Arab females Arab males American females American males
Oral speech Initiation words Politeness strategies
According to the results of social distance variable, both Arabs and Americans used initiation words and politeness strategies as the most preferred oral speech strategies to use with
close friends in certain occasions. Additionally, the most preferred strategies used by both Arabs and Americans to greet non-close friends, were: initiation words and interrogative sentences. In terms of body language strategies, likewise, both Arabs and Americans used handshake, cheek kiss, and hug to greet close friends, while they both used handshake and hand waves to greet non-close friends.
In the questionnaire, the contextual variables varied from situation to another, thus results varied from one to another. Both Arabs and Americans produced the highest number of
strategies in Situation 2, and the least numbers in Situation 3 and Situation 4. The most used strategies by Arabs and Americans in situations 1 and 2, were: initiation words, politeness strategies, occasion phrases, and terms of address. While for body language strategies, both groups used handshake the most in Situation 1, and handshake, check kiss and hug in Situation 2.
The most used strategies by Arabs and Americans in Situation 3, were: ignoring the other person and walking away, using initiation words, or waving hand. While in Situation 4, both Arabs and Americans most used strategies were: initiation words, occasion phrases, or ignoring.
In Situation 5, both Arabs and Americans used initiation words, interrogative and
declarative sentences as the most used strategies in that scenario. However, in Situation 6, Arabs and Americans used variety of strategies, such as: initiation words, handshake, politeness
strategies, occasion phrases, or non-initiation (wait for the other part to initiate the greetings).
Chapter Five Discussion
This chapter provides a discussion of the interpretations of the findings reported in the previous chapter accompanied with the interview findings. The discussion is organized by the major topics and findings of the study. For each topic, the similarities and differences between native speakers of Arabic and native speakers of (American) English in their greeting
expressions, cultural norms, and contextual variables will be discussed.
The major topics and findings to be discuss in this chapter included: Oral greeting strategies by Arabs and Americans, Body language, and Other actions. Additionally, under the main categories, there are some subcategories included: Number of strategies, Use of strategies, Contextual variables and Religious occasions.
Oral Greeting Strategies by Arabs and Americans
Using oral speech was the most predominant among all greeting strategies performed by both Arabs (64.33 %) and Americans (76.07 %). Suggesting that, oral speech is the most
common strategy to convey greetings in both groups.
Number of strategies.
Responses’ length varied from a scenario to another and from one group to other.
Nevertheless, Arab participants- in general- used less number of oral speech strategies than Americans (See Table 4.2). In previous studies, some researchers claimed that non-native speakers tend to use lengthier speech than native speakers to convey the same message (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989, House & Kasper 1987, and House, 1996). To account for learner’s verbosity,
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) stated that it is learners’ lack of confidence in their linguistic abilities which requires them to talk more. In order to make sure that their communicative intent is being conveyed effectively, learners expand on and embellish their message. House and Kasper (1987) came up with similar conclusions in their explanation for learners’ use of too many words. They also said that verbosity is due to the lack of confidence on the part of the learner, however, they claimed that it is primarily the “insecure social status associated with the foreigner role” which causes this verbosity rather than insecurity in linguistic abilities (p. 1285).
The findings of this study came to be opposing to those in Blum-Kulka’s and other researchers.
In the present study I found that native English speakers tended to use more oral speech greeting strategies, and thus lengthier speech than non-natives. In the observation data, native speakers showed more ability to open the conversation, and use variety of greeting strategies, while most Arab participants used less number of strategies and stick to the routine greeting sentences.
Some explanations to that issue came from my interviewees, where some Arab participants said that they don’t really feel nervous being around native speakers of English because they are in a foreign country where they have to speak English most of the time.
Moreover, they mentioned that the image of dealing with friends and close people in the scenarios or real life situations makes it easier for non-native to start the conversation and have the courage to speak in a second language. In spite of that, most of Arab interviewees indicated that they do believe in the statement that says ‘the more you talk, the more you make mistakes’, and to avoid making mistakes, which may lead to pragmatic failure afterwards, they prefer to
‘make it short and simple’.
Use of strategies.
Conversational routine.
The conversational routine appeared when participants used initiation or opening words and terms of address. These two strategies represent the using of conversational routine in performing the daily greetings. The participants in the study exhibited a very strong tendency to use these two strategies into their greetings. Moreover, using initiation words was the most preferred strategy used by both Arabs and Americans. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) examined similar elements in their analysis of the CCSARP data, an element which they termed “alerters”.
