Female Use of Politeness Strategies

1
King Saud University

Deanship of Higher Studies
Department of English Language and Literature
Female Use of Politeness Strategies in the Speech Act of Offering: A

Contrastive Study between Spoken Saudi Arabic and Spoken British
English
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master’s Degree in Applied Linguistics
By
Hanaa Ali Al-Qahtani
Under the Supervision of

Associate Professor: Norice Methias
2nd Semester
1430(2009)
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‬

‫ﻋﻤﺎدة اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﯿﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ وآداﺑﮭﺎ‬
‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻹﻧﺎث ﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻲ‪:‬‬

‫دراﺳﺔ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﮫ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺘﯿﻦ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ واﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﻣﻜﻤﻞ ﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺎت اﻟﺘﻄﺒﯿﻘﯿﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪم ﻣﻦ اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ھﻨﺎء ﺑﻨﺖ ﻋﻠﻲ اﻟﻘﺤﻄﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫إﺷﺮاف‪:‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺸﺎرك‪ :‬ﻧﻮرﯾﺲ ﻣﯿﺜﯿﺎس‬
‫اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﺪراﺳﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫)‪1430(2009‬‬
‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

3

4
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the differences in the female use of politeness
strategies between Spoken Saudi Arabic and Spoken British English in the speech act of
offering, while testing, at the same time, the applicability of Brown and Levinson’s (1987)
model of politeness to Spoken Saudi Arabic.
Data were collected through a Discourse Completion Test (Task) (DCT) and interviews.
The DCT consisted of 15 different situations designed to elicit offers under Brown &
Levinson’s (1987) contextual determinants. The DCT also examined two other important
variables, the gender of the addressee and the degree of the speaker’s involvement in the
event of offering. The instruments were administered to 53 Saudi and 50 British English
educated women.
The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. First, a socio-pragmatic
approach was attempted to contrast the use of politeness strategies of offers in Spoken Saudi
Arabic and Spoken British English accompanied by quantitative analyses, which looked in
the frequencies and percentages of the use of these strategies. The significance of the
differences between the two groups, and within each group, was tested by an ANOVA, a T-
test, and a Pearson Correlation Test.
The results showed high applicability of B&L’s (1987) model to the Saudi context. The
results also showed significant inter-group differences between the Saudi Arabic and the
British female speakers in the use of politeness strategies in offers. Intra-group differences
were more significant in the Saudi group. Additionally, the results showed significant

5
differences in the way the two groups realized some of Brown and Levinson’s (1987)
contextual determinants.
The addressee’s power-status did not show a significant effect on the type of politeness
strategies in both cultural groups. Social distance, on the other hand, was found influential in
both groups, although realized differently. In the Saudi group, there was a strong negative
correlation between positive politeness and social distance. For the British group, the
correlation was also negative with positive politeness and mixed strategies. Negative
politeness, on the other hand, increased when the social distance went higher in the British
group. The rank of the imposition correlated positively with negative politeness in the Saudi
group.
The gender of the addressee showed a significant impact on the use of politeness strategies
in realizing offers in the Saudi female group but not in the British. The degree of
involvement in the event of offering showed a significant effect on the use of politeness
strategies in both cultures. It correlated significantly positively with bald-on-record offers.
The results supported Takano’s (2005) view about women’s understanding of the needs of
the communicative context. Both groups made use of all the superstrategies according to the
demands of the context. However, for the British female group, the social need for
respecting others’ privacy was reflected in the inclination towards conventional indirectness,
whereas the Saudi female group showed higher tendency towards strategies of establishing
solidarity. Implications for sociolinguistics and pedagogy were discussed.

‫‪6‬‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﮭﺪف ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﺼﻲ اﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻓﻲ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻹﻧﺎث ﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻲ ﺑﯿﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺘﯿﻦ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ واﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﮭﺪف‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ذاﺗﮫ‪ ،‬إﻟﻰ اﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﻣﺪى إﻣﻜﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻖ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺔ ﺑﺮاون و‬
‫ﻟﯿﻔﻨﺴﻮن )‪ (1987‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ‪.‬‬
‫وﻟﺘﺤﻘﯿﻖ أھﺪاف ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺠﻤﯿﻊ اﻟﺒﯿﺎﻧﺎت ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ اﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﻹﻛﻤﺎل اﻟﺤﻮار و ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻼت ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺎت‬
‫ﻟﺘﺠﻤﯿﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﯾﺴﺘﻄﯿﻊ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﺤﻮاري ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﮭﺎ‪ .‬ﯾﺘﻜﻮن اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﺤﻮاري ﻣﻦ ‪ 15‬ﻣﻮﻗﻔﺎ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺎ‬
‫ﯾﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ اﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﻋﺮض ﻣﺎ‪ .‬وﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ھﺬه اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ ﺑﻨﺎءا ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﯿﺮات اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺔ ﺑﺮاون و ﻟﯿﻔﻨﺴﻮن )‪ .(1987‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﯾﻦ آﺧﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﮭﻤﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت‬
‫اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻲ‪ ،‬وھﻲ ﺟﻨﺲ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺐ‪ ،‬و درﺟﺔ ﺣﺘﻤﯿﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ اﻟﻌﺮض ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﺤﺪث‪ .‬وﻗﺪ‬
‫أﻋﻄﻲ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر ل ‪ 53‬ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺎت و ‪ 50‬ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺎت‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﺒﯿﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻼ وﺻﻔﯿﺎ وإﺣﺼﺎﺋﯿﺎ؛ وﻗﺪ اﻋﺘﻤﺪت اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ اﻟﻔﺮوﻗﺎت ﻓﻲ‬
‫اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺘﯿﻦ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ واﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﺗﺠﺎه اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ اﻟﺒﺮاﻏﻤﺎﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻋﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺤﻠﯿﻞ إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﺮارات و اﻟﻨﺴﺐ اﻟﻤﺌﻮﯾﺔ‪ .‬وﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻖ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎرات اﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﯿﺔ ﻟﻘﯿﺎس ﻣﺪى دﻻﻟﺔ اﻟﻔﺮوﻗﺎت ﺑﯿﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺘﯿﻦ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ T-test- ANOVA‬و ‪ Pearson‬ﻟﻘﯿﺎس اﻟﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ‪.‬‬
‫وﻗﺪ أﻇﮭﺮت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻣﻜﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﯿﻖ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺔ ﺑﺮاون و ﻟﯿﻔﯿﻨﺴﻮن )‪ (1987‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ؛ ﻛﻤﺎ أﻇﮭﺮت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ و ﺟﻮد‬
‫اﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ذات دﻻﻟﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ ) ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ھﻨﺎك اﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎت ﻓﺮدﯾﺔ داﺧﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻊ دﻻﻟﺔ أﻗﻮى داﺧﻞ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ(‪ ،‬وﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻘﺼﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﯿﺮات اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﺑﮭﺬه اﻟﻔﺮوﻗﺎت ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﯿﻦ‬
‫وﺟﺪ أن ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻟﻘﻮة اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻜﻦ ﻟﮫ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﻟﺪى أي ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﻨﻤﺎ‬
‫أﻇﮭﺮت اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪث و اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮا ﻗﻮﯾﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻣﻊ دﻻﻟﺔ أﻗﻮى ﻟﺪى‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺔ‪ ،‬أﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ درﺟﺔ ﻗﻮة اﻟﻌﺮض ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﺳﺘﺮاﺗﺠﯿﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎن ذا دﻻﻟﺔ ﻗﻮﯾﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ؛‬

‫‪7‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ أﻇﮭﺮت اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮا ﻗﻮﯾﺎ ﻟﺠﻨﺲ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮع اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﻟﺪى اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺛﺎت اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺎت ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬أﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ‬
‫درﺟﺔ ﺣﺘﻤﯿﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ اﻟﻌﺮض ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ذات دﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻟﺪى اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﯿﻦ وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﺠﯿﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮة‪.‬‬
‫وﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺆﯾﺪ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﯿﺔ رأي ﺗﻜﺎﻧﻮ )‪ (2005‬ﺑﺘﻔﮭﻢ اﻟﻤﺮأة ﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ؛ ﻟﺬا ﻓﺈن اﺧﺘﯿﺎر‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ ﻟﻺﺳﺘﺮاﺗﺠﯿﺔ ﯾﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻘﯿﯿﻤﮭﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﻗﻒ‪ .‬ﺣﯿﺚ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺛﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻛﻠﺘﺎ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﯿﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻞ أﻧﻮاع اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﯿﻞ ﻟﺪى اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺎت ﻧﺤﻮ اﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺪاﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺣﺘﺮام ﺧﺼﻮﺻﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﯿﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﺎن اﻟﻤﯿﻞ ﻟﺪى اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺎت ﻧﺤﻮ اﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت ﺗﻌﺰﯾﺰ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون و اﻟﺘﻀﺎﻣﻦ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻃﺐ‪.‬‬

8
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, all praise is due to Allah for helping me accomplish this work.
Secondly, with all the respect to all the people who made this thesis possible, I cannot be
more grateful to anyone than to my father who had always been a source of inspiration and
encouragement. I hope his dream to see me accomplishing something in life has come true
although he is no more among us to witness it. To him I express my gratitude and to him I
dedicate this work.
My deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr. Norice Methias for sharing a lot of her
expertise and research insight with me, for her patience throughout the completion of this
thesis, and for her enthusiasm and great efforts to explain things clearly and simply.
I also would like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee members. My deepest
gratitude goes to Prof. Mahmoud Saleh for his guidance during my study at King Saud
University. He offered advice and suggestions whenever I needed them.
I am deeply indebted to Prof. Saad Alhashash for his help at the beginning of my MA
program and at the end of the program by being in my thesis committee.
I would like to thank my family for their support throughout my study; this thesis is
simply impossible without them. I am especially indebted to my brother Saud Ali, and to my
uncle Saud Misfer.
Several people have been instrumental in allowing this work to be completed. I am deeply
grateful to the British Council in Riyadh, Al-Manarat School in Riyadh, the British School
in Riyadh and Jeddah, and the British Community Services in Riyadh for their kind
assistance.

9
Table of Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables x
List of Abbreviations xvii
Definition of Terms xviii
A Guide to Saudi Arabic Transliteration in this Study xx
Chapter One: Introduction 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem 3
1.2 Purpose of the Study 5
1.3 Significance of the Study 5
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study 7
1.6 Delimitations of the Study 8
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 9
2.1 Politeness Theory 10
2.1.1 Speech Act Theory 10
2.1.2 Models of Politeness 14
2.1.2.1 B&L’s Model 16
2.1.2.2 B&L’s Model and the Contextual Determinants 19
2.1.2.3 Global Remarks on B&L’s (1987) Don’t-do-the FTA Strategy 21
2.1.2.4 Studies Testing the Applicability of B&L’s ([1978], 1987) Model 23
to Arabic culture
2.1.3. Offers & Politeness 26

2.1.3.1 The Speech Act of Offering 26
2.1.3.2 Offers in B&L’s (1987) Model: Are They Face-threatening Acts? 29
2.1.3.3 Offers & B&L’s (1987) Politeness Strategies 31

10
2.1.3.4 Offers & Indirectness: Are Indirect Offers More Polite? 32

2.1.4 Studies on Offers in Arab Culture 34
2.1.5 Politeness & Religious Expressions 37
2.2 Politeness & Women’s Speech 38
2.2.1 Women, Indirectness & Power 40
2.2.2 Women& Politeness in Arab Culture 43
2.3 Conclusion 46
Chapter Three: Method 47
3.1 Participants 47
3.1.1 Problems with Sampling 49
3.2 Instruments 49
3.2.1 DCT 49
3.2.2 Interviews 54
3.3 Treatment 55
3.3.1 Measurement of the Contextual Determinants 56
3.4 Procedure 58
3.5 Pilot Study 59
3.6 Validity 60
3.7 Reliability 60
3.7.1 Test Reliability 60
3.7.2 Inter-coder Reliability 61

3.8 Data Analysis 62
Chapter Four: Analysis & Results 65
4.1 Analysis of the Data Collected through the DCT 65
4.1.1 Making Offers to People of Low Social Distance 66
4.1.1.1 Very Low Social Distance (Higher Power& Low Rank of Imposition) & 66
Difference in Gender
4.1.1.2 Very Low Social Distance ( High Rank of Imposition) & Difference in 87
Power

11
4.1.1.3 Low Social Distance (Equal Power) & Difference in Rank of Imposition 107
4.1.2 Making Offers to People of High Social Distance 128
4.1.2.1 High Social Distance (Low Rank of Imposition) & Difference in Power 128
4.1.2.2 High Social Distance (High Rank of Imposition) & Difference in Power 144
4.1.2.3 Very High Social Distance (The Same Gender) & Low Rank of Imposition 164
4.1.2.4 Very High Social Distance (Opposite Gender/Low rank of Imposition) 173
& Difference in Power
4.1.2.5 Very High Social Distance (Equal Power/ Opposite Gender) & Difference 187
in Rank of Imposition
4.2 Analysis of the Interviews 202
4.3 Summary 205
Chapter Five: Findings & Discussion 207
5.1 Intra- & Inter-group Differences in the Use of Politeness Strategies 209
5.1.1 Using a Chi-square for Inter-group Differences 209
. 5.1.2 ANOVA Tests for Inter-group Differences 213
5.1.3 Paired-Sample Test for the Intra-group Differences 215

5.1.4 ANOVAs & T-tests for Contextual Determinants 219
5.2 Contextual Determinants & Polite Offers 224
5.2.1 Power vs. Social Distance 224
5.2.2 Rank of Imposition 227
5.2.3 Other Contextual Determinants 229
5.2.3.1 Addressee’s Gender 230
5.2.3.2 Personal Involvement in the Event of Offering 234
5.3 Remarks on B&L’s (1987) Model 236
5.3.1 Religious Expressions 238

5.3.2 Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic not Accounted for in B&L’s 240
(1987) Model

12
5.3.3 The Dynamic Nature of P, SD & R 241
5.3.4 Comments on B&L’s (1987) Don’t-do-the FTA 243
5.4 tfaẓẓal(ay): Is It an Inherently Polite or a Formulaic Expression? 244

5.5 Are Offers Face Threatening or Inherently Polite? 246
5.6 Summary 251
Chapter Six: Conclusion 253
6.1 Sociolinguistic Implications 253
6.2 Implications for Gender Research: Woman’s Speech &Politeness 254
6.3 Pedagogical Implications 255
6.4. Suggestions for Further Research 256
Notes 257
References 260
Appendixes 269
Appendix A (Consent Form: English) 269
Appendix B (Consent Form: Arabic) 270
Appendix C (Pre-interviews: English) 271
Appendix D (Pre-interviews: Arabic) 272
Appendix E (Post-interviews: English) 273
Appendix F (Post- interviews: Arabic) 274
Appendix G (Evaluating the Contextual Determinants) 275
Appendix H (DCT Offers: English) 278
Appendix I (DCT Offers: Arabic) 281
Appendix J (Evaluating the DCT (English Version) 283
Appendix K (Evaluating the DCT (Arabic Version) 284

13
List of Tables
Page
Table 3.1. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Participant’s Age between the Saudi and the 48
British Participants
Table 3.2. T-test for the Significance of Age Difference between the Saudi & the British 48
Group
Table 3.3 Contextual Determinants & the Target Situations in the DCT 58
Table 3.4 Reliability-Scale (Alpha) for the Total Items of the DCT 61
Table 3.5. Cohen Kappa’s to Test Inter-rater Reliability 62
Table 4.1 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in the Saudi Arabic Offers in 66
Sit# 1& 2
Table 4.2. BOR Offers in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 1& 2 67

Table 4.3 PSP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2 69
Table 4.4 Frequencies of the Address Forms in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 1 & 2 70
Table 4.5. Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2 72
Table 4.6. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2 75
Table 4.7 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Sit# 1 & 2 76
Table 4.8 OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1 79
Table 4.9. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers Sit# 1& 2 79
Table 4.10 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 1& 2 81
Table 4.11 BOR Offers in British English in Sit# 1& 2 82
Table 4.12 PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 1& Sit# 2 83
Table 4.13 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 1& 2 84

Table 4.14 Types & Frequencies of the Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 84
1&2

14
Page
Table 4.15. OFR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit#1 86
Table 4.16. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 1 & 2 86
Table 4.17 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in 88
Sit# 3 & 4
Table 4.18 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 88
Table 4.19. PSP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 90

Table 4.20 Forms of Addressing the Mother in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 3 91
Table 4.21. Frequencies of Religious Expressions in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 93
Table 4. 22. NGP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 95
Table 4.23 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 3 & 4 95
Table 4. 24. Mixed Superstrategies in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 98
Table 4.25 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in the British English Offers in Sit#99
3& 4
Table 4. 26. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 3 100
Table 4.27 PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 3& 4 100

Table 4.28 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 3& 4 103
Table 4.29 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in British English offers in Sit# 3 & 4 104
Table 4. 30. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 3 & 4 106
Table. 4. 31 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in the Saudi Arabic offers in 107
Sit#5 & 6
Table 4.32. BOR Strategies in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6 108
Table 4. 33 PSP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6 110
Table 4.34 Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5 & 6 113
Table 4. 35 NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6 114

15
Page
Table 4.36 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5 & 6 117
Table 4. 37 Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6 120
Table. 4. 38 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British English Offers in 122
Sit# 5& 6
Table 4. 39 BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6 123
Table 4. 40 PSP British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6 123
Table 4. 41 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6 124
Table 4.42 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 5 & 6 125
Table 4. 43. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6 126
Table 4. 44. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 7 & 8 128
Table 4. 45 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7& 8 129
Table 4.46. PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7& 8 131
Table 4. 47 Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7 & 8 133
Table 4.48 NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7& 8 134
Table 4.49 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Sit# 7&8 136
Table 4.50. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 8 139

Table 4.51 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 7 & 8 140
Table 4.52 BOR Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 7&8 140
Table 4.53 PSP in British English Offers in Sit#7&8 141
Table 4.54 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 7&8 141
Table 4.55 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British Offers in Sit# 7& 8 142
Table 4.56. Mixed Superstrategies in British Offers in Sit#7&8 143
Table 4.57. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in 144
Sit# 9 & 10
Table 4.58 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9& 10 145
Table 4. 59 PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9 & 10 146

16
Page
Table 4.60. Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9 & 10 147
Table 4. 61. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9& 10 148
Table 4.62. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Sit# 9 & 10 151
Table 4.63. OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9 157
Table 4. 64. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9&10 158
Table 4.65. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 9 &10 159
Table 4.66. BOR Strategies in the British English Offers in Sit# 9 & 10 160
Table 4.67. NGP in the British English Offers in Sit# 9 & 10 160
Table 4.68 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in British English offers in Sit# 9 & Sit# 10161
Table 4.69 Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 9& 10 164
Table 4.70. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in the Saudi Arabic offers in 165
Sit# 11
Table 4.71. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11 165

Table 4.72. PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11 166
Table 4.73. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11 168
Table 4.74. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11 168
Table 4.75. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1 169
Table 4.76. Frequencies & Types of Politeness Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 11 170
Table 4.77. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit#11 170
Table 4.78. PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 11 171
Table 4.79. NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 11 171
Table 4.80. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 11 172
Table 4.81. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit#11 173
Table 4.82. Types & Frequencies of politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 174
& 13

17
Page
Table 4.83. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 175
Table 4.84 PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 177
Table 4.85. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 & 13 177
Table 4.86. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers Sit# 12 & 13 179
Table 4.87. OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 181
Table 4. 88. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 13 182
Table 4. 89 Types & Frequencies of Politeness Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 12 & 13 183
Table 4.90. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 12 183
Table 4.92. NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 12& 13 184
Table 4.93. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British English in Sit# 12 & 13 185
Table 4.94. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 12 & 13 187
Table 4.95. Types & Frequencies of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 188
15
Table 4.96. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit#14 188

Table 4.98. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 15 190
Table 4.99. Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers Sit# 14 & 15 192
Table 4.100. OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 15 195
Table 4.101. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 15 197
Table 4.102. Types & Frequencies of Politeness Strategies in British English Offers in 198
Sit#14 & 15
Table 4.103. NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 14 & 15 199

Table 4.104. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in the British Offers in Sit# 14 & 15 200
Table 4. 105. OFR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 15 202

18
Page
Table 5.1. Chi-square Test for the Significance of the Inter-group Differences 209
between the Saudi and the British Female Speakers according to the Situations
Table 5.2. Mean Difference in the Overall Use of Politeness Strategies between 213
the Saudi and British Group
213
Table 5.3. ANOVA Test for the Significance of Differences between the Saudi
& British Groups in the Type of Strategy
Table 5.4. Paired-Sample Test for the Intra-group Differences of the Two Groups 215
Table 5. 5. One-way ANOVA Test for the Effect of Power on the Use of Politeness Strategies 219
in Saudi Arabic Offers
Table 5. 6. One-way ANOVA for the Effect of Power on the Use of Politeness 220
Strategies in British English Offers
Table5.7. One-way ANOVA for the Effect of Social Distance on the Use of Politeness 220
Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers
Table 5.8. One-way ANOVA for the Effect of Social Distance on the Use of Politeness 221
Table 5.9. T-test for the Effect of the Rank of Imposition on the Use of Politeness Strategies 221
Table 5.10. T-test for the Effect of Rank of Imposition on the Use of Politeness Strategies in 222
British English Offers
Table 5.11. Pearson Correlation Test between the Type of Strategy & B&L’s (1987) 223
Contextual Determinants in Saudi Arabic Offers
Table 5.12. Pearson Correlation Test between the Type of the Strategy & B&L’s (1987) 223
Contextual Determinants in British English Offers
Table 5.13. Paired-sample Test of the Effect of the Rank of Imposition on the Politeness 227
Strategies in Saudi Arabic and British English Offers
Table 5. 14. T-test for the Effect of Addressee’s Gender on the Use of Politeness Strategies in 230
Saudi Arabic Offers
Table 5. 15. T-test for the Effect of Addressee’s Gender on the Use of Politeness Strategies in 230
British English Offers
Table 5. 16. Pearson Correlation of the Relationship between the Addressee’s Gender & the Type231
of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic & British English Offers
Table 5. 17. Intra- and Inter-group Differences in the Realization of Gender among the Saudi 232
& British Female Speakers in Polite Offers

19
Page
Table 5.18. Pearson Correlation Test for the Effect of the Degree of Involvement on the 235
Use of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic & British English Offers
239
Table 5. 19. Pearson Correlation test between the Use of Religious Expressions & the Contextual
Determinants
Table 5. 20. Pearson Correlation Test of the Relationship between the Use of tfaẓẓal(ay) & the 245
Contextual Determinants

20
List of Abbreviations
BOR= Bald on record
Deg. of Involv= Degree of Involvement
F= Female
G(en)=Gender
Gr=Group
H= hearer (addressee)
M = Male
N =Number of cases
Neg=Negative
NGP=Negative Politeness
NOTDO=Don’t-do-the FTA
OFR=Off record
P=Power
Pos=Positive
PSP= Positive politeness
R=Rank of imposition
S = Speaker
SD =Social Distance
Sig=Significance
Sit# Situation
Std. Dev.= Standard Deviation

21
Definition of Terms
1. Alerters “function to alert the Hearer’s attention to the ensuing speech acts” (Blum-
Kulka, House & Kaspar, 1989) such as terms of address (e.g., titles, first name,
nickname, etc.).
2. Context. Understanding the context means the persons know these cultural meanings
associated with time, place, person, and circumstance. This understanding, in turn,
prescribes language behavior appropriate to those circumstances. In essence, one needs
not to be familiar with the other person in order to communicate, but one does need to
understand the context (Heath, 1986).
3. Deference is the respect we show to other people because of their higher status, age,
and so on (Atawneh, 1991).
4. Downtoners give some indication of the degree of uncertainty (Biber, 1988).
5. Formality is concerned with the degree of impersonality of a relationship (Atawneh,
1991).
6. Maxim is simply a special manifestation of a principle (Leech, 1983). Maxims are
“general principles thought to underlie the efficient use of language, and which together
identify larger general principles, such as: the Cooperative Principle, and the Politeness
Principle.” (Crystal, 1992, p. 76)
7. Sex vs. Gender: ex is a biological categorization based primarily on reproductive
potential, whereas gender is the social elaboration of sex. Gender is something we are
not born with; it is something we perform (Eckert & McConnel, 2003). Mills (2003)

22
adds, “Gender is the way one experiences oneself as a gendered being, as well as the way
one is treated as a gendered individual.” (p. 175)
8. A speech event is a larger unit than a speech act with multiple turns (e.g., job
interview, etc.) (Hatch, 1992).
9. A strategy may be defined as a particular method of approaching a problem or a task,
a mode of operation for achieving a particular end, a planned design for controlling and
manipulating certain information (Brown, cited in Ismail, 1998).
10. A supportive move is known as a unit placed before or after a speech act, which
modifies its impact by either aggravating or mitigating its force (Blum-Kulka et al.,
1989, p.277).

23
A Guide to Saudi Arabic Transliteration in this Study
Symbols of Consonants (that are not found in the English script in this study) and Vowels
Used in Saudi Arabic Transliteration.
Consonants Vowels
Symbol Arabic Description Symbol Description
script
ʔ ‫ء‬ Voiceless glottal stop i High front short

ħ ‫ح‬ Voiceless pharyngeal ī High front long
fricative
x ‫خ‬ Voiceless uvular ē Mid-front long
fricative
dh ‫ذ‬ Voiced interdental a Low front short
fricative
ş ‫ص‬ Voiceless alveolar ā Low front long
emphatic fricative
ḍª ‫ض‬ Voiced dental-alveolar
emphatic stop
ţ ‫ط‬ Voiceless dental alveolar u High back short
emphatic stop
ẓ ‫ظ‬ Voiced dental-alveolar ū High back long
emphatic fricative
ʕ ‫ع‬ Voiced pharyngeal ō Mid back long
fricative
gh ‫غ‬ Voiced uvular fricative ayª diphthong
qª ‫ق‬ Voiceless uvular stop awª diphthong
Note ª Borrowed from Standard Arabic (ḍ is not used in most of Saudi Arabic dialects.
It is usually replaced by ẓ, as is followed in the present study.)
Based on “Transliteration of Arabic” by T. Pederson (2004). Migdadi (2003) & M. I.
Saleh (personal communication, April, 2007).

