1887
Volume 15, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The current study compared the realization of the speech act of suggestion between Saudi Arabia and New Zealand. A total of 160 participants took part in the study, half of whom were Saudis (40 identified as males and 40 as females) while the other half were from New Zealand (40 identified as males and 40 as females). The participants performed a role-play task consisting of six scenarios which varied in social distance and dominance. Compared to New Zealanders, Saudis produced a significantly higher number of direct suggestion strategies, in the form of performatives, imperatives and negative imperatives. On the contrary, New Zealanders used a significantly higher number of conventionalized forms, including specific formula and “need” structures, compared to Saudis. Additionally, the two groups of participants were differently influenced by such variables as gender, social distance and social dominance. The results are discussed in relation to the existing literature and the Mixed Game Model.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00207.dak
2025-08-18
2026-05-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alfghe, Abudalslam and Behbood Mohammadzadeh
    2021 “Realisation of the speech act of request, suggestion and apology by Libyan EFL learners.” Sage Open11(4): 21582440211050378. 10.1177/21582440211050378
    https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050378 [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Marrani, Yahya Mohammed Ali
    2023 “A study on the use of suggestion strategies among Yemeni learners of English.” Studies in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis4(1): 39–52. 10.48185/spda.v4i1.680
    https://doi.org/10.48185/spda.v4i1.680 [Google Scholar]
  3. Armasu, Veronica-Diana
    2012 “Modern approaches to politeness theory. A cultural context.” Lingua. Language and Culture11(1): 9–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aufa, Fauzul
    2011 “The use of discourse completion task (DCT) as explicit instruction on Indonesian EFL learners’ production of suggestion acts.” Journal of English and Education (JEE)5(2): 21–43. 10.20885/jee.vol5.iss2.art2
    https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.vol5.iss2.art2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson
    1978 “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.” InQuestions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, ed. byEsther Goody, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chalak, Azizeh and Samira Abbasi
    2015 “The effects of explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion speech act in the context of distance learning.” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research2(4): 275–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Darweesh, Abbas and Nesaem Al-Aadili
    2017 “Investigating Iraqi EFL learners’ performance in utilizing the speech acts of advice and suggestion.” International journal of English linguistics7(4): 179–190. 10.5539/ijel.v7n4p179
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n4p179 [Google Scholar]
  10. Edstrom, Anne
    2015 “Making suggestions while collaborating in L1 English: common structures and strategies.” Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies511: 27–48. 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20157167
    https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20157167 [Google Scholar]
  11. El-Dakhs, Dina Abdel Salam
    2021 “#StayHome A pragmatic analysis of COVID-19 health advice in Saudi and Australian tweets.” Language and Dialogue11(2): 223–245. 10.1075/ld.00089.dak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00089.dak [Google Scholar]
  12. El-Dakhs, Dina Abdel Salam and Mervat M. Ahmed
    2021 ““What I advise you to do is…” Giving advice in Egypt: The case of university teachers.” Language and Dialogue11(3): 405–432. 10.1075/ld.00099.dak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00099.dak [Google Scholar]
  13. 2024 “The realization of the speech act of suggestion in Alexandrian and Najdi Arabic: a variational pragmatic study.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11(1): 1–12. 10.1057/s41599‑024‑03754‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03754-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Farnia, Maryam, Akbar Sohrabie, and Hiba Qusay Abdul Sattar
    2014 “A pragmatic analysis of speech act of suggestion among Iranian native speakers of Farsi.” Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL)2(2): 48–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernández Guerra, Ana and Alicia Martínez-Flor
    2006 “Is teaching how to suggest a good suggestion? An empirical study based on EFL learners’ accuracy and appropriateness when making suggestions.” Porta Linguarum51: 91–108. 10.30827/Digibug.30548
    https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.30548 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hofstede, Geert H.
    2001Culture’s consequence: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hosni, Hala Rashed
    2020 “Advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study.” Journal of Pragmatics1551: 193–212. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, Ke and Wenyu Liu
    2023 “Delving into suggestion speech acts in Chinese authoritative academic discourse: A cognitive pragmatic perspective.” Pragmatics34(2): 161–189. 10.1075/prag.22022.li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22022.li [Google Scholar]
  19. Mao, Luming Robert
    1994 “Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’revisited and renewed.” Journal of pragmatics21(5): 451–486. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90025‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Martínez Flor, Alicia
    2005 “A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT.” Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses181: 167–187. 10.14198/raei.2005.18.08
    https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08 [Google Scholar]
  21. Martínez-Flor, Alicia and Yoshinori J. Fukuya
    2005 “The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions.” System33(3): 463–480. 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Muranova, Olga, Svetlana Koltovskaia, and Michol Miller
    2023 “A case study on the uptake of suggestions in online synchronous writing center sessions.” TESL-EJ26(4): 1–20. 10.55593/ej.26104a2
    https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26104a2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rajabi, Seifoddin and Majid Farahian
    2013 “The effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ awareness of suggestions.” Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods3(3): 28–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Rezvani, Ehsan, Abbass Eslami-Rasekh, and Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi
    2014 “Investigating the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic development: Speech acts of request and suggestion in focus.” International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning3(7): 1–12. 10.5861/ijrsll.2014.799
    https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2014.799 [Google Scholar]
  25. Santos, Denise and Gláucia V. Silva
    2008 “Making suggestions in the workplace: Insights from learner and native-speaker discourses.” Hispania91(3): 651–664.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Searle, John R.
    1976 “Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts.” Language52(4): 966–971. 10.2307/413305
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413305 [Google Scholar]
  27. Tannen, Deborah
    1986That’s not what I meant. New York: Ballantine Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1990You just don’t understand. New York: Ballantine Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1994Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Trosborg, Anna
    1995Interlanguage Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co. 10.1515/9783110885286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 [Google Scholar]
  31. Weigand, Edda
    2009Language as dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2010a “Language as dialogue.” Intercultural Pragmatics7(3): 505–515. 10.1515/iprg.2010.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.022 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010bDialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017 “The mixed game model: A holistic theory.” InThe Routledge handbook of language and dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 174–194. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Weigand, Edda and Istvan Kecskes
    (eds) (2018) From pragmatics to dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yıldız, Tuğba Elif Toprak
    2020 “A study on the use of suggestion strategies among Turkish EFL learners.” Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry11(1): 36–55. 10.17569/tojqi.505686
    https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.505686 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00207.dak
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00207.dak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cross-cultural research; Mixed Game Model; pragmatics; speech act; suggestion
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error