10.57647/

Negotiating Turns in Conversation: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Linguistic Strategies in Iraqi Arabic and American English

pdf
  • Hind Mohammed Sami Aljanab1,
  • Parivash Esmaeili*2,
  • Ghanim Jwaid Idan3,
  • Bahram Hadian4,
  1. Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
  2. r, English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
  3. Department of English Languages, College of Education, University of Karbala, Karbala, Iraq
  4. Department of English, languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Published in Issue 2024-09-28

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Mohammed Sami Aljanab, H., Esmaeili, P., Jwaid Idan, G., & Hadian, B. (2024). Negotiating Turns in Conversation: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Linguistic Strategies in Iraqi Arabic and American English. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 3(3). https://doi.org/10.57647/
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

pdf views: 65

Abstract

The present study attempts to find the linguistic strategies followed by speakers in negotiating a turn in Iraqi
Arabic and American English, looking at how far age and gender will contribute in bringing about the variation
in linguistic strategies. This study used a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative
methods in the analysis of conversational data from two corpora: the Iraqi Arabic Dataset, which contains
recordings collected from Iraqi talk shows and university discussions, and the American English Dataset, a
collection of recording sessions from TV shows that are broadcast through a national platform and casual
conversations at universities. In general, this paper uncovers considerable cross-cultural differences regarding
linguistic strategies. Iraqi Arabic speakers show a preference for indirect and mitigating forms, such as hedging
(45%) and politeness markers (38%), reflecting a cultural emphasis on relational harmony and face-saving.
American English speakers, on the other hand, prefer to use direct and assertive strategies, for instance, direct
assertions, which make up 48%, and interruptions, which are 30%, reflecting a focus on clarity and efficiency.
The study also investigates how gender and age influence conversational dynamics. The use of deferential
strategies is distributed differently in Iraqi Arabic: much more frequently by younger speakers when addressing
elders, while American English shows little variation due to age. The implications of such findings reflect a
more hierarchical structure of Iraqi society, as opposed to an egalitarian approach to conversational participation
in America. The paper contributes to the understanding of how cultural norms and social hierarchies shape
linguistic behavior in conversation. It also provides practical implications for the intercultural communication
training programs regarding the training on the differences in the strategy of cultural politeness, directness, and
turn-taking. The findings strongly signal the inclusion of the factors of gender and age in studies pertaining to
cross-cultural communication. There is a further evident need to extend the number of non-Western languages,
such as Iraqi Arabic studied on conversational dynamics.

Keywords

  • Turn Taking,
  • Linguistic Strategies,
  • Politness,
  • Iraqi Arabic,
  • Gender,
  • Conversational Analysis
pdf

References

  1. Al-Khatib, M. (2010). Turn-taking in Arabic: A sociolinguistic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5),
  2. 1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001
  3. Almakrob, A., & Al-Ahdal, A. (2020). Conversational turn-taking in Saudi Arabia: The role of cultural
  4. values in shaping conversational behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 162, 45–
  5. 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.005
  6. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.
  7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge
  8. University Press.
  9. Coates, J. (2013). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in
  10. language (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd
  12. ed.). Sage Publications.
  13. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University
  14. Press.
  15. Farghal, M., & Haggan, M. (2006). Politeness strategies in colloquial Jordanian Arabic. Journal of
  16. Politeness Research, 2(1), 53–76.
  17. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  18. Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and
  19. pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson
  20. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press.
  21. Goodwin, C. (2015). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford University Press.
  22. Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Sage
  23. Publications.
  24. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
  25. Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of
  26. conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Wiley-Blackwell.
  27. Mohammed Sami Aljanabi, H., Esmaeili, P., Jwaid Idan, Gh., & Hadian, B., JNTELL, Volume 3, Issue 3, Autumn 2024
  28. 164
  29. Hoffmann, C. (2021). Gender dynamics in family dinner conversations: A cross-cultural
  30. comparison. Language in Society, 50(2), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404521000123
  31. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in
  32. Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  33. Holmes, J. (2005). Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in the workplace. Journal
  34. of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1041–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.004
  35. Ide, S. (2005). How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In S. Okamoto & J. S.
  36. Shibamoto Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology (pp. 69–86). Oxford
  37. University Press.
  38. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner
  39. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
  40. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2017). Toward a definition of mixed methods
  41. research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–
  42. 133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
  43. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
  44. Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition.
  45. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (Eds.), Intentionality and interculturality (pp. 99–120). John Benjamins.
  46. Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How
  47. conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of
  48. Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.009
  49. Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication: Origins and implications for language
  50. processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14.
  51. Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum.
  52. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.
  53. Nakane, I. (2012). Silence in intercultural communication: Perceptions and performance. John
  54. Benjamins.
  55. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
  56. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis.
  57. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  59. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in
  60. conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–
  61. 10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
  62. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Ablex Publishing.
  63. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.
  64. Tannen, D. (2010). Gender and discourse. Oxford University Press.
  65. Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Walter de
  66. Gruyter.
  67. Negotiating Turns in Conversation: A Cross-Cultural Analysis …
  68. 165
  69. Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional
  70. framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
  71. Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1556–1559).
  72. Yassin, A. (2017). Turn-taking in Iraqi Arabic: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics,
  73. 21(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12245