Advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study

Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study Hala Rashed Hosni a, b a b

Fayoum University, Egypt Taibah University, KSA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 24 May 2018 Received in revised form 4 September 2019 Accepted 4 November 2019

This is a cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study investigating the speech act of advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English as L1. The study attempts to find out the effect of the variables of power, distance and imposition on the levels of directness in the expression of oral advice. Two data collection instruments were employed: A role play task, and a multiple choice questionnaire. The results of the study showed the influence of culture on the performance as well as the perception of the speech act of advice giving by both Egyptians and Americans. More specifically, while Americans were found to perceive advice giving as an intrusive and overbearing act, Egyptians considered it an expression of friendliness and a means of providing assistance. These findings support the stereotypical description of Americans as being individualistic and that of Arabs as being collectivistic and group oriented. Although the study showed that caution is devised when giving advice to Americans, it also revealed that giving advice is relatively common among Americans and it can be a means of establishing good relationships and social harmony as in any other cultural context if properly phrased. © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Speech acts perception Advice giving Egyptian Arabic American English Cultural differences

1. Introduction It has been found that a speech act may have different socio-pragmatic functions in different cultures according to the social conventions of every society, so that what is appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate or unacceptable in another (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003; Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn, 2012; Cohen and Olshtain, 1993; Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993; Hinkel, 1997; Matsumura, 2001; Netz, 2014; Park, 2002; Wierzbicka, 1985). Consequently, learning a language involves more than learning the pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary; understanding the conventions of use and politeness norms of that language is equally important (Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn, 2012; Davies, 1987). Despite the fact that several studies have been conducted to investigate speech acts in English and Arabic e.g., apology (Andrawis, 1989; Harb, 2015; Osman, 1994), refusals (Al-Shalawi, 1997; Nelson et al., 2002), favour asking (Alrefai, 2012) expressions of gratitude (e.g., Al-Khawaldeh, 2014; Gabr, 1991), complimenting (Mazid, 1995; Morsy, 1992), complaining (Salah El-Din, 2000), and disagreement (Harb, 2016), most of these studies have focused on contrasting ways in which native speakers (NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) differ. Little attention has been paid to how native speakers themselves perceive these acts, whether they are acceptable or not, and what the linguistic and cultural norms associated with these acts are within the same culture (Felix-Brasdefer, 2004). Boxer (1996) has dealt with this issue emphasizing that before we teach

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.001 0378-2166/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

194

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

rules of speaking to language learners, we need to “tap into the tacit knowledge of native speakers of the language” (p.237). She maintains that this is the only way by which we can find out the true functions of different language forms as they are used by native speakers. Another important point is that most speech act studies have been criticized for being ethnocentric, concentrating on English (Nelson et al., 1996). The present study, however, is different because it attempts to contribute to an understanding of the sociolinguistic rules of Egyptian Arabic as well as those of American English. Conducting research on Egyptian Arabic speech acts is very important for two main reasons: the first one is the large cultural difference between American and Middle Eastern society (Brown, 2005); while the second, is that the research available on Arabic pragmatics in general to date is still insufficient. Nydell (1996), for example, states that “Foreigners find very little material available to help them understand Arab society. Not much has been written on the subject of Arab cultural and social practices, either in Arabic or in English” (p. xi). From a pedagogical point of view conducting such contrastive studies is important for several reasons. In the first place, these studies would help improve the learners' ability to produce as well as to receive the target language. In the second place, contrastive studies would provide answers to the controversial issue of the universality/language specificness of speech acts. Thirdly and most importantly, these studies would help to avoid the risk of attributing misunderstandings between interlocutors to their personal and/or cultural traits and attitudes, which are normally responsible for such biased remarks and stereotypes as friendliness, and aggression. Moreover, although most speech acts have been identified as problematic for learners of all levels, Fujimori and Houck (2004) revealed that the speech act of advice-giving in particular is often misused by NNSs because learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) usually experience two types of problems when giving advice: a) use of advice in situations in which advice is considered inappropriate; and b) use of inappropriate linguistic forms to express advice. Thus, transferring first language (L1) pragmatic rules into second language (L2) when giving advice should be avoided because it may result in inappropriate speech acts. For this reason, this study attempts to explain how native speakers of Egyptian Arabic and American English perform this act in their L1 in order to sensitize learners of both languages as to how this act could be performed. 2. Advice giving and politeness studies Advice can be defined as “a directive which advocates a course of action for the benefit of the addressee, and in which the consequence of compliance is desirable” (Tsui, 1994, p. 122). So, despite the fact that the advice giver tries to show his/her interest in the advisee's benefit and, consequently, seeks opportunities for comity, he/she may be seen, on the other hand, as someone who tries to show his/her superiority over the advice recipient by offering a suggestion that the recipient is not aware of; particularly if the advice is accepted (Wardhaugh, 1985; Shaw and Hepburn, 2013; Wilson and Kunkel, 2000). Thus, advice giving could be considered a face threatening act (FTA) and a face-supporting act (FSA) at the same time. The face threat is inherent in the advisor's invading the advisee's freedom of action and, in a sense, in putting the advice giver into a superior position over the advice recipient by recommending a course of action that the advisee is not aware of. Meanwhile, offering advice is an FSA because the advisor suggests that a certain course of events is in the advisee's best interest. Since advice giving is considered to be both an FTA and an FSA, the politeness norms associated with advice giving are expected to differ from one language/culture to another according to the degree of face threat and/or face support perceived in the act. Politeness as an abstract value exists in all speech communities, although its manifestations are different (Sifianou, 1992; Thomas, 1995; Meier, 1995; Skewis, 2003; Culpeper, 2011). However, there should be something universal about politeness; otherwise the processes of learning other languages and translating from one language to another would be impossible (Sifianou, 1992). Several classical studies have shown that there is a positive correlation between politeness and indirectness (Searle, 1979; Leech, 1983; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Thomas, 1995; Yule, 1996). Despite the existence of this trend in the literature, there are some other studies that reject reducing politeness theory to the concept of indirectness and stress that equating politeness with indirectness is a sign of the Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism (Wierzbicka, 1985, 1991; Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003; Skewis, 2003). Given this widespread interest, several models of politeness have been developed in the past thirty years (e.g. Lakoff, 1973; Grice, 1975; Leech, 1983; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1990). The most influential model of politeness in the last three decades, however, is that of Brown and Levinson (1987). Despite the fact that the term “politeness” is never defined in their whole book, Brown and Levinson argue that politeness must be communicated and that failure to convey the intention to be polite implicates the absence of polite attitude. Brown and Levinson's model is based on the concept of face, which they define as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (p.61). They further posit that every person has two types of face wants: positive and negative. Positive face refers to the desire to be approved of or appreciated by others while negative face refers to the freedom of action or the desire not to be imposed on by others. Accordingly, face could be threatened, lost, maintained or enhanced through interaction. They further state that their notion of face is a universal one, but various cultural aspects will add different specifications to the model. Brown and Levinson also support Leech's concept of absolute politeness stating that “some acts are intrinsically threatening to face and thus require softening” (p. 24). Accordingly, in order to reduce the possibility of face threat, participants may adopt certain strategies. The choice of these strategies depends on the amount of face threat involved in the act performed. Thus, it is the speaker's choice of certain forms in the light of the context which helps to communicate the message successfully and to convey the intention of being polite.

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

195

Brown and Levinson (1987) describe advice giving as an intrinsically face threatening act (FTA) as it threatens the addressee's negative face wants, even if the speaker (S) indicates that s/he does not intend to impede the hearer's (H) freedom of action. They further state that the seriousness of such FTAs differs according to the three parameters of: The relative social distance between interlocutors (D), the relative social power of the speaker and the hearer (P), and the level of imposition involved in the act (I). These three factors vary according to the context and the situation. Taking the variable of imposition as an example, they state that “to ask for a dollar is generally to ask for more than to ask for a dime. Yet to ask for a dime just outside a telephone booth is less than to ask for a dime for no apparent reason in the middle of the street” (P.79). Consequently, the imposition created in each situation is context relative. They further state these three variables are not only relative but also independent from each other. To prove their argument they provide the following example: They argue that if the two variables of power and imposition are held constant and small, we can easily infer that the first utterance is used when interlocutors are socially distant and that the second one is used when interlocutors are socially close. (1) (2)

Excuse me, would you by any chance have the time? Got the time, mate? (p. 80).