24
Chapter One
Introduction
The universal tendency to examine women’s talk gained profound interest with the
evolution of Women’s Movement, which broke out in the 1970s. The movement has exerted
a considerable influence on investigating women’s speech. The term “women’s talk” or
“talk like a woman” has characterized the relationship between gender and language
(Johnstone et al, 1992; Mills, 2003). Lakoff’s theories started the wave. Lakoff (1973)
maintains that women use particular adjectives such as “adorable,” or “charming” which
men rarely use. In the same vein, Lakoff assumes that women often add tag questions to
their statements expressing their insecurity.
Lakoff’s (1973) study stimulated researchers to examine gender contrast in speech in
various aspects. It was followed by a long line of other studies in the seventies and early
eighties. Such studies traditionally concentrated on two major issues: sexist language or
male dominance and female deference in speech (Mills, 2003; Weatherall, 2002).
Zimmerman and West (1975), and West and Zimmerman (1977) studied male interruption
of women. Fishman (1980) showed how women struggled to keep conversation going
despite men’s silence through the use of “you know.” Leet-Pellegrini (1980) examined topic
control in male-female speech.
This movement has extended to politeness, which has been linked, by necessity, to
women’s speech (Ide, 1992; Johnstone et al, 1992; Mills, 2003; Rundquist, 1992). The
stereotypical view is that politeness is women’s concern. The teaching of enforcement of

25
manners is often considered to be the preserve of a woman (Mills, 2003). Mills posits that
femininity has an association with politeness, self-effacement, weakness, vulnerability, and
friendliness. This, according to Mills, manifests itself in the language practices which
Lakoff (1973) describes as “talking like a lady.”
Politeness theories ranged from Lakoff (1973), through Leech (1983), to Brown and
Levinson ([1978] 1987). According to Lakoff’s (1975) model, one of the features of
women’s language is that women use more polite language than men, and they do so for
reasons of insecurity. She posits that the unmarked, dominant forms of linguistic behavior
are male, whereas the marked, inferior forms of linguistic behavior are female. Her model is
hardly applied in the literature and is not even considered a model of politeness by many
linguists (Watts, 2003).
Among the three models, Brown and Levinson’s theory (1987) of politeness is considered
the most productive and has attracted a large amount of attention (Watts, 2003). It “has
attained canonical status, exercised immense influence, and is still the model against which
most research on politeness defines itself.” (Harris, 2003, pp.27-28) It is widely recognized
as the most fully elaborated work on linguistic politeness, as it provides “a systematic
description of cross-linguistic politeness phenomena which is used to support an explanatory
model capable of accounting for any instance of politeness.” (Grundy, 2000, p. 126)
Further, it has been widely applied in most recent studies to investigate the differences
between men and women’s use of politeness strategies (Holmes, 1995; Mills, 2003). Thus,
in this study, Brown and Levinson’s model (1987) is chosen in order to investigate the
politeness strategies women use across Spoken Saudi-Arabic and Spoken British English in
realizing the speech act of offer.

26
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Since Brown and Levinson’s model ([1978], 1987) of politeness has been proposed, a
number of studies have examined the tendencies among women to use its strategies, leading
to contradictory generalizations about women’s polite speech.
For example, some linguists stereotyped women as being positively polite such as Holmes
(1995) in compliments and apologies, and Kouletaki (2005) in requests. They claim that
women’s linguistic behavior is often characterized as expressing friendliness, and showing
concern with other’s feelings and needs in the way they use language. Some researchers
contend that women’s politeness strategies are geared towards negative politeness; their
speech is characterized by conflict avoidance, and excessive use of deference (Mills, 2003).
These misconceived presumptions of women’s linguistic behavior formed the basis for the
negative evaluation of women’s style of communication (Dynel, 2008).
Takano (2005) has challenged the view of women being either negatively or positively
polite by examining women’s politeness in directives, concluding that women can be both
positively and negatively polite depending on the goals of the communicative context.
The above literature on women’s politeness, however, poses two major problems.
First, the largest body of the literature has drawn on data derived from women in western
societies, usually taking a monocultural perspective. In this case, generalizations about
women’s polite talk have neglected the cultural differences that may affect the use of
politeness strategies, especially in societies that differ markedly from the western ones.
Most studies did not examine women’s tendencies of politeness strategies cross-culturally.
This highlights an unjustifiable limitation in the literature.
Furthermore, women’s use of politeness strategies in the Arab societies has received little
attention, especially regarding women in the Gulf area, leading to Westerners’ stereotyping

27
women in Arab world as powerless and deferent (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2008; Mills, 2003).
There is relatively little information available about cultural differences in women’s
linguistic behavior between Saudi Arabic and British English. Saudi women’s polite talk, in
particular, has not been investigated satisfactorily. It is not clear yet what type of strategies
Saudi women would consider polite when interacting with others in different situations
under different contextual politeness determinants.
Further, most of the research has investigated women’s tendencies in politeness strategies
when using different speech acts other than the speech act of offer. Women’s politeness
strategies in offering as sociolinguistic behavior are still unexplored.
The choice of offering as sociolinguistic behavior in this study is motivated. Offers, as
commissive speech acts, remain the least treated in sociolinguistics (Rabinowitz, 1993),
especially with regard to Arabic language. In Arabic, offers are totally neglected except for
its investigation as a response to compliments (Enssaif, 2005; Farghal & Al-Khatib, 2001,
Migdadi, 2003; Nelson et al, 1996) or subordinate to a number of other speech acts (Emery,
2000; Mazid, 2006).
1.2 Purpose of the Study
This study is interdisciplinary. Besides being basically concerned with investigating the
tendencies among women in using politeness strategies, the study inheres in the discipline of
contrastive linguistics. Similarities and contrasts will be drawn between spoken Saudi
Arabic and spoken British English in female performance of offers.
This study, therefore, aims to examine the politeness strategies that Saudi female speakers
use in realizing offers. Saudi women’s use of politeness strategies will be compared to those

28
of their counterparts in the English society. The aim is not to find out whether Saudi females
are more polite than their English counterparts or vice versa, but to examine, at a
cross-cultural level, the differences in women’s use of politeness strategies under the same
contextual determinants in realizing offers.
1.3 Significance of the Study
Like the studies which contrast socio-pragmatic features of linguistic behavior in two
cultures, the present study may be of great significance for understanding differences in
language use and successful intercultural communication. As Nuredeen (2008) asserts, the
underlying motivation of speech act studies is to outline the pragmatic rules that govern the
use of language in different cultures and to show how findings can be used to facilitate
communication between people from different sociocultural backgrounds.
Therefore, since offers are influenced by the cultural context, differences in the cultural
norms may result in misunderstandings, which may lead to pragmatic failure (Rabinowitz,
1993; Woo, 1995). In this view, the present study is hoped to clarify the cultural differences
between Saudi Arabic and British English in realizing the speech act of offering.
Besides its contribution to intercultural communication, the significance of this study
derives from the fact that it is, to my knowledge, the first to:
• Focus on Saudi women’s use of politeness strategies compared to that of Western
women in the light of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model.
• Investigate Saudi women’s linguistic behavior in realizing social power, distance,
and rank of imposition in the speech act of offering monoculturally or cross-
culturally.

29
2. The study is hoped to add to the testing of the universality of Brown and Levinson’s
politeness theory in Arab culture, particularly, in the Saudi context. The model has already
been tested on Egyptian Arabic (El-Shafey, 1990), Tunisian Arabic (Elarbi, 1997), and
Palestinian Arabic (Atawneh, 1991; Atawneh & Sridhar, 1993).
3. It is hoped that the results of the study contribute to the development of second (foreign)-
language pedagogy. The results are hoped to improve English-language teaching in Saudi
Arabia by focusing on the areas that might cause pragmatic failure due to the differences
between Arabic and English, and, hence, specify the areas where pragmatic transfer is
expected. Curriculum design and the selection of language-teaching materials might include
activities in which students practice making offers in English to help students improve their
pragmatic competence based on the types of the offers produced by the British native
speakers in this study.
1.4 Research Questions
1. Are there significant inter-group differences between Saudi Arabic and British English
female speakers in using politeness strategies in realizing offers?
2. Are there intra-group differences between Saudi Arabic and British English groups? That
is, are there variations in the use of politeness strategies in realizing offers within the
same female group in each culture?
3. Are there significant differences in the way Saudi Arabic and British English female
speakers realize the contextual determinants of politeness (i.e., power, social distance &
rank of imposition) in the speech act of offering?

30
4. How is the addressee’s gender realized in offers by Saudi Arabic and British English
female speakers?
5. Is there a significant relationship between the contextual determinant and the type of a
politeness strategy?
6. Are there other factors that may affect the female speaker’s use of politeness strategies in
realizing offers?
7. Is Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness applicable to the Saudi context?
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study
The null hypotheses of the study are:
H01: There are no significant inter-group differences between Saudi Arabic and British
English female speakers in realizing offers. That is, Saudi and British English female
speakers use the same politeness strategies in the same situations.
H02: There are no significant intra-group differences. That is, individuals within each group
use the same politeness strategies in realizing offers.
H03: Saudi Arabic and British English female speakers realize the contextual determinants
of power, social distance and rank of imposition in the same way in the speech act of
offering.
H04: There is no relationship between the contextual determinant and the type of the
politeness strategy in realizing offers.
H05: Saudi Arabic and British English female speakers realize the addressee’s gender in the
same way in the speech act of offering.

31
1.6 Delimitations of the Study
This study is delimited in some ways. First, the investigation is restricted to examining the
spoken form of language in Saudi Arabic and British English (language production). The
corpus constitutes politeness strategies in offers collected only by a Discourse Completion
Test (Task) (DCT). More importantly, the corpus is derived from female participants only,
Saudi and British. The dialect used in Riyadh area is the only one investigated in Saudi
Arabic in this study. For the British population, only females working in educational
institutions in Jeddah and Riyadh are included in this study.

32
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
The review will start with tracing the timeline of the development of politeness theory from
Grice’s (1975) motivating maxims to Brown and Levinson’s (henceforth, B&L) (1987)
strategies. B&L’s model will be given particular focus in this review since it is the
framework of analysis of this study. The model’s applicability within different Arab cultures
will be reviewed. Further, a detailed theoretical account of politeness strategies in offers will
be presented in the light of B&L’s model. Strategies of offers in Arab cultures will also be
highlighted with particular focus on Gulf linguistic varieties. In this respect, the review will
illustrate the effect of religion on the use of politeness strategies in such cultures.
As the issue of this study is politeness strategies of offers as apparent in women’s
linguistic behavior, the review will further outline female linguistic behavior in different
periods, giving special attention to women’s speech as exemplars of indirectness and
powerlessness. Studies on women’s preferences of politeness strategies in Arab cultures will
conclude the review.
Before outlining the different models of politeness in the literature, a very brief account
of the speech act theory that underpins many of these models (Austin, 1962; B&L, 1987;
Lakoff, 2005; Mills, 2003; Searle, 1969; Watts, 2003) will be presented. Hence, shedding
light on speech act theory is an essential point to start this review.

33
2.1 Politeness Theory
2.1.1 Speech Act Theory
Speech act theory, as it appears, is based on the assumption that language is a form of
behavior. Austin (1962) defined speech acts as the actions performed in saying something.
Searle (1969), on the other hand, defined a speech act as the minimal unit of linguistic
communication. It is an utterance that serves a particular function in communication (p.
147). The theory of speech acts attempts to explain how utterances of the speaker are related
to the surrounding world.
According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), utterances involve the simultaneous
performance of multiple acts: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act, and a perlocutionary
act. The illocutionary act is that which most closely captures the nature of the speaker’s
intention or goal in producing a particular conversation turn.
Austin’s (1962) theory suffered some limitations; thus, Searle (1969) provided his
classification of speech acts to make up for the inadequacy in Austin’s. In his paradigm,
Searle classified speech acts into the five macro-classes: Declarations, Representatives (or
Assertives), Commissives, Directives, and Expressives.
Sugawara (2009) disputes Austin’s, Searle’s and many others’ view which reduces each
speech turn to a definite or simple illocutionary act in isolated turns, not in on-going
discourse. Sugawara’s analysis reveals the complex nature of illocutionary force exerted in
the negotiation. Sugawara states that a speech act is the composite of various indirect acts
such as reporting the circumstances of the speaker, predicting an undesirable course of
events, guessing the hearer’s inner state, and so on. Thus, a move can be composed of two
or more speech acts; there cannot be a finite number of rules that govern the infinite number
of combinations or sequences of different acts.

34
Some scholars claim that speech acts in effect operate by universal principles of
pragmatics (e.g., Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1975), according to which communicative
interaction between speaker and addressee is governed by some general mechanisms such as
principles of cooperation (Grice, 1975) or of politeness (e.g., B&L, [1978] 1987; Leech,
1983).
Many theorists have provided different views on the issue of this universality. Yu (2003)
contrasts the different views about the issue of universality versus culture-specificity. One of
these views suggests that the strategies for realizing specific linguistic behavior are
essentially identical across different cultures and languages, though the appropriate use of
any given strategy may not be exactly the same across speech communities. By contrast,
other theorists (as cited in Yu, 2003) maintain that speech acts actually vary in both
conceptualization and realization across languages and cultures, and that the difference in
their performance is mainly motivated by differences in cultural conventions and
assumptions. Bharuthram, (2003) attributes this debate to the fact that only a few speech
acts and languages have been studied in the literature. Therefore, the scope of the present
study may contribute to this debate by investigating one of the most rarely studied speech
act in the literature, that is, offers.
The study of politeness is usually in accompaniment with speech acts (Austin, 1962; B&L,
1987; Leech, 1983; Mills, 2003; O’Driscoll, 2007; Searle, 1969; Watts, 2003). Politeness
has been defined differently in the literature. It is often considered as socio-culturally
appropriate behavior (Yu, 2003; Mills, 2003). It is characterized as a matter of abiding by
the expectations of society (Yu, 2003). It is used to refer to behavior which actively
expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behavior (B&L,
1987).

35
Politeness is bifocal; it is the form of an expression of good-will as well as camaraderie,
and non-intrusive behavior (Holmes, 1995). Politeness also refers to the choices that are
made in language use during interaction (Cutting, 2002; Yu, 2003). It has been defined as
the linguistic encoding of social relations that individuals establish in interaction; these
reflect participants’ socio-cognitive perceptions and expectations (B&L, 1987).
Politeness is always context-dependent (Holmes, 1995). If a mother says to her son “open
the door,” this does not mean that she is impolite. Similarly, “You must have a cup of coffee
with me tomorrow” is polite if used with a close friend but may sound rude if used with a
superior at work.
Locher (2006) and Watts (2003) have developed the discursive approach to politeness.
They stress that there is an ongoing struggle over forms of appropriateness in any given
group of people. Accordingly, they reject classifying utterances as polite or impolite.
Watts (2003) claims that no linguistic structure is inherently polite. In this sense, he makes
a distinction between politic and polite behavior. To Watts, politic behavior is ritualized; it
is socio-culturally determined, directed towards the goal of establishing and/or maintaining
a state of equilibrium in the personal relationships between the individuals of a social group.
In this sense, Watts elaborates that some utterances do not in themselves denote politeness
but are ritualized by the society to abide by the rules of appropriateness of this society.
Some utterances are formulaic such as using please and thank you and some are less semi-
formulaic such as Would you like X? Politeness or polite behavior to Watts, on the other
hand, is when the utterance goes beyond what is considered appropriately politic at the
moment of utterance in the verbal interaction.

36
Locher (2006) criticizes the literature for automatically treating every utterance that is not
polite as impolite. She wishes to move away from this clear-cut dichotomy between polite
and impolite behavior, and in particular, to leave open the interpretation for behavior that is
neither polite nor impolite. She states that a polite utterance is a speaker’s intended, marked
and appropriate behavior which displays face concern. The motivation for it lies in the
desire of the speaker to show positive concern for the addressees and/or to respect the
addressees’ and the speaker’s own need for independence. According to Locher, what is
meant and perceived as polite in a given context will depend on judgments based on cultural
knowledge of norms of appropriateness which are constantly changing.
Politeness, in many instances, has been sometimes equated to indirectness (Austin, 1962;
B&L, 1987; Leech, 1983; Lakoff, 2005; Searle, 1969; Srinarawat, 2005). Indirectness is a
universal phenomenon of all natural languages (Srinarawat, 2005). B&L (1987) classify
direct speech acts as unmitigated FTAs, which, however, may be justified under unusual
circumstances (e.g., emergencies). In the direct speech act, the speaker uses a sentence
whose meaning explicitly provides the hearer with the content of the intended act.
Indirectness, on the other hand, refers to the speech act in which the expressed meaning of
an utterance does not match the speaker’s implied or intended meaning (Srinarawat, 2005).
An indirect speech act requires the speaker’s and the hearer’s shared background
information and the ability to make inferences on the listener’s part (Rabinowitz, 1993;
Srinarawat, 2005).
Investigations of (in)directness in speech act realizations have been closely tied to
politeness (Watts, 2003;. Leech (1983) contends that indirectness is usually associated with
politeness and that the “more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its

37
force tends to be.”(p. 108) In investigating (in)directness and its impact on politeness,
Blum-Kulka (1987) concludes that direct strategies are often viewed as impolite because
they lack a concern for face. B&L (1987), on the other hand, maintain that the level of
directness is to be ruled by universal principles of politeness. For example, Arabic culture
permits the use of direct strategies as an expression of showing intimacy and closeness to
the addressee (Bajri, 2005).
2.1.2 Models of Politeness

Over the last thirty years, the literature has introduced many models of linguistic politeness.
The most influential of these are the ones offered by Lakoff (1973), B&L ([1978] 1987), and
Leech (1983). All of these models have been influenced by Grice’s (1975) Cooperative
Principle (CP).
Grice’s (1 975) Cooperative Principle (CP) and maxims have laid the path before other
researchers to investigate the phenomenon of politeness. Lakoff (1973) notices that speakers
violate the maxims of Grice more often than they observe them to save the rules of
politeness (i.e., to fulfill the social function of language). Lakoff proposes three rules for
politeness: (a) Don’t impose (b) Give options and (c) Make the hearer feel good/be friendly.
According to Lakoff (1973), each of these rules when applied in interaction creates a
particular effect. Hence, applying the first rule (Do not impose) results in distancing the
speaker from the hearer. Distance applies in formal situations. Thus, formality is a strategy
by which one would choose an indirect expression so as not to impose one’s will on the
others. The second rule, “Give options” results in the deference strategy, which is
characterized by a hesitant style. Lakoff claims that this strategy is often used by women as

38
a result of their indecisiveness. “Be friendly” results in camaraderie (where intimate forms
of politeness are used).
Building on Lakoff’s (1973/1975) work, B&L ([1978] 1987) distinguish two aspects of
politeness: negative and positive face. B&L renamed Lakoff’s notion ‘don’t impose’ or
distance as ‘negative face’ (i.e., freedom of hearer from imposition), and her notion of
‘rapport’ or camaraderie as ‘positive face’ (i.e., respect of self-image or wants of both
speaker and hearer) (Atawneh, 1991) (This model will be analyzed more thoroughly in
section 2.1.2.1.)
To make up for the inability of Grice’s CP in accounting for politeness strategies, Leech
(1983) proposes six maxims of politeness in his Politeness Principle (PP). He has developed
the PP to explain some phenomena that cannot be explained by Grice’s CP. Leech (1983)
believes that the PP is “a necessary complement, which rescues the CP from serious
trouble.” (p. 80). In this respect, Leech claims that the CP cannot explain some facts such as,
for example, why people violate CP maxim of manner by being often indirect in conveying
what they mean. He proposes the maxims of Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty,
Sympathy and Agreement. Most of these maxims operate on a scale of cost/benefit or
praise/dispraise value whereby politeness goes higher if the cost/dispraise goes higher for
the speaker and the benefit/praise goes higher for the addressee.
Further, Leech (1983) uses the terms positive and negative, yet defined, somewhat,
differently from B&L’s ([1978] 1987) notions. Negative politeness minimizes the
impoliteness of impolite illocutions, and positive maximizes the politeness of the polite
illocutions. Leech provides a scale on which a continuum of directness can be justified.

39
Indirectness is linked to politeness; the more indirect the speech act is, the higher the
politeness is.
However, among all the reviewed models, B&L’s (1987) is considered the most influential
and comprehensive. It is the most productive model. It has generated a wealth of theoretical
and empirical research in a wide variety of disciplines (Atawneh & Sridhar, 1993;
Bharuthra, 2003; Ermida, 2006; Johnstone et al, 1992; Mills, 2003; Watts 2003). Therefore,
this model has been chosen for this study and will be dwelt upon in the following section.
2.1.2.1 B & L’s (1987) Model
In their theory, B&L (1987) provide a framework for a micro-analysis of the strategies
embedded in interactional discourse. B&L define politeness as a redressive action taken to
“counterbalance” the disruptive effect of FTAs, and to show concern for people’s face (p.
38). The theory is derived from certain assumptions about face and individual self-esteem. It
consists of three basic notions: face, face-threatening acts (FTAs), and politeness strategies.
Central to B&L’s model ([1978], 1987) is the notion of face, which is defined as “the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself.” (p. 61) B&L (1987) argue
that every member of a society has face, and when the speaker decides to commit an act
which potentially causes the hearer (or the speaker) to lose face, the speaker will tend to use
a politeness strategy in order to minimize the risk.
The notion of face is derived from Goffman’s concept. Goffman (1967) defines face as
“an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes,” and, therefore, as “the
positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has

40
taken during a particular contact.” (1967, p. 5) He indicates the function of face by asserting
that “societies everywhere, if they are to be societies, must mobilize their members as self-
regulating participants in social encounters.” (p. 44) Goffman claims the universal
applicability of face as a construct; however, he also emphasizes the role of cultural
differences in the function of face by asserting that “each person, subculture and society,
seems to have its own characteristic repertoire of face-saving practices –yet these are all
drawn from a single logically coherent framework of possible practices.” (p. 13) Goffman
claims that face is not possessed by the person himself but is given to him by the others in
the flow of the interaction. Therefore, for an interaction to succeed, all the interlocutors
should accept each other’s line, which requires both self-respect and consideration for the
other.
In B&L’s (1987) words, “face is something emotionally invested that can be lost,
maintained or enhanced, or must be constantly attended to in interaction.” (p.61) There are
two types of face. One is negative face, which is related to the desire to act unimpeded by
other people, and the claim to one’s territory, personal preserves, and rights to non-
distraction, such as freedom of action and freedom from imposition. The other is positive
face, which is related to the desire to be liked, appreciated or approved of by other members
of a society. They assume that under normal circumstances, people recognize the
vulnerability of face and strive to maintain one another’s face through cooperative activity.
Thus, the speaker tends to minimize the risk of losing face by using politeness strategies
B&L’s (1987) model proposes that there are certain acts that are intrinsically face-
threatening acts (FTAs), such as requests and apologies. Therefore, when faced with FTAs,

41
people would adopt various speech strategies to minimize or eliminate such threats, B&L
suggest five possible strategies to alleviate those face-threatening acts (FTAs), and,
therefore, to protect the mutual vulnerability of face. The five main strategies are comprised
in two possibilities: to do FTAs on record, or to do so off record.
The first three strategies are on-record strategies, in which “there is only one
unambiguously attributable intention” (p. 69) on which both participants agree. The first
strategy is to do the act baldy on-record. That is, to do the FTA directly without any
redressive action. By redressive action, B&L (1987) refer to action that gives face to the
hearer. In other words, this kind of action is to attempt to “counteract the potential face
damage of the FTA” (p. 69). The second and the third on-record strategies are: (2) to
perform the FTA with redressive action that attends to the hearer’s positive face by
including him/her in the group (i.e., positive politeness) and (3) to do the FTA with
redressive action that satisfies the addressee’s negative face by not interfering with his/her
freedom of action (i.e., negative politeness).
The fourth strategy is to go off record in doing the FTA. Thus, ‘‘there is more than one
unambiguously attributable intention” (p. 69) to which the addressee can react. In reality,
linguistic realizations of this strategy include irony, tautologies, understatements, rhetorical
questions, all kinds of hints, and so forth. The last strategy, (5), Don’t-do-the FTA is to
avoid FTAs by not doing them at all (See 3.8 and 4.1 for substrategies). They argue that the
more a given act threatens the speaker’s or the addressee’s face needs, the more the speaker
will want to employ a higher-order strategy. In other words, higher-number strategies are
presumed to be more polite.

