A. Azizifar Ph.D.

By:

Halimeh Ghanbari

September 2014

IN THE NAME OF GOD

Investigating apology strategies among Kurdish bilinguals, a case study in Ilam

By:

Halimeh Ghanbari

M.A. Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

In

Islamic Azad University, Ilam Science And Research Branch, Ilam, Iran

Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Humanities

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

EVALUATED AND APPROVED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE AS:

……………….. H. Gowhary, Ph.D., ASSISTANT.PROF. (SUPERVISOR)

…………. A. Azizifar., Ph.D., ASSISTANT.PROF. (ADVISOR)

…………S.Rahimipour, Ph.D.,ASSISTANT.PROF.(EXAMINER)

September 2014

Dedication

This thesis work is dedicated to my mother for giving birth to me at the first place and supporting me spiritually throughout my life.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to benevolent God who favored me one more time to carry out the present work. Thanks to all those great professors who are famous and well known and had a share in supporting me in writing this study.

My special thanks are to honorable professors: dear Dr. Habib G0whari as my advisor who guided me wisely and constantly while writing the current study I got benefit his keen suggestions.

I am really thankful to Dr. Akbar Azizifar who as the advisor admitted this suggestion humbly. I took advantage of his meticulous advice eagerly.

Last but not least, I am thankful to my family and those who patiently helped me in writing the current thesis.

Table of Contents

Dedication I

Acknowledgments V

Abstract V

Chapter one Introduction

1. overvie 3

1.1. Statement of the Problem 8

1.2. Research questions 10

1.3. Research hypothesizes 10

1.4. Significance of the study 11

1.5. Definition of technical terms 11

Chapter two: Literature review

2.1 Literature review 17

2.2. The related empirical studies 24

Chapter three: Methods and procedures

3.1. Introduction 32

3.2.Research questions 32

3.3. participants 32

3.4. collection procedure 33

3.5. Data analysis 34

Chapter four: Results and Discussion

4.1. Overview 36

4.2 .Demographic statistics 36

4.2.1. Demographic statistics regarding the age of the participants 36

4.2.2. Demographic statistics regarding the age of the participants 37

4.2.3. Demographic statistics regarding the language of participants 38

4.2.4. Demographic statistics regarding the education of the participants 38

Table4.4: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of education group 39

4.3. Descriptive statistics 39

4.3. Investigating the research hypotheses 42

4.3.1. First hypothesis 42

4.3.2. Second hypothesis: 46

4.3.4. Fourth hypothesis 53

4.4. As stated in chapter one, in this study four main hypothesis were formulated which are 56

4.4.1. First hypothesis 56

4.4.2. Second hypothesis 58

4.4.3. Third hypothesis 60

4.4.4. Fourth hypothesis 61

4.4.Discussion 62

Chapter five: Summary and conclusion

5.1. Overview 66

5.2. Summary of the study 66

5.3. Conclusion 67

5.4. Implication for practice 68

5.5. Limitations of study 68

5.6. Suggestion for further research 69

References 71

Appendix 78

List of Tables

Table4.1: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of Gender 36

Table4.2. Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of Age group 37

Table4.3. Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of language 38

Table4.4: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of education group 39

Table4.5. the average and standard deviation of intensification scores used by all groups 39

Table 4.6.The average and standard deviation of explanation scores used by all groups: 40

Table 4.7.the average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on taking responsibility 40

Table4.8: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on concern for the hearer 41

Table 4.9: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on denial of responsibility 41

Table4.10: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ score on offer of repair 42

Table 4.11: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and intensification strategy 43

Table 4.12: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and explanation strategy 43

Table 4.13: T- test for investigating the relationship between genders and taking responsibility 44

Table 4.14: T-test for investigating the relationship between gender and concern for the hearer 44

Table 4.15: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and denial of responsibility 45

Table .4.16: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and offer responsibility 45

Table 4.17: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and intensification strategy 46

Table 4.18: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and explanation strategy 47

Tabl4.19: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and taking responsibility strategy 47

Table 4.20: T-test for investigating relationship between age and concern for the hearer strategy 48

Table 4.21: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and denial of responsibility 48

Table 22.4: T-test for investigating relationship between age and offer of repair strategy 49

Table 23-4: T- test for investigating the relationship between language and intensification strategy 50

Table 24.4: T- test for investigating relationship between language and explanation strategy 50

Table 25-4: T- test for investigating relationship between language and taking responsibility 51

Table 4.26: T- test for investigating relationship between language and concern for the hearer. 51

Table 4.27: T- test for investigating relationship between language and denial of responsibility 52

Table 4.28: T- test for the investigating the relationship between language and offer of repair strategy 52

Table 4.29: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and intensification strategy 53

Table4.30: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and explanation strategy 54

Table4.31: T- test for investigating relationship between education and taking responsibility 54

Table 4.32: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and concern for the hearer strategy 55

Table 4.33: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and denial of responsibility strategy 55

Table 4.34: T-test for investigating the relationship between education and offer of repair strategy 56

Table 4.35. T- Test for investigating the relationship between gender and apology strategy 56

Table 4.36. T-test for investigating the relationship between age and apology strategy 58

Table 4.37. T- Test for investigating the relationship between language and apology strategies 60

Table 4.38.To- Test for investigating the relationship between education and apology strategies 61

List of figure

Figure 4.1. Frequency of respondents based on gender 37

Figure 4.2. Frequency of participants based on age 37

Figure4.3. Frequency of respondents based on language 38

Figure4.4. Frequency of participants based on education 39

Abstract

The present study was aimed at exploring and describing apology strategies among Kurdish bilinguals in Ilam, Iran. It attempts to systematize the various strategies used for the purpose of apologizing from the pragmatic point of view. The current study involves 80 subjects of Kurdish bilinguals in Ilam, consisting of 40 male and 40 female subjects. The subjects were chosen randomly to participate in this study. The data of this study was collected through a controlled elicitation method based on questionnaire which is a modified version of ‘Discourse Compilation Test’. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques such as T-Test have been used to show the meaningfulness of the relationship between gender, age, language, and education of respondents and their apology strategies. The prime finding of this study revealed that there is no meaningful relationship between gender, age, language and apology strategies used by Ilami people. However, education of respondents was found to be an effective factor on the use of apology strategy. The results indicated that the respondents have frequent tendency toward using “explanation”, “taking responsibility” and offer of “repair strategies”. They do not, however, show much inclination toward “intensification” and “concern for the hearer”.

Keyword: apology strategy, gender, bilinguals, speech act, Kurdish

Chapter one

Introduction

1. Overview

“Apologies are defined as primarily social acts, carrying effective meaning “(Holmes, 1990, P.1550). According to Brown and Levinson, apologies are politeness strategies. An apology is primarily a social act. It is aimed at maintaining good relation between participants. To apologize is to act politely, both in vernacular sense and in more technical sense of paying attention to the addressee’s face needs (Brown and Levinson, 1987). An apology is a fundamental speech act which is a part of human communication occurs in every culture to maintain good relations between interlocutors.

Goffman (1967, p. 14) referred to an apology as a remedy, the one essential element in a remedial interchange. This term nicely highlights the central function of