Consequently, distance here is the only variable that is responsible for the change in the form of the utterance. Despite the widespread influence of Brown and Levinson's model of politeness, it has been severely criticised. Fraser (1990), for example, wonders whether we could define the concept of face within a specific culture. Thomas (1995) also raises several questions concerning this model. In the first place, she rejects Brown and Levinson's claim that an FTA is threatening either to the hearer or the speaker, stating that some acts, such as apology, could be threatening to both of them. By the same token, Thomas challenges Brown and Levinson's claim that some acts are inherently face threatening, arguing that merely speaking to another person implies invading his privacy and, consequently, threatening his face. Another criticism comes from Bargiela-Chiappini (2003) who criticizes Brown and Levinson for their ethnocentrism and states that in order to reach a fruitful understanding of the concept of face in different cultures, many factors may be considered such as personal values, one's own self-concept, self-identity in various groups, role expectations and normative constraints. Moreover, she notes that “social embeddings and dynamism are two features of polite behavior” (p. 1465) that need to be revised and revisited because they could be clues for a new understanding of what constitutes polite behavior within a general theory of social behavior. Although most of the above cited studies have dealt with politeness, Culpeper (1996), in contrast, examined the phenomenon of impoliteness or the strategies that are meant to attack face and cause social disharmony. He differentiates between inherent impoliteness and mock impoliteness, stating that Brown and Levinson's as well as Leech's belief that some acts are inherently polite while others are inherently impolite regardless of context is not correct. He claims that only a minority of acts is considered as inherently impolite, especially the anti-social activities such as picking nose, or ear. Mock impoliteness or banter, on the other hand, refers to contexts in which impoliteness is understood to be untrue and it is not meant to cause social disharmony. On the contrary, it is, sometimes, meant to show solidarity and intimacy. However, he notes that this is not always the case because intimacy is “a vague notion that covers a number of independent variables” (p. 354). Thus, it is unreasonable to associate intimacy with impoliteness in all contexts. Culpeper concludes by asserting that impoliteness occurs when there is an imbalance of power or when the interests of the participants are at conflict. From a different angle, Haugh and Hinze (2003) introduce a different dimension of politeness which is based on what one thinks of others. In other words, they believe that politeness arises “when a speaker shows a positive evaluation of someone else through his or her behavior” (p. 1600). For example, when a speaker compliments a friend on a new haircut, the speaker shows that he approves or thinks favorably of his/her friend. Accordingly, politeness arises when the hearer recognizes the compliment and thinks that the speaker approves of his/her behavior. Despite the great controversy in the literature concerning the concept of politeness, as well as the severe criticism addressed to Brown and Levinson's (1987) model, one could not deny the importance of being polite when communicating with others. Holmes (1995) asserts that linguistic politeness helps to achieve a better understanding of what is being communicated and to make the interaction pleasant and enjoyable. More precisely, she states that “being polite makes others feel good” (p. 229). Cruse (2000) also confirms that the major purpose of being polite is “the maintenance of harmonious and smooth social relations in the face of the necessity to convey belittling messages” (p. 362). Although Brown and Levinson's model of politeness has been highly influential for over three decades, it has been criticized especially in regards to its cross-cultural applicability (Matsumoto, 1988; Fraser, 1990; Gu, 1990; Hosni, 2008; Harb, 2016, among others) and there remain a lot of unanswered questions. Fraser (1990), for example, states that there is no precise definition of the term “politeness”. Moreover, he notes that “the notion of politeness as universal is often proposed but seldom validated, even in Brown and Levinson's work” (p. 234). It can be safely concluded then that politeness is a universal phenomenon with language-specific strategies and conventions that could be judged according to the context as well as rules and conventions of the society. Hence, one cannot describe certain acts as inherently polite or impolite, but the whole context should be considered to determine whether the act is polite or not. Similarly, the level of directness alone cannot be taken as a parameter for judging politeness. Polite behavior could only be judged through the context-sensitive social norms that govern social encounters (Fraser, 1990; Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003: Culpeper, 2011). Consequently, the present study attempts to investigate the effect of these three variables on the level of directness in the expression of oral advice in Egyptian Arabic and American English as L1 to find out the whether other factors such as the socio-cultural values of the society and the politeness

196

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

strategies considered appropriate in a particular culture may also affect the formation as well as the perception of advice giving. Though the concept of “politeness” has been thoroughly investigated by researchers, the closely related concept of “culture” has not received similar attention. Moreover, while there are many dimensions in which cultural groups differ, two dimensions have received the greatest attention. The first of these is the well-researched individualistecollectivist dimension (e.g., Triandis, 1995; Ting Toomey, 1999), according to which individualists focus on individual goals, needs and rights more than community concerns. On the other hand, collectivists value in-group goals and concerns, with priority given to obligations and responsibilities to the group. Hofstede (1991) explains that individualism pertains to “societies in which ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family” (p. 51). Collectivism, by contrast, refers to “societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 51). Hofstede (1991) further indicates that individualism is a cultural pattern that is found in most northern and western regions of Europe and in North America. Collectivism, on the other hand, refers to a cultural pattern common in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America and the Pacific islands. Thus, it could be claimed that whereas Arab cultures seem to be closer to the eastern philosophies that promote collectivism, social relationships and concern for others, the Americans seem to be closer to the western philosophies that promote individualism, freedom of speech/action, logical thinking and independence. The second dimension mentioned in the literature is the concept of high-and low-context cultures, which refers directly to communication style types. Low-context cultures that value individualist goals, such as Australia, are known for being confrontational, and using explicit codes of speech. High-context cultures that value collectivist goals, such as those in East Asia, are known for being indirect and relying on implicit references and indirect speech acts (Triandis, 1995). Ting-Toomey (1999) argues that these two cultural dimensions are the keys to differing preferences between Easterners and Westerners when communicating with each other. She further proposes that individualist cultures, such as those of the US and Australia are more likely to use dominating and assertive speech styles involving direct speech codes, whereas collectivist cultures, such as those found in the East Asian nations are more likely to favour using indirect speech codes. Unfortunately, though it seems that these cultural dimensions affect the way language is formulated, most studies on speech acts have concentrated on the linguistic aspect of language use. However, in an increasingly interconnected world in which people from different cultural backgrounds are interacting, the need to investigate the cultural as well as the linguistic differences becomes extremely important in understanding how people behave. Lack of research on cultural traits and cultural identities of different societies is a major gap that has urged the researcher to conduct this study. That is why the present study is not only cross-linguistic but a cross-cultural study as well. From the above discussion, it should be clear that advice giving is a complex speech acts that cannot be translated literally from one language into another. Moreover, it is likely to be highly sensitive to the three variables of power, distance, imposition as well as other socio-cultural factors. Consequently, the objectives being sought in this study are three fold. The first objective is to investigate the acceptability and the appropriateness of the speech act of advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English. The second objective is to determine whether and how far the social variables: relative social power, relative social distance, and the amount of imposition affect the levels of directness when giving advice. Finally, it is hoped that the results obtained from the first two objectives would help to set the conventional formulas used for advice giving in the two languages involved.

3. The research questions The study attempts to answer the following questions: 1) Do Egyptian and American native speakers use similar levels of directness when giving advice in Arabic as L1 and English as L1? 2) How does the relationship between interlocutors - including relative social power and relative social distance - affect the directness and the shaping of advice? 3) How does the amount of imposition affect the directness and the shaping of advice?

4. Variables under investigation The study is intended to investigate the effect of the independent variables (power, distance and amount of imposition) on the dependent variables under study (levels of directness).

4.1. Dependent variables The level of directness of advice is the dependent variable of the study. Directness of advice is divided into three levels: direct, hedged and indirect.

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

197

a. Direct advice refers to advice giving utterances that include either imperatives or a modal verb of necessity or preference without hedging, e.g. “You shouldn't buy the book in this store. This place is expensive” (Hinkel, 1997, p.11). b. Hedged advice refers to advice giving utterances that contain explicit hedges, e.g. “Professor, you look tired. It's time to go home and get some sleep” (Hinkel, 1997, p.12). Hedges include expressions such as “You look”, “It seems that”, and questions such as “Why don't you…?", as well as impersonals such as "It's time to…" and the like. c. Indirect advice refers to utterances that could have more than one illocutionary force and in which no explicit or hedged advice is identified, (i.e. ambiguous utterances) e.g. “looks like you've had a long day” (Hinkel, 1997, p.12).