The “alerters” in their research were contained several subcategories including first name, last name, title or role, term of endearment, etc., as well as “attention getters”, such as Hey or Hello.
According to their coding scheme, an alerter functioned exclusively as an opening element which preceded the actual speech act. The terms of address appearing in the present study fell into the same subcategories listed above –first name, last name, and endearment term- with the exception of “attention getters” which were coded here as opening words.
Unlike some results from old speech act studies, the participants who use English as a second language were able to initiate and start conversation with native English speakers without having any problems or feeling uncomfortable about it. Arab participants showed, in all data collection methods, the willingness to walk towards their English native speaker friend and start a conversation with him/her. Similarly, American participants had no problems starting the greeting procedures with friends from other groups and being able to communicate with them.
On top of that, some of American participants, especially males, used Arabic words to open the conversation like; Marhaba, Hala or Salam.
Opening words followed by terms of address were commonly used not only in the questionnaire responses, but also in the observation field, where real life situations occur.
Moreover, I enquired for more details in the interview with my participants, asking why they usually begin with opening words and/or terms of address. American interviewees indicated that they would use words like Hi, Hey, or Hello to “catch the hearer’s attention”, and they may use terms of address to refer to the person if he/she is standing between a group of people. There were also other responses by American participants on this question, like “I use opening words because this is the greeting routine” or “I use these words to open the conversation”. Arabic interviewees, on the other hand, did not have these clear ideas regarding the usage of opening words or terms of address in greeting exchange. For instance, in the response to the question of
Why do you use opening words and terms of address when you greet other people?, some of
them answered: “Because everybody do so”, “because it is the correct form to start theconversation” or just simply answered “I don’t know!”. These results may lead us to look back to the study which suggests that conversational routines have been found as a result of a successful use of language pattern for similar situations (Aijmer, 1996). In addition to this, the fact that non-native speakers may use these conversational routines, just because they are commonly used by native speakers, without understanding the real purpose of using these patterns (Hanania and Gradman, 1977).
Politeness strategies.
Using politeness strategies in greeting exchange has shown some differences between Arab and American groups in this study. Results showed that Arab participants used 15.92% (n=
60) of politeness strategies, while Americans used 24.47% (n= 126) of these strategies in their oral speech greetings. The subcategories under politeness are: compliment, offering help,
gratitude, inviting, and introducing one, all of them have been used more by Americans than Arabs, except for the category of inviting which has been used slightly more by Arabs.
These results lead us to think of some reasons why American participants tend to use more politeness strategies in their speech than Arab participants do. One of these reasons, in my opinion, could be the differences in cultures’ view of politeness, as the politeness theory suggests that a polite behavior is equivalent to socially proper behavior (Watts, 2003). However, all the previous politeness strategies are socially acceptable by both groups; some of these strategies may be very important for one culture and less important for the other. For instance, introducing one to other people is the most politeness strategy used by Americans who consider this as ‘a very important thing to do when you greet a friend within a group of people with whom you are not familiar’. On the other hand, some Arabic interviewees indicated that it would be ‘more polite’ to introduce yourself to other people in the same party, but doesn’t consider it as
‘impolite’ if you don’t do so. Furthermore, an Arab participant said that he would ‘let the host or the friend have the option of introducing him to his/her other friends’.
A second reason might be related to language use. In other words, native English speakers might feel more confident to express themselves to others using their native language opposing to ESL speakers who may prefer to stick to the routine and don’t want to risk being a creative user of a second language. By way of explanation, showing politeness is usually beyond the greeting routine that we use everyday, and it might require extra language skills to produce the ‘appropriate’ forms of politeness strategies. That in fact appeared in the observation field, where it was obvious that native English speakers were able to produce more language, and show more politeness strategies. Arab interviewees on the other hand, stated that they would offer help, show gratitude, or use compliment sentences in order to show more politeness. However,
they didn’t use as much strategies as native speakers did in the questionnaire, besides in the observation fields, they tended to use more politeness strategies in Arabic language (their first language), and much number in English (the second language).
Another possible reason could be personal choice. That is, the individual differences among the participants regardless the cultural or language differences. As example, in the same scenario I received different results and responses from the participants within the same group.