42
B&L (1987) claim the universality of face, with its two basic desires: positive and
negative. They also claim the universality of the set of strategies from which individual
cultures choose. That is, these strategies along with their specific realizations are potentially
‘‘available to persons in any culture as rational means of dealing with the face of others.’’
(p. 244) Hence, the central claim of the model is that “broadly comparable linguistic
strategies are available in each language, but that there are local cultural differences in what
triggers their use” (Grundy, 2000, p. 156). These cultural differences in the individuals’
choices of these strategies are caused by the different realizations of the contextual variables
across cultures. In other words, what is regarded as linguistically polite behavior in one
community may not necessarily be regarded so in another.
2.1.2.2 B&L’s Model and the Contextual Determinants
To determine the level of politeness that the speaker employs to the hearer in doing an FTA,
B&L (1987) further argue that in most cultures, there are three indispensable sociological
variables involved in the assessment of the seriousness of an FTA: (a) the social distance
(SD) between the speaker and the hearer, (b) the relative power (P) of the hearer over the
speaker, (c) the absolute ranking of impositions (R) in a given culture (p. 74).
Power and social distance have been identified as two significant social variables
affecting speech act performance (B&L, 1987; Blum-Kulka, House& Kasper, 1989). The
concept of power is related to vertical and that of distance to horizontal realm (Larina, 2005;
Leech, 1983).
Power is a basic component of B&L’s model of politeness and it has been the focus of
many attempts at understanding the linguistic mechanisms at work “in asymmetric discourse

43
instances” (Ermida, 2006, p. 843). Power is associated with notions of control and
submission (Larina, 2005). It is assumed that the more powerful the hearer is, the more
polite the speaker is expected to be (B&L, 1987). Wilson (as cited in Gill, 2005) calculates
power during a face-threatening act as the degree of the status or control of a message
source that the speaker has in relation to the target individual. Gill (2005) adds that face
threatening acts can have an influence on how power is employed during an interpersonal
interaction. Gill argues that power always involves a relationship. It always consists of
interaction and, therefore, can never be one-sided and unidirectional.
Social distance (SD) is the degree to which interactants are familiar with one another
(B&L, 1987; Leech, 1983; Mills, 2003). In B&L’s model (1987), it can be measured in
terms of “the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material and nonmaterial goods
exchanged between S and H.” (1987, p .77) Social distance is linked to notions of mutual
bonding and unfamiliarity (B&L, 1987; Larina, 2005; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003). As Leech
and B&L contend, if social distance increases, politeness increases.
Another important contextual determinant that influences the way we perform a speech act
is the size of imposition or rank of imposition (R). The ranking of imposition implies that
the greater the imposition on the hearer, the more polite (indirect) the speaker is required to
be (B&L, 1987). The perception regarding the severity of the offense may vary cross-
culturally, and different perceptions of the situation would influence the strategic use of a
speech act formula (B&L, 1987).
The speaker can calculate or compute the size of FTA based on these variables and the
level of politeness in any communicative act. In this respect, the theory offers a formula that
is claimed to be used in computing the seriousness of an FTA. According to B&L (1987),

44
the speaker evaluates the weightiness or seriousness of an FTA (Wx) on the basis of the
following three factors; the social distance between the speaker (S), and the hearer (H), a
measure of the power that the hearer has over the speaker, and the absolute ranking of
impositions in the particular culture. The speaker’s evaluation of an FTA, in turn,
contributes to his/her determination of the level of politeness. Thus:
Wx = Distance (S; H) + Power (H; S) + Rank of imposition.
However, the model did not escape criticism, especially regarding the Don’t-do-the FTA
strategy. This is illustrated in 2.1.2.3.
2.1.2.3 Global Remarks on B&L’s (1987) Don’t-do-the FTA Strategy
B&L’s model (1987) has given a more functional role to silence in interaction. One of the
two major options when facing an FTA is not to do it. However, whereas the model in
question has focused on the types of politeness strategies when doing an FTA, it provides no
description about the second major option, although it is seen as the most polite strategy in
the continuum.
In this view, Thomas (1995) criticizes the model for not elaborating on the Don’t-do-the
FTA strategy. She believes that in verbal interaction, people sometimes do things instead of
saying anything. For example, in offers, it is common to give a cup of coffee without asking.
Sifianou (1997) posits that silence can be used as a positive politeness strategy when it
functions as a sign of solidarity and rapport, while it can also be a negative politeness
strategy if it functions as a distancing tactic. Nakane (2006), and Shigemasu and Ikeda
(2006) also argue that face threatening avoidance-silence-as a form of communication or

45
politeness strategies has been relatively neglected by researchers. Ephratt (2008) asserts that
the notion of silence in linguistics in the 1970s was closely associated with negativity,
passiveness, impotence and death; it was treated as absence: absence of speech, and absence
of meaning and intention.
El-Shafey (1990) provides two types of not doing the FTA, the positive and the negative
form. In the positive form, the speaker responds using kinesics but not words. The negative
form is when the speaker ignores the situation completely, giving no response by opting out.
Sifianou (2001) assumes that silence could be a realization of the Don’t-do-the FTA
strategy, where one may decide not to perform the FTA at all when the risk of threat to face
is too great. She also contends that while silence has a positive value in avoiding imposition,
it can also be the least polite form because it places high inferential demands on the
addressee. In considering silence and politeness in intercultural communication, Nakane
(2006) supports Sifianou’s (2001) claim that silence needs to be considered as realization of
politeness strategies beyond Don’t-do- the FTA.
In contrast, Shigemasu and Ikeda (2006) consider this strategy as the most polite of the
five. When people use Don’t-do- the FTA as a nonperformance strategy, it means that they
place a higher priority on appropriateness than clarity. They also name B&L’s (1987) Don’t-
do-the FTA strategy the silent strategy—which is consistent with face threatening
avoidance. They consider silence as a communication style because it is one way of
delivering a message.
Nakane (2006), and Shigemasu and Ikeda (2006) posit that the interpretations of silence
depend on cultural differences; where Westerners tend to interpret silence negatively, non-
Westerners may value it. Thus, cross-cultural sociopragmatic failure may be caused by a
lack of harmony between the politeness orientations of the two cultures. Shigemasu and

46
Ikeda’s (2006) study found that silences as face-saving strategies are much less common
among Western cultures, which tend to perform face-work verbally and establish rapport
more easily. Their study also focused on the importance of assuming individual differences
regarding face threatening act avoidance. Individual differences result from the recipient’s
expectations about whether he or she will be protected from the FTA or will receive clear
messages through Don’t-do-the FTA strategy. If the expectation is fulfilled by his or her
experience, positive effects will result. On the other hand, if that expectation is violated by
his or her experience, negative effects will result.
2.1.2.4 Studies Testing the Applicability of B&L’s (1987) Model to Arabic Culture
The notion of face plays an important role in the Arabian culture in regulating people’s
speech behavior (Al-Issa, 1998; Nuredeen, 2008). Al-Issa provides some factors that may
cause Arabs to take face into consideration in interaction. These factors include honor, pride,
power, religious beliefs, and emotional attachment to self-image and the image of others.
For example, in refusals, Arabs find it difficult to refuse a request or an invitation directly
by saying “no” or “I can’t.” Instead, they feel obliged to come up with convincing
explanation of the refusal to save their face as well as the others’ face. Such elaborate
responses may be interpreted by American speakers (who are more direct) as exaggeration
and insincerity.
The universality claim is supported by El-Shafey (1990). El-Shafey compares politeness
strategies in Spoken Egyptian Arabic (SEA) and Spoken British English (SBE). Results
show that both British English and Egyptian speakers use indirect forms in similar
situations. However, the British use more indirect forms than the Egyptians. Using non-
conventionalized strategies to respond to an offence (e.g., British “thank you,” Arabic

47
“shukran” (thanks)) is seen sometimes a more polite strategy than “confirming to
conventions of using a certain politeness strategy to attempt threatening the hearer’s face in
response to the performed FTA.” (p. 347) Joking is another strategy that both cultures use
with intimate relations. The realization of politeness strategies by using address terms to
show deference is more widely recognized in EA than in BE. However, El-Shafey (1990)
analyzes some strategies that cannot be described as either positive or negative politeness,
which marks a shortcoming of B&L’s model such as seeking disagreement when beneficial
to the addressee. This is similar to saying in English “I disagree with you” to respond to the
statement, “I’m fit for nothing.”
In comparing politeness substrategies used by native speakers of Palestinian Arabic and
English, Atawneh (1991), and Atawneh and Sridhar (1993) have conducted a study to
describe the politeness strategies in realizing the speech act of requesting in Arabic and
contrast them with those in English. Their studies also aim to test the politeness theory of
B&L (1987) with Arabic-English bilinguals and Arabic monolinguals, and to explore the
cultural determination of pragmatic norms in language. The data have been collected
through a questionnaire of role-playing situations. The analysis of results shows a strong
support for the politeness theory. They posit that native speakers of Arabic use the
substrategies of politeness differently from their English counterparts. Arabic seems to
allow for more positive politeness strategies whereas English allows more negative
politeness because the modal system in English allows for higher mitigation by hedging and
use of indirect requests. Arabic, on the other hand, has a limited modal system that does not
have past forms, but allows a range of conditional verbal modals which could be used at
various levels of politeness for mitigating the request as idha mumkin X. Using the address

48
titles as deference is highly used in addressing the unfamiliars in Arabic (Atawneh, 1991;
Atawneh & Sridhar, 1993).
To test the applicability of B&L’s (1987) framework in Tunisian Arabic, Elarbi (1997)
examined the concepts of politeness and face in Modern and Traditional Tunisian Arabic.
Elarbi has collected the data from fifty-four Tunisians of different social backgrounds
(traditional and modern). The results support the universality of B&L’s model particularly
regarding notions of face and politeness in Tunisian Arabic. In Traditional Tunisian,
politeness is expressed through beliefs in notions of honor and shame, as well as, deference
or redressive acts like those related to the evil eye in close relationships. In Modern
Tunisian, on the other hand, positive face is maintained through in-group identity to social
groups of different degrees of closeness, and the use of “superposed” prestigious dialect
which is not gender related.
Using B&L’s (1987) classification of politeness strategies, Bentahila and Davies (cited in
Emery, 2000) suggest that Arab culture favors positive politeness while British culture tends
to favor negative politeness. In this case, “considerable attention is paid in Arab society to
making the other party feel good.” (Emery, 2002, p. 206)
Bentahila and Davies’ (cited in Emery, 2000) assumption is confirmed by Nureddeen
(2008), regarding Sudanese Arabic. The study investigated the type and extent of use of
apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic to shed light on the sociocultural attitudes and values
of the community. The corpus was 1082 responses to a Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
that consisted of 10 different social situations of varying severity of offense, strength of
social relationship and power between hypothetical speakers and hearers. Nuredeen asserts
that the results support the claim of the universality of speech act strategies; however, the

49
selection of apology strategies reinforced the culture-specific aspect of language use. Her
results revealed an orientation among the Sudanese toward positive politeness. The
informants attempted to preserve their positive face by avoiding use of apology strategies
(e.g., taking responsibility, intensification and promise of forbearance), which are most
damaging to S’s face. In order to reduce the threat of a strong apology, informants used
unthreatening – or face saving – strategies (humor, minimization, denial, and opting out).
The study also illustrated the use of religious words and phrases in everyday communication
with varied illocutionary forces, possibly as fillers, hedges, or devices to soften the threat of
an act.
It is obvious that, generally speaking, applying B&L’s ([1978], 1987) model to speech acts
in Arabic is scarce, which poses a need for carrying out more studies in the field. The
present study is an attempt to add to these views of applicability, using other different
speech acts that are rarely discussed in the literature such as offers.
2.1.3 Offers & Politeness
2.1.3.1 The Speech Act of Offering
Offers are commissives. According to Searle’s (1969) paradigm, they involve commitment
on the part of the speaker to perform an act for the benefit of the addressee. Bilbow (2002)
defines offers as speech acts “through which the speaker places an obligation on his/herself
to undertake commitment associated with the action specified in the proposition.” (p. 287)
Bilbow (2002) classifies commissive speech acts broadly as promises and offers on the
basis of whether they are initiated or uninitiated, respectively. Initiated commissive speech
acts are uttered in response to some form of initiation in short adjacency pair relationships,

50
whereas uninitiated commissives are those that occur spontaneously and seemingly without
initiation in free conversation (Bilbow, 2002).
For example, in a promise, a dialogue may go on as in B promising A:
A. You have to be here before 9. Don’t forget! We all depend on you.
B. Don’t worry! I’ll be here on time. Count on me!
In an offer, a guest is sitting in front of you. Before starting conversation, you may say
Coffee or Tea? Here the offer is expressed as a result of no apparent initiation. They are not
in an obvious adjacency pair arrangement with a preceding utterance.
Commissive speech acts also vary in terms of their levels of directness. Speakers may
want the commitment they express to be somewhat ambiguous, possibly as a result of the
“ambivalence we feel when we simultaneously wish to be seen to be a fully participating
member of a group, while, at the same time, wishing to be free from obligations that place
restrictions on our time and freedom.” (Bilbow, 2002, p. 295) In his paradigm, Bilbow
classifies offers as direct uninitiated commissives. A special case of the direct uninitiated
offer is the “self-reminder,” whereby the speaker offers to undertake an action which has
been overlooked, using an utterance such as I’d better check it up or I must remember to do
that (Bilbow, 2002).
Hancher (cited in Rabinowitz, 1993) classified offers as commissive directives. In an
offer, the speaker commits himself to carrying out the proposed act; yet an offer also has a
directive force; “it looks forward for some act by the hearer.” (p. 21) Based on Hancher’s
classification, Rabinowitz (1993) defines an offer as “a speech act, generally indirect, which
voluntarily proposes, without an obligation to do so, to extend an item or a service which the

51
speaker considers beneficial to the receiver and proposes to furnish. It arises from the
interlocutors’ shared knowledge of the situational context, and is usually based upon a
preference or a need on the part of the receiver which the offerer perceives and indicates a
willingness to address.” (p. 203) She underlines two important features: suggesting doing or
giving something, and the absence of obligation relating to this suggestion.
This definition emphasizes the cooperative features of offers (B&L, 1987; Bilbow, 2002;
Rabinowitz, 1993; Tiersma, 1986) because besides the obligation, which the offerer places
on himself by making the utterance, the offerer expects that the receiver will make a
decision about the offer by either accepting or refusing it (Rabinowitz, 1993; Tiersma,
1986).
Because of these cooperative features, an offer is sometimes mixed up with an invitation
(Rabinowitz, 1993; Tseng, 1999). However, whereas offers are classified as commissives in
Searle’s (1969) paradigm, invitations are classified as directives. Compared to Rabinowitz’s
former definition of an offer, Tseng’s (1999) definition of an invitation places the speech act
of invitation closer to directives. In an invitation, S indicates that s/he wants H to do
something, which makes an invitation closer to directives as requests and commands.
However, an invitation differs from requests in two main ways. First, in an invitation, H has
the choice to do or not without the S being angry if H refuses the action. Secondly, in
requests the benefit of the action is usually for S’s benefit, whereas invitations are supposed
to be for H’s benefit.
Rabinowitz (1993) provides a list of the most common offer formulas in English. Offers
are frequently used with certain verbs including want, like, need as applied to the subject

52
‘you.’ Offers also appear with verbs such as have, try, help, and let. However, the first
group of verbs is used more frequently in offers than the latter. Expressions containing
‘any’ such as we have coffee, tea, anything you want. (e.g., Anyone want some?) Why don’t
you have them? Feel free to call me (Rabinowitz, 1993).
In the light of the above, the present study aims to examine which types of utterances are
used in the collected data, comparing and contrasting them in Saudi Arabic and English
British.
2.1.3.2 Offers in B & L’s (1987) Model: Are They Face-threatening Acts?
Leech (1983) considers offers as inherently polite speech acts, directed towards the positive
face of the hearer. In this sense, offers are non face-threatening act. B&L (1987) reject this
classification which discards the role of context in determining the politeness strategy and
which ignores the contextual determinants of D, P and R.
B&L (1987) argue that any utterance which could be interpreted as making a demand or
imposing on another person’s autonomy can be regarded as a potential face-threatening act
(FTA). Offers, suggestions, advice, and requests can be regarded as face-threatening acts,
since they potentially impede the other person’s freedom of action. An act that primarily
threatens the addressee’s negative face is a negative FTA (such as requests) because they
indicate impeding the hearer’s freedom of action. Any future act on the part of the speaker
that puts some pressure on H to accept or reject and possibly incur a debt such as offers is a
positive FTA.

53
In B&L’s (1987) model, offers are potential FTAs. That is, there is a risk that H may not
wish to receive such an offer. Offers can be face threatening to both speaker’s and hearer’s
face. Those offers which are made reluctantly are seen by B&L to impinge upon the
negative face of the offerer, who is constrained by something in the contextual situation to
actually produce these offers, perhaps counter to his/her innermost wishes. Offers can be a
threat to the H’s negative face, somewhat violating his/her privacy. This occurs both when
H receives an offer, and in those cases where H feels constrained to accept it. By making the
offer, S is imposing an obligation upon H, not only pressing H to accept, but announce a
decision. This is somewhat intrusive, involving a threat to the receiver’s negative face or
desire to remain unimposed upon.
Many critics find what constitutes B&L’s (1987) FTAs perverse (Mills, 2003; Watts,
2003). Sifianou (1997) has observed that B&L (1987) do not provide any examples of acts
they do not consider face threatening. Evidence from a wide variety of cultures has disputed
B&L’s (1987) claim. Gu (1990) reports that invitations, even persistent ones, are not seen as
FTAs in China; Nwoye (1992) claims that requests and offers carry no sense of imposition
in Igbo culture; Koutlaki (2002) argues that offers and reactions to them in Persian society
should be regarded as basically face-enhancing.
In line with the views above, O’Driscoll (2007) disputes B&L’s (1987) claim that some
kinds of speech acts are intrinsically face threatening, and thus any performance of such an
act must be an FTA. He argues that FTAs can only be identified in the context of the
ongoing interaction. According to O’Driscoll, an FTA is simply any move which predicates
a change in face. Hence, any move which does not have this effect is not face threatening;
no act is intrinsically face-threatening and that FTAs cannot be equated with speech acts.

54
O’Driscoll argues that what makes an act threatening to face is not what is aimed at face but
what actually strikes the face.
Thus, this study is hoped to test how applicable B&L’s (1987) concept of FTAs to offers
by shedding light on whether offers can be face-threatening or face-enhancing acts.
2.1.3.3 Offers & B&L’s (1987) Politeness Strategies
Although B&L’s (1987) work is based mainly on the speech act of requesting, B&L provide
instances of how politeness strategies (i.e., bald-on, positive, negative and off-record
strategies) are used in offers. This section illustrates these strategies.
B&L (1987) consider bald-on record offers as polite. They assert that polite offers are
often bald-on record imperatives. Thus, where the risk is small, all languages would go
baldly-on record. The reason is that the firmer the offer or invitation, the less reluctant H
will be. Consequently, the firmer the offer or invitation, the more polite it is. To B&L, the
bald-on record strategy is used when the speaker wants to perform the FTAs with a
maximum efficiency rather than paying consideration to the satisfaction of the hearer’s face.
Speakers resort to this type of strategy to minimize face threats when the danger of H’s face
is very small as in offers that are clearly in H’s interest and do not require great sacrifices of
S (e.g., Do sit down). On the other hand, where the risk is great, strategies other than bald-
on record are expected to redress the offer. These can be positive, negative, or off-record
strategies.
Rabinowitz (1993) claims that since the offer is seen as a supportive speech act, it can be
seen as a reflection of positive politeness by making the offerer appear as a generous person.

55
It is a universally positively polite speech act because it is addressed to the hearer’s positive
face. Offers “demonstrate the speaker’s good intentions in satisfying the hearer’s positive-
face want.”(B&L, 1987, p. 125) B&L’s model, on the other hand, has accounted for how
positive politeness is displayed in offers to redress the potential threat they may cause
(B&L, 1987, pp.103-129). (See sections 3.8 & 4.1 for elaboration on these strategies.)
However, offers can also be seen as face-threats to the hearer’s negative face in that the
hearer is pressured to accept the offer. This infringement of the offerer is expressed by using
certain negative politeness strategies to mitigate this intrusion. In this respect, an offer not
only intrudes into the addressee’s privacy, it also imposes an obligation on the receiver’s
negative face (B&L, 1987; Koyama, 2001; Rabinowitz, 1993). For these reasons, one may
expect deference and formality in such a speech act (Koyama, 2001). Negative politeness
can be used to mitigate the intrusion.
The off-record offers permit the offerer to avoid confronting with a direct request, which
in turn could place the offeree in the uncomfortable position of refusing. By hinting, pre-
requesting, or reminding, off-record offers are accomplished by different strategies that raise
the issue of some desired act (Rabinowitz, 1993).
2.1.3.4 Offers & Indirectness: Are Indirect Offers More Polite?
In spontaneous speech, one seldom hears the term offer in an expression used to make an
offer. That is, the word “offer” is neither necessary nor sufficient for making a commitment,
although it can indicate the illocutionary force. A large number of offers are made without
the performative verb (Rabinowitz, 1993, Tiersma, 1986). The absence of the performative

56
verb offer in spontaneous natural discourse has been justified by Austin (1962). Using the
performative verb in a commissive such as “I offer” or “I promise” intensifies the
commitment on the speaker to do the action in the future whether he has a real intention to
do it or would change his mind later. This, according to Austin (1962), would bind the
speaker to others and would stake the speaker’s reputation in a way. Tiersma (1986)
concludes this controversy about the notable absence of the performative verb offer in daily
interaction by contending that “the crucial element is not in the words used, but in the
context and circumstances in which the utterance is made.” (p. 192)
Leech (1983) emphasizes the relationship between directness and politeness in offers. He
claims that Tact Maxim applies to directives and commissives. With directives, we lessen
the impositive illocutionary force by minimizing the cost to the hearer. In offers, however,
the scale of politeness is reversed. That is, the imperative which does not give the hearer the
chance to say “no” is positively polite. In this respect, direct offers are more polite than the
indirect ones. For example: Have another sandwich is more polite than Would you mind
having another sandwich? Because the latter suggests that the hearer would do the speaker a
favor by accepting eating the sandwich. So may be the sandwiches are “stale, inedible, or
poisoned.” (p. 109)
In line with Leech’s view, B&L (1987) argue that in offers the speaker may go baldly on
record, as an exception to the rule, where S insists that H impose on S’s negative face. So,
“the firmer the invitation, the more polite it is.” (p. 99)
In contrast, Woo (1995) prefers indirect offers, postulating that the use of indirect offers
enables the addressee to accept it at ease, and reduce the FTA. A teacher may ask the

57
students, “Do you know the story?” before reading; it is a strategy to show interest in their
needs or “Did you hear it?” So she gives them options not to be imposed on.
However, as aforementioned, many linguists maintain that the level of directness is to be
ruled by cultural differences. This study aims to investigate how these differences affect the
use of polite offers in two diverse cultures.
2.1.4 Studies on Offers in Arab Culture
Speech in Arabic falls under two broad categories, al ʔinshāʔ (initiating) and al-xabar
(reporting) (Atawneh, 1991; Attabtabai, 1994). Al ʔinshāʔ cannot be described as true or
false, while al-xabar can be described as true or false depending on whether it agrees or
disagrees with the reality of the world (Al-Jindi, cited in Atawneh, 1991).
The speech act of offering is called alʕarḍ in Arabic. Its classification has undergone
debate in Arabic (Attabtabai, 1994). Offers are classified as subfields of initiation. Ibn Faris
(as cited in Zayid, 1996; Al-Zowbai, 1997) classified meanings of speech into ten categories
including offers. A more recent, yet comprehensive, classification is proposed by Attabtabai
(1994) in which he modifies the classifications of speech acts in Arabic. He proposes two
methods to classify speech acts: the broad and the detailed classification. The latter
comprises three major classes: reporting, directive initiation and non-directive initiation. 1
Offers in Arabic are included under the non-directive initiation since they imply properties
of directives and non-directives. They differ from the directive-initiation in that they lack the
element of insistence (Attabtabai, 1994).
Offers in Arabic literature are related to the common generosity of Arab people
(Migdadi, 2003). Emery (2000) posits that the importance of hospitality in the Arab World

58
is proverbial and commemorated in Arabian history in the deeds of those such as ħātim
aţţāʔi, whose name became an icon of generosity when he gave away the camels that he was
herding for his father to a passing caravan.
However, the speech act of offering as sociolinguistic behavior remains totally neglected
in Arabic pragmatics except for its brief investigation as a response to compliments
(Enssaif, 2005; Farghal & Al-Khatib, 2001; Migdadi, 2003; Nelson et al, 1996; Nelson et al,
2002), or subordinate to other speech acts (Emery, 2000; Mazid, 2006). In Jordan, the
complimentee may offer the complimenter the item s/he has received compliment on as a
sign of politeness. For example, if a person receives a compliment on her/his watch, s/he
may respond, “mgaddam”‫( ﻣﻘﺪم‬It is yours) to offer the watch to the complimenter (Migdadi,
2003).
In the Arab world, offering as sociolinguistic behavior represents an important part of the
Arabian character due to historical, social, and religious motives. Jordanian society has a
special pattern of inviting/offering that may be appreciated only by people sharing the same
socio-cultural background. The offeree is expected to reject an offer several times, before
accepting it with a show of reluctance (Al-Khatib, 2006). Al-Khatib (2001) has reported that
“to invite without insistence means that the concerned person is not serious about the
invitation, and offers it as a mere remark of courtesy; and to accept the offer without
reluctance means that the recipient is gluttonous, and may be described as an ill-behaved
person.” (p. 190)
Such studies on politeness hardly address Gulf varieties of the language except for the
brief account proposed by Emery (2000) and Mazid (2006). Mazid (2006) proposes some

59
formulas of offers that are frequently used in the Gulf region. These formulas were taken
from a long set of other speech acts that he gathered from people’s data:
twaSSi bshayy‫ ﺗﻮﺻﻲ ﺑﺸﻲ؟‬Lit. "You ask/ commend anything?"; tamur ‫؟‬ala shayy ‫ﺗﺎﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ ﺷﻲ؟‬Lit. "You order anything (…) shayy f khaaTirk/ f il khaaTirƠ ǛƏ ǚ/ Ǜһ Lit.
"Anything on your mind?"…. ?itfaDDal/ ?itfaDDali‫اﺗﻘﻀﻠﻲ‬/‫ اﺗﻔﻀﻞ‬Lit. "Kindly get in/ join
in" – second person masculine singular and second person feminine singular. (p. 83)
These are offers of help usually used in pre-closing gambits.
In another study on Gulf use of offers, Emery (2000) elaborates on the use of offering
hospitality by Omani people, providing examples he collected from Al-Batina region
(Emery, 2000, pp. 205-206). Among these are:
[Offering] coffee is expressed through tafaDDal bitataqahwa (Have some coffee)
(…) The host may exhort the guests to eat with such expressions as tafaDDalu. laa
tistiHu. al-beet beetkum (Help yourselves. Don’t be ashamed. The house is your house)
or tafaDDalu jamaa’a hibshu (Help yourselves. Fall to!). The routine reply is again a
root-echo response such as zaad faDlak (may your bounty be increased!), accompanied
by a remark addressing the host’s ‘negative face’ such as ti’ibt nafsak kithiir (you have
put yourself to a lot of trouble), which is in turn conventionally denied by the host:
hadhaa shi galiil (it’s nothing much). Help yourselves. Don’t be ashamed. The house
is your house) or tafaDDalu jamaa’a hibshu (Help yourselves. Fall to!). "
Emery (2000) concludes that “routines of host and guest in the Omani Arabic ‘hospitality’
situation show that not only can negative face be addressed as much as positive face, but

60
that a single move in an exchange may attend to participants’ positive and negative face
concurrently.” (p. 206)
The focus of this study is different from the above-mentioned in that it will not
concentrate on different formulaic expressions of offers in Arabic. Rather, it attempts to
investigate the different politeness strategies used by female speakers in various situations
triggered by social power and distance variables.
2.1.5 Politeness & Religious Expressions
Religious terms are very frequently used to express politeness in any utterance in Arabic. It
can be seen as an expression of positive politeness (Emery, 2000). Mostly, blessings are
used which are consistent with the Islamic tradition, as in Bajri (2005):
• “Allah yixalīk” ‫( اﷲ ﯾﺨﻠﯿﻚ‬May God preserve you), “Allah yiţawwil fi ʕumrak” ‫اﷲ ﯾﻄﻮل‬
‫( ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺮك‬May you live long.)” (Migdadi, 2003)
Bajri (2005) adds that Saudi speakers use blessings as alerters to express politeness in
requests, such as:
• “Allah yirẓa ʕalēki ‫( اﷲ ﯾﺮﺿﻰ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬May God be pleased with you), bring me a glass of
water, please;”
• “Allah yijzak xēr ‫( اﷲ ﯾﺠﺰاك ﺧﯿﺮ‬May Allah reward you with His blessings.)”
The swear-by-God strategy is also a characteristic of the Islamic societies when intensifying
apologies as in:
• sāmiħni, wallāh(i) ma kan gaşdi ‫( ﺳﺎﻣﺤﯿﻨﻲ؛ واﷲ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﻗﺼﺪي‬Forgive me. I swear by God
I did not mean it.) (Bajri, 2005; Ismail, 1998).

61
Nuredeen’s (2008) study also illustrates the use of religious words and phrases in
everyday communication with varied illocutionary forces, possibly as fillers, hedges, or
devices to soften the threat of an act. In the present study, the researcher will investigate the
religious expressions as they appear in the female use of offers in the collected data.
2.2 Politeness & Women’s Speech
Lakoff (1973) makes the distinction based primarily on perception between women’s
language and men’s language, asserting that the first is more polite than the second. Lakoff
(1975) claims that women use more polite structures such as tag questions, hesitation
markers, trivializing adjectives, and so forth. Although these claims have not been supported
empirically, the argument that women have distinct style due to their position in the society
still exerts considerable influence on research (B &L, 1987). Bataineh and Bataineh (2008)
claim that girls are more likely than boys to use language to form and maintain connections
whereas boys are more likely to use language to assert their independence, establish
dominance, and achieve goals.
Cameron (2005), Macaulay (2001), and Mills (2003) assert that feminist theory has
radically changed in the recent years. Feminists researching the relationship between gender
and language have had a longstanding interest in the ways in which language reflects and
helps constitute sexual inequality (Weatherall, 2002). Cameron (2005) summarizes the
changes that occurred on language-and-gender research in two periods: the modern and the
postmodern feminist approaches. However, since the scope of this study is not to investigate
linguistic gender differences but to compare women’s polite speech across cultures, a very

62
brief review will be given on how women’s language has been accounted for in gender
research.
In the traditional approach to women’s language, gender is seen as a given that one is
born with. Thus, men and women are biologically gendered and this is reflected in their
language. Men’s language is seen as dominant, formal and direct; women’s, on the other
hand, is feminine, inferior, powerless, and indirect (Cameron, 2005; Mills, 2003).
The modern approach views gender as distinguished from sex. Sex is a biological
categorization that we are born with whereas gender is socially constructed (Cameron, 2005;
Eckert & McConnell, 2003). In the postmodern period, feminist language has taken a
constructionist approach. Since the first half of the 1990s, the concept of binary gender
differences has been broken down, and replaced by the diversity of gender identities and
gendered practices. They question the distinction of sex/gender. To the proponents of this
approach, gender in itself is not natural but constructed. The proponents are influenced by
the concept of performativity. Gender is a repeated performance of a range of behavior
associated with a particular sex. That is, gender is not a given or a possession but a process
in which one constantly performs. Instead of focusing on binary differences, the approach
emphasizes the intra-group differences and inter-group similarities. Femininities and
masculinities are produced in certain contexts in relation to local social arrangements
(Cameron, 2005; Eckert & McConnell, 2003; Holmes, 1995; Mills, 2003; Tannen, 1994).
Feminist-language researchers taking a social constructionist approach have been highly
critical of the notion of gender differences in speech (Cameron, 2005; Mills, 2003). In this
approach, gender must not be viewed as a given or as absolute dichotomy. Instead, gender

63
must be conceptualized as both psychologically and socially situated; it must be represented
as differences that grow out of experience, learning, and self-definition in the family and the
culture. Differences do not necessarily imply distinctness or separateness; rather they
represent a particular way of being connected to the others.
Whiting and Edwards (cited in Ervin-Tripp, 2001) on the basis of an extensive program of
careful observation in many diverse societies, conclude that “girls get more practice in
nurturance and pro-social dominance, boys in egoistic dominance and challenge.” (p. 278)
However, this difference, according to the two researchers, could be the result of gender
socialization through adult assignment of girls and boys to different settings and tasks in the
societies they studied. They contend that this difference could disappear if these activity
contrasts did not exist.
The present study aims to investigate whether women across cultures are gendered in that
they use the same politeness strategies in their linguistic behavior of offering as claimed by
the proponents of the traditional approach, or use strategies based on the social practices of
each society as claimed by the constructivists in the (post) modern approach.
2.2.1 Women, Indirectness & Power
Indirectness has been associated with women’s speech (Ide, 1992; Johnstone et al, 1992;
Mills, 2003; Rundquist, 1992). However, little empirical evidence supported this feminine-
indirectness relationship (Rundquist, 1992). This assumption has been refuted by Rundquist
(1992), who observed that male parents used more indirect speech with their children than

64
did the mothers. In contrast, Bajri (2005), and Srinarawat (2005) conclude that women use
more conventionally indirect strategies whereas men use more direct as a sort of politeness.
Indirectness has been interpreted as a feature of powerless speech. Consequently,
feminine speech is viewed as being powerless. Sociolinguistic research on gender and
language in the past suggested that women’s language is powerless “due to the relative lack
of particular linguistic elements that are generally regarded as being part of the masculine
power code.” (Takano, 2005, p.653) Holmes (1995) asserts that the more polite tone of
women’s speech is often associated with submissive social roles.
An interesting view that links indirectness with powerfulness is proposed by Macaulay
(2001). She examined a particular register, interviewing, in which female speakers
employed questions or requests for information both to get information and maintain
conversation. She examined differences between male and female interviewers in topical
and political interviews on radio and television. The female interviewers in the study
employed more indirect requests for information than did the male interviewers. The female
interviewers employed these indirect requests for information to ask tough questions. In this
way, they were able to get the information they wanted from their interviewees, and so both
maintained their status and position themselves in talk as powerful speakers.
Some studies restricted women’s speech in some cultures to negative politeness strategies
as an indication of their powerlessness in communication. In this respect, B&L (1987) claim
that women’s predominant negative politeness derives largely from P(ower) variable in
societies where women are vulnerable to men.

65
Mills (2003) posits that characterizing women’s linguistic behavior as being concerned
with cooperation, conflict avoidance, and excessive use of respect and deference is based on
the assumption that women are powerless and display their powerlessness in language.
Because it has been seen as a display of powerlessness, women’s linguistic behavior is,
therefore, characterized as hesitant and unassertive, and thus, women would show negative
politeness for others. Women usually prefer not to go on record since they do not feel
“entitled to make demands.”(Tannen, 1994, p. 7) Tannen rejects this link asserting that
indirectness is not in itself a strategy of subordination that is used by powerless speakers;
rather it is used by the powerful and the powerless, men or women, depending on the setting
of a cultural context. She contends that cross-cultural evidence has refuted this assumption,
and adds that the American tendency to associate indirectness with women’s speech is not
universal. More importantly, in some nations, women were found to be more direct than
men (Tannen, 1994).
Cutting (2002) assumes that in societies where gender groups are segregated, “there is
systematic higher rating of FTAs.” (p.32) B&L (1987) argue that women are more likely to
use positive politeness with groups of lower-status groups, and more prestigious dialect
variables with higher status groups (e.g., male groups). They also claim that two men of
equal status and same social distance (e.g., cousins) use less face-redressive measures than
two women in a comparable situation (i.e., cousins).
Takano (2005) proposes a different, yet more realistic, view about women’s polite speech.
He contends that women choose the type of polite strategy according to the communicative
demands of the context. He focuses on this dilemma that Japanese women are exposed to
when they are in position of authority and power, which is, choosing between specific

66
cultural rules of feminine speech and powerful speech according to their positions of
authority.
Takano (2005) obtained some speech samples from professional Japanese women in
similar occupational positions. His aim was to refute the false assumption that women are
restricted to negative politeness strategies. The results show that PWC (Professional
Japanese women in charge) effectively manipulated both negative and positive politeness to
achieve the communicative goal. Their choice of negative politeness strategies, however, is
not a matter of the feeling of powerlessness but rather a matter of high awareness of
language context.
The present study is hoped to investigate whether women’s speech across cultures is
geared towards indirectness or, as Takano (2005) claims, towards the communicative needs
of the context.
2.2.2 Women & Politeness in Arab Culture
The relationship between women’s talk and politeness has not been satisfactorily
investigated in the Arabic-speaking societies. Most studies examined this relationship as a
subordinate issue in investigating a broader issue of speech act formulations. Politeness in
women’s talk, in its limited appearance, has always been contrasted to men’s performance
(Al-Khatib, 2006; Elarbi, 1997; Emery, 2000; Migdadi, 2003; Nelson et al, 1996; Nelson et
al, 2002; Turjoman, 2005).
To answer the question whether women use politeness formulas in complimenting
differently from the men’s formulas, Migdadi (2003) collected naturally occurring data

67
through observation. He found out that women in Jordanian society primarily used
compliments as positive politeness devices. Men were more likely to hedge on the
addressee-pleasing function of compliments. Men tended to use compliments in order to
soften criticism and other FTAs more than women. Gender differences were also present in
responding to compliments. Women preferred questions and accounts whereas men
preferred blessings and disagreements. Cross-sex complimenting was more restricted to the
Jordanian data than in the Western one due to the restricted social interaction between the
two sexes in the Arab-Islamic societies (Migdadi, 2003).
In another study in the Jordanian context, Al-Khatib (2006) investigated the polite
formulas used by the Jordanians when making an invitation or accepting it. He emphasized
the effect of gender on the type of strategies employed by Jordanian people. Al-Khatib
posited that sociological factors such as gender might have caused observable differences in
the choice and variation of politeness strategies. Al-Khatib collected a huge number of
speech acts from different occasions. The results showed that the type of strategy used by
the speaker when inviting, accepting, and refusing an invitation was highly influenced by
the sex of the speaker and the degree of solidarity between the interactants. Although both
men and women preferred on-record strategies in refusing the invitation with a lot of
redressive action in the use of several politic expressions to lessen the illocutionary force of
the refusal, the females tended to use such strategies more often than the males.
At a cross-cultural level, Bataineh and Bataineh (2008) investigated apology strategies
used by the speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. They used a questionnaire
that consisted of 10 situations to elicit apologies. They examined differences between male

68
and female respondents in both groups, and found that there were more differences between
Jordanian male and female respondents than between American male and female
respondents. They attributed this to the fact that there is a greater similarity between how
boys and girls are raised in the U.S. than between how they are raised in Jordan. The
researchers, however, did not draw comparison between the gender groups across the two
cultures, that is, Jordanian men against American men and women against women.
Regarding the Gulf area, Emery (2000) found it reasonable to assume that segregation in
the Gulf societies might be reflected in differing linguistic usage between the two sexes. He
expected women’s language, in these societies, to be more linguistically conservative. Thus,
in investigating the politeness formulas under the headings of greetings, condoling and
congratulating in Omani Arabic, Emery (2000) found old women to be more linguistically
conservative while the young use more standard and “pan-Arabic” forms.
Another study from the Gulf was conducted by Turjoman (2005). Turjoman investigated
differences between Saudi men and women in the formulas of greeting and leave-taking
when they interact with someone of the same sex. Data were recorded in naturally occurring
conversations, social and family gatherings, work, school, and the hospital. Relationship
between participants included close friends, relatives, acquaintances, and strangers. Results
showed that Saudi men and women greet and reply to greetings of someone of the same sex
similarly. Conversely, they differ significantly when they take leave and reply to a leave-
taking. The results also showed that social status has no significant effect on how Saudis
greet/reply and take leave/reply of someone of the same sex. The relationship between
participants show a significant correlation with how Saudis greet/reply and take leave/reply
of someone of the same sex. It is also indicated that women consistently took longer to greet

69
and take leave of someone of their own sex. Women are found to repeat their greetings and
leave-takings more than men.
Unlike the above studies, the present study focuses on the cultural differences between
female speakers of Saudi Arabic and British English in the speech act of offers.
2.3 Conclusion
Certain points can be concluded from the above review of literature:
1. When compared to men’s linguistic behavior, women’s use of politeness strategies
within or across cultures is still weakly explored, especially when applying B&L’s
model (1987).
2. The literature suffers shortage in politeness studies on Arabic. No published study
has focused on Arabian Gulf dialects except for the brief account proposed by Emery
(2000) and Mazid (2006).
3. No single study has been conducted to investigate the politeness strategies in
realizing offers in Arabic culture.
4. Comparing Saudi female use of politeness strategies to that of their Western
counterparts in western cultures is almost absent in the literature, especially when
referring to offers.
The present study, thus, aims at filling a gap in the field of women’s use of linguistic
politeness strategies in the performance of offers. The investigation will compare the
performance of women in Saudi-Arabic to that of English women.

70
Chapter Three
Method
This chapter shows the development of the methods used in the different steps of the
research and the process of data analysis.
The central purpose of this study is to investigate female use of politeness strategies in
realizing offers in Saudi Arabic and British English according to B&L’s model (1987). To
this end, the researcher selected the instruments and the population that could help to realize
the purpose of this study and answer the research questions stated in Chapter One (See 1.4).
3.1 Participants
The sample consisted of 103 female subject-participants divided into two groups: 53 native
speakers of Saudi Arabic, and 50 of British English. British women in Saudi Arabia come
for work; thus, they are expected to have reached a considerable level of education. This
compelled the researcher to include only educated people in the sample.
Participants’ age ranged from 18-50. Both groups comprised teachers, students and
employees in educational institutions. Unlike the Saudi group, the students in the British
sample formed the smallest part of the group. The Saudi-student speakers were of different
majors (Mathematics, Accountant, Arabic, English, and History). Students’ age ranged from
20-23 for the B.As and 25-35 for the MAs (many MA students were also teachers). The
employees’ age in these educational institutions, on the other hand, ranged from 38-47. The
British group, in contrast, comprised mainly teachers and employers from private colleges
and British schools in Riyadh and Jeddah, with age range 26-50. Only four 18-year-old
British students participated in this study.

71
To compare the range of age in the two groups, a t-test was run. Consider the following.
Table 3.1. Means and Standard Deviations of Age for the Saudi
& the British Participants
Std.
Group N Mean Deviation
Saudi 53 28.5472 7.37868
British 50 35.8000 7.51597
Table 3.2. T-test for the Significance of Age Difference

between the Saudi & the British Group
t Df Sig
-5.622 101 .000
**The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate a significant difference in age mean between the two groups,
t (101) = -5.622, p< .000. Age mean in the British group is higher than in the Saudi one
(M=28.54 for the Saudi& M= 35.800 for the British). This is justified since the context of
the experiment takes place in Saudi Arabia where Westerners usually come for work, and,
thus, the age of these people is normally high.
Therefore, although age and the level of education have been found influential in people’s
choice of politeness strategies (Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003), the restricted availability of
British female subjects in Saudi Arabia compelled the researcher to discard the two
variables from the present study. However, to reduce the effect of age on the speaker’s use
of politeness strategies, the sample included adult speakers either students or working
women.

72
3.1.1 Problems with Sampling
The major obstacle that faced the researcher with data collection resided in the sampling
stage. Getting access to British female speakers was quite challenging. The researcher had to
obtain permission from the Ministry of Education in order to meet with the participants in
different schools. Most of the British population in these institutions had reservations about
interacting with strangers; only a few agreed to participate in the study. Thus, the researcher
had to search for more participants through the Internet. An announcement on the following
sites helped the researcher get access to British female volunteers:
http://www.britishcommunityservices.com/sigs/sigs/ladies.html
http://www.britishcommunityservices.com/freeads/freeads/notices.html
The researcher managed to give the DCT and interviews to those volunteers either on the
phone or while meeting with them in public places.
Recording the participant’s voice was another obstacle that deterred many people from
both cultures to participate in the study. The researcher had to convince the participants that
the recordings would be kept confidentially and would be destroyed immediately after the
completion of the study as stated in the consent form (See Appendix A & B).
3.2 Instruments
With regard to the method used for data collection, this study was primarily based on an
oral-production Discourse Completion Test (Task) (DCT). Interviews were given before and
after the DCT to provide socio-pragmatic and linguistic information that could support the
results of the DCT.
3.2.1 DCT
Researchers in the area of politeness formulas have employed various methods of
collecting linguistic data. The most frequently used methods are role-plays, DCTs (discourse

73
completion tests), and Comprehension methods (e.g., Multiple-choice questionnaires,
Scaled-self assessment), introspection (Enssaif, 2005; Ismail, 1998), and observational data
from naturally occurring interaction (Elarbi, 1997; Emery, 2000). However, no single
method has been claimed to be the best; each method has advantages and disadvantages
(Margalef-Boada, 1993). Actually, the DCTs and observational data are the most commonly
used methods in cross-cultural studies (Hinkel, 1997; Kasper & Rose 2002; Margalef-
Boada, 1993; Wongwarangkul, 2000). Therefore, the focus in this review will be on these
two methods.
It is posited that the ideal data for speech act analysis would consist of a large number of
carefully recorded observations of particular speech acts by representative subjects and
control group subjects in similar natural situations when the subjects are unaware of the
observation (Hinkel, 1997; Kasper & Rose 2002; Margalef-Boada, 1993). However,
regardless of the legal and ethical considerations, logistically, it would be very difficult to
accumulate sets of data of this sort (Hinkel, 1997). Such a difficulty results from a number
of limitations.
There are some obvious limitations of the natural methodology. First, there are difficulties
associated with obtaining access to freely recordable data (Ruzickova, 2007); “institutional
‘gatekeepers’ may be reluctant to allow any form of observation and be even less
sympathetic to electronic recording.” (Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 81)
Natural methodology may have other drawbacks. The purpose of this investigation is that
of the individual speech act of “offer.” Hence, “it may take an unreasonable amount of data
to obtain sufficient quantities of the pragmatic feature under study—a particular speech act,
for instance.”(Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 83) Besides, such a method usually yields a small
amount of speech acts (Hinkel, 1997).

74
Another disadvantage of this methodology is the inevitable loss of valuable socio-
demographic data. In other words, “since speaker turnover in most research locations is
quite high, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy the socioeconomic status
(including occupation and educational background) of the subjects whose speech is captured
on tape” (Hinkel, 1997, p. 1179). Additionally, collecting data by using spontaneous method
leads to uncontrolled results since the interrelated variables are hard to manipulate, which
leads, on its turn, to little understanding of the reasons behind the utterances which have
been elicited (Bajri, 2005).
Moreover, in the Gulf countries, as Emery (2000) asserts, it is not possible to record some
events as weddings or funerals without impeding the naturalness of the dialogue due to
cultural reservations. In this view, the existence of electronic equipment as well as the
presence of an observer may alter the natural course of interaction. Further, the open-ended
nature of such interactions, taking into account the multiplicity of relevant variables, would
make such a process inefficient in terms of cost and time.
Due to these limitations, many researchers prefer to use DCTs because they have proven
to be the most reliable and effective tools in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies
(Wongwarangkul, 2000). Although less interactive in nature, and is based on hypothetical
situation, the DCT is found to be highly reliable and reasonably valid (Yamashita, 1996).
Many of the earlier empirical studies of politeness reviewed in Chapter Two used various
forms of DCTs. Role-playing situations have been used as one variant of DCT to have better
control over the tested variables (Blum-Kulka et al, 1989; Kasper& Rose, 2002; Margalef-
Boada, 1993).
A DCT is a written role-play questionnaire consisting of a briefly described situation
followed by a space and rejoinder(s). The rejoinder gives a clue to the subject regarding the

75
appropriate response to the situation, and the subject is to provide his/her written response in
the space (Okura, 2003).
DCTs are considered effective means of gathering a large amount of data quickly and
creating an initial classification of semantic formulas and strategies that occur in natural
speech (Margalef-Boada, 1993). Other advantages of the method are controlling the
contextual variables important to the study as well as effectively comparing the strategies
used by native speakers and learners of the same language (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Rose,
1994; Sasaki, 1998). Additionally, DCTs have been found to have high inter-rater reliability
and high practicality (Sasaki, 1998). DCTs elicit responses that are not usually found in the
natural data (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993).
Yet, DCTs are not a flawless methodology. They require subjects to produce written
responses for speech acts. According to Hinkle (1997), written production instruments may
not be effective in eliciting data representative of actual speech acts in cross-cultural
settings. Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig (1992) add that in a DCT, participants use narrower
range of semantic formulas, and written DCTs lack extended negotiation found in the
natural data. Golato (cited in McNamara & Roever, 2006) has convincingly shown people
do not use language in DCT responses in the same way that they use language in real-world
communication. As he asserts, they might subjectively feel that their DCT responses are
written versions of their real-world language use, but, in fact, some language items used in
DCTs do not occur in real-world conversation.
As for this study, the researcher decided to use a DCT. However, to overcome the
limitations of the DCT, the researcher resorted to some ways to strengthen its validity and
reliability. First, since the aim is to investigate spoken language, the DCT has been collected
orally.

76
The oral DCT is sometimes referred to as a closed role-play (Kasper & Rose, 2002;
Okura, 2003). In the oral DCT, the subject is given only one turn to respond. This design has
been found effective since the literature has proved that respondents may insert the whole
speech event that fulfills cultural expectations into the only turn given to them (Okura,
2003).
Additionally, of course, there are many differences between written and spoken language
with regard to hesitation phenomena, tone of voice, facial expression, gesture, and a number
of other nonverbal cues that interlocutors use to contextualize their utterance and convey
meaning. None of these is available in written DCTs, or any written instrument for that
matter (McNamara & Roever, 2006).
The oral form of the DCT is more valid than the written form because it offers the feature
of the interactiveness of face-to face talk in real time, allowing for more negotiation
(Margalef-Boada, 1993; McNamara & Roever, 2006; Wongwaranghkul, 2000); it yields
longer responses than those yielded by the written form (Kasper & Rose, 2002).
Additionally, the oral version induces greater varieties of formulas, especially the ones
that soften the tone of the inherently face-threatening acts (Sasaki, 1998), which
significantly serves the purpose of the present study.
The oral DCT enables the researcher to investigate the use of the opting-out strategy more
effectively than does a written test. Opting out is most likely to occur on items at the
extreme end of the politeness continuum (i.e., where the imaginary interlocutor is much
higher in power and the imposition is great, making the performance of the speech act
extremely face-threatening). However, in a written test, it is not really possible to allow test
takers to opt out because such opting out would be indistinguishable from simply not
knowing the correct response (McNamara & Roever, 2006).

77
Secondly, to enhance the validity and reliability of the oral DCT, the design of the
situations has been based on real, natural events, not on imaginary ones. Such a design
increases the authenticity of the participants’ responses to the DCT (Margalef-Boada, 1993;
Al-Isaa, 1998). Furthermore, the DCT becomes more effective, valid and reliable if it is
combined with other methods such as naturalistic observation or interviews (Al-Issa, 1998,
Kasper& Rose, 2002). For this study, oral interviews were used to complement the oral
DCT.
3.2.2 Interviews
The interview technique has been widely recognized among researchers as an effective
means of collecting data for language studies. Briggs (cited in Kasper & Rose, 2002)
estimated that 90% of all social science investigations use interview data. Interviews can be
used as an effective method for spontaneous speech data collection because they can reflect
how respondents will perform in real situations. (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Kraikosol, 2004).
For hypothesis testing and triangulating purposes, researchers may prefer a dynamic,
context-and-respondent-sensitive procedure such as interviews (Kasper & Rose, 2002). The
interview technique employs many functions for speech data collection. Kraikosol (2004)
lists some of these functions. The interviewer can give the information to the subject such as
specific knowledge and the purpose of the research matter and then ask some questions to
gather the information needed. This technique is highly recommended since it will obtain
full responses with no misinterpretation. The subjects can’t skip some questions that they
don’t like or forget to answer. Moreover, misinterpretation of questions will be reduced
considerably because the subject can ask for some clarification of the questions or can
recheck what he/she understands. However, the significance of this technique for the present
study mainly is that it also, according to Kraikosol, provides additional related information

78
on causal factors for certain patterns of behavior (as in offers for this study). While being
interviewed, the subject might explain the reason why he/she answered the question as
he/she did.
As a complementary method, the participants were interviewed before and after the DCT.
The aim of the pre-interviews was threefold: to establish familiarity and rapport between the
researcher and the participant to urge her respond to the DCT more naturally and
spontaneously.
The pre-interview is a background questionnaire for collecting information about the
participants’ age, social and academic status (e.g., age, nationality, etc. See Appendix C &
D.) This personal information about the participants’ status helped the researcher to modify
some situations slightly to suit the participant’s status such as in Sit#10 as explained in
Chapter Four.
The post-interviews, on the other hand, were used to reinforce the responses elicited by the
DCT, and dwell more on the politeness strategies used by the Saudis and British. They
aimed to elicit socio-pragmatic information about the social norms of the linguistic behavior
of offering in both Saudi and British cultures. The questions investigated the appropriateness
of the use of some strategies of making offers in the participant’s culture (See Appendix E
& F).
3.3 Treatment
The oral DCT was given in two versions: English and Arabic. It consisted of 15 situations
designed according to B&L’s (1987) contextual determinants2 that people are expected to
come across these situations in their daily lives at work, home, and outside home (See
Appendix H (English) & I (Arabic)). Besides these determinants, another important variable
has been investigated in this study. The addressee’s gender was found essential in any

79
investigation of cultural differences (Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003); and thus, has been
accounted for in the DCT design.
The speakers (participants) were asked to listen to a detailed explanation of the situation
and then respond as naturally as possible by producing an offer. Every explanation of a
situation ended with the question, “What would you say?”
3.3.1 Measurement of the Contextual Determinants
The three determinants were measured according to the participants’ evaluation as
illustrated in Appendix G. Table G1 illustrates the majority’s evaluation of every situation in
both groups. For social distance, the participants were asked to rate the level of the distance
with the offeree in all the situations from very close to very distant. Power was rated from
lower to equal and higher. The rank of the imposition was rated as either high or low.
As indicated in appendix G, the rating of the contextual determinants differed in many
instances between the Saudi and the British. However, these differences were slight in some
areas and large in others. For example, regarding the degree of social distance, the rating
was close in many cases except when regarding the relationship with the housecleaner
(maid). This salient difference was due to the cultural differences between the two groups
(See 4.1). These measures were used initially to facilitate the researcher’s job in grouping
the situations for the sociopragmatic analysis in (4.1).
Gender has always been found influential on linguistic behavior (B&L, 1987; Cameron,
2005; Holmes, 1995; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003). However, since the scope of this study is to
investigate only female linguistic behavior in realizing offers, the effect of the addressee’s
gender was the only variable to test in this regard.
In addition, another variable, tested for the first time in the literature, is included. The
situations were graded according to the degree of the speaker’s involvement in the event of

80
offering. For the purpose of this study, the term “involvement” refers to how far the speaker
(offerer) is compelled to make the offer. That is, in some events of offering, the offerer
makes an offer not as an expression of generosity, but rather because s/he finds him/herself
compelled to do so. Involvement here can also be described in terms of the benefit to the
offerer. Contrary to normal expectations of an offer being of benefit to the offeree, the
degree of involvement marks the benefit, whether direct or indirect, to the speaker thereby
marking his total engagement in the speech event.
The degree of personal involvement was not intended in the initial design of the DCT but
was analyzed later based on the participants’ comments. This factor was discovered during
the pilot study where the researcher noticed that the participants used to stress the
importance of the degree of involvement in the event itself to make the offer. For example,
in Sit# 11 where the participant was supposed to help a woman in the supermarket, the
participants found such offers unnecessary to make compared to offering help to a strange
man with the cash machine since the context dictated that the speaker was waiting for the
man to finish. Twenty responses from each group evaluated the situations from very low to
very high. The degree of involvement of each situation was decided by the evaluation of the
majority in both groups (See Appendix G, Table G2). The evaluations indicated that the
majority in each group rated this variable almost in the same way, which facilitated the
investigation of this variable in the study. See Table 3.3.

81
Table 3.3 Contextual Determinants & the Target Situations in the DCT
Context Deter. G Deg. of Involv. Situation
1. [+P/--SD/-R] M Moderate Offering father help with reading newspaper.
2. [+P/--SD/-R] F Very high Offering mother help with housework.
3. [+P/--SD/+R] F Low Offering expensive earrings to mother.
4.[-P/--SD/+R] F Very low Offering an expensive dress to the maid.
5. [=P/-SD/-R ] F Moderate Offering a cold drink to an intimate friend.
6.[=P/ -SD/+R] F Very low Offering an expensive necklace offer to an intimate friend.
7.[+P/ +SD/-R ] F Moderate Offering a pen to the dean.
8.[=P/+SD/-R] F High Offering some biscuits to a new guest.
9. [+P/ +SD/+R] F Very low Offering the dean help to deliver some important papers.
10.[=P/+SD/+R] F Very low Offering help to swap shifts with a socially distant colleague.
11.[=P/++SD/-R] F Very low Offering help to carry bags for a strange woman at the
supermarket.
12. [-P/ ++SD/ -R] M High Offering help in calculation to a cashier.
13.[=P/++SD/-R] M Very low Offering a strange man help at a library.
14. [=P/++SD/-R] M Very low Offering some batteries to a strange man at the shop.
15. [=P/ ++SD/+R] M Very high Offering help with the cash machine to a strange man.
Note. P= Power SD= Social distance R= rank of imposition. G.= Gender Deg= degree Involv= Involvement\ The degree (-) or (+)
in Power is given according to the addressee’s status (i.e., the offeree’s) M= male F= female.
3.4 Procedure
Before taking the test, there was an acquaintance session in which the researcher expressed
gratitude and established a friendly relationship with the participants. In this session, to
begin with, the participants signed a consent form in which they confirmed their knowledge

82
of the rules and purpose of the study (See Appendix A & B). Then, the pre-interviews were
given.
Following the interviews, the researcher gave the instructions about the DCT, urging the
participant to act out the offer naturally. For the Saudi group, the participants were asked to
respond in the Saudi dialect, not in Standard Arabic.
The researcher started the session by giving the description of each situation, then turning
on the recorder. The participant was asked to respond in the most natural way to these
situations by making the offer verbally. The researcher gave the test to one participant at a
time, separately from others to insure individuality and confidentiality of response. The
responses were tape-recorded for later transcription and analysis (see Table. 1.1 for Spoken
Saudi Arabic transcription).
Following the DCT, post-interviews were given either face-to-face, or by telephone. These
interviews were analyzed to support the results of the DCT. The time allotted for each
session was between 20-30 minutes.
3.5 Pilot Study
The DCT was pilot-tested on twenty Saudi female and ten British female speakers from
different institutions. The participants responded orally to the DCT. The instrument
appeared to be clear to most of the respondents. Some comments helped the researcher to
add some situations to cover different levels of contextual determinants and modify some
situations to make them sound more natural and culturally valid. The pilot study also helped
the researcher to ensure the reliability of the test (See 3.7).

83
3.6 Validity
To determine the effectiveness of the DCT in measuring what it has been designed for, two
types of validity were employed in this study: face validity and content validity.
Face validity relates to whether a test appears to be a good measure or not (Hughes,
1989). This judgment is made on the face of the test. This type of validity was insured by a
panel of professors who approved the methodology at the stage of the thesis plan.
It is important to recognize that a methodology is always employed in the service of a
research question. A test has content validity built into it by careful selection of which items
to include (Anatasi & Urbina, 1997). Items for this study were chosen so that they would
comply with the test specification. Two doctors specialized in the field reviewed the test
specifications and the selection of items. Their comments helped to improve the DCT.
3.7 Reliability
The reliability of the instrument has been ensured by two types: test reliability and inter-
rater reliability.
3.7.1 Test Reliability
Test reliability refers to the consistency of a measure; a test is considered reliable if it yields
the same results repeatedly (Hughes, 1989). Test reliability as aforementioned was attained
in the pilot study by a brief checklist in which the participant was asked to evaluate every
situation according to its linguistic clarity and cultural plausibility (See Appendix J&K). In
this case, alpha is computed in Table 3.4.

84
Table 3.4 Reliability-Scale (Alpha) for the Total Items of the DCT
No. of
Axis Alpha
items
First Socially close addressees 6 0.8223
Second Socially distant addressees 4 0.7578
Third Highly socially distant addressees 5 0.8825
Study tool as a whole 15 0.9295
It is clear from Table 3. 4 that the transactions of the previous stability of the main values
ranged between 0.7578 and 0.8825, which are statistically acceptable. The consistency
(alpha) was then to be for the total =0.9295. This is considered to be significantly high, and
indicates the possibility and stability of the results that can be obtained through a study
during its final application.
3.7.2 Inter-coder Reliability
“To make valid inferences from the text, it is important that the classification procedure be
reliable in the sense of being consistent: different people should code the same text in the
same way.” (Weber, 1990, p. 12) In this sense, one of the most critical steps in analysis,
according to Weber, involves developing a set of explicit recording instructions. These
instructions then allow outside coders to be trained until reliability requirements are met.
Inter-rater reliability may be calculated by using Cohen's Kappa, which approaches 1 as
coding is perfectly reliable and goes to 0 when there is no agreement (Haney et al., 1998).
Thus, in this study, the researcher and another professor, expert in the field, analyzed a
number of utterances individually. Two sets of 50 utterances (Arabic & English) were
chosen randomly to test how far the researcher’s coding of the test abides by B&L’s (1987)

85
classification of politeness strategies. Table 3.5 illustrates the degree of agreement between
the two coders.
Table 3.5. Cohen Kappa’s to Test Inter-rater Reliability

Kappa
Value Sig.
Saudi British Saudi British
Arabic English Arabic English
.634 .723 .000 .000
Number of 50 50
Valid Cases
It is clear that the inter-rater reliability for Saudi Arabic data is lower (Kappa = .634,
p < .000) than in British English (Kappa= .723, p< .000). This is attributed to the fact that
B&L’s (1987) model is based on English; thus, it was easier for both raters to classify the
strategies in English utterances rather than in Saudi Arabic.
3.8 Data Analysis
The analysis in the following chapter follows the principles of B&L’s (1987) theory in
analyzing the data qualitatively. The qualitative analysis of the DCT involves comparing the
politeness strategies in realizing offers between the two female groups in Saudi Arabic and
British English. As socio-pragmatic approach is followed in the qualitative analysis in
section 4.1 since the analysis investigates politeness strategies within the social and cultural
context. Such an analysis involves the social relations of power, distance, what is spoken
and unspoken, said and implied.3 The effect of the rank of imposition and addressee’s
gender on the use of politeness strategies is also investigated. The superstrategies and their
substrategies are coded in line with B&L’s (1987) categorization, taking the following
abbreviations: (1) On-record strategies (ONR) which comprise:

86
(a) Bald on record (BOR) (strategies mainly realized through imperatives)
(b) Positive Politeness (PSP) (realized through substrategies as claiming common ground
with H (such as attending to H’s needs, exaggerating interest in H, intensify interest,
sympathy with H, using in-group identity marker), using jokes, white lies, seeking
agreement, assuming cooperation with H, etc.)
(c) Negative politeness (NGP) (realized through conventional indirectness, questions,
hedges, pessimism, deference, minimizing imposition, nominalization, apologizing,
impersonalizing S and H, etc.)
2. Mixed Strategies (Mixed) are a blend of PSP and NGP based on B&L’s (1987) view
about mixture of strategies (p. 230). BOR strategies are sometimes considered mixed when
the effect of such strategies is not ameliorated by the redressing PSP or NGP in the same
utterance.
3. Off-record (OFR) (can be realized through using hints, understatement, overstatement,
tautologies, contradictions, ironies, metaphors, rhetorical questions, ambiguity, ellipsis,
displacement of H, etc.)
4. Don’t do the FTA (NOTDO). In this strategy, the speakers are expected to avoid giving
linguistic response in two ways: either by opting out (the negative form) or by doing the
offer instead of saying it (the positive form). See section 4.1 for elaboration on all of these
strategies.
The socio-pragmatic analysis is used in combination with other quantitative analyses to
support the results and facilitate the researcher’s job in answering the research questions.
Hence, the researcher in this study looks at the frequencies of these strategies used by the
participants in offers. In Chapter Five, an SPSS program is run to test the significance of the

87
differences between the Saudi and the British group in the types of politeness strategies and
the realization of the contextual determinants based on the frequencies collected in Chapter
Four. Computations are made for the frequencies, mean and standard deviation of items of
the surveyed instruments. Cross-tabulations are also computed to address all the questions
that need to be compared. T-test is carried out to test the comparison of two sets of means.
The One-way ANOVA is used to test differences among at least three groups, since the two-
group case can be covered by a T-test. Finally, a Pearson Correlation Test is used to verify
the results of the two tests and illustrate the relationship between the politeness strategies
and the different variables. Regarding the post-interviews, the responses are
content-analyzed and percentages are reported. The results of the interviews are used to
complement the results of the DCT.

88
Chapter Four
Analysis & Results
In this chapter, the analysis of the data collected using two instruments is presented in two
sections. The first section (4.1) will give a micro sociopragmatic analysis of the DCT data
whereas the second (4.2) analyzes the interviews that were held after the DCT.
4.1 Analysis of the Data Collected through the DCT
This study of female politeness strategies in realizing offers is done in terms of contextual
determinants as proposed by B&L (1987). It is assumed that different politeness strategies are
used with respect to particular contextual differentials. The analysis is, thus, made by factoring
out one contextual element. It takes the form of contrasting situations that agree in all factors but
one. All throughout, three contextual determinants remain constant and the effect of one element
is examined.4 To investigate the effect of gender on realizing offers, for example, two situations
that agree in social distance, power and rank of imposition but differ in the sex of the addressees
are contrasted.
The sociopragmatic analysis could not have been done on all the utterances yielded by the
DCT. This was almost an impossible task. Samples have been selected and presented in tables to
facilitate review with the reader. Further, the analysis is supported by frequencies that are based
on the data as a whole. Conclusions resulting from the sociopragmatic analysis are not drawn in
this chapter but are delayed to Chapter Five.

89
4.1.1 Making Offers to People of Low Social Distance
The first group of situations, namely Sit# 1-6, includes family relationships with the father,
mother, and the house cleaner or the maid.5 The group also includes intimate relationships with
friends.
4.1.1.1 Very Low Social Distance (Higher Power/Low Rank of Imposition) & Difference in
Gender
Sit# 1 and Sit# 2 investigate the effect of the addressee’s gender on the female use of politeness
strategies when the addressee is socially close. The level of social distance in both situations is
very low [--SD] because it comprises a family relationship. Power and the level of imposition are
also similar in both situations. In both of them, the addressee’s power is higher than the
speaker’s and the rank of the imposition is low.
In Sit# 1, the female speaker offers her father help with reading the newspaper. The father is
supposed to be fond of reading newspapers, but because his glasses are sent to be fixed, he
cannot do so. In Sit# 2, on the other hand, the speaker is expected to offer her mother help with
housework when she sees her mother doing the work alone.
a. Saudi Arabic
The two situations have yielded different types of politeness strategies. Examine Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1&
2
BOR PSP NGP OFR Mixed Don’t do Total
pos neg
Sit#1 Freq. 6 13 25 1 5 3 0 53
Percent 11.3 24.5 47.2 1.9 9.4 5.7 100%

Sit#2 Freq. 11 16 4 0 2 20 0 53
Percent 20.75 30.18 7.54 0 3.8 37.73 100%

90
Table 4.1 shows that the BOR offers have a higher frequency when addressing the mother
(20.75%) rather than when addressing the father (11.3%). Similarly, PSP is slightly higher in
Sit#2 (30.18%) than in Sit#1 (24.5%). NGP, on the other hand, is notably preferred when making
the offer to the father (47.2%), compared to (7.54%) to the mother. Similarly, the OFR strategies
are rare and only used with the father (1.9%). Mixed strategies are rare in both situations (9.4%
for Sit# 1& 3.8% for 2). The positive type of silence strategy, that is, do without giving any
linguistic response, on the other hand, dominates the strategies of offering help to the mother
(37.73%), compared to (5.7%) to the father.
Since the addressees, in both situations, are described as reluctant to ask for help, some Saudi
speakers go baldly on record to persuade them to impinge on the speakers’ preserves. However,
the difference in the frequency of the BOR offers between Sit# 1 and Sit# 2 may indicate that the
Saudi female speakers are less concerned about redressing the imperative with the mother than
with father because the relationship with the mother is usually more intimate. The speakers may
have also found it more efficient to go baldly on record with the mother because the context
implies an urgent need to help the mother rather than the father. Consider the following.
Table 4.2. BOR Offers in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 1& 2

Sit# 1 Sit# 2
1. aʕţini agrāha. (Give it to me to read it.) 4. rūħi irtāħi wana arattib. (Go and have a
.‫أﻋﻄﻨﻲ أﻗﺮاھﺎ‬ rest and I tidy up.)
2. hāt agra ʕannak . ‫روﺣﻲ ارﺗﺎﺣﻲ وأﻧﺎ أرﺗﺐ‬
.‫( ھﺎت أﻗﺮا ﻋﻨﻚ‬Give it to me to read it 5. rayyiħi nafsik wana asawwiy
instead of you.) .‫( رﯾﺤﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ و اﻧﺎ أﺳﻮي‬Relax and I do it.)
3. xallīni agrālak 6. xalli ʕannik; ana asāʕdik.
. ‫( ﺧﻠﯿﻨﻲ أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ‬Let me read for you.) .‫( ﺧﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ؛ أﻧﺎ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬Leave it. I’ll help you.)
7. xalāş rūħi ugʕudi; ana akammil
.‫( ﺧﻼص روﺣﻲ اﻗﻌﺪي؛ أﻧﺎ أﻛﻤﻞ‬That’s it. Go; sit
down. I carry on.)

91
Although the female speakers do some face-threatening acts without redressing in both
situations, their offers sound polite, sincere and firm. These unredressed offers are justified since
the act is in both addressees’ interest and the imposition is very small.
The pattern that most of the speakers followed in (1)-(3) and (5)-(7) is the imperative + the
head act of offer. In addressing the father in Sit# 1, the imperative hāt and aʕţini (give me) is
used with the head act, agra (I read). In (4) and (6), in Sit# 2, the speakers use the imperatives
rūħi irtāħi (Go, relax), and xalli (leave it) to enforce the head act of the offer asāʕid (I help),
arattib (I tidy up), and akammil (I carry on). The phrase ʕannik (I’ll do it instead of you) in (2)
and (6), conveys a more polite sense because it indicates doing something for H’s interest.
ʕannik is used in both situations to soften the strong effect of the imperative hāt, and xalli, which
might sound impolite if addressed to the father or the mother.
The imperative xallini (let me) is used frequently with the father but not when addressing the
mother. The imperative xallini (let me) conveys asking for permission rather than ordering
someone.6 Thus, (3) sounds more polite than aʕţini and hāt in (1) and (2).
Intensifiers, on the other hand, are only used when making the offer to the mother. The BOR
offer in (7) contains the intensifier xalāş. The word xalāş is significant. It can be translated as
“That’s it” or “It’s final. No more argument!” It underlines how S, the daughter, assumes that H
will be especially preoccupied with H’s potential infringements of S’ preserve (B&L, 1987). The
aim of using xalāş is to intensify the force of the offer. It puts a definite end to a presupposed
series of refusals by the mother as an attempt not to transgress on S’s preserves. Thus, instead of
saying, “I insist,” the daughter uses xalāş in order to make the offer firmer.
For PSP in Saudi Arabic, the female speakers have used different strategies in both contexts.
However, positively polite offers are more frequent and varied when addressing the mother. The
following utterances illustrate these strategies.

92
Table 4.3 PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2

Sit# 1 Sit# 2
8. yuba, bagrālak iljirīda 16. ummi, irtāħi. ana asawwiy kul shay.
.‫ﯾﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة‬ .‫( أﻣﻲ ارﺗﺎﺣﻲ؛ أﻧﺎ أﺳﻮي ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲ‬Mum. Relax. I do
(Dad, I’ll read the newspaper for you.) everything.)
9. ana agrālak 17. māma, irtāħi. rāħ akammil ishshugul.
.‫( أﻧﺎ أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ‬I read for you) .‫( ﻣﺎﻣﺎ ارﺗﺎﺣﻲ راح أﻛﻤﻞ اﻟﺸﻐﻞ‬Mum. Relax I’ll carry on
10. agrālak? the work.)
‫( أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ؟‬Read for you?) 18. ya ummi, asāʕdik bshay?
11. tagra lħālak walla agrālak? ‫( ﯾﺎ أﻣﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﺑﺸﻲ؟‬Mum, help you with something?)
‫( ﺗﻘﺮا ﻟﺤﺎﻟﻚ؟ واﻻ أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ؟‬Read on your own? Or I 19. wallāh ma tamsikīn ħāja. ana illi arattib.
read for you?) !‫واﷲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻤﺴﻜﯿﻦ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ؛ أﻧﺎ اﻟﻠﻲ ارﺗﺐ‬
12. agra ʕalēk bāba? (By God, you don’t touch anything. I tidy up.)
‫ ( أﻗﺮا ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﺑﺎﺑﺎ؟‬Read to you, dad?) 20. yumma ēsh tsawwyīn? xalli ʕannik. ana arattib.
13. xall agrālak. tabghēn Allāh yʕāgibni?
.‫(ﺧﻞ أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ‬Let (me) read for you.) .‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ اﷲ ﯾﻌﺎﻗﺒﻨﻲ‬.‫( ﯾﻤﮫ إﯾﺶ ﺗﺴﻮﯾﻦ؟ ﺧﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ؛ أﻧﺎ ﺑﺎرﺗﺐ‬Mum,
14. bāba, hāt ʕannak basallīk wana agara. what are you doing? Leave it. I will tidy it up. Do you
‫( ﺑﺎﺑﺎ ھﺎت ﻋﻨﻚ ﺑﺎﺳﻠﯿﻚ و أﻧﺎ أﻗﺮا‬Daddy, give it to me. want God to punish me? )
I’ll entertain you while reading.) 21. ēsh daʕwa yumma inti illi tsawwyīn? ēsh hādha?
15. aʕṭīni iljirīda ya bāba agar maʕak. irtāħi. ana asawwiy. marẓāt ilwālidēn biʕyūnna.
‫( أﻋﻄﯿﻨﻲ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة ﯾﺎ ﺑﺎﺑﺎ أﻗﺮا ﻣﻌﻚ‬Give me the ‫إﯾﺶ دﻋﻮة ﯾﻤﮫ إﻧﺖ اﻟﻠﻲ ﺗﺴﻮﯾﻦ؟ إﯾﺶ ھﺬا؟ ارﺗﺎﺣﻲ أﻧﺎ أﺳﻮي ﻣﺮﺿﺎة‬
newspaper, Daddy to read with you.) .‫اﻟﻮاﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﺑﻌﯿﻮﻧﺎ‬
(Why are you doing it), Mum? What is this! Have some
rest, I’ll do it. Obedience of parents is in our eyes.)
22. lēsh tishtaghlīn? wēn ilbanāt? la yumma. ugʕudi
wiħna nishtighil.
.‫ﻟﯿﺶ ﺗﺸﺘﻐﻠﯿﻦ؟ وﯾﻦ اﻟﺒﻨﺎت؟ﻻ ﯾﻤﮫ )أﺣﺐ راﺳﮭﺎ(اﻗﻌﺪي و إﺣﻨﺎ ﻧﺸﺘﻐﻞ‬
(Why are you working? Where are the girls? No, Mum
(kiss her head) sit down and we’ll work.)
23. mashaʔllāh! trattibīn wbintik gaʕda? wallāh ma
tamsikīn shay; ana akammil.
.‫ﻣﺎ ﺷﺎء اﷲ! ﺗﺮﺗﺒﯿﻦ وﺑﻨﺘﻚ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة! واﷲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻤﺴﻜﯿﻦ ﺷﻲ أﻧﺎ أﻛﻤﻞ‬
((Really) God bless! You’re tidying up the house while
your daughter is sitting down!? By God, don’t touch
anything; I’ll carry on.)
In Saudi Arabic, both situations have yielded frequent use of in-group language through address
forms and ellipsis to establish in-group solidarity with the parents. Besides the common
strategies, each situation has also yielded its distinct ones.

93
The speakers use address forms of endearment, both traditional and modern address forms, to
alleviate the force of the imperatives. The female speakers used address forms in both contexts to
convey in-group membership. To mitigate the on-record offer, the speaker indicates that she and
her mother or father belong to the same set of persons, to one family, and should share duties and
responsibilities. Table 4.4 illustrates the preference of these forms among Saudi speakers.
Table 4.4 Frequencies of the Address Forms in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 1&2
Traditional Address. Modern Address.
Sit# 1 (Father) 8 5
Sit# 2 (Mother) 9 2
Table 4.4 shows the speakers’ preference for the traditional address forms over modern ones
in both contexts. In Sit#1, speakers use the traditional address form yuba (father), which is
usually more frequent in Saudi Najdi (Al-Otaibi, personal communication, October, 2008). The
verb bagra (I’ll read) in (8) is more direct since it is attached to particle ba. The attached particle
indicates more commitment than using a separate word to indicate the near future (Yunis, n.d.).
Traditional address forms, (Y)umma, and ummi are used to soften the imperatives in (16) and
(18)-(23). The modern address forms, bāba and māma are less frequent in both situations.
Using ellipsis is also used in both contexts. It is mainly realized in both situations through
contracted questions. This strategy, however, is more frequent in addressing the father. It
increases the degree of politeness. Due to contraction, these utterances appear to crossover to the
PSP domain because they imply mutual knowledge between S and H, which establishes common
ground.
In (9)-(12), the speaker mitigates the offer by using the contracted forms of the question,
agrālak (read for you?)(Compare these questions to (24)-(30)). In Sit # 2, only one speaker used
this substrategy. In (18), the speaker is using the question, asāʕdik bshay (Help you with

94
something?) as the shortened form of questions in (24)-(30). Here, it seems that these elliptic
forms serve more than just mutual knowledge. Since they are used with socially close people,
they indicate informality while showing, at the same time, respect to the addressee’s freedom.
Thus, the higher frequency of this strategy when making offers to the father indicates that the
Saudi speakers avoid imposition on the father more than on the mother.
The offer, ana agrālak, in (9), is another elliptical form in which the speaker implies an
imperative to avoid imposing on the father. The offer can be seen as the contracted form of
aʕţīni/xallīni/hāt ana agrālak (Give it to me to X/Let me read it for you).
In (13), the on-record offer xall may be treated as a contracted form of xallini or xallīni.
Rather than being regarded as avoidance of pronoun I (or me), the elliptic form, xall is usually
used with close relationships in Saudi Arabic. Thus, it is more appropriate to consider it as a PSP
strategy since it indicates informality and mutual knowledge between S and H.
A special realization of in-group language stems from the religious background of the Saudi
society. Religious expressions are highly frequent in Muslims’ interaction. These expressions
can be considered in-group language because they indicate that S and H belong to the same
religious-group of Muslims, and share the same beliefs and values. S “implicitly claims the
common ground with H that is carried by that definition of the group.” (B&L, 1987, p.107)
Religious expressions serve a prominent communicative function in Saudi Arabic. Among
these expressions, swearing to God in making an offer is highly used. According to Abd el-
Jawad (2000), politeness is one of the major functions of swearing. Abd el-Jawad states that
swearing to God is a “bidirectional face-saving strategy” because the speaker swears to God in
order to save his/her face by emphasizing his/her serious intention, not for mere courtesy, and, at
the same time, the speaker is trying to save the addressee’s face. In Saudi Arabic, swearing to

95
God, wallāh (By God) is prominently used in offers as an intensifier (Isamil, 1998) because it
conveys solidarity (El-Shafey, 1990).
Hence, the expression wallāh in (19) is treated here as a PSP intensifier because whenever the
offerer swears to God, the offeree has no right to reject the offer; otherwise, the offerer would be
offended and would have to pay Kaffāra (a specified amount of money or food or fasting for
three days, paid when someone’s swearing to God is rejected). Thus, this religious knowledge
shared by S and H and the consequences of rejecting such offers are what makes the offers
positively polite.
Interestingly, female speakers use Islamic expressions only when addressing the mother but
not the father (See Table 4.5). In Sit#2, it is interpreted that the mother is reluctant to accept the
offer since the situation dictates that the daughter is coming from school and might be exhausted.
Thus, by swearing to God in (19), the daughter exerts some sort of desired pressure on the
mother to eliminate this reluctance, making it easy for the mother to accept the offer without
losing face. This strategy indicates that her mother should not reject the offer that is made in
God’s Name.
Table 4.5. Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2
Swearing to God Religious Formulaic Islamic Total
Expressions Teachings
Sit# 1 0 0 0 0
Sit#2 3 1 2 6
Some Saudi speakers use a series of speech acts to redress the act of offering in one utterance
in (20)-(23). The speakers have employed other speech acts to redress the head act of the offer.
An offer takes place in several utterances each doing face-work or redress face in a different
manner. For example, attending to H’s need is realized by the speech act of criticism or blaming
in a form of rhetorical questions, or irony. In (20) and (22), the speaker uses a sequence of

96
questions in which she expresses criticism and dissatisfaction with what is taking place. The
questions, Why, Mom? What is this? and Why are you working, Mom? Where are the girls?
convey the speakers’ blame for the mother for working alone without asking for help. If the
utterance is interpreted in this way, it may be open to interpretation as being impolite, especially
when addressed to the mother. However, as Watts (2003) puts it, “many of the utterances in this
type of interaction are not in themselves polite, but they are employed to carry out face-work; for
this reason they may be interpreted as polite within the context of the discourse activity.” (p.
256) This also supports El-Shafey’s (1990) view that it is always S’s intention plus H’s
interpretation of the performed act which determines whether an utterance is polite or not. Thus,
the daughter’s intention is not merely to blame or criticize, but rather, to employ blame and
criticism as a means to attend to her mother’s need for help.
Disagreement with H is another PSP strategy that is not accounted for by B&L (1987). Here S
disagrees with H over H’s interest. When the mother works without help, the daughter in (22)
does not accept what is taking place. She disagrees with her mother. Disagreement here is a sign
of care and sympathy.
Another interesting example of how other speech acts redress the act of offer can be found in
(23). Attending to H’s needs is expressed through irony. Such a strategy is expressed through
off-record self-criticism. The female speaker uses the religious formulaic expression mashaʔllāh
(“God protect/bless!”) ironically (might mean really!)as a supportive move to make the offer.
The context and the participant’s intonation indicate that S does not express admiration, but,
jokingly, criticizes herself and the situation in which the mother is working without help. The
use of the address form bintik (your daughter) emphasizes the family bond, here, to enforce
solidarity and mitigate the negative imperative form of offer, ma tamsikīn shay. The speaker
emphatically expresses her intention by swearing to God to intensify the force of the head act of

97
offer, and persuade H to accept it. This collaboration of speech acts supports Sugawara’s (2009)
claim that a supportive move can be composed of two or more speech acts; and there cannot be a
finite number of rules that govern the infinite number of combinations or sequences of different
acts.
Fulfilling H’s wants is used in both situations by giving gifts to H. These gifts can be gifts of
sympathy and care. In Sit#1, in (14), the speaker mitigates the offer by satisfying her father’s
need for care. The expression, basallīk wana agra (I’ll entertain you while reading), redresses
the father’s need for help and care without insulting him for his disability of reading. Coddling
the father by reading to him, reinforced by the address form, bāba mitigates the offer, and
conveys endearment. In Sit # 2, fulfilling H’s wants by giving gifts is realized by using religious
expressions which are forms of giving gifts whereby the speaker emphasizes the mother’s rights
in Islam. In (21), the expression, the obeisance of parents is in our eyes fulfills the mother’s need
for appreciation and recognition.
Besides indicating in-group language, the expression Do you want God to punish me in (20)
indicates a new strategy that has not been accounted for by B&L’s (1987). It can be labeled as
evoking H’s sympathy. The speaker tries to gain her mother’s sympathy by reminding her of the
punishment her daughter will suffer if the daughter does not help her mother. Invoking sympathy
puts some sort of desired pressure on the mother to accept the offer, and, hence, reinforces
family solidarity. (This strategy might be seen as culture-specific and needs further research to
decide on its polite indication).
An overlapping of sub-strategies appears in (21). The expression the obeisance of parents is
switching into a diglossic situation by using terms that are in Standard Arabic. This code
switching, as B&L (1987) assert, is associated with in-group domestic values to encode PSP and

98
establishes in-group solidarity. In (22), kissing the mother’s head is a gift. It expresses the warm
feeling of offering a gift of recognition and love from her child.
Conveying cooperation is used only in Sit#1. The speaker in (15), used the phrase, maʕak
(with you) to pretend that she also wants to be involved in the activity of reading as a sign of
family cooperation to redress the on-record offer.
Difference in the degree of intimacy-formality between the speakers and the parents, as
triggered by the sex of the parent, is manifested in the speakers’ use of NGP. Whereas PSP is
more extensively used when addressing the mother, NGP is markedly used to redress the offer in
addressing the father (See Table 4.1). This difference shows that the strategy of speakers’
avoidance of imposition is used more with the father than with the mother, this may also indicate
that daughters are usually more formal with their fathers in spite of the close relationship.
Consider the following utterances.
Table 4.6. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2

Sit# 1 Sit# 2
24.tibi agrālak iljirīda? 36. tibīni asāʕdik?
‫( ﺗﺒﻲ أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة؟‬I’ll read it to you?) ‫( ﺗﺒﯿﻨﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬Do you) want me to help you?)
25. tħib agrālak iljirīda? 37. tāmrīn ʕala shay asawwyīh?
‫( ﺗﺤﺐ أﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة؟‬Do you like me to read the paper ‫(( ﺗﺂﻣﺮﯾﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲ أﺳﻮﯾﮫ؟‬Do) you order me to do
for you?) anything?)
26. widdik agra ʕalēk iljirīda ilyōm? 38. ēsh tiħtājēn?
‫( ودك اﻗﺮا ﻋﻠﯿﻚ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة اﻟﯿﻮم؟‬Do you want me to read ‫( اﯾﺶ ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻦ؟‬What (do) you need? )
paper for you today?) 39. ēsh mumkin asawwiy?
27. mumkin agrāha ʕannak/lak? ‫( اﯾﺶ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﻮي؟‬What can I do?)
‫ ﻋﻨﻚ؟‬/‫( ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﻗﺮاھﺎ ﻟﻚ‬Is it possible I read it for you?)
28. agdar asāʕdak?
‫( اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬Can I help you?)
29. agdar agrālak iljirīda?
‫( اﻗﺪر اﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة؟‬Can I read the newspaper for you?)
30. ēsh rāyak; bagra lak il-ʕanāwīn wgul li ēsh ilʕinwān illi
tibīni agrāh lik?
‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﺑﺎﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ اﻟﻌﻨﺎوﯾﻦ و ﻗﻞ ﻟﻲ إﯾﺶ اﻟﻌﻨﻮان اﻟﻠﻲ ﺗﺒﯿﻨﻲ أﻗﺮاه ﻟﻚ؟‬
(What do you think? I’ll read the headings, and you tell me

99
Sit#1
which do you want it me to read for you?)
31.fīh xabar agrāh lak?
‫( ﻓﯿﺔ ﺧﺒﺮ أﻗﺮاه ﻟﻚ؟‬Is there any news you want me to read
for you?)
32. wish tabghāni agrālak? hādha almaqāl?
‫( وش ﺗﺒﻐﺎﻧﻲ اﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ؟ھﺬا اﻟﻤﻘﺎل؟‬What do you want me to
read? This article?)
33. idha kunt miẓẓāyig wma tshūf illa binnaẓẓāra,
wmāhi maʕak, ana yimkin agrālak. (If you’re not
comfortable; and you can see only by glasses, and it’s
not with you, I may/might/could read for you.)
‫إذا ﻛﻨﺖ ﻣﺘﻀﺎﯾﻖ و ﻣﺎ ﺗﺸﻮف إﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺎرة و ﻣﺎ ھﻲ ﻣﻌﻚ أﻧﺎ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ اﻗﺮا‬
.‫ﻟﻚ‬
34. aʕṭīni agrāha billmarra ana wint.
.‫( أﻋﻄﯿﻨﻲ أﻗﺮاھﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺮة أﻧﺎ و اﻧﺖ‬Give me. I read it you and
I at a time)
35. simiʕt hādha ilxabar?
‫( ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ھﺬا اﻟﺨﺒﺮ؟‬Did you hear this news?)
Table 4.6 shows that, in Saudi Arabic, NGP is more frequent when offering help to the father.
Few female speakers found it more polite to avoid impinging on the mother, which indicates that
the Saudi female speakers find the mother more intimate.
Conventional indirectness through questions overweigh the other NGP strategies. However, the
forms of questions are more frequent and varied in Sit # 1. These questions are expressed in
various ways with degrees of politeness in both situations (See Table 4.7).
Table 4.7 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1 & 2
tibi(īni) tħib(īn) widdik tiħtāj(ēn)/ ēsh rāyik? agdar mumkin Information. Total
X? X X? miħtāj(a)? X? X? Questions
Sit# 13 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 26
1
Sit# 1 - - - - - - 2 3
2

100
In both situations, the speakers use questions containing some of the verbs that Rabinowitz
(1993) calls “the linguistic variables or features of offers.” The offers, here, are marked by the
presence of the verbs tiħtāj(ēn) /tibi(īni) (need/want me). In Sit#1, the frequency of this type of
questions is higher. In using tħib, tibi(īni) or widdak (Do you like (me) to X?), the daughter
conveys care about the father’s wishes. In Sit#2, on the other hand, only one speaker uses this
type of indirect offers with the verb tibi(īni) want to avoid imposing on the mother.
The use of the modals, mumkin, agdar (can), and yimkin (may), gives more freedom of choice
to the addressee, which makes the utterance more respectful and polite. These modals are heavily
used in Sit#1 but only once in Sit#2. In Sit# 1, these modals are used in the Yes-No questions
whereas, in Sit# 2, the only modal is used with an information question (See (31) & (32) below).
In this case, (27)-(29) sound more polite since they include the modals agdar, and mumkin,
which express possibility, permission, and ability. Thus, the speaker expresses more deference
and less infringement on H.
The question, ēsh (or wish) rāyak? (What do you think of?) is not frequently used when
making an offer to the father. On the surface, the question indicates asking for someone’s
opinion, but implying a suggestion. In (30), the speaker suggests that the father let her read the
news and that he tell her what to read. This question is rarely used because the Saudi female
speakers find it inappropriate to suggest what the father should do.
Information questions are expressed in both situations.7 In Sit# 1, the daughter’s intention in
(31) and (32), is not clear if she is avoiding imposing on the father or she really wants her father
to give information about the topic. Similarly, in Sit# 2, the speaker in (38) and (39) inquires
about the way to help. Because these questions demand an informative answer from the
addressee, they might put the addressee under the pressure of demanding something from the
speaker. Thus, we classify these questions here as the lowest in politeness.

101
Some questions also convey deference as in (37). The formulaic expression (tāmrīn) (do you
command, or order?) shows respect and deference to the mother by giving the mother authority
to command and order.
Hedging appears only in Sit# 1. The speaker in (33) uses a series of utterances before doing
the FTA in order to minimize the imposition on the father. The use of the adverbial clause idha,
or law (if) indicates that “S avoids presumptions about H, his wants, what is relevant or
interesting of his attention.” (B&L, 1987, p. 144) The daughter does not want to coerce her
father; she wants to avoid presuming that her father desires or wants what she wants to do for
him in order to respect the father’s freedom. Thus, the sequence also includes indirectness in
yimkin, (may or might) which indicates possibility, and which is less determinant than “I will X.”
yimkin and mumkin (possibly can) are used as modals. However, yimkin indicates more doubt
about the possibility of doing the offer. It is not common in interaction because of its potential
implication of insincerity (Atawneh, 1991). This series of strategies proves what B&L (1987)
state that the more effort S expands in face-preserving work, the more he will be seen as trying
to satisfy H’s face wants.
Minimizing the imposition of the offer is used with conventional indirectness. In (48), the
female speaker is using the word xabar or maqāl (a piece of news or an article) to minimize the
imposition of the offer on her father. By using xabar, she supposes that her father might not want
her to read much, and thus she implies that she is going to read only what he needs. It also
indicates that it is not going to cause her any trouble in case her father is reluctant to transgress
on her preserve or does not want to waste her time.
In (34), by using of billmarra (at the same time), the daughter redresses the FTA by explicitly
disclaiming any indebtness of H. The daughter wants to show that what she is doing for her
father is not a favor that will make him indebted to her. To the contrary, the father is doing her

102
the favor by accepting it because she will benefit from that offer, as well. This supports B&L’s
view (1987) that going on record as not to indebt H is used when S and H are socially close.
Some utterances are so high in the degree of indirectness that they almost move closer to the
off-record domain. However, the question simiʕt hadha ilxabar (Did you hear this news?) still
gives the father the freedom to accept or reject.
In Saudi Arabic, the OFR strategies are only used when addressing the father. They took forms
of displacing H. Consider the following utterance:
Table 4.8 OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1

Sit#1
40. axīran jāt iljirīa! nafsi agra axbār ilyōm.

.‫( أﺧﯿﺮا ﺟﺎت اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة! ﻧﻔﺴﻲ اﻗﺮا أﺧﺒﺎر اﻟﯿﻮم‬At last the paper is there! I feel like
reading the news today.)
In (40), the speakers’ communicative intention is not clear. The response can be interpreted as
“displace H.” The daughter is pretending that she is talking to herself to avoid threatening the
father’s face. As the participant commented, the reason for going off record, here, is avoiding
embarrassing the father (or insulting him) for not being able to read the newspaper, making it
easy for him to accept the offer.
Mixed super-strategies show a balance between the speakers’ concern of being friendly and
intimate, on the one hand, deferent and polite to the parents in both contexts, on the other.
Examine Table 4.9.

103
Table 4.9. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 1& 2
Sit# 1 Sit# 2
41.yuba, tibīni agrālak shay fi iljirīda? 44. ummi, rūħi nāmi. ana ma ʕindi shay.
‫ ﺗﺒﯿﻨﻲ اﻗﺮا ﻟﻚ ﺷﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة؟‬،‫( ﯾﺒﺔ‬Dad, do you like .‫( أﻣﻲ روﺣﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻲ؛ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺷﻲ‬Mum. Go and have a sleep. I
me to read anything in the news paper for you? don’t have anything.)
42. ubūy, tħib agra annak?) 45. ummi ijlisi. iħna ħusna ilbēt wiħna nrattiba.
‫( أﺑﻮي ﺗﺤﺐ أﻗﺮا ﻋﻨﻚ؟‬Dad, do you like me to read .‫أﻣﻲ اﺟﻠﺴﻲ؛ إﺣﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻨﺎ اﻟﺒﯿﺖ و إﺣﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﺗﺒﮫ‬
for you?) (Mum, sit down. We messed it up and we tidy it up.)
43. ēsh rāyak nigrāha sawa?
‫( اﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻧﻘﺮاھﺎ ﺳﻮى؟‬How about reading it together?)
Address forms and questions are used together in both contexts to make a balance between
deference and intimacy. In Sit# 1, the traditional address form, ubūy, is used with questions of
choice.
Conveying that S and H are cooperators is used in a conventionally indirect form. This is used
with the indirect form of the question. The speaker, in (43), conveys that S and H are
cooperators. This positively polite strategy is realized through the use of the inclusive pronoun
na (we), prefixed to the verb gara (read), and enforced by the word sawa (together).
In Sit# 2, address forms are used with minimizing the imposition, and going on record as not to
indebt H, respectively. She in (44) alleviates the mother’s concern by asserting that the daughter
has nothing else to do, and thus, the offer will not cost her any trouble. The speaker in (45)
alleviates this concern by showing that she is actually not doing a favor but a duty since she and
the others have messed up the room and they have to tidy it up. In this mixture, the daughter,
according to B&L (1987), is constantly assessing the weight of the variables P, D and R, and,
thus, moving from solidarity to indirectness in order to keep the balance of the distance and
power with H. This, again, proves that the more effort S expands in face-preserving work, the
more he will be seen as trying to satisfy H’s face wants.
Table 4.1 shows that the Don’t-do-the FTA strategy was used more frequently with the mother.
Nakane’s (2006) emphasizes the role of context as an important aspect of silence and politeness.

104
She classifies silence into a PSP strategy when it functions as a sign of solidarity and rapport,
and a NGP strategy when it functions as a distancing tactic. In Sit# 1, this strategy is not
frequent. Such a strategy has been realized only in the positive form, that is, participants have
found it more polite to take action to do the offer than give any linguistic response (El-Shafey,
1990). Only three participants chose to read the newspaper for the father. This would show
sincerity in the action and avoid using any expression that might insult the father for his
disability of reading. The majority of responses to the mother chose silence or not to do the FTA.
Instead, those participants preferred the physical response of help, commenting that it is not
appropriate to consult the mother about help which might indicate insincerity of the offer.
b. British English
In British English, the female speakers varied their strategies from one context to another.
Consider Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British English Offers
in Sit# 1& 2
BOR PSP NGP OFR Mixed Don’t Do Total
pos neg
Sit#1 Freq. 0 7 33 1 7 0 2 50
Percent 0 14 66 2 14 0 4 100%
Sit#2 Freq. 6 7 22 0 7 8 0 50
Percent 12 14 44 0 14 16 0 100%
Freq= Frequency Percent= Percentage pos=positive neg=negative
As Table 4.10 indicates, the inclination is towards NGP (66% for Sit#1 & 44% for 2) in both
contexts. There is also obvious avoidance of the BOR strategies (0% for Sit#1 & 12% for 2).

105
PSP and mixed strategies are not frequent but with equal frequency in both situations (14%).
OFR strategies are only used when making an offer to the father (2%). Don’t-do-the FTA
strategy is more frequent when addressing the mother (16%) than the father (4%).
Table 4.10 indicates British speakers’ avoidance of BOR offers. However, this avoidance varies
from complete absence when making an offer to the father, to a restrictive use when making the
offer to the mother. The following utterances illustrate that.
Table 4.11 BOR Offers in British English in Sit# 1& 2

Sit# 2
46. Let me give you a hand/tidy/help X.
47. Let me do that; you take it easy.
The use of the imperative let me is the most frequently used BOR offer. Watts (2003) classifies
let me as one of the quasi-modal structures expressing the deontic modalities ‘will,”
“permission,” and “desire.” The utterance with let me, according to Koyama (2001), is somewhat
face-threatening to the hearer because of its imperative effect; yet, it still indicates some
mitigation of FTA in that it seeks allowance from the hearer to perform the act. In (47), the use
of pronoun you with the imperative is one of the BOR forms proposed by B&L (1987). The
speaker in (47) also uses another formulaic imperative, take it easy, to soften the impact of the
former imperative let me, which makes the utterance less face threatening and polite in spite of
the use of two imperatives at a time.
Being positively polite when addressing the father or the mother is not a preferred strategy
among the British female speakers. Consider the following.

106
Table 4.12 PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 1& 2

Sit# 1 Sit# 2
48. let me read the paper for you, dad. 51. Mum, go and sit down, I’ll do it.
49. Read it for you, dad? 52. Mum, go to have rest, please.
50. Need me to read for you, dad? 53. Need some help?
54. That’s beautiful. I’ll just put these in my room and help you.
55. Here, let me give you a hand with that.
Again, PSP in both contexts is mostly realized by using in-group identity markers. These
markers comprise address forms and ellipsis. The speakers use Mum, and Dad as the only
address forms to mitigate the effect of the imperatives in (48), (51) and (52), and to reinforce the
family bond. (Only one speaker has used the form, Daddy (See (75) below). Besides the use of
address form in (52), the speaker uses the formulaic expression please to give, according to
Watts (2003), a supplementary force to the effect of politeness. Its politeness stems from the
feeling that the speaker is entreating or begging the mother to accept the offer.
Contracted questions as elliptical forms are used in (49), (50), and (53). The auxiliaries or
modals are omitted. According to B&L (1987), the contraction of the question, Do you need
some help? to Need some help? is used with close relationships.
Instances of other PSP strategies are used in offering help to the mother. Attending to H’s
needs is realized in (54) in which the daughter is complementing her mother for her skillfulness
in tidying up the house in order to establish this intimacy with the mother, which might make the
mother accept the offer.
In (55), the speaker uses place switch to presume common ground with the addressee. Place
switch is expressed through the use of proximal demonstrative here rather than distal there. The
demonstrative here shows closeness of place and time, which seems to convey increased
involvement or empathy with H, and, hence, expresses emotional closeness (B&L, 1987).

107
Although the rank of the imposition of the offer, here, is small on both H and S, and the social
distance is very low, British female speakers show great inclination towards NGP in both
situations.
Table 4.13 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 1& 2
Sit# 1 Sit# 2
56. Do you want me to read the newspaper for/to you? 68. Do you need/ want any help/ a hand?
57. Shall I read it for you? 69. Can I help you?
58. Would you like me to read it for you? 70. Shall I give you a hand?
59. Which part do you want me to tell you about? 71. Would you like some help?
60. Shall I read out some articles to you? 72. How can I help?
61. Would you like me to read a couple of articles out to 73. Anything I can do to clean up?
you? 74. What can I do to help?
62. Would you like me to read some of the main news
item for you, dad?
63. As you don’t have your glasses at the moment,
would you like me to read the paper to you?
64. Would you like me to read the newspaper to you
till your glasses are fixed?
65. Dad, shall I see if there’s anything interesting in
the newspaper I can read out for you?
66. Dad, it’s ok, I’ll read it for you.
67. Did you read about that news?
NGP is exclusively expressed in conventional indirectness to reduce the face-threats to the
addressee because the speaker does not assume the likelihood of an addressee’s desire to accept
what is offered, while also expressing concern for the hearer’s wants (Koyama, 2001). The
speakers use these questions in different degrees of politeness and in different frequencies.
Table 4.14 Types & Frequencies of the Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 1 & 2
Do you Can I X? Shall I X? Would you Information Total
want/ like Questions
need X? X?
Sit# 1 11 3 4 20 3 41
Sit# 2 9 10 2 4 4 29

108
Whereas Would you like is prevalent in addressing the father, Can I and Do you want/need
dominated the questions addressed to the mother. The use of Would you like is rare in Sit# 2. If
we accept Koyama’s (2001) listing8that Would you like X? is the most polite form of offers then
the British female speakers tend to be more indirect and more reserved when offering help to the
father than to the mother.
The degree of indirectness moves the question from the most direct to the most indirect form.
Question (67) is placed at the end of conventional indirectness. The vague intention of the
speaker makes the utterance closer to the off-record strategies. However, such questions are
usually asked as a move to do the act of reading, which makes it easier for the addressee to
interpret her question as an attempt to read the article for him.
Pessimism is another strategy expressed by the modal Would. The subjunctive mood, that is,
the past form of the modal indicates the daughter’s doubts about the conditions of
appropriateness of her offer. This uncertainty reduces the face-threats to the addressee because
the speaker is not assuming the addressee’s desire to accept what is offered, while also
expressing concern for the hearer’s wants (Koyama, 2001).
Minimization of the imposition is another strategy used only with the father in (59)-(62). The
use of the quantifiers some, some of, and a couple of articles are used to minimize the imposition
on the father. (Compare with utterances like (56)-(58) in which the speaker referred to the act of
reading without minimization.)
Hedging is used in (63)-(66). By the use of the adverbial As-clause, It’s OK, and Shall I see
if, the daughter avoids coercing her father; she wants to avoid presuming that he desires or
wants what she wants to do for him. Thus, she hedges to lessen the force of the offer. Utterance
(65) sounds more polite since it includes both types of conventional indirectness (i.e., questions
and hedging) to give more freedom for the father to accept or reject the offer. In (66), through

109
hedging, the speaker is also giving reasons for why she is making the offer. It’s Ok helps to
hedge to minimize the imposition on the father.
In British English, few participants went off record. Giving hints or associative clues are the
OFR strategy used in Sit#1. The following utterance illustrates that.
Table 4.15. OFR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit#1
Sit#1
75. Oh daddy, you’re not supposed to read without glasses.
In (75), the speaker expresses sympathy to see her father struggling with reading the paper. In
this case, she relies on the mutual knowledge of the interactional experience, that is, on the
precedent knowledge about her father’s inability to read the newspaper. Thus, she invites
implicatures, leaving it to the father to interpret her intention as an offer. By saying, “you’re not
supposed to read without your glasses,” the speaker hints that her father should let someone else
read it for him.
In other utterances, the effect of the PSP strategies was in balance with the effect of the
negative ones in the same utterance. There was also a fusion between PSP NGP. Consider the
following utterances.
Table 4.16. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 1 & 2

Sit# 1 Sit# 2
76. Can I help you, dad? 78. Mum, do you need some help?
77. Oh dad! I see that you’re battling trying to 79. Hi Mum, would you like some help
read the newspaper. Can I offer to read the cleaning up?
paper for you?
The struggle to keep balance between solidarity and deference during interaction is obvious in
(76)-(79). Conventional indirectness is frequently combined with address forms to lessen the

110
level of distancing with H as in (76)-(79). In (77), the daughter notices her father’s struggle with
the newspaper to read and his need of help. The use of the expression Oh to show sympathy is
enforced by the use of the address form dad to indicate endearment. In this way, she shows
sympathy to establish solidarity, and keep a close relationship with her father. Then, she shifts to
the indirect form in order to show respect to the father’s freedom of choice in Can I X? The
positively polite strategy attending to H’s needs is used with the conventional indirect strategy.
The speaker in (79) starts her offer by greeting her mother as a sign of establishing solidarity
before going indirect in the question about the possibility of making the offer.
Don’t-do-the FTA strategy is more frequently used with the mother than with the father. Two
participants (4%) find it more polite to ignore the whole situation as not to insult the father for
his disability. In Sit# 2, on the other hand, eight female speakers (16%) chose not to do the FTA
verbally. They preferred the positive type of silence by giving a physical response of help,
commenting that to start helping the mother is more appropriate than consulting her about the
help.
4.1.1.2 Very Low Social Distance (High Rank of Imposition) & Difference in Power
The aim of the contrast in Sit# 3 and Sit# 4 is to investigate the effect of the addressee’s social
power on the female use of polite offers among highly close people (i.e., the two addressees are
of the family surrounding). The two situations are characterized by similar social distance,
gender, and rank of imposition. They differ in power. The speaker and the addressees are of the
same gender, and the imposition of the offer is high. The mother in Sit# 3 is an example of the
high power whereas the maid in Sit# 4 is an example of a close relation and a lower power-status
(See 3.1.1). Whereas the speaker offers her expensive earrings to her mother for the party in Sit#
3, the speaker offers the maid an expensive dress in Sit# 4.

111
a. Saudi Arabic
Table 4.17 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3
&4
pos neg
Sit#3 Freq. 3 25 11 0 8 1 5 53
Percent 5.7 47.2 20.75 0 15.09 11 100%

Sit#4 Freq. 11 22 8 0 2 0 10 53
Percent 20.75 41.5 15.09 0 3.8 18.88 100%
As Table 4.17 indicates, PSP is the most preferred strategy in both contexts among the Saudi
speakers(47.2% in Sit# 3& 41.5% in Sit# 4). The BOR strategies, on the other hand, are the least
preferred when addressing the mother (5.7%) but frequently used when addressing the maid
(20.75%). NGP, on the other hand, is used frequently in both contexts with higher frequency
when making the offer to the mother (20.75% in Sit#3 & 15.09% for Sit#4). Utterances with
mixed strategies are more common when addressing the mother (15.09%) than the maid (3.8%).
Don’t-do-the FTA is higher when making the offer to the maid (house cleaner) (18.88 %).
Despite the two addressees’ high degree of the close social relationship, the power deferential
might have had an effect on the use of the BOR offers. Consider the following table.
Table 4.18 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4

Sit# 3 Sit# 4
80. xudhi hādha ilbisīh. 82. hādha ilfistān xudhīh maʕāki.
.‫( ﺧﺬي ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬Take this; wear it.) .‫(ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن ﺧﺬﯾﮫ ﻣﻌﺎك‬This dress; take it with you.)
81. ilbisi hādha. 83. xudhi hādha ilfistān; ilbisīh ʕind ahlik.
.‫( اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ھﺬا‬Wear this.) .‫( ﺧﺬي ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ ﻋﻨﺪ اھﻠﻚ‬Take this dress; wear it at your country.)
84. xudhi liki inti hādha.
.‫( ﺧﺬي ﻟﻚ إﻧﺘﻲ ھﺬا‬Take this for you.)

112
Sit#4
85. taʕālay xudhi ilfistān hādha tara naẓīf jidīd istaxdimīh.

.‫( ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﺧﺬي اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن ھﺬا ﺗﺮى ﻧﻈﯿﻒ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﯿﮫ‬Come, take this dess;
see; it’s clean, new; use it.)
86. illa taxdhīn; xudhi ghasb ʕannik (Jokingly)
.‫( إﻻ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ؛ ﺧﺬي ﻏﺼﺐ ﻋﻨﻚ‬No, you take this by force.)
When making an offer of a high imposition to the mother, few speakers used unredressed
imperatives. Avoidance of this strategy may indicate respect to the mother’s power-status. In
(80) and (81), however, the speakers emphasize the intimate relationship with the mother by
using imperatives. In (81) the speaker uses two imperatives in one utterance to convey sincerity
and insistence on the offer. It gives a small chance for the mother to reject the offer since some
participants commented that their mothers do not to like to use their daughters’ expensive stuff.
Going baldly on record, on the other hand, is very frequent when addressing the maid. One
reason for the frequent use of BOR with the maid can be seen in (84). The maids in Saudi
Arabia are usually non-native speakers of Arabic. Thus, the speaker wants to be direct with the
least words to ensure that the maid understands the offer, even if using broken Arabic. The
speaker in (85) and (86) uses the imperatives that may be interpreted as impolite if used in other
contexts. In (85), the use of the imperatives, come and take may sound rude, especially when
making such an offer to other people. In (86), the speaker is jokingly using the expression ghasb
ʕannik (by force) to eliminate the maid’s reluctance to accept the expensive offer. B&L (1987)
attribute this frequent use of such offers in similar contexts to the fact that the speaker does not
care about maintaining H’s face because S is more powerful, especially if there is a short
distance between S and H.

113
It appears from Table 4.16, PSP is the most frequent strategy in both contexts. Despite
closeness in percentage, the effect of the addressee’s power is obvious in the type of the PSP
strategies in the two contexts.
Table 4.19. PSP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4
Sit# 3 Sit# 4
87. xudhi ħalagi wikshixi fīh giddam innās .(Take my 100. xudhīh; rāħ yifraħūn ahlik fīh. (Take it; your
earrings and showoff in front of people.) family will be happy with it.)
.‫ﺧﺬي ﺣﻠﻘﻲ و اﻛﺸﺨﻲ ﻓﯿﮫ ﻗﺪام اﻟﻨﺎس‬ .‫ﺧﺬﯾﮫ راح ﯾﻔﺮﺣﻮن اھﻠﻚ ﻓﯿﮫ‬
88. ilbisi hādha ilħalag wikshixi fīh yamm i Sʕūd. 101. ʕindi fistān; marra ħilo; xudhīh maʕak ilibisīh
(Wear these earrings and showoff Saud’s mother) ʕind ahlik .(I have a very beautiful dress; take it
‫اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ و اﻛﺸﺨﻲ ﻓﯿﮫ ﯾﺎم ﺳﻌﻮد‬ wear it when you visit your family.)
89. wallāh ma trūħīn illa bhādha ilħalag. (By God you ‫ﻋﻨﺪي ﻓﺴﺘﺎن ﻣﺮة ﺣﻠﻮ ﺧﺬﯾﮫ ﻣﻌﻚ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ ﻋﻨﺪ اھﻠﻚ‬
don’t go without these earrings.) 102. hādha kwayyis marra; ilibisīh. (This is very
‫واﷲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮوﺣﯿﻦ إﻻ ﺑﮭﺎذا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ‬ nice; take it.)
90. Sammi ya baʕad ħayyiy (Here you are, darling) .‫ھﺬا ﻛﻮﯾﺲ ﻣﺮة اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬
‫ﺳﻤﻲ ﯾﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﯿﻲ‬ 103. wallāh, xudh hādha fistān maʕa int.. (By God,
91. Ilbisi hādha; hādha aħla maʕa libsik. (Wear these; you take this dress.)
these look more beautiful with your dress.) .‫واﷲ ﺧﺬ ھﺬا ﻓﺴﺘﺎن ﻣﻊ إﻧﺖ‬
.‫اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ھﺬا؛ ھﺬا أﺣﻠﻰ ﻣﻊ ﻟﺒﺴﻚ‬ 104. hādha hadiyya min madām; lāzim inti tāxdhīna.
92. māma hādha ilħalag aħla ʕalēki ilibisīh.(Mum, .‫( ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﮫ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪام ﻻزم اﻧﺖ ﺗﺄﺧﺬﯾﻨﮫ‬This is a gift from
these earrings look more beautiful on you; wear them.) madam; you must take it.)
.‫ﻣﺎﻣﺎ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ أﺣﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬ 105. hādha hadiyya minni liki. (This is a gift for
93. ummi ilbisi hādha ilħalag; wrāħ taţlaʕīn akshax you.)
waħda bēn il ħarīm. (Mum, wear these earrings, and .‫ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﮫ ﻣﻨﻲ ﻟﻚ‬
you’ll look the most elegant one among the other 106. xudhi hādha ilfistān hadiyya min ʕindi winbasţi
ladies.) fīh. (take this dress as a gift from me; and be
.‫أﻣﻲ اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ و راح ﺗﻄﻠﻌﯿﻦ اﻛﺸﺦ وﺣﺪه ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﺤﺮﯾﻢ‬ happy.)
94. wallāh ya māma ilħalag byiaţlaʕ ʕalēki marra ħillo; .‫ﺧﺬي ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن ھﺪﯾﮫ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪي واﻧﺒﺴﻄﻲ ﻓﯿﮫ‬
ilbisīh. (By God Mum, these earrings will look great on 107. xudhi hādha hadiyya ʕashān inti.(Take this; it’s
you. Wear them.) a gift.)
.‫واﷲ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺎﻣﺎ اﻟﺤﻠﻖ ﺑﯿﻄﻠﻊ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﻣﺮة ﺣﻠﻮ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬ .‫ﺧﺬي ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﺔ ﻋﺸﺎن اﻧﺘﻲ‬
95. yumma tikfēn; ilbisi hādha ilħalag, wallāh kashxa 108. ana ʕindi fistān; xalāş xudhīh ʕashān
maʕa fustānik. (Mum, please, wear these earrings; By titdhakkarēyni. (I have a dress, it’s ok; take it to
God, they are great with your dress.) remember me.)
.‫ﯾﻤﮫ ﺗﻜﻔﯿﻦ اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ و اﷲ ﻛﺸﺨﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻓﺴﺘﺎﻧﻚ‬ .‫أﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻓﺴﺘﺎن ﺧﻼص ﺧﺬﯾﮫ ﻋﺸﺎن ﺗﺘﺬﻛﺮﯾﻨﻲ‬
109. xudhi hādha hadiyya titdhakkarēyni fīh. (Take

114
Sit#3 Sit#4
96. yumma ghayyiri hādha ilħalag; illi ʕindi aħsan. this as a gift to remember me.)
(Mum, change these earrings; wear the one I have; .‫ﺧﺬي ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﮫ ﺗﺘﺬﻛﺮﯾﻨﻲ ﻓﯿﮫ‬
it’s better.) 110. inti xadamtīna kithīr wtaʕʕabnāki maʕāna
.‫ﯾﻤﮫ ﻏﯿﺮي ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ اﻟﺒﺴﻲ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي أﺣﺴﻦ‬ ʕashān kidha abi aʕtīki hādha hadiyya. (You served
97. abghāki tiţlaʕīn akshax umm bilʕazīma baʕţiki us a lot. So I want to give you this as a gift.)
aħla ħalag ʕindi takshixīn fīh. (I want you to be the .‫اﻧﺖ ﺧﺪﻣﺘﯿﻨﺎ ﻛﺜﯿﺮ و ﺗﻌﺒﻨﺎك ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﺸﺎن ﻛﺬا أﻧﺎ أﺑﻲ أﻋﻄﯿﻚ ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﺔ‬
most elegant mother in the party; I’ll give you the 111. hādha hadiyya; inti tistiħigīn ʕashān inti gumti
most beautiful earrings I have.) biwājibki. (This is a gift; you deserve it because you
‫اﺑﻐﺎك ﺗﻄﻠﻌﯿﻦ اﻛﺸﺦ أم ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺰﯾﻤﺔ ﺑﺄﻋﻄﯿﻚ أﺣﻠﻰ ﺣﻠﻖ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺗﻜﺸﺨﯿﻦ‬ did your job.)
.‫ﻓﯿﮫ‬ .‫ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﺔ؛ اﻧﺖ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻘﯿﻦ ﻋﺸﺎن اﻧﺖ ﻗﻤﺖ ﺑﻮاﺟﺒﻚ‬
98. yumma ēsh hādha ilħalag? wallāh ma trūħīn ma 112. tfaẓẓalay; hādha fistān hadiyya minni liki
trūħīn illa bi aħla ħalag ʕindi; abghāki āxir kashxa. ʕashān titdhakkarēyni bidīratk. (Please, take this as a
(Mother, what is this? By God, you are not going gift so you remember me when you go home.)
without the most beautiful earrings I have.) .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ھﺬا ﻓﺴﺘﺎن ھﺪﯾﺔ ﻣﻨﻲ ﻟﻚ ﻋﺸﺎن ﺗﺘﺬﻛﺮﯾﻨﻲ ﺑﺪﯾﺮﺗﻚ‬
‫ﯾﻤﮫ إﯾﺶ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ؟ و اﷲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮوﺣﯿﻦ إﻻ ﺑﺄﺣﻠﻰ ﺣﻠﻖ ﻋﻨﺪي اﺑﻐﺎك‬ 113. tfaẓẓalay; hādha ilfistān dhikra. (Please, take
.‫آﺧﺮ ﻛﺸﺨﺔ‬ this dress to remember me.)
99. hādha aħla ħalag li aghal umm fi iddinya; ilbisīh .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن ذﻛﺮى‬
wkūni aħla waħda illēyla. (This is the most beautiful 114. Name, xalāş xudhi hādha ashtarēta liki. (Ok,
earrings to the most beautiful mother in the world; be take this I bought it for you.)
the most beautiful one tonight.) .‫ ﺧﻼص ﺧﺬي ھﺬا اﺷﺘﺮﯾﺘﮫ ﻟﻚ‬،‫اﺳﻢ‬
.‫ھﺬا أﺣﻠﻰ ﺣﻠﻖ ﻷﻏﻠﻰ أم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﻧﯿﺎ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ وﻛﻮﻧﻲ أﺣﻠﻰ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻠﯿﻠﺔ‬
The two situations have yielded some PSP strategies that are common and others that are
different. Whereas fulfilling H’s wants is common in both situations, address forms, swearing to
God, exaggerating, and attending to H’s needs are used only when addressing the mother.
The most common strategy used in Sit# 3 is address forms, either the traditional or the less
conventional ones. Examine Table 4. 20.
Table 4.20 Forms of Addressing the Mother in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 3

Address Y(umma) (ya)um māma māmi (Mother of baʕad hayyiy Total
Form mi Person) (Darling)
Freq. 9 2 7 2 1 1 22
Freq= frequency

115
Table 4.20 shows inclination towards using traditional address forms among the Saudi female
speakers when addressing the mother. The non-conventional form, māma, comes as the second
preferred form. Māmi is rarely used since it is not socially familiar in the Saudi culture.
Another traditional form of address is naming the mother after one of her sons or daughters
(usually the eldest one), by addressing her as the mother of. The speaker in (88) is addressing her
mother using the term, Umm(i) Sʕūd, (Mother of Saud). Such an address form is usually used to
show deference but it is not culturally common for a daughter or a son to address their mother in
such terms. Nevertheless, as a native speaker of Saudi Arabic, I may assert that when the
daughter uses this term in this context, she aims to convey intimacy and friendliness with the
mother.
Another address form of endearment is used in (90). The in-group dialect, baʕad ħayyiy (My
dear) is usually dialectal, particular to the north rejoin of Saudi Arabia (Al-Otaibi, personal
communication, 2008). This form mitigates the offer and ameliorates the face-threat.
No forms of endearment are used when addressing the maid. The speakers are keen to satisfy
the maid’s positive face without creating over intimacy in order to sustain barriers. Using the
first name in (114), as an attention getter, is used only once to address the maid.
Swearing to God to insist is more used with mothers as a face-saving strategy to put a desirable
pressure on the addressee (See 4.1.1). For example, the speakers in (89), (94), (95) and (98) by
using the Name of God, share the religious background with the mother as well as exert pressure
on her to accept the offer. Swearing to God is used only once with the maid in (103) for the same
purpose. (The daughter uses more swearing words to insist that the mother accept the offer (See
4.1.1).
The term wallāh (I swear to God) in (94) does not function as in (89) or (103). It functions as
a booster to intensify the compliment, not to force the addressee to accept the offer.

116
Table 4.21. Frequencies of Religious Expressions in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4
Swearing to God Religious Islamic Total
Formulaic Teachings
Expressions
Sit# 3 2 1 0 3
Sit# 4 1 0 0 1
Attending to H’s interests and needs has been realized in different ways in Sit# 3. In (91)-(95),
the speakers are either complimenting the mother by showing how pretty she will look with the
earrings or how the earrings fit the mother’s outfit. These strategies are distinguished by the
expansive face-work, which is not attempted with the house cleaner. The word kashxa and
akshax (elegance/be elegant) is used repeatedly in addressing the mother in (87), (88), (93), (95)
and (97). It conveys the speaker’s care and intimacy about the addressee’s appearance.
Expansive face-work is attempted with the mother but not with the maid. In (93), for example,
an address term plus an imperative to convey an insistent offer plus attending to H’s needs all
work together to satisfy H’s wants. In (98), the expansive face-work is realized through a series
of collaborative speech acts occurring in succession. The speaker employs the indirect criticism
embedded in the question to express her dissatisfaction about her mother’s choice of earrings.
This dissatisfaction is promptly followed by the negative imperative and the expression of
insistence (i.e., swearing). The speaker then justifies the strong imperative and implied criticism
by using the expression abghāki kashxa (want you to show your elegance) to show appreciation
and care.
Intensifying interest in H’s needs is realized in (99) through the speaker’s exaggeration of the
mother’s beauty, intensifying love for the mother, and expressing the wish that the mother would
be the prettiest.
In Sit# 4, the most frequent PSP strategy is in giving gifts in (104) - (107) and (109) - (112).
The use of the word hadiyya (gift) is used to redress the imperative xudhi (take) in many

117
utterances. S is actually redressing the maid’s wants. This “demonstrates that S knows some of
H’s wants and wants them to be fulfilled.”(B&L, 1987, p. 129) The gifts can be moral ones.
Repeated reference to the maid’s hard work and dutifulness is made in (110) and (111). In (110)
and (111), the speaker is giving both moral and tangible gifts. The speaker fulfills the maid’s
need for recognition and appreciation. Thus, by knowing that her hard work is appreciated, the
maid will feel emotionally supported.
Yet, it needs to be observed that this prominent use of the PSP strategy of giving gifts with the
maid may relate to the difference in power status or degree of closeness between the speaker and
the two addressees (i.e., mother and maid). The expressions, xudhi hādha hadiyya (take this as a
gift), and hādha hadiyya (This is a gift) fulfills the maid’s need for recognition. For the mother,
PSP is expressed by strategies of showing interest in H’s needs, exaggerating and intensifying
interest in H, address forms and swearing to God.
Interestingly, in Sit# 4, some of the PSP strategies are used to redress the formulaic, softened,
BOR, expression tfaẓẓalay as in (112) and (113). By using tfaẓẓalay,9 S wants to convey to H
that “Do me a favor by accepting the offer.” This expression is used with a low frequency with
the house cleaner but is completely avoided with the mother. This indicates that the use of
tfaẓẓalay is blocked with higher degrees of intimacy. It also directs attention to the relative
significance of the dimension of social status over power so that more consideration is paid to
the intimate relationship with the mother than to her powerful status.
In (114), the speaker shows care about the maid by saying, “I bought it for you”. This conveys
the personal worth of the maid to the speaker. As the participant herself commented, she likes to
buy her maid new clothes, not giving the maid the used ones as an expression of recognition.
NGP strategies differ in the two situations. Table 4. 22 illustrates these strategies.

118
Table 4. 22. NGP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4

Sit# 3 Sit# 4
115. aħiss hādha ilħalag aħla ʕalēki. 123. tabghēn hādha? (Do you want this?
‫(أﺣﺲ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ أﺣﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬I feel these earrings look better on you.) ‫)ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ھﺬا؟‬
116. ʕindi ħalag kashxa ynāsib hādhi ilʕazīma; ēsh rāyik 124. tabghēn hādha ilfistān?(Do you want this
talbisīna? dress?)
‫( ﻋﻨﺪي ﺣﻠﻖ ﻛﺸﺨﺔ ﯾﻨﺎﺳﺐ ھﺎذي اﻟﻌﺰﯾﻤﺔ اﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﮫ‬I have ‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن ھﺬ؟ا‬
117. māma, tikfēn ilbisīh wikshaxi; , tikfēn xallīki tiṭlaʕīn 125. ēsh rāyik fi hādha ilfisātn?
What do you think of this dress?
ħilwa ʕind ubūy winnās (Mom, please wear it and show off,
please be beautiful in front of daddy and people.) ‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن؟‬
‫ﻣﺎﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻔﯿﻦ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ و اﻛﺸﺨﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﯿﻦ ﺧﻠﯿﻚ ﺗﻄﻠﻌﯿﻦ ﺣﻠﻮة ﻋﻨﺪ أﺑﻮي و اﻟﻨﺎس‬ 126. ēsh rāyik fi hādha ilfisātn? ħilu? xalāş ma
118. wish rāyik, ajīb lik ħalagi ilxāşş ħaggi talbisīna illēyla? yaghla ʕalēki.
‫( وش راﯾﻚ أﺟﯿﺐ ﻟﻚ ﺣﻠﻘﻲ اﻟﺨﺎص ﺣﻘﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﮫ اﻟﻠﯿﻠﺔ؟‬How do you feel What do you think of this dress, nice? Ok, you’re
about bringing you my earrings to wear it tonight?) more precious.
119. māmi, wish rāyik talbasīn hādha ilħalag? aħiss yināsib .‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن ﺣﻠﻮ؟ ﺧﻼص ﻣﺎ ﯾﻐﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
libsik. (Mammy, what do you think of my earrings; I feel they 127. ēsh rāyik fi hādha ilfisātn? aħiss yiji ħilu
suit your dress.) ʕalēki. (Name, what do you think of this dress; I
‫ﻣﺎﻣﻲ وش راﯾﻚ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻖ أﺣﺲ ﯾﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻟﺒﺴﻚ‬ feel it will look nice on you.)
120. Yumma, wish rāħ talbisīn? liʔni bşrāħa abīk talbisīn .‫ إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن أﺣﺲ ﯾﺠﻲ ﺣﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬،‫اﺳﻢ‬
hādha ilħalag idha māʕindik māniʕ? tikfēn ilbisīh. (Mum, 128. (Name), xudhi hādha ilfistān, maʔħtāja;
what are you going to wear because, frankly I want you to xudhīh liki. (Take this dress; I don’t need it; take
wear these earrings if you don’t mind; please wear them) it for you.)
‫ﯾﻤﮫ وش راح ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ﻷﻧﻲ ﺑﺼﺮاﺣﺔ اﺑﯿﻚ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ھﺎﻟﺤﻠﻖ اذا ﻣﺎﻋﻨﺪك ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺗﻜﻔﯿﻦ‬ .‫ﺧﺬي اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن؛ ﻣﺎ اﺣﺘﺎﺟﮫ؛ ﺧﺬﯾﮫ ﻟﻚ‬
.‫اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬ 129. tabghēn hādha taxīdhīna maʕāk? ana ma
121. hādha munāsib; afẓallik min hādha. (This is better for abghāh. (Do you want to take this with you, I
you.) don’t want it.)
.‫ھﺬا ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ؛ أﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ھﺬا‬ .‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ھﺬا ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻨﮫ ﻣﻌﺎك؟ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ أﺑﻐﺎه‬
122. hādha azyan; munāsib akthar waʔfxam.(This is better, 130. xudhi hādha; ʕindi wāħid yashbahla. (Take
more luxurious.) this; I have one that looks like it.)
.‫ھﺬا أزﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ أﻛﺜﺮ و أﻓﺨﻢ‬ .‫ﺧﺬي ھﺬا؛ ﻋﻨﺪي واﺣﺪ ﯾﺸﺒﮫ ﻟﮫ‬
Conventional indirectness is frequent in both situations, with higher frequency in Sit# 3. Table
4.23 illustrates the distribution of this strategy in both situations.
Table 4.23 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3 & 4
tibi(īni)/ ēsh rāyik Total
tabgha(ēn) X?
Sit# 3 0 13 13
Sit# 4 4 3 7

119
Table 4.23 illustrates that the use of conventional indirectness is common in the use of the
formulaic question wish rāyik (What do you think, or how do you feel about X?) in both contexts
with higher frequency when addressing the mother. The question, as aforementioned, requests
H’s opinion about accepting the offer, which makes the offer sound more polite.
The most frequent question in Sit# 4 when addressing the maid is Do you want X? used in
(123), (124), and (129). In realizing offers, this question is evaluated as less polite (See 4.1.1).
Questions, such as Do you want (to take) X are usually avoided in offers since the addressee’s
affirmative response would be an admission of need which is an impolite belief.
Hedging is used in Sit# 3 and Sit# 4 but with higher complexity in Sit# 3. In both contexts, the
question, wish/ēsh rāyik, is combined with hedging. The expression aħiss in (115) and (119) is a
hedge used to lessen the imposition on the mother as the addressee. The expression is used in
order not to coerce H in accepting the speaker’s opinion.
Utterance (120) starts with the positive-marker, the address form, yumma. The speaker mixes
conventional indirectness with hedging expressions. The use of the question, wish rāh talbisīn, is
used to prepare the mother for the offer. The speaker does not want to know what her mother is
going to wear, but the question functions as a move to insist on her offer. The speaker, then,
hedges with the phrase bşarāħa (frankly) to convey her deep desire for her mother to accept the
offer. This is followed by the want-statement as the head act of the offer. The expression, abīk (I
want you) is alleviated by the conditional idha-clause (if-clause) to convey a permission and
followed by the begging expression tikfēn to respect the mother’s power-status.
Other forms of indirectness are expressed in (121) and (122). The level of indirectness
increases, reaching a level closer to off-recordness. Utterance (121) is a comparison. The speaker
is stating that the earrings she has are more suitable and better. In (122), indirectness is also
embedded in a comparison. In both (121) and (122), there is a salient absence of the head act of

120
offer. The offer in both utterances is the highest in indirectness. However, in (121), there is lik(i)
(for you) which indicates the speaker’s intention to make the offer.
Minimization is frequently used but only in Sit# 4. The speakers in (128)-(130) use different
expressions to minimize the face-threat to the maid, who might be reluctant to accept such an
expensive gift from her employers. The expressions as ma abghāh/ma aħtajāh (I don’t want it/ I
don’t need it), may convey belittling the offered item, which could be insulting. In (128)-(130),
minimization is expressed in the form of something that can be dispensed with. Thus, it appears
that the offerer is getting rid of something she does not want, making these utterances sound rude
and inappropriate. However, sometimes, the offerer belittles the value of the gift to make it
easier for the addressee to accept it. In other words, minimizing a gift has the function of
alleviating the face threat of accepting it. This again supports Watts’ (2003) and Locker’s (2006)
rejection of dichotomizing utterances as either polite or impolite. No utterance is inherently
polite or impolite in itself. Interpretations of politeness take the context into consideration
(Fraser & Nolan, 1981).
Although the strategies appear to be similar in both situations, the language in Sit# 4 is not
usually used in normal interaction. For example, xudhi winbasţi fīh, ahlik yifrahūn fīk, ʕindi
wāħid yashbahah are not appropriate if used to make offers to other people. The difference in the
power status of the addressees might have caused the notably different linguistic forms used to
realize the same strategy.
Mixed strategies are used in both situations with higher frequency in Sit# 3. The struggle to
keep a balance between intimacy and deference is higher when making the offer to the mother.

121
Table 4. 24. Mixed Superstrategies in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4
Sit# 3 Sit# 4
131. wish rāyik tikshixīn illēyla wtalbisīn ħalagi? (What 134. idha widdik; fīh fistān biyiʕjibk;
do you think of showing off today and wearing my xudhīh; ʕādi ilbisīh. (If you like, there is a
earrings?) dress; you will like it; take it, it’s ok
‫وش راﯾﻚ ﺗﻜﺸﺨﯿﻦ اﻟﻠﯿﻠﺔ و ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ﺣﻠﻘﻲ‬ (normal); wear it.
132. wish rāyik tkamilīn hal kashxa bil ħalag? What do ‫إذا ودك ﻓﯿﺔ ﻓﺴﺘﺎن ﺑﯿﻌﺠﺒﻚ ﺧﺬﯾﺔ ﻋﺎدي اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬
you think of completing this elegant look by my 135. Name, tabghēn tāxdhīna maʕāk? ana
earrings?
mā ʔabghāh. hādha hadiyya. (Name, Do
‫وش راﯾﻚ ﺗﻜﻤﻠﯿﻦ ھﺎﻟﻜﺸﺨﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻠﻖ‬
you want take it with you? I don’t want it;
133. māma, ēsh rāyik ilyōm tilbisīn il ħalag ħaggi?
it’s a gift.)
biyiţlaʕ ʕalēki marra ħilu. (Mama, what do you think of
‫)ﻓﻼﻧﺔ( ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻨﮫ ﻣﻌﺎك؟ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ أﺑﻐﺎه؟ ھﺬا ھﺪﯾﺔ‬
wearing my earrings today; it will look great on you.)
‫ﻣﺎﻣﺎ إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ اﻟﯿﻮم ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ اﻟﺤﻠﻖ ﺣﻘﻲ ﺑﯿﻄﻠﻊ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﻣﺮة ﺣﻠﻮ‬
The balance between respect and intimacy is highly maintained in Sit# 3. Most of the mixtures
in Sit# 3 comprise the negatively polite question, wish rāyik and the PSP strategy, attending to
H’s needs by complimenting. For example, in (131)-(133), the speaker is complimenting her
mother’s looks by suggesting that she complete her elegance by wearing the speaker’s earrings.
In most of these cases, this mixture comprises the address form māmi, māma, or umma/i to
enhance in-group solidarity and show respect for the mother’s power and freedom of choice.
When addressing the maid, on the other hand, the mixture is of different types of strategies and
creates a different politeness effect. The speakers are less concerned with keeping the balance
between intimacy and respect when the addressee is of lower power. In (134), the speaker
combines hedging by the if-clause and the hedging-minimizer, ʕādi, with optimism biyʕjibk
(you’ll like it). In (135), the speaker combines indirectness through question forms with
minimization, “I don’t want it,” and PSP of giving gifts. Mixture of strategies in (135) has less
impact of politeness for two reasons. The question tabghēn taxdhīna maʕāk (i) sounds more of a
speech act of permitting or allowing rather than offering. Minimization conveys the idea of
dispensing with something unnecessary (See examples (128)-(130) above).

122
When making an offer to a person of high power (i.e., mother) 11% of the participants chose
the negative form of not to do the FTA (i.e., opting out). One participant chose the positive
response by helping the mother to wear the earrings instead of offering. The ones who opted out
commented that they tried that before but their mothers would not accept the offer so they would
not try again. This emphasizes the role of anticipating H’s reaction in S’s choice of politeness
strategies. In addressing the maid, on the other hand, 18.88% chose to opt out. They commented
that they usually do not like to offer such things to a maid either because they find it
inappropriate to offer such an expensive thing or because they like to maintain distance with the
maid.
b. British Englsih
In British English, Sit#3 and Sit# 4 yielded different strategies. Examine Table 4.25.
Table 4.25 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British English Offers in Sit#
3& 4
pos neg
Sit#3 Freq. 2 12 32 0 1 0 0 47
Percent 4 26 68 0 2 0 100%
Sit#4 Freq. 0 3 40 0 4 0 0 47
Percent 0 6.4 85 0 8.5 0 100%
Table 4.25 indicates an extreme inclination towards NGP in both situations (68% for Sit#3&
85% for Sit#4). PSP, on the other hand, is frequent when addressing the mother (26%) but rare
when addressing the house cleaner (6.4%). BOR strategies are rare in Sit#3 (4%) but completely
avoided in Sit# 4. Few speakers chose mixed strategies in both situations (2% in Sit#3 & 8.5%
for Sit#4).

123
The use of BOR offers in Sit#3, and its absence in Sit#4, may be attributed to the difference in
the degree of the social distance between the offerer and the offeree. In Britain, house cleaners
are not part of the family as in the Saudi society. In Britain, house cleaners usually do not stay in
but come to do the cleaning and leave. Some British speakers, however, asserted that their house
cleaners are very socially close (Thus, the researcher finds it important to include this
relationship for both cultures under [--SD] to investigate the cultural differences in the politeness
strategies. This may be left open for the future research.)
Table 4. 26. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 3

Sit#3
136. Here, 10wear these.
The rare BOR offers, in Sit# 3, take the form of the imperative wear these. No softener is used
in this utterance.
As mentioned above, the frequency of PSP differs markedly between the two situations. British
speakers were more positively polite when making the offer to the mother, rather than the maid.
Table 4.27 PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 3& 4

Sit# 3 Sit# 4
137. Here, don’t you need these ones? 147. Please take this; it will look lovely on
138. Don’t you try these ones, Mum? you.
139. My earrings would look great with that outfit. Please, wear 148. (Name) I’ve noticed you have the
them. coloring that would really suit this dress I
140. Try my earnings; they’ll go really well with that dress. have, and I’d love for you to have it.
141. Why don’ you wear my earnings on?
142. Mum, these earnings would look beautiful why don’t you put
them
143. Why don’t you wear these earnings? it would look nice with
that outfit
144. Mum, you look great. Hey, why don’t you borrow my lovely
new earrings? They would go very well with your dress.
145. How about wearing my favorite earrings, Mum?
146. Hey Mum! I’ve got some great earrings that would go well
with your outfit. Want to borrow them?

124
In offering the mother expensive earrings, British speakers use PSP strategies such as address
forms, attending to H’s needs, fulfilling some of H’s want, asking for reasons to enhance
cooperation and claim common ground with H. In some utterances, the speakers use
combinations of these strategies.
The address form, Mum is frequently used (It is the only address form used for the mother
across the utterances in this data.) For the maid, only some speakers used the first name as an
attention getter.
In Sit#3, the speakers in (137) and (138) assume common ground with the mother. The female
speakers presuppose knowledge of the mother’s wants and needs. B&L (1987) postulate that the
negative question which presumes “yes” as an answer, is widely used to indicate that S knows
H’s wants, habits, needs, etc., and helps partially redress the imposition of the FTA. S indicates
that she knows that the mother needs the earrings, thus, implying that she should take them. This
helps in partial redressing of the FTA.
Complimenting the mother’s looks or the outfit is common in this context to fulfill the
mother’s needs for sympathy and praise. In (139) and (140), the speaker mitigates the imperative
by complimenting the perfect look of the mother if she wears the earrings. In (142)-(44), the
speakers are asking for reasons why the mother does not cooperate and accept the offer,
implying a suggestion that the mother should accept the offer. In (144), the speaker enforces this
PSP strategy by noticing the mother’s beauty to fulfill the mother’s need to be flattered, using
the compliment, “You look great” to redress the on-record offer.
In-group language is used in (145) and (146). The speaker uses the elliptical forms, How
about wearing X, Want to borrow X, from the questions, Do you want X? and How do you feel
about X?, respectively, to convey the small distance and the shared background between S and
H. In this respect, the speaker shows her knowledge of her mother’s needs or wants.

125
In both contexts, the use of the lexical item of politeness, please, is used to soften the
imperatives. As Sato (2008) contends, please is primarily considered as a lexical
downgrader, whose function is to soften the inherently face-threatening content carried by
the formal aspects of imperative sentences. Watts (2003) finds please a sort of politic
behavior, which is claimed to be distinct from polite behavior. That is, please is highly
ritualized and does not carry politeness in itself but is necessary to make the utterance open
to interpretation of being polite. Wichmann (Cited by Sato, 2008) asserts that please serves
as ‘‘a courtesy formula which acknowledges debt with greater or lesser sense of
obligation.’’ (p. 1254) To Fraser (as cited in Sato, 2008), it is significant that the politeness
phenomena of the linguistic item, please, can be described by terms such as face-saving,
conversational-contract, and social-norm–the notions proposed to describe different
approaches to politeness. In this respect, the speaker plays a passive role of observing social
rules and acts only within the realms of expectable behavior enforced by socio-pragmatic
roles set for the speaker and the addressee.
In Sit# 4, PSP is realized also through fulfilling H’s wants by giving gifts of care and
appreciation and attending to the cleaner’s needs. In (147), the speaker shows care about the
maid and how much the speaker wants the maid to have the dress. Just like with the mother, the
speaker compliments the maid by describing how beautiful she will look with the dress on.
Noticing H’s needs is used in (148). The speaker notices that the maid is wearing something
which might match the color of the dress the speaker wants to give to the maid. As the
participant commented, she usually says so even if she is not sure if the coloring really fits the
addressee’s stuff or not, but as a move to persuade the maid to accept the offer.

126
Multiple PSP strategies are used in many utterances when addressing the mother, but not the
maid. The speakers are more concerned to mitigate the offer positively to establish more
solidarity and intimacy with the mother rather than with the maid.
Mitigating the offer to satisfy the negative face of the mother and the maid is expressed in the
heavy use of NGP strategies: conventional indirectness and hedging. Conventional indirectness
is dominant in both situations. However, the most notable difference is that conventional
indirectness is mostly expressed in the declarative form when addressing the mother using varied
types of questions. See Table 4.28.
Table 4.28 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 3& 4
Sit# 3 Sit# 4
149. Do you want to wear (my) these earrings? 162. Would you like this dress?
150. These earrings would look good with that dress. 163. Would you like to keep this dress for yourself?
Do you want to try them? 164. I’ve got this outfit here, how would you like it?
151. My earrings would look good with that dress. 165. How would you like this dress for yourself?
Shall I bring them? 166. Do you think this would fit you?
152. Would you like to wear these earrings? 167. Name, I’m not going to wear this anymore, could you
153. Hey Mum, would you like to wear my earnings? use it?
154. My earrings would look perfect with your outfit. 168. Take this dress. I don’t wear it anymore.
Would you like to borrow them? 169. Please take this dress. I don’t need it.
155. Please Mom, do me a favor and wear these 170. Would you like to take that one home? I don’t need it
earrings. anymore?
156. Mum, I want you to have these earrings. 171. This doesn’t fit me anymore, would you like it?
157. My diamond earrings would look lovly with 172. Name, I have this dress here, which is too small for
your outfit, Mum. me. Would you like it?
158. Your outfit will look really nice with my 173. I don’t wear this anymore, would be interested in
earrings. having it?
160. Mum, my earnings will match your dress. 174. I’m just getting a couple of new ones. So I’d like to
161. My earrings would go fabulously with offer you this dress I never wear it. Would you like to have
that outfit. it?
175. Here, I’ve not worn this for ages. Would you like it?
176. You could wear this if you wanted it or give it away.
177. If it would be any good to you, you’re very welcome
to this dress-I don’t often wear it.
178. I have a lovely dress but it doesn’t fit me anymore. I

127
Sit#3 Sit#4
want you to have it.
179. I think this dress would look lovely on you.
180. I’m not wearing this dress much lately, and I think it
will fit you very well I’d like you to have it.
When addressing the maid, however, most of conventional indirectness is expressed in questions
some of which are used for the first time in this data (See Table 4.29 ).
Table 4.29 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 3 & 4
Do you Would you Shall I Do you How Could Would be Total
want/need X? like X? X? think X? would you you X? interested to X
like X?
Sit# 3 5 11 1 0 0 0 0 17
Sit# 4 0 20 0 3 2 2 1 28
Conventional indirectness is expressed in degrees of politeness. Some are at the lowest level
of indirectness as in (156), close to direct offers, and some are at the highest level, close to off-
recordness as in (160) and (161) (See below).
It is clear that the British speakers used more questions when addressing the house cleaner.
The difference in the degree of intimacy might have caused this (See 4.1.) Although the speakers
use different types of questions in each situation, the semi-formulaic structure Would you like to
X, which is considered the most polite form of offer (Koyama, 2001; Watts, 2003), is the most
frequent in both contexts. There is an absence of the question Do you need/want/like, and Shall I
X when addressing the house cleaner. New question forms are used with the house cleaner. The
speaker in (164)-(166), uses the questions, How would you like X, Do you think this X, and
Would be interested in having it. The high frequency of questions used by British speakers show
that they are more formal when addressing their house cleaners.
Could in (167) does not investigate the addressee’s ability, but, according to B&L (1987),
rather explicitly expresses doubt about the appropriateness of the conditions in which the speech
act takes place. The speaker saves the house cleaner’s dignity by assuming that she might not

128
want the item. She implies that it is the speaker who wants the house cleaner to have it.
Consequently, by this pessimism, the speaker avoids coercing the housecleaner.
The offer in (176) is highly polite because of the heavy use of the past tense expressed by the
modal and the conditional If-clause to distance the speaker and the addressee from the FTA. The
speaker uses the past form could in the declarative form. The expression, you could, indicates
more than avoidance of coercing the addressee. It is used to make suggestions and give advice
(Youmans, 2001). Using this conditional evidential for suggestions is negatively polite in that,
according to Youmans, it leaves the possibility open for the addressee to refuse, based either on
inability or on the implied condition, thereby, preserving the addressee’s decision-making
freedom.
Minimizing the offer by belittling the offered item again is a major strategy in addressing the
maid. Compare (150) and (151) where the speaker compliments and praises the item and how it
will look on the mother to (167)-(176) in which S belittles the value of the dress. The speakers
use a variety of expressions to belittle the value of the dress (such as I’ve never worn it for ages,
it’s too small for me, I don’t’ need it any more, I’m getting a couple of new ones, etc.) Such
expressions sound rude and inappropriate if used in other contexts (See 128-130).
Going on record as to incur indebt to H, is used when making the offer to the mother. The
speaker in (155) is begging the mother to take the earrings, describing her mother’s acceptance
as a favor that the speaker will appreciate, shifting the offer from a benefit to the addressee to a
benefit to S.
The degrees of politeness are manifested in many utterances in both situations. The want-
statement is the most direct form of indirect speech acts (Blum-Kulka, 1987), as in (156) and
(178), whereas (157)-(161) and (179) are at the highest level of indirectness. They are so indirect
that the intention of the speaker is vague. Complimenting the earrings and expressing how much

129
they would suit the mother’s dress helps to figure out S’s intention of offer. Similarly, the
speaker in (179) does not state the offer directly. The utterance appears as a compliment. The
phrase on you, however, indicates the speaker’s intention.
The use of the hedging phrase, I think is more frequent when addressing the house cleaner. I
think is used here as a sole politeness strategy only when addressing the house cleaner (for the
mother, it is combined with other PSP). Youmans (2001) also believes that I think is used to
soften directives. In (179), the phrase, I think softens the speaker’s on-record offer. Whatever its
intent, Youmans, (2001) contends that I think can become a vehicle to obscure power between
individuals or groups. Youmans adds that if the speaker is in a position of greater power, this
simple politeness marker will not actually diminish that power; but merely makes the interaction
more palatable to all involved. Holmes (as cited in Youmans, 2001) asserts that this mitigating
use of I think is a subset of the tentative function, employed when “the speaker wishes to take
account of the addressee’s feelings (affective meaning).” (p. 61) Holmes explains that the
function of I think is to soften the force of a speech act that could be interpreted as impolite.
Hedging with this negatively polite form may simply reinforce the notion that it is the hearer’s
individual choice to act or not, thus obscuring the speaker’s impact and lessening his/her
responsibility if such advice is taken.
Combinations of NGP and PSP are rarely used in both contexts, forming only 2% in Sit# 3 and
8.5% in Sit# 4.
4. 30. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 3 & 4

Sit# 3 Sit# 4
181. Why not try these. I think they will 182. Would you like to have this dress? I t would
look really good on you. suit you very well.
183. I think you should have this dress as a gift.
184. I don’t wear it anymore. It would look nice on you; please, take it.

130
Most of the participants are not concerned with having any linguistic struggle to keep
interaction balanced in both situations. However, the frequency is higher when addressing the
housecleaner due to the lower degree of intimacy between S and H. In Sit# 3, optimism is
associated with the hedge, I think. In (182)-(184), fulfilling H’s face for care and appreciation is
used in these utterances combined with conventional indirectness, hedging, and minimization,
respectively.
Not doing the FTA is not preferred by British speakers in both contexts. All the participants
commented that they had no reservations to make such offers; they always like to make such
offers under the contextual determinants of the two situations.
4.1.1.3 Low Social Distance (Equal Power) & Difference in Rank of Imposition
Sit# 5 and Sit# 6 investigate the effect of the rank of imposition on polite offers to socially close
people. Intimate friendships come second in the degree of social distance after family
relationships. The power-status of the addressee is equal to the speaker’s. The rank of the
imposition distinguishes the offer in the two situations. In Sit# 5, the speaker offers her
depressed friend a cold drink. They are supposed to meet in the cafeteria. The rank of the
imposition is higher in Sit# 6 in which the speaker offers her friend an expensive necklace to
wear for her engagement party.
a. Saudi Arabic
Table. 4. 31 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in the Saudi Arabic offers in
Sit#5 & 6
pos neg
Sit# 5 Freq. 14 20 10 0 2 7 0 53
Percent 26.4 37.7 18.9 0 3.8 13.2 100%

Sit# 6 Freq. 4 7 28 0 11 0 3 53
Percent 7.5 13.2 52.8 0 20.8 5.7 100%


131
In Saudi Arabic, it is clear that the rank of the imposition has markedly influenced the speakers’
choice of strategies. PSP and NGP exchange preference in both situations. Whereas PSP is the
most preferred strategy when the rank of the imposition is low (37.7% for Sit#5 & 13.2% for 6),
NGP is most preferred with high rank of the imposition is high (18.9% for Sit#5 & 52.8% for 6).
BOR offers are also used in both situations with higher frequency in Sit#5 (26.4% in Sit#5&
7.5% for Sit# 6). Mixture of strategies is higher when the imposition is high in Sit# 6 (3.8% for
Sit#5& 20.8 for 6). Doing the offer physically and nonverbally, on other hand, is frequent in
Sit#5 (13.2%), whereas ignoring the situation is frequent in Sit# 6 (5.7%).
In both situations, some speakers use imperatives, sometimes with BOR intensifiers.
However, the frequency is higher when the rank of the imposition is low. For these speakers, the
FTA is primarily in H’s interest, so they find redressing unnecessary. In Sit# 6, because the FTA
is highly impositive on both the speaker and the addressee, few speakers used this strategy to
express sincerity of the offer. Consider the following utterances.
Table 4.32. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6
Sit# 5 Sit# 6
185. xudhi wassʕi şadrik (Take; cheer up) 193. ilʕigd xudhīh min ʕindi wwaffiri flūsik lil ashyāʔ
.‫ﺧﺬي و ﺳﻌﻲ ﺻﺪرك‬ ithānyah. (Take the necklace from me and save your money
186. xudhi rawwigi (Take; cool down.) for the other things.)
.‫ﺧﺬي روﻗﻲ‬ .‫اﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﺧﺬﯾﮫ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪي ووﻓﺮي ﻓﻠﻮﺳﻚ ﻟﻸﺷﯿﺎء اﻟﺜﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬
187. xudhi barridi ʕala galbik ibbārid (Take a cold 194. tfaẓẓalay ilbisi ʕigdi fi hafil izzafāf. (Please wear my
drink to cool down.) necklace in the party)
.‫ﺧﺬي ﺑﺮدي ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ ﺑﺒﺎرد‬ .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ﻋﻘﺪي ﻓﻲ ﺣﻔﻞ اﻟﺰﻓﺎف‬
188. xalāş intaha kul shay; xudhi ilʕaşīr wrawwigi. 195. fīh ʕindi ʕigd ynāsib illi ʕalēki; ilbisīh wrajjiʕīh.
(It’s over; take the drink and cool down.) (There is a necklace that fits your dress; wear it and give
.‫ ﺧﺬي اﻟﻌﺼﯿﺮ و روﻗﻲ‬،‫ﺧﻼص اﻧﺘﮭﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲ‬ it back.)
189. agūl xudhi ilʕaşīr wrawwigi.(I say take the .‫ﻓﯿﮫ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﯾﻨﺎﺳﺐ اﻟﻔﺴﺘﺎن اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ؛ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ ورﺟﻌﯿﮫ‬
drink and cheer up.)
.‫أﻗﻮل ﺧﺬي اﻟﻌﺼﯿﺮ روﻗﻲ‬
190. tfaẓẓalay ilʕaşīr rawwigi ʕala nafsik. (Please,
take the drink and cool down.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ اﻟﻌﺼﯿﺮ روﻗﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ‬

132
Sit#5
191. tfaẓẓalay wirtāħi; la titwatarēn. (Please, take;

don’t panic.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ و ارﺗﺎﺣﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﺗﺮﯾﻦ‬
192. tfaẓẓalay (please, take.).‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬
The imperative xudhi ʕigdi/ilʕaşīr (take the drink /my necklace) is frequently used in
accompaniment with another imperative that functions as comforting advice. There is a sequence
of speech acts in succession.11 In Sit# 5, the speakers in (185)-(191) choose to show notice of the
addressee’s condition by giving comforting advice in the form of imperatives. These types of
imperatives intensify the force of the head act of the offer while at the same time weaken the
force of the imperative, xudhi (take) by making the BOR offers sound more polite.
The formal imperative tfaẓẓalay (please, take) is used in both situations. In (190)-(191), this
imperative is used with other comforting advice, making their BOR offers more polite. In (194),
this polite, formal imperative tfaẓẓalay is also used in Sit# 6 to soften the imperative xudhi (take)
or ilbisi (wear).
The frequency of using the formulaic imperative tfaẓẓalay is higher when the rank of the
imposition is low. Intensifying the force of the BOR is only used in Sit# 5. In (189), by using
the expression, agūl (I say) along with the act of extending the drink, S means, “I say you have
to,” which exerts pressure on H or the friend to accept the drink and feel relieved of reluctance;
such an intensifier is usually appropriate if only used with intimate people.
In Sit#6, utterance (195) is classified here as a BOR offer because of the heavy impact of the
two imperatives ilbisīh wrajjiʕīh (wear it and give it back) might open the utterance to the
interpretation of being impolite since it makes the offer sound face threatening, and puts pressure
on H to look after the necklace. It can be classified under these utterances where, according to
B&L (1987), S does not care about maintaining H’s face. As the speakers commented, S wants

133
to convey that the necklace is very precious, emphasizing that the offer is just for a short time.
However, the speaker’s intention may be interpreted differently by H.S may aim at minimizing
the imposition on the addressee, who might find it face threatening to accept such an expensive
thing. This again emphasizes the importance of S’s intention and H’s interpretation to evaluate
the politeness of the utterance.
The intimate relationship between S and H in these two situations has yielded various PSP
strategies. In both contexts, the speaker wants to maintain the self-image of her close friend.
Sit#5, however, has yielded a wider range of PSP strategies. The rank of imposition may have
caused such a difference. Examine the following.
Table 4. 33 PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6

Sit# 5 Sit# 6
196. ēsh fīki? aħsan shay ajīb lik ʕaşīr bārid ybarrid ʕala 211. hādha ilʕigd ghāli min ghalātik ʕindi rāħ aʕţīki
galbik. (What’s up? the best thing is to bring you a cold drink iyyāh; wxallīni akūn aʕla bālik fillħafl. (This necklace
to cool is precious like you; I’ll give it to you; and forget me
you down.) not.)
.‫اﯾﺶ ﻓﯿﻚ؟ أﺣﺴﻦ ﺷﻲ أﺟﯿﺐ ﻟﻚ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد ﯾﺒﺮد اﻟﻘﻠﺐ‬ ‫ھﺬا اﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﻏﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻼﺗﻚ ﻋﻨﺪي؛ راح أﻋﻄﯿﻚ اﯾﺎة وﺧﻠﯿﻨﻲ أﻛﻮن ﻋﻠﻰ‬
197. kēf ħālik? ēsh axbārik? lēsh gāʕda lħālik? tfaẓẓalay. .‫ﺑﺎﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻔﻞ‬
(How do you do? why are you sitting alone; here, take.) 212. ţayyib, wish ibtalbisīn mujawharāt? tara ʕshān
.‫)اﻗﺪم( ﻛﯿﻒ ﺣﺎﻟﻚ؟ اﯾﺶ اﺧﺒﺎرك؟ ﻟﯿﺶ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة ﻟﺤﺎﻟﻚ؟ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬ ghālya ʕalay lāzim talbisīn aghla shay ʕindi. (Ok;
198. Salām! ēsh fīk? shaklik mitghayir! kōb ʕaşīr what jewelry are you going to wear; see because
witgūlīn ʕala kul shay! (Hi. What’s wrong? You look down? you’re dear, you must wear the most precious thing I
A drink and you’ll tell me about everything.) have.)
.‫ﺳﻼم! اﯾﺶ ﻓﯿﻚ؟ ﺷﻜﻠﻚ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ!ﻛﻮب ﻋﺼﯿﺮ و ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ ﻟﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲ‬ ‫ﻃﯿﺐ وش ﺑﺘﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ﻣﺠﻮھﺮات؟ ﺗﺮى ﻋﺸﺎن ﻏﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻻزم ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ‬
199. ēsh fi ilħilu zaʕlān? kōb ʕaşīr bārid wirawwig iljamīl. .‫أﻏﻠﻰ ﺷﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي‬
(What’s wrong with the beauty? a drink and the beauty will 213. aʕţētik aghla shay ʕindi liʔnik tistāhlīn. (I gave
feel better.) you the most precious thing I have because you
.‫إﯾﺶ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻠﻮ زﻋﻼن؟ ﻛﻮب ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد و ﯾﺮوق اﻟﺠﻤﯿﻞ‬ deserve it.)
200. ēsh fīk? lēsh zaʕlāna? ajīb lik ʕaşīr yihaddik? (What’s .‫أﻋﻄﯿﺘﻚ أﻏﻠﻰ ﺷﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻷﻧﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﺎھﻠﯿﻦ‬
wrong? why are you down? Bring you drink to cool you 214. izzēn lizzēna; ilbisi ʕigdi exaīlh yiħlaw. (The
down?) beauty is for the beauty; wear my necklace and let it
‫إﯾﺶ ﻓﯿﻚ؟ ﻟﯿﺶ زﻋﻼﻧﺔ؟ اﺟﯿﺐ ﻟﻚ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﯾﮭﺪﯾﻚ؟‬ be beautiful.)