4.2. Independent variables Relative social power, relative social distance and the level of imposition/criticism involved in the act are the independent variables of the study. 1. Relative social power: Participants are divided according to relative social power into equals and non-equals. a. Equals: A relationship of equals is one where there is no social dominance between speakers, e.g. friends, or colleagues at work etc. b. Non-equals: In this relationship, one of the participants has power and dominance over the other, e.g. boss and employee. 2. Relative social distance: Participants are divided according to relative social distance into close and distant. a. Close: In this relationship, there is no social distance between interlocutors, e.g. close friends or family members. b. Distant: It is a relationship where there is a considerable social distance between interlocutors, e.g. acquaintances, or distant relatives. Strangers, however, were not included in this study because available research suggests that the speech act of advice giving requires some kind of familiarity between the interlocutors, or at least some shared concern around which the advice can be constructed (Wardhaugh, 1985). 3. The level of imposition: Situations are classified according to the level of imposition involved in the act into high and low. a. High: Situations involving a high level of face threat, e.g. advising someone to take care of his appearance. b. Low: Situations involving a low level of face threat, e.g. advising someone to read a certain book that will help in the research that he/she is doing. 5. Methodology 5.1. Data collection instruments In an attempt to reach reliable results, this study combines three data collection instruments: A role play task, a multiple choice questionnaire and observation sheets to collect naturally occurring data. 5.1.1. Role play task The study employed an oral role play task consisting of 16 situations eliciting advice (see Appendices 1 A & B). These situations were designed to capture the three independent variables of the study. More specifically, they were constructed in such a way as to systematically vary in the degree of imposition (high/low), relative social distance (close/distant) and relative social power between interlocutors (equal/non-equal). The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of the independent variables (power, distance, and level of imposition) on the dependent variables under study (levels of directness). Table 1 below illustrates the dimensions of independent variables in each situation. Among the sixteen situations, situations (1, 3, 4, 6, 7) were adapted from Hinkel (1997), though some revisions were made to the original. Situations (2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16), on the other hand, were either originated by the researcher or adapted from authentic advice-giving instances encountered by the researcher or some of her friends.

198

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

Table 1 Description of situations. Brief situation description

Situation dimensions Power

Distance

Imposition

1. Tired department Head 2. Nosy son 3. Studying Norwegian/Spanish 4. Buying expensive book 5. Carrying heavy things 6. Tired Student 7. Going to a distant repair shop 8. Nosy parent 9. Fat student 10. Buying expensive jacket (manager) 11. Tired friend 12. Fat department Head 13. Buying expensive jacket (employee) 14. Promotion 15. Studying compute science 16. Ironing clothes

SH S¼H S¼H S¼H S>H S ¼H SH SH S ¼H S ¼H S ¼H

þD -D -D þD -D þD þD -D þD -D -D þD -D þD -D þD

-I þI -I -I þI -I -I þI þI -I -I þI -I þI þI þI

In terms of instruments employed, the major strength of oral role plays was that they enabled the researcher to set up situations in which one can control the variables, which should help enrich our understanding of the speech act under investigation. Besides, they allowed subjects to speak freely giving them more time and space to express themselves. Thirdly and more importantly, they gave subjects the opportunity to face the complexities of face-to-face interaction. These face-toface encounters resulted in dynamic lengthy interactions in which participants negotiated their way to a resolution. However, they were not free of problems, as they were difficult to administer and time consuming. 5.1.2. Multiple choice questionnaires In order to test the validity of the data collected through the role play task, the researcher developed the second data gathering instrument, namely the multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ). The MCQ had the goal of establishing whether Egyptians and Americans viewed advice giving as similarly appropriate or not. The situations of the role play were used in the MCQ, but this time each situation of the MCQ was accompanied by three multiple choice selections in random order representing the three levels of directness in giving advice: that is direct, hedged, and indirect advice, as well as a fourth selection for opting out. Assumed interlocutors' relationships were also stated consistently in terms of power and distance in order to let subjects focus on the level of directness that they would use when giving advice. In all situations of the MCQ, the multiple choice selections were adapted from subjects’ responses to the role play task after being reduced to the head/main act and rated. Despite the fact that the role play task consisted of 16 situations, the MCQ was reduced to 14 situations, after omitting two situations. These two situations were omitted for two reasons, to minimize subjects' fatigue and complaining of the length of the task, and because most subjects opted out when responding to them in the role play task (A full copy of the MCQ is shown in Appendices 2 A&B). 5.1.3. Observation of naturally occurring data Third, an observation sheet (Appendices 3 A& B) was designed to collect naturally occurring data when available. On these observation sheets, the observer should write down, to the best of his/her ability, the exact words of the advice giver and the response of the advisee. Note takers were also told to use their intuitions to guess the age of the interlocutors as a well the relationship between them. 5.2. Subjects The subjects participating in this study were 140 (70 Americans & 70 Egyptians) graduate and undergraduate students studying in the American University in Cairo (AUC) and Fayoum University. Forty Egyptians responded to the Arabic version of the role play task and forty Americans to the English one. Besides, thirty subjects of each group responded to the MCQ. All the selected subjects were between the age of twenty to thirty five. 5.2.1. Egyptians The total number of Egyptian subjects participating in the study is 70; forty responded to the role play and thirty to the MCQ. All subjects were native speakers of Egyptian Arabic who were born and raised in Egypt. They were third or fourth year students enrolled in various departments at Fayoum faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University. 5.2.2. Americans The study involved 70 native speakers of American English who were born and raised in the USA. All of the selected subjects were temporarily living in Egypt at the time of data collection. Most of them were studying Arabic at the Center for

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

199

Arabic Studies Abroad (CASA) at the American University in Cairo (AUC). Their period of stay in Cairo at the time the study was conducted ranged from two weeks to two years.

5.3. Procedures 5.3.1. Role play task The role play task was administered at the American University in Cairo and Fayoum University (spring and summer semesters of 2005). The researcher went to the classrooms and explained the task to students, then arranged meeting times with those who were willing to do the task. Subjects were instructed to do the task in pairs, and to role play the situations as if they really happened to them. The researcher explained that the task was part of a cross-linguistic cross-cultural study comparing the way Egyptians and Americans give advice in their mother tongue. The subjects did the task orally recording it on an audiocassette recorder. They were also told to record any comments concerning the situations in general. During the process of taping, the researcher was always available to listen and explain anything when necessary. However, the researcher did not interfere unless asked to. The tape-recoded data lasted between 15 and 30 min for each pair; subjects were allowed to work at their own pace. These audiotapes were later transcribed, reduced to the advice proper utterances, tabularized and given to the raters to rate them in terms of the level of directness. 5.3.2. The MC questionnaire The MCQ responses were originally adapted from responses obtained in the role play task after being rated. It was administered nine months after the role play (spring semester of 2006). The researcher went to the classrooms, explained the task to the students, and gave copies of the MCQ to subjects to answer. Subjects were instructed to choose the statement that they thought would be most appropriate to say in each situation. Some of them did the task in their free time between classes, while others took it home and returned it completed two or three days later. The subjects who did the MCQ were not the same subjects who participated in the role play. 5.3.3. The natural data The researcher distributed, either by hand or through email, as many as 80 observation sheets in both languages. The collectors of the Arabic data were the researcher herself, many of her friends, colleagues and family members. As for the American naturally occurring data, forty sheets were given out to American students at the American University in Cairo. All of them were informed about the nature of the task and the study itself by the researcher as well as through the instructions written on the sheet itself; including the researcher's telephone number and her e-mail to contact her after completing the task. Unfortunately, most collectors did not complete their task. Therefore, the natural data component was totally excluded from statistical analysis. 5.4. Raters All subject responses to the role play as well as the natural data were given to raters to judge their directness on a threelevel directness scale. There were three raters (native speakers) for each subject group. The reason for assigning three raters is to achieve maximum objectivity in judging subjects' responses. The raters were given a scale of directness based on the scales developed by Hinkel (1997) and Park (2002). Using the scale of directness as well as their own intuition as native speakers, raters were asked to rate the utterances according to the level of directness. All raters were university graduates. One of the American raters was a Ph.D. holder working at AUC. Another was a librarian working at the same university. The third rater was a student who had not participated in the study as a subject, and was doing her M.A. All the three Egyptian raters were colleagues of the researcher at Fayoum University. Two of them worked in the same department (Department of English), while the third worked in a different department (Department of philosophy). All of them had a university degree and were already working on their M. A. degrees at the time the data were collected and rated. The raters worked independently and rated all the utterances in the role play task and natural data. The researcher sat with each rater individually, and explained the task in detail. They were told that their task was to judge the level of directness of each utterance produced according to a three-level rating scale that was given to them (See Appendices 4 A & B). They were also asked to underline the words that triggered their assessment if possible. Examples were provided to guide the raters. Raters gave a rating of 1, 2 or 3 (representing the three levels of directness) to each of the subjects' responses. When all the three raters agreed on one rating, that rating was given to the response. When two of the raters agreed, their rating was given to the response. When all the three raters did not agree, the researcher specified the utterances that yielded different ratings, arranged a second meeting with each rater and discussed the specified utterances with each rater alone till at least two of them agreed on one rating. Luckily, the utterances that yielded different rating were not many. Raters were instructed to write down any comments they had in the space allotted after each exchange (see Appendices 5A & B for samples of the rating questionnaire). 5.5. Data analysis In order to analyze the speech act of advice giving in terms of the levels of directness, several steps were followed. First, in order to save the time and effort of the raters, the researcher reduced subjects' responses in the role play task to the

200

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

advice proper utterances; i.e., the parts that serve to perform the advice independently from other parts. Second, all subject responses to each of the individual situations of the role play task, were tabulated and given to raters to judge their directness on a three-level directness scale (see Appendices 5 A & B). There were three raters (native speakers) for each subject group. Third, the data obtained after the rating as well as subjects' responses to the MCQ were analyzed using statistical instruments appropriate for the nature of the data and the variables under investigation (nominal and ordinal). The statistical analysis of the data was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Two types of statistical tests were employed to examine the data. First, ManneWhitney (testing two groups) was used to find out whether or not there is a significant difference between the performance of Egyptians and Americans in individual situations of the role play as well as the MCQ. Second, Chi-square was used to find out whether there was a significant relationship between the independent variables (power, distance, and imposition) and the dependent variables (the levels of directness). To be consistent with previous research, an alpha level of .05 was chosen as the cut-off score for significance for all analyses in the study. Following are some examples of the interactions that took place during the application of role play task (the advice proper utterances are underlined). Each two of these interactions are taken from the same situation; one example is from the Arabic data and the other from the English corpus. Example (1) Egyptian Arabic (Situation 13) ‫ﺇﺯﻳﻚ ﻳﺎ ﺃﻳﻤﻦ؟ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺇﻳﻪ؟ ﺃﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺇﻳﻪ؟‬:‫ﺍ‬ .‫ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺪ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍ ﺧﻠﺼﺖ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺷﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻫﺎﺗﺨﺼﺺ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﺗﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ‬:‫ﺏ‬ .!‫ﻳﺎ ﻧﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﺑﻴﺾ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻘﻴﺘﺶ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﺩﻩ‬:‫ﺍ‬ !‫ﻟﻴﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻨﻰ ﺩﻩ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ‬:‫ﺏ‬ ‫ ﺧﺶ ﻳﺎ‬.‫ﻧﺖ ﺑﺘﺴﻘﻂ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎ‬.‫ ﺃﻧﺖ ﻧﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻧﻚ ﻙ‬،‫ ﺇﻫﺪﺍ ﺷﻮﻳﺔ ﻛﺪﺓ ﻭﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﻙ‬. ‫ﻳﺎ ﻋﻢ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺷﻄﺢ ﻧﻄﺢ ﺯﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻘﻮﻟﻮﺍ‬:‫ﺃ‬ ‫ﻋﻢ ﺁﺩﺍﺏ ﻭﻻﺗﺠﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺪﻩ ﻭﻻ ﺣﺎ ﺟﻪ‬ .‫ ﻻ ﺑﺲ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺕ ﻭﺷﺎﻳﻒ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻟﻮ ﻳﺄﺳﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻋﻠﺸﺎﻥ ﻓﺸﻠﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ ﻧﻴﺄﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬:‫ﺏ‬ Translation of example (1) a. How are you Ayman? What about you exam results? b. Thanks God, I've finally finished and I'm going to study computer science. a. What! Haven't you thought of something else? b. Why? It's the language of the age. a. “As soon as he takes a course of action, he goes too far”! Think for a while and try to study something that is appropriate for you. Do you remember how many times you failed in mathematics and chemistry. Why don't you study literature or commerce or something like that? b. No, I've thought enough and I think computer science is better. If we lose hope because we've failed in one thing before, we'll lose hope of the whole life.

Example (2) American English (Situation 13) a : Hey Jim, nice to see you here. How are you doing? b : Fine how is every thing going? a : Every thing is going well b : I heard that you're interested in computer science. a : Yea, I think I'm going to study it. There are a lot of work opportunities in that field. b : Right, but … you know, computer science is very complicated I think that you might have problems in it as you had trouble in math and science . So I think it would be a better idea if you study something easier like literature or commerce. a : Yea, but computer science is important. I could actually get a job with it. I want to study something that is really useful. b : I was just suggesting. a : Well, thanks.

Example (3) Egyptian Arabic (Situation 1) ‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺣﻀﺮﺗﻚ ﺷﻜﻠﻚ ﺗﻌﺒﺎﻥ ﻗﻮﻱ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺮﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻗﺪﺭ ﺃﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ؟‬،‫ ﻣﺴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﻳﺎ ﺩﻛﺘﻮﺭ‬:‫ﺍ‬ .‫ ﻻ ﺷﻜﺮﺍً ﺃﻧﺎ ﻗﺮﺑﺖ ﺃﺧﻠﺺ‬:‫ﺏ‬ Translation of example (3) a. Good evening doctor, you look really tired. Can I help you? b. No, thanks. I'm almost done.

Example (4) American English (Situation 1) a. Excuse me sir, I don't want to be nosy but you look really tired. I just wanted to make sure that you are all right. b. Thank you for coming by and noticing. I0 m ok. I just have a presentation tomorrow. a. Can l get you coffee or something? b. No, no thank you. a. Oh, good luck with your presentation. b. Thank you. Have a nice day. See you in class. a. See you in class.

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

201

Example (5) Egyptian Arabic (Situation 2) .‫ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻋﺎﻳﺰ ﺃﻗﻮﻟﻚ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻨﻴﻪ ﻧﺎﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺿﻴﻪ ﻓﺒﻼﺵ ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻰ ﺣﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺨﺼﻜﺶ‬:‫ﺃ‬ .‫ﻋﻤﻮﻣًﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻨﺘﺶ ﺃﻗﺼﺪ‬، ‫ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﺑﺎ‬:‫ﺏ‬ Translation of example (5) a. Listen son I want to tell you that “he who interferes in others' affairs, will face what may displease him”. You shouldn't be so nosy. b. Ok dad, anyway I didn't mean to be nosy. Example (6) English (Situation 2) A : Son you have been a little bit nosy when you asked what was in the box. That might not be tactful. You just need to respect people's privacy. B : I was just asking what was inside the box. I didn't think I had done anything wrong.

6. Results 6.1. Role play task In this section, situations of the role play are clustered for each of the independent variables, (power, distance, and imposition) highlighting the effect of each of these variables on the dependent variables (levels of directness). 6.1.1. Relative social power The variable of relative social power is divided into equals and non-equals. 6.1.1.1. Equals. When the advisor and advisee are equal, there is no social dominance between them, e.g. friends, or colleagues at work etc. According to Table 2, there is a remarkably significant relationship between being socially equal interlocutors and the level of directness in advice giving. Though hedged advice was the most characteristic of subjects' responses of both groups, Americans displayed preference for opting out and giving indirect advice more than Egyptians did. As a result, we can claim that when the advisor and advisee are equal, Egyptians not only give advice more than Americans, but they become more direct in their advice giving behavior as well. 6.1.1.2. Non equals. In this relationship one of the participants has power and dominance over the other. This entails two main categories:  Speaker has power over hearer (s>h) In this relationship, the advisor has power and dominance over the advisee, e.g. parent and son/daughter or manager and employee. Table 3 reveals no significant relationships between the power of S over H, on the one hand, and the level of directness in advice giving, on the other hand. The order of preference for level of directness was almost the same for subjects of both groups. Hedged advice was the most preferred response, followed by direct advice, then opting out is the third in the order of frequency, while indirect advice is the least frequent type by both groups when giving advice to an inferior interlocutor.  Hearer has power over speaker (s
Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at .05 level.

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

17 10.6% 15 9.4% 32 9.9%

120 75.0% 86 53.8% 210 64.8%

23 14.4% 40 25.0% 63 19.4%

0 0.0% 19 11.9% 19 5.9%

160 100.0% 160 100.0% 320 100.0%

29.324 P ¼ .000a

202

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

Table 3 Role play task-giving advice to inferior interlocutors. s>h Advice Eg Am Total

Count %within language Count %within language Count %within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

22 27.5% 19 23.75% 41 25.6%

37 46.3% 35 43.75% 72 45.0%

4 5.0% 4 5.0% 8 5.0%

17 21.3% 22 27.5% 39

80 100.0% 80 100.0% 160 100.0%

.916 P ¼ .822

Important findings are written in bold. Table 4 Role play task -giving advice to superior interlocutors. Advice S
Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square Df ¼ 3

2 2.5% 9 11.3% 11 6.9%

29 36.3% 26 32.5% 55 34.4%

15 18.8% 21 26.3% 36 22.5%

34 42.5% 24 30.0% 58 36.3%

80 100.0% 80 100.0% 160 100.0%

7.342 P ¼ .052,

indirect advice. Then direct advice was the least frequent type employed by both groups when giving advice to a superior, which implies that both groups value social hierarchy and mutual face respect. 6.1.2. Relative social distance The variable of relative social distance is divided into close and distant. 6.1.2.1. Distant. In this relationship there is a considerable social distance (þD) between speakers, e.g. acquaintances, or distant relatives. Though Table 5 shows no significant relationship between having social distance between interlocutors and the level of directness in advice giving, the percentages in the table show that while Egyptians preferred hedged advice most (50.0%), the majority of Americans were almost equally divided between opting out (37.5%) and hedged advice (35.6%). The fact that a relatively higher percentage of Americans chose not to give any advice (37.5%) when addressing socially distant interlocutors than Egyptians (28.1%) might reflect that while Americans value individualism, Egyptians value solidarity. 6.1.2.2. Close. In this relationship there is no social distance between speakers (-D), e.g. close friends or family members. As Table 6 indicates, Chi-square shows a significant relationship between having no social distance between interlocutors and the level of directness in advice giving. More specifically, Egyptians were relatively more direct than Americans when giving advice to a socially close interlocutor, which implies that Egyptians consider advice giving as a sign of solidarity and showing concern more than Americans do. 6.1.3. The amount of imposition/criticism The variable of imposition/criticism is divided into two levels high and low. 6.1.3.1. High. This level refers to situations involving great imposition or face threats (þI), e.g. advising someone to take care of his appearance. As Table 7 indicates, Chi-square shows a considerably significant relationship between the high level of imposition involved in the act, on the one hand, and the level of directness in advice giving on the other hand. To be more specific, not Table 5 Role play task-giving advice to socially distant interlocutors. þD (Advice) Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Important findings are written in bold.

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

6 3.8% 11 6.9% 17 5.3%

80 50.0% 57 35.6% 137 42.8%

28 17.5% 32 20.0% 60 18.8%

46 28.8% 60 37.5% 106 33.1%

160 100.0% 160 100.0% 320 100.0%

7.448 p ¼ .059

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

203

Table 6 Role play task-giving advice to socially close interlocutors. -D Advice Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

35 21.9% 32 20.0% 67 20.9%

106 66.3% 90 56.3% 196 61.3%

14 8.8% 33 20.6% 47 14.7%

5 3.1% 5 3.1% 10 3.1%

160 100.0% 160 100.0% 320 100.0%

9.121 P ¼ .028a

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at .05 level. Table 7 Role play task-giving advice in situations involving a high amount of imposition. þI Advice Eg Am Total

Count %within language Count %within language Count %within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

25 15.6% 25 15.6% 50 16.1%

85 53.1% 55 34.4% 140 45.2%

10 6.3% 19 11.9% 29 9.4%

40 25.0% 61 38.1% 91 29.4%

160 100.0% 160 100.0% 310 100.0%

13.588 p ¼ .004a

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at .05 level.

only did Egyptians give advice more than Americans, but they were more direct than Americans as well. This, again, suggests that Americans tend to avoid giving advice in situations involving a high level of imposition. This could be an indication that advice giving in the Egyptian society might be considered as a sign of friendliness, concern, or interest even in situations involving high levels of imposition. However, in the American society, which places great emphasis on the rights and the autonomy of its individuals and which detests interference in other's affairs (Wierzbicka, 1991; Kagitcibasi, 2005), advice giving generally has a negative impact, and can be perceived as an intrusive act particularly in situations involving a high amount of imposition. It should be noted, however, that though Americans avoided giving advice in these situations, they received a large number of comments. These ranged from “it is not appropriate” to “it is extremely rude” and “it would never happen”. This clearly reflects that what might be thought of as highly imposing in the American culture is not as equally imposing in the Egyptian culture. These results reflect a case of difference in cultural values across the two cultures. That is why this study corroborates Goldschmidt's (1996) suggestion that “learners of a language need to know what constitutes imposition, how people in a particular culture define the level or degree of imposition, and when and how it is acceptable to impose upon someone” (p.254). The performance of the two groups in these situations supports Brown and Levinson (1987)'s claim that though the notion of face is a universal one, it is manifested differently in different cultures. More specifically, we can claim that Americans tended to give great importance to their negative face wants. They avoid invading others privacy and they do not want others to invade their privacy. Egyptians, on the other hand, tended to give importance to their positive face wants. More specifically, they demonstrated interest in others' benefit to gain their appreciation. 6.1.3.2. Low. In these situations there is little or no imposition (-I) involved in the act of advice giving. e.g. advising someone to read a certain book that will help in the research that he/she is doing. No significant relationships were observed between the low level of imposition involved in the act and the level of directness in advice giving (Table 8), which implies that both subject groups did not hesitate to give advice in these situations. Hedged advice, however, was the most characteristic of the subjects' responses, followed by indirect advice. Table 8 Role play task-giving advice in situations involving a low level of face threat. Advice Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Important findings are written in bold.

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square Df ¼ 3

16 10.0% 18 11.3% 34 10.6%

101 63.1% 92 57.5% 193 60.3%

32 20.0% 46 28.8% 78 24.4%

11 6.9% 4 2.5% 15 4.7%

160 100.0% 160 100.0% 320 100.0%

6.317 .097

204

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

6.1.4. Summary of the analysis of the variables in the role play task Analysis of each of the independent variables has revealed the following: a. Relative social power: i. It was revealed that there is a significant relationship between relative social power and the level of directness in advice giving only when interacting with an equal interlocutor. Moreover, not only did Egyptians give advice more frequently than Americans but they used more direct forms of advice as well. ii. No significant relationship was observed between the power of S over H or H over S and the level of directness in advice giving. b. Relative social distance i. The study revealed a significant relationship between lack of social distance between interlocutors, on the one hand, and the level of directness in advice giving on the other hand. Egyptians were found to be remarkably more direct than Americans in this respect. ii. No significant relationship was found between having social distance between interlocutors, on the one hand, and the level of directness in the advice giving on the other hand. c. Amount of imposition i. A remarkably significant relationship was observed between having a high level of imposition, on the one hand, and the level of directness in advice giving on the other hand. To illustrate, Egyptians were found to employ direct forms of advice giving more than Americans did. ii. No significant relationships were found, however, between the low level of imposition involved in the act, on the one hand, and the level of directness in advice giving, on the other hand.

6.2. Multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) In this section, situations of the MCQ are combined for each of the independent variables, (i.e. power, distance and level of imposition) highlighting the effect of each of these variables on the dependent variables (namely, levels of directness). 6.2.1. Relative social power Relative social power was divided into 2 categories, equals and non-equals. 6.2.1.1. Equals. A relationship of equals is one where there is no social dominance between speakers, e.g. friends, or colleagues at work etc. As Table 9 indicates, similar to the role play task, Chi-square shows a remarkably significant relationship between being socially equal interlocutors and the level of directness in advice giving. Though Americans were found to opt out (15.4%) relatively more frequently than Egyptians did (3.3%), Egyptians' advice giving preferences seemed to be more direct than that of Americans. 6.2.1.2. Non-equals. In this relationship, one of the participants has power and dominance over the other. It is divided into two types:  Speaker has power over hearer (s>h) In this relationship, S has power and dominance over H., i.e. advice is addressed from a superior to an inferior. As Table 10 indicates, Chi-square shows a remarkably significant relationship between the power of S over H, on the one hand, and the level of directness in advice giving, on the other hand. While direct advice was the most frequently chosen type by Americans (40.0%), indirect advice and hedged advice were the most preferred by Egyptians (41.1%). Table 9 MCQ - giving advice to socially equal interlocutors. Advice H¼s Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level.

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

51 21.3% 48 20.0% 99 20.6%

100 41.7% 67 27.9% 167 34.8%

81 33.8% 88 36.7% 169 35.2%

8 3.3% 37 15.4% 45 9.4%

240 100.0% 240 100.0% 480 100.0%

25.591 .000a

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

205

Table 10 MCQ -giving advice to inferior interlocutors. Advice s>h Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi- square df ¼ 3

16 17.8% 36 40.0% 52 28.9%

32 35.6% 26 28.9% 58 32.2%

37 41.1% 18 20.0% 55 30.6%

5 5.6% 10 11.1% 15 8.3%

90 100.0% 90 100.0% 180 100.0%

16.543 .001a

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level.

 Hearer has power over speaker (s
Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi- square df ¼ 3

4 4.4% 21 23.3% 25 13.9%

27 30.0% 17 18.9% 44 24.4%

40 44.4% 28 31.1% 68 37.8%

19 21.1% 24 26.7% 43 23.9%

90 100.0% 90 100.0% 180 100.0%

16.532 P ¼ .001a

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

25 13.9% 37 20.6% 62 17.2%

61 33.9% 37 20.6% 98 27.2%

68 37.8% 55 30.6% 123 34.2%

26 14.4% 51 28.3% 77 21.4%

180 100.0% 180 100.0% 360 100.0%

17.691 .001a

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level. Table 12 MCQ - giving advice to socially distant interlocutors. Advice þD Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level.

206

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

Table 13 MCQ - giving advice to socially close interlocutors. Advice -D Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi square df ¼ 3

46 19.2% 68 28.3% 114 23.8%

98 40.8% 73 30.4% 171 35.6%

90 37.5% 79 32.9% 169 35.2%

6 2.5% 20 8.3% 26 5.4%

240 100.0% 240 100.0% 480 100.0%

16.155 .001a

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level.