In scenario number two for instance, some of Arabic participants appeared to be very polite with offering help, compliment the host, showing gratitude for being invited, or even by giving nice gestures like bringing flowers or some dessert as a kind act of gratitude to the host. Other participants from the same group chose just to use the routine greeting exchange without using further politeness strategies, and the same variation applies to the American group as well. From this point we can assume that individual differences could be behind the personal choice of using politeness strategies or ‘being polite’ with other people, however, we should never ignore the role of gender differences in this case.
In her book “Gender and Politeness”, Sara Mills (2003) puts a heavy weight on arguing that the stereotype of women being more polite than men is no longer valid. However, the data received from this study has shown that females in both groups actually tend to use more politeness strategies and tend to care more about face threatening acts. Although the total politeness strategies used by American males and American females are equal, the tables show that females used the strategies of; offering help, compliment, and showing gratitude more than male participants who have shown greater numbers in using the strategy of introducing self.
Arabic females on the other hand, expressed more politeness strategies than male participants in all categories. Some female interviewees mentioned that ‘it is natural for a girl to be polite’, and
other noted that they have to ‘keep polite in order not to lose face’. Male interviewees on the other hand, indicated that they would ‘act more polite with ladies’ than with other men.
Furthermore, some Arabic male participants wrote on the questionnaire that they would offer help, compliment or use other politeness strategies, while in the observation field; they didn’t actually act as they said they would, although the circumstances were exactly the same. The only explanation I have for such situation is that Arabic male participants acted more naturally in real life situations and tried to be more idealistic in the written form of data collection.
Contextual variables.
Gender differences.
Overall, male participants from both groups, as a total number, produced more greeting strategies, and both female groups showed almost the same number of strategies (309 for American females, and 308 for Arabic females). Nonetheless, the order among the four groups, from the most to the least using of the greeting strategies, as follow; American male group, American female group, Arabic female group, and the last one is Arabic male group.
The differences between genders appeared not only in number of strategies or politeness issue, but also in many other levels. Giving for instance, male participants used more greeting strategies than females in four out of six scenarios, while females produced more greeting
strategies at only two scenarios. After analyzing the data I found that females tended to feel more comfortable interacting with other female close friends, as example; in scenario two and scenario six. Likewise, male participants showed more willingness to interact with other male friends and tried to act more politely with female friends.
At the interview, when I asked my participants if the gender of the person may influence the way they greet him/her, all female interviewees agreed that they would feel more
comfortable when dealing with a close female friend. None of the Arabic female interviewees stated that she has a close male friend, but they all have close female friends, while American females said that they have both male and female close friends, yet they always feel closer to their female friends. On the other hand, when I asked the same question to male participants, most of them claimed that they don’t really mind the gender of the person when they exchange greeting. Moreover, American male interviewees said that they have both male and female best friends, unlike Arabic males who stated that they only have male close friends and no close female friends ‘except if she is a girlfriend’.
Social distance.
One of the variables in this study was social distance, which is the level of familiarity and intimacy between people. Three out of six scenarios in the questionnaire were dealing with situations where close friends are the second part. The other three scenarios were about people with whom the participant is not familiar or close. The data showed that social distance does affect the greeting strategies used by both groups.
The results showed that; the closer the persons are together, the more greeting strategies they produce and the less misunderstanding could happen. For example; in the real life
observation field, I noticed that some Arabic participants who have American close friends, acted more naturally and comfortable when talking to native speakers, and they produced more accurate language with less pragmatic failures. American participants as well, who have some Arabic close friends, were able to produce greeting strategies using Arabic words or simple
sentences like; Marhaba. Kefak? ‘Hi. How are you?’, Kefak Wala? ‘Hey there! How you doing?’
or Salam ‘Peace’. Some of American participants also mentioned at the interview that they ask their Arabic friends to teach them the greeting words in Arabic language, and they often use them with their Arabic close friends.
In the literature review presented earlier, Migge (2005) claimed that when people are not very familiar with each other, they tend to use more politeness strategies in their speech.
However, the data of the current study showed that both Arabs and Americans used more politeness strategies with close friends than non-close friends or people they were not very familiar with. The differences between these results might be because of different interpretation of the politeness concept between this study and others. To clarify, politeness strategies used in the current study were: using compliments, offering help, showing gratitude, inviting for a drink or meal, and introducing self. Most of these strategies appeared to be more appropriate in the context where someone is greeting a close friend. For example, these are some sentences used by my participants to show politeness for a close friend: Hello my dear. How are you? [You look so