-Square (Males) | Chi-Square (Females) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher | Equal | Lower | Higher | Equal | Lower | χ2 | df | P | χ2 | df | P | |
| I. Direct | ||||||||||||
| IA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IB1 | 25 | 27 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 34 | 0.104 | 2 | 949 | 1.032 | 2 | 0.597 |
| IB2 | 32 | 21 | 32 | 42 | 20 | 33 | 2.847 | 2 | 0.241 | 7.726 | 2 | 0.021 |
| Total | 60 | 48 | 57 | 69 | 54 | 67 | 1.418 | 2 | 0.492 | 2.095 | 2 | 0.351 |
| II. Indirect | ||||||||||||
| IIA | 21 | 17 | 3 | 32 | 12 | 7 | 13.073 | 2 | 0.001 | 20.588 | 2 | 0.000 |
| IIB | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIC | 63 | 74 | 28 | 57 | 63 | 37 | 20.982 | 2 | 0.000 | 7.083 | 2 | 0.029 |
| IID | 2 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIE | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIF | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIG | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIH | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III1 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III3 | 0 | 10 | 17 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 16.222 | 2 | 0.000 | – | – | – |
| III4 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| III7* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIJ1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIJ2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1c | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK1d | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2c | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2d | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIK2e | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIL* | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIM* | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 99 | 121 | 89 | 94 | 87 | 70 | 5.204 | 2 | 0.074 | 3.641 | 2 | 0.162 |
| III. Adjuncts to Refusals | ||||||||||||
| IIIA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIB | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIC | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIID | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIE* | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IIIF* | 5 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 9.364 | 2 | 0.009 | – | – | – |
| IIIG* | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 10 | 16 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1.400 | 2 | 0.497 | – | – | – |
| Total | 169 | 185 | 160 | 167 | 147 | 139 | 1.872 | 2 | 0.392 | 2.755 | 2 | 0.252 |
References
Abed, Ahmed Qadoury. 2011. Pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners’ refusals. International Journal of English Linguistics 1(2). 166–185.10.5539/ijel.v1n2p166Search in Google Scholar
Arani, Shohreh Shahpouri & Narges Soltani Tehrani. 2013. The impact of age and sex on the refusal strategies used by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 2(4). 111–117.Search in Google Scholar
Beebe, Leslie M & Tomoko Takahashi. 1989. Sociolinguistic variation in face threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In Miriam R Eisenstein (ed), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation, 199–218. New York: Plenum Press/10.1007/978-1-4899-0900-8_13Search in Google Scholar
Beebe, Leslie M, Tomoko Takahashi & Robin Uliss-Weltz. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Robin C Scarcella, Elaine S Andersen & Stephen D Krashen (eds), Developing communicative competence in second language, 55–73. New York: Newbury House/Search in Google Scholar
Boonkongsaen, Nathaya. 2013. Filipinos and Thais saying “no” in English. Journal of Humanities Regular 16(1). 23–40.10.1163/26659077-01601002Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1991. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Yuh-Fang. 2009. How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences 31(4). 477–493.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.002Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Hongyin Julie. 1996. Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2003. Studying compliments responses: A comparison of DCTs and naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24. 90–121.10.1093/applin/24.1.90Search in Google Scholar
Hashemian, Mahmood. 2012. Cross-cultural differences and pragmatic transfer in English and Persian refusals. The journal of Teaching Language Skills 4(3). 23–46.Search in Google Scholar
Hassani, Roholla, Mehdi Mardani & Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi. 2011. A comparative study of refusals: Gender distinction and social status in focus. Language Society and Culture 32. 37–46.Search in Google Scholar
Hedayatnejad, Fariba & Behzad Rahbar. 2014. The Effect of Gender on Realization of Refusal of Suggestion in Formal and Informal Situations among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal for Teachers of English 4(6). 20–43.Search in Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Reading in Psychology and Culture 2. 1. Doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014Search in Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J.César. 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays and verbal reports. In Alicia Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, 41–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins/10.1075/lllt.26.03felSearch in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele & Merete Dahl. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13. 215–247.10.1017/S0272263100009955Search in Google Scholar
Miri, Akram, Gholam Reza Rohani & Hamdollah Ravand. 2015. The effect of personality traits and gender on EFL Learner’s choice of refusal strategies. Cumhuriyet Science Journal 36(3). 1914–1929.Search in Google Scholar
Moaveni, Hiroko Tsuiki. 2014. A study of refusal strategies by American and international students at an American university. Unpublished master’s thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota.Search in Google Scholar
Morkus, Nader. 2009. The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.Search in Google Scholar
Nelson, Gayle L, Mahmoud Al Batal & Waguida El Bakary. 2002. Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26(1). 39–57.10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00037-2Search in Google Scholar
Parvaresh, Hamid Reza, Toktam Bidaki & Ali Akbar Khomeijani Farahani. 2014. Refusal strategies of Iranian EFL learners: The role of sex, age, education levels and politeness. International Journal of Education and Applied Sciences 1(3). 121–128.Search in Google Scholar
Phuong, Nguyen & Thi Minh. 2006. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Refusals of requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Queensland.Search in Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. 2003. Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1471–1506.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00200-XSearch in Google Scholar
Rose, Kenneth R. 1992. Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics 17. 49–62.10.1016/0378-2166(92)90028-ASearch in Google Scholar
Şahin, Sevgi. 2011. American English, Turkish and interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University.Search in Google Scholar
Shokouhi, Hossein & Milad Khalili. 2008. Pragmatic transfer in learners’ refusals: A case of gender distinction. Journal of the Faulty of Literature & Humanities, Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz 2. 215–252.Search in Google Scholar
Staal, Mark A. 2004. Stress, cognition, and human performance: A literature review and conceptual framework. NASA/JSC-TM-2004-212824. Houston: NASA Johnson Space Center.Search in Google Scholar
Sunderland, J. 1998. Girls being quiet: A problem for foreign language classrooms?. Language Teaching Research 2(1). 48–82.10.1177/136216889800200104Search in Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics. MA: Malden Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Zevallos, Zuleyka. 2014. Sociology of Gender. The Other Sociologist. Retrieved October 2, 2016. available: https://othersociologist.com/sociology-of-gender.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The relative role of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: a systematic review of literature
- New models of L2 achievement based on EFL learners’ joint attention and their emotional, social, and cultural capitals
- A gendered study of refusal of request speech act in the three languages of Persian, English and Balouchi: a within language study
- The left and right periphery in native and non-native speech – A comparative study between French L1/L2, Spanish L1/L2 and Swedish L1
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The relative role of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: a systematic review of literature
- New models of L2 achievement based on EFL learners’ joint attention and their emotional, social, and cultural capitals
- A gendered study of refusal of request speech act in the three languages of Persian, English and Balouchi: a within language study
- The left and right periphery in native and non-native speech – A comparative study between French L1/L2, Spanish L1/L2 and Swedish L1