The relative avoidance of Americans to give advice to a socially distant interlocutor in comparison with Egyptians confirms the stereotypical description of individualistic societies as “societies in which ties between individuals are loose; every one is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family” (Hofstede, 1991, p.51). By the same token, the giving of advice to a socially distant interlocutor on part of the Egyptian group strongly supports Hofstede (1991) and Triandis (1995) description of Arabs, and consequently Egyptians, as collectivistic societies in which people integrate into strong cohesive groups. 6.2.2.2. Close. In this relationship there is no social distance between interlocutors (-D), e.g. close friends or family members. As can be seen from Table 13, there is a significant relationship between being socially close interlocutors and the level of directness in advice giving. Hedged and indirect pieces of advice were the most frequently employed types by both groups but with different frequencies of occurrence. 6.3. The levels of imposition/criticism The variable of imposition is divided into two levels, high and low. 6.3.1. High In this level there is a great imposition (þI) involved in the act, e.g. advising someone to take care of his appearance. According to Table 14, there is a significant relationship between the high level of imposition involved in the act and the level of directness in advice giving. On the whole, Egyptians (94.4%) gave advice more than Americans (78.9%). Especially indirect advice was more employed by Egyptians (36.7%) than Americans (12.7%). 6.3.2. Low In this level, there is little imposition or face threat (-I) involved in the act, e.g. advising someone to read a certain book that will help in the research he/she is doing. As can be deduced from Table 15, there is a statistically significant relationship between the low level of imposition and levels of directness in advice giving. While Egyptians preferred either hedged or indirect advice most, Americans displayed high preference for indirect advice. 6.3.3. Summary of the analysis of the variables in the MCQ Analysis of each of the independent variables in the MCQ has revealed the following: a. Relative social power i. The study revealed a statistically significant relationship between relative social power and the level of directness in advice giving. To illustrate, though Americans opted out more than Egyptians in all combined situations, they were more

Table 14 MCQ - giving advice in situations involving a high level of imposition. Advice þI Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level.

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi-square df ¼ 3

43 23.9% 41 22.8% 84 23.4%

61 33.9% 62 34.4% 122 34.0%

66 36.7% 39 21.7% 105 29.2%

10 5.6% 38 21.1% 48 13.4%

180 100.0% 180 100.0% 360 100.0%

23.332 .000a

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

207

Table 15 MCQ - giving advice in situations involving low levels of imposition. Advice -I Eg Am Total

Count % within language Count % within language Count % within language

Direct

Hedged

Indirect

Nothing

Total

Chi Square df ¼ 3

28 11.7% 64 26.7% 92 19.2%

98 40.8% 48 20.0% 146 30.4%

92 38.3% 95 39.6% 187 39.0%

22 9.2% 33 13.8% 55 11.5%

240 100.0% 240 100.0% 480 100.0%

33.458 .000a

Important findings are written in bold. a Significant at 0 .05 level.

direct than Egyptians when giving advice to either a superior or inferior interlocutor. Nevertheless, Egyptians turned out to be more direct than Americans when interacting with an equal interlocutor. b. Relative social distance i. The study revealed a significant relationship between relative social distance (whether close or distant) and the level of directness in advice giving. To illustrate, Americans displayed preference for opting out when giving advice to either a close or distant interlocutor, more than Egyptians did. Nevertheless, once Americans gave advice, they were remarkably more direct than Egyptians. c. Amount of imposition i. The study showed a significant relationship between the level of imposition involved in the act on the one hand and the level of directness in advice giving on the other hand. Firstly, Americans opted out more when giving advice in situations involving high/low levels of imposition. Secondly, though Egyptians were slightly more direct when giving advice in situations involving high levels of imposition, Americans were more direct than Egyptians when giving advice in situations involving low levels of imposition. 6.4. Comparison of the findings of the two instruments Analysis of the data obtained through the role play task as well as the MCQ revealed that there are some similarities as well as differences between the performance of the two groups when giving advice in their L1. According to the data gathered by means of the role play task Egyptians were more direct than Americans when giving advice to interlocutors of equal status, close interlocutors and in situations involving high levels of imposition. Americans, by contrast, were found to be less direct and to opt out more than Egyptians in these situations. These findings confirm earlier research findings that advice giving is considered as an intrusive and overbearing act in the American society (Altman, 1990; Wierzbicka, 1991). However, the performance of the two groups was not significantly different when giving advice to a nonequal interlocutor, to a socially distant interlocutor and in situations involving low levels of imposition. Based on these findings, it can be assumed that previously dominating convention that paying unsolicited advice is more acceptable in the Egyptian culture than it is in the American culture is not still dominating. The fact that no significant differences were detected in many other situations might indicate that this perception could be gradually declining and that a new perception might be evolving. According to the data gathered by means of MCQ, again Americans favoured opting out more than Egyptians in all combined situations of the MCQ. Furthermore, Egyptians were found to be slightly more direct than Americans when giving advice to an equal interlocutor and in situations involving high levels of imposition. This, again, leads to the conclusion that Egyptians probably regard advice giving as an act of solidarity and showing concern. However, Americans turned out to be more direct than Egyptians when giving advice to a non-equal (superior/inferior) interlocutor, a socially close/distant interlocutor and in situations involving low levels of imposition. These findings, however, seem to counter earlier research findings (Altman, 1990; Wierzbicka, 1991) concerning advice giving in English. Hinkel's (1997) study can account for this discrepancy, stating that research on the appropriateness of advice giving in English needs a thorough re-examination. She maintains that the giving of advice “is (or has become) an appropriate conversational strategy in English speaking societies, and the imposition it creates on the hearer is not as great as many linguists have determined. Furthermore, in this case it may be that direct speech acts of advice are not as impolite as they appear” (p.17). This comparison of the results of the two instruments employed in the present study revealed that though the performance of the two groups was relatively divergent when giving advice to non-equals, socially close/distant interlocutors and in situations involving low levels of imposition, it remained relatively constant when giving advice to an equal interlocutor as well as in situations involving great imposition. To explain the rather divergent behavior of the two cultural groups in the two instruments employed, two issues need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, according to Perry (2005), there is a direct relationship between the sample size and statistical significance. He states that “if the sample size is fairly large then small relationships or small differences may come out to be statistically significant. When the sample size is smaller the same statistical value found for a relationship or a difference will not be statistically significant” (p. 169). Accordingly, the difference in the sample size in the two instruments, though not large, as well as the relatively small sample size in both instruments

208

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

may account for this rather inconsistent behavior of the two groups in the two instruments employed. In other words, these seemingly contradictory findings might have been reconciled had the sample size been larger. Another plausible explanation for this discrepancy, however, is the fact that data were collected using two different instruments. More specifically, while role plays require producing conscious representations of the investigated act, MCQs depend on subjects' perception of these acts. According to Kasper (1991), several factors might affect subjects' perception. Among these factors are "subjects' subjective understanding of the task, and effects deriving from the semantic content and context” (p.219). Moreover, Nelson et al. (2002) claim that “what people believe they would say in a given situation may be different from what they would say if the situation arose in daily interaction” (p.182). Thus, the rather different nature of the two instruments may provide another explanation for these divergent results. The present researcher, however, believes that the results of the role plays are more reliable because in the role play task subjects were faced with the social and psychological constraints of real life as advice was addressed to the other interlocutor on a turn-by-turn basis and they were given the chance to negotiate. In other words, they were concerned about the social and pragmatic acceptability of their responses. Another important point is that when doing the role play task, the researcher was always there listening to the subjects, explaining and commenting when any misunderstandings happened. When doing the MCQ, on the other hand, most subjects took the questionnaire home and returned it two or three days later, i.e. there was no opportunity to correct any misunderstandings. In short, the MCQ lacked the complexities of real life interaction and the opportunity to negotiate with the other party so that subjects did not have to worry about the social and linguistic acceptability of their responses. 7. Discussion In this section each research question is discussed in isolation, in an attempt to draw conclusions from the results of the study. 7.1. Question 1 Do Egyptians and Americans use similar levels of directness when giving advice in Egyptian Arabic and American English as L1? To answer this question, each situation in the two instruments (role play & MCQ) was analyzed quantitatively and discussed separately highlighting whether the two groups were significantly different or not. Following is a summary of the results obtained. In the role play task, the performance of the two groups when giving advice was significantly different in only five situations out of sixteen. Moreover, frequency counts show that Egyptians displayed preference for direct forms of advice giving more than Americans in four out of these five situations. The most salient fact in the analysis of individual situations of the role play task, however, is that they were not significantly different in the majority of situations. Consequently, we can claim that similarities are more striking than in the performance of the two groups in individual situations. In the MCQ, however, the performance of the two groups was significantly different in seven out of fourteen situations. Unlike the role play task, frequency counts show that Americans displayed preference for direct forms of advice giving more than Egyptians did in five out of these seven situations. Thus, we can claim that although the two groups displayed significant differences in some situations, they were not significantly different in others and that the most salient fact in the analysis of individual situations of advice giving in the role play task as well as the MCQ is that similarities as well as differences did exist in the performance of the two groups. 7.2. Question 2 How does the relationship between interlocutors - including relative social power and relative social distance - affect the level of directness and the shaping of advice and response? To answer this question and the following one, two steps were followed. First, situations of each instrument were clustered for each of the independent variables (power, distance and imposition). Then, Chi-square was employed to find out whether there is a relationship between the three variables of power, distance and imposition on the one hand, and the level of directness when giving advice the other hand. 7.2.1. Relative social power Relative social power includes three types of relationships (equal, superior and inferior interlocutors). First, when interacting with equals, the performance of the two groups turned out to be significantly different in the two instruments employed. Moreover, frequency counts show that not only did Egyptians give advice more frequently than Americans, but that they were generally more direct than Americans as well. Secondly, when subjects interacted with non-equals, the two subject groups acted differently in the two instruments employed. To illustrate, while the performance of the two groups was not significantly different when giving advice either to superior or inferior interlocutors in the role play task, their

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

209

performance was significantly different in the MCQ. More specifically, Americans displayed preference for direct forms of advice giving more than Egyptians did when interacting with either a superior or an inferior interlocutor. Thus, the fact that Egyptians were more direct than Americans when giving advice to equal interlocutors in the two instruments may support Hamady's (1960) findings that Arabs, and consequently Egyptians, seem to be rank-conscious. To sum up, the most salient feature is that there is a significant relationship between relative social power and the level of directness when giving advice to an equal interlocutor. To be more specific, Egyptians were found to give advice more frequently than Americans did. Moreover, they tended to choose direct forms of advice giving more than Americans. This relative reluctance on the part of the American subjects to give advice to an equal interlocutor as well as their relative avoidance of direct forms of advice giving seem to confirm earlier research findings (e.g. Altman, 1990; Wierzbicka, 1991) that advice giving is considered an intrusive act in English speaking societies. This finding also lends support to the findings of Andrawis (1989) that Americans tended to give great importance to their negative face, i.e. they avoid invading others' privacy and do not allow others to invade their privacy. In other words, they are usually formal with their interlocutors when interacting with people of different degrees of social power. 7.2.2. Relative social distance The study dealt with two types of relationships (close and distant interlocutors). The performance of the two groups turned out to be significantly different when giving advice to a close interlocutor in the two instruments employed. However, when giving advice to a distant interlocutor the performance of the two groups was significantly different only in the MCQ and it turned out to be insignificant in the role play task. To sum up, these results show that there is a significant relationship between relative social distance and the level of directness when giving advice to a socially close interlocutor. This finding lends support to previous studies (e.g. Laforest, 2002; Feng and Magen, 2016) which found out that the intimacy of the relationship between the interlocutors affects the way FTAs are performed. More specifically, when social distance narrows down, FTAs are uttered without the usual precautions generally associated with them. 7.3. Question 3 How does the level of imposition affect the level of directness and the shaping of advice? Imposition was divided into two levels (low and high). When giving advice in situations involving a high level of imposition, both groups showed a significant difference. This was true in the two instruments employed. More specifically, not only did Egyptians give advice more frequently than Americans, but they were more direct than Americans as well. The relative reluctance of Americans to give advice in situations involving high levels of imposition as well as their preference for hedged and indirect forms of advice indicates that they reflect much stronger sensitivity to imposition than Egyptians do. In situations involving low levels of imposition, however, the performance of the two groups was quite different in the two instruments employed. To illustrate, while the performance of the two groups was not significantly different in the role play task, both groups were significantly different in the MCQ. More specifically, Americans displayed preference for direct forms of advice giving more than Egyptians did in the MCQ. To sum up, these results show that there is a noticeably significant relationship between the level of imposition involved in the act of advice giving and the level of directness, especially when giving advice in situations involving great imposition. To be more specific, Egyptians were found not only to give advice more frequently than Americans, but also to choose more direct forms of advice than Americans did. Consequently, we can conclude that these findings lend support to the findings of earlier literature which has revealed that the speech act of advice giving in Arabic is an expression of friendliness and a means of showing benevolence and support (El-Sayed, 1990, Hinkel, 1994). However, though this study partially supports other lu, 2001; Park, 2002) that American native speakers consider the act of advice giving as an inapresearchers (Bayraktarog propriate act that invades their privacy, the study further suggests that Americans often consider it inappropriate only in situations involving high levels of imposition. This is supported by the fact that, in situations involving low levels of imposition, Americans were as direct as and even more direct than Egyptians. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g.Chentsova-Dutton and Vaughn, 2012; Feng, 2014) which found out that when potential threats of advice are avoided or even mitigated, the act of advice giving becomes common across cultural groups. These findings seem to be in line with Ting-Toomey (1999) as well as Triandis (1995) study which showed that while privacy is a major concern in many individualistic Western cultures, the issue may not be perceived as equally important in many collectivistic-oriented cultures. By contrast, the concept of privacy may imply heavily negative connotations in many collectivistic cultures. Moreover, Nydell (1996) claims that “the concept of privacy for many Arab cultures comes closest to the concept of “loneliness” (p. 29). This is not to say that this study claims that Arabs do not value personal privacy; rather, it implies that Arabs in general and Egyptians in particular emphasize the concept of “solidarity” over that of “privacy". 8. General findings of the study From the above discussion, it can be concluded that levels of directness differed according to the instrument used in relation to the nationality of the subjects performing the task (caution is devised here as it should be taken into consideration

210

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

that the sample of the study represents the age span indicated in Section 5.2, so the results may not be applicable to older speakers). However, despite the rather dissimilar behavior of the two subject groups in the two instruments employed, the picture that emerges is that the performance of the two groups differed significantly when interacting with equal interlocutors, socially close interlocutors, and in situations involving high levels of imposition. Based on these findings, the study suggests that while Egyptians consider advice giving as an act that shows solidarity and concern for others, Americans consider it a relatively intrusive act. This finding, on the one hand, supports the stereotypical description of Americans as being more individualistic, and independent (Ting-Toomey, 1999; Yasuhiko, 2001a, b, c) than Egyptians. On the other hand, it also supports the stereotypical description of Arabs in general and Egyptians in particular as being collectivist and group oriented (Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1995; and Ting-Toomey, 1999). On the whole, the performance of the two groups shows that language is closely related to culture and thought and that the difference in the performance of the two groups was a reflection of the two different cultures they represent. To be more specific, interviews with Egyptian subjects as well as the findings of the present study show that while emphasis in Egyptian society is placed on co-operation and solidarity, emphasis in the American society is placed on freedom of action and ability to make one's own decisions. Interestingly enough, these cultural traits are manifest in some of the proverbs of every society. An example of these proverbs in the Egyptian society can be:  “Older than you by a day, wiser than you by a year” (i.e. Respect older people and their advice) (Nydell, 1996, p. 122). As for Americans, on the other hand, they also have proverbs that show how they abhor interference and intrusion. For example.  “Give neither advice nor salt until you are asked for it” (Anonymous) Thus, in the light of the present study, it may be argued that cross-cultural misunderstandings therefore become highly probable when Egyptians and Americans communicate with each other because each group adheres to its cultural norms. Thus, understanding the social and cultural patterns of every society will certainly help reduce such misunderstandings. 9. Implications for teaching The present study has revealed that Egyptians in general tend to give advice more frequently than Americans do, especially in situations involving high levels of imposition and when addressing equal interlocutors. Based on such findings, one important implication of the study is that the observed differences can help in accounting for cases of cross-cultural misunderstandings between Egyptians and Americans. That is, it is expected that in cross-cultural communication Americans may feel offended and even embarrassed when they are being advised especially in situations involving high levels of imposition which might lead to false impressions and even communication breakdowns. So, they are advised not to rely on their L1 judgments of conversational politeness as advice giving is a culturally embedded behavior that reflects the values and social norms of every society. They should show more tolerance if given unsolicited advice from their fellow Egyptians. Actually, this is unintentional violation of the American social norms by the Egyptians; mostly meant to strengthen their relationship with their fellow Americans. Egyptians, on the other hand, should be more precautious when giving advice to Americans especially when the relationship between interlocutors is not a close one or when the context of the situation involves a high level of imposition. Offering unsolicited advice in such a case may result in negative consequences that could lead to the opposite intentions of the advice giver. Hence, it is required that teaching social norms of each society goes side by side with teaching the language of that society in order to avoid any undesirable misunderstandings. Moreover, the results of this study provide linguistic and sociolinguistic information about advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English that can be helpful to instructors of English as a second language who teach Arabic speakers, and to students and teachers of Arabic as a second language. Linguistic and sociolinguistic knowledge of advice giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English can help to predict areas where second language learners of both cultures may have difficulty, understand the reason why second language learners of both languages make certain linguistic errors or act inappropriately in some sociolinguistic contexts. Such knowledge will certainly result in less pragmatic failure and fewer cross-cultural misunderstandings. Acknowledgments This paper is based on a section of the author's M.A. thesis. I wish to express my deep gratitude to my thesis supervisors, Dr. Ola Hafez and Dr. Yasmine Salah El-Din for their guidance, constructive criticism, and valuable comments. My thanks also go to the American and Egyptian students who participated in the study. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.001.

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

211

References Alrefai, E.H., 2012. Favor Asking in Kuwaiti Arabic: Effects of Power and Distance on Core Strategies and Modification. (Doctoral dissertation). Colorado State University, Colorado,USA. Al-Khawaldeh, N., 2014. Politeness Orientation in the Linguistic Expression of Gratitude in Jordan and England: A Comparative Cross-Cultural Study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom. Al-Shalawi, H.G., 1997. Refusal Strategies in Saudi and American Cultures (Master’s thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Altman, R., 1990. Giving and taking advice without offence. In: Scarcella, R., Andersen, E., Krashen, S. (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House, New York, pp. 95e99. Andrawis, N.F., 1989. Apology in American English and Egyptian Arabic: A Cross-Linguistic Cross-Cultural Study. (Master’s thesis). The American University, Cairo, Egypt. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., 2003. Face and Politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). J. Pragmat. 35, 1435e1469. lu, A., 2001. Advice-giving in Turkish: “superiority” or “solidarity”? In: Bayraktarog lu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Bayraktarog Boundaries: the Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 177e208. Boxer, D., 1996. Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis: the case of complaints. In: Gass, S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 217e239. Brown, J., 2005. The Effect of a Etudy Ebroad on Acquiring Pragmatics. M.A. Thesis. Center for Language Studies Brigham Young University. http://contentdm. lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd942.pdf. Retrieved on 20/2/2008. Brown, P., Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chentsova-Dutton, E., Vaughn, A., 2012. Let me tell you what to do: cultural differences in advice-giving. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 43 (5), 687e703. Cohen, A., Olshtain, E., 1993. The production of speech acts by EFL learners. Tesol Q. 27 (1), 33e56. Cruse, D.A., 2000. Meaning in Language: an Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York. Culpeper, J., 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 25, 349e367. Culpeper, J., 2011. Politeness and impoliteness. In: Aijmer, K., Andersen, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics of Society, Handbooks of Pragmatics Series, vol. 5. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 391e436. Davies, E., 1987. A contrastive approach to the analysis of politeness formulas. Appl. Ling. 8, 75e88. Eisenstein, M., Bodman, J., 1993. Expressing gratitude in English. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (64e81). Oxford University Press, New York. El-Sayed, A., 1990. Politeness formulas in English and Arabic: A contrastive study. I.T.L. 89e90, 1e23. Felix-Brasdefer, C., 2004. Interlanguage Refusals: linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Lang. Learn. 54 (4), 587e653. Feng, B., 2014. When should advice be given? Assessing the role of sequential placement of advice in supportive interactions in two cultures. Commun. Res. 41 (7), 913e934. Feng, B., Magen, E., 2016. Relationship closeness predicts unsolicited advice giving in supportive interactions. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 33 (6), 751e767. Fraser, B., 1990. Perspectives on politeness. J. Pragmat. 14, 219e236. Fujimori, J., Houck, N., 2004. Practical criteria for teaching speech acts. Lang. Teach. 28 (5), 3e8. Gabr, A., 1991. Thanking in American English and Egyptian Arabic: A Cross-Linguistic Cross-Cultural Study. (Master’s thesis). The American University, Cairo, Egypt. Goldschmidt, M., 1996. From the addressee's perspective: imposition in favor-asking. In: Gass, S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 241e256. Grice, H.P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. Academic press, New York. Speech Acts. Griefat, Y., Katriel, T., 1989. Life demands musayra: communication and culture among Arabs in Israel. In: Ting-Toomey, S., Korzenny, F. (Eds.), Language, Communication and Culture. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 121e138. Gu, Y., 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. J. Pragmat. 14 (2), 237e257. Hamady, S., 1960. Temperament and Character of the Arabs. Twayne Publishers, New York. Harb, M., 2015. On gender and apology strategies: the case of Arabic. Gend. Stud. 14 (1), 224e265. Harb, M., 2016. Attending to face in faceless computer-mediated communication: (im)politeness in online disagreements among Arabic speakers (Doctoral dissertation). Ball State University Muncie, Indiana, United States. Haugh, M., Hinze, C., 2003. A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of face and politeness in Chinese, English and Japanese. J. Pragmat. 35, 1581e1611. Hinkel, E., 1994. Appropriateness of Advice as L2 Solidarity Strategy. (ERIC Document No. ED 370 366). Retrieved December 24,2007, from ERIC database. Hinkel, E., 1997. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Appl. Ling. 18, 1e25. Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Mc-Graw-Hill, London; New York. Holmes, J., 1995. Women, Men, and Politeness. Longman Group limited, New York. Hosni, H.R., 2008. Advice Giving in Egyptian Arabic and American English: A Cross-Linguistic, Cross-Cultural Study. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Cairo University. Kagitcibasi, C., 2005. Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: implications for self and family. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 36, 403. Kasper, G., 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA 13, 215e247. Laforest, M., 2002. Scenes of family life: complaining in every day conversation. J. Pragmat. 34, 1595e1620. Lakoff, R., 1973. The logic of politeness: or minding your p's and qs. In: Corum, C., et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL, pp. 292e305. Leech, G.N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London. Matsumoto, Y., 1988. Re-examination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. J. Pragmat. 12 (4), 403e426. Matsumura, S., 2001. Learning the rules for offering advice. A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Lang. Learn. 51, 635e679. Mazid, B., 1995. Complimenting Behavior Among Upper Egyptian University Learners of English. (Master's Thesis) Thesis. Cairo University, Egypt. Meier, A.J., 1995. Passages of politeness. J. Pragmat. 24, 381e392. Morsy, E.A., 1992. Sex Differences in Complimenting Behavior: A Contrastive Analysis between Egyptian Arabic and American English. (Master’s thesis). The American University, Cairo, Egypt. Nelson, G.L., El-Bakary, W., Al-Batal, M., 1996. Egyptian and American complaints: focus on second language learners. In: Gass, S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 109e128. Nelson, G.L., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M., El-Bakary, W., 2002. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Appl. Ling. 23 (2), 163e189. Netz, H., 2014. Disagreement patterns in gifted classes. J. Pragmat. 61, 142e160. Nydell, M.K., 1996. Understanding Arabs: A Guide for Westerners. Intercultural Press, Inc, Yarmouth, Maine. Osman, M., 1994. Apologies: Directness, Politeness and Language Proficiency. (Master’s thesis). The American University, Cairo, Egypt. Park, M., 2002. Differences in the advice giving behavior between Korean EFL learners and English native speakers. SNU Working Papers Engl. Lang. Ling. 1, 62e91. Perry, F., 2005. Research in Applied Linguistics: Becoming a Discerning Consumer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey. Salah El-Din, Y., 2000. Complaints in Egyptian Arabic and American English: A Cross-Linguistic Cross-Cultural study. (Doctoral Dissertation). Cairo University, Egypt.

212

H.R. Hosni / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 193e212

Searle, J.R., 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shaw, C., Hepburn, A., 2013. Managing the moral implications of advice in informal interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 16, 344e362. Sifianou, M., 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Clarendon press, Oxford. Skewis, M., 2003. Mitigated directness in Honglou Meng: directive speech acts and politeness in eighteenth century Chinese. J. Pragmat. 35, 161e189. Thomas, J., 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, London. Ting-Toomey, S., 1999. Communicating across Cultures. The Guildford Press, New York. Triandis, H., 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. West View Press, Oxford. Tsui, A., 1994. English Conversation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wardhaugh, R., 1985. How Conversation Works. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Wierzbicka, A., 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. J. Pragmat. 9, 145e178. Wierzbicka, A., 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: the Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Wilson, S.R., Kunkel, A.W., 2000. Identity implications of influence goals: similarities in perceived face threats and facework across sex and close relationships. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 19, 195e221. Yasuhiko, M., 2001a. Want" in Advice Giving Context- a Corpus Based Analysis. www.Fukushima-nct.ac.jp/~eng/miyazawa/paper2html/want.Html/ untitledhtml. Retrieved on 25/8/2003. Yasuhiko, M., 2001b. The Mechanism of Indirectness & Politeness. www.Fukushimanct.ac.jp/~eng/miyazawa/paper.2html/want.2html/want2.html. Retrieved on 25/8/2003. Yasuhiko, M., 2001c. The Grammaticalizatian of Desideratives to Semi-modals. www.fukushima-nct-ac.jp/~eng/miyazawa/paper2.html/want3 html/want 3 html. Retrieved on 25/8/2003. Yule, G., 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hala Rashed Hosny holds a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics (2015) from Fayoum University, Egypt. She is currently working as a lecturer of linguistics in Fayoum University. Her research interests include discourse and genre analysis, contrastive rhetoric, and cross-cultural Pragmatics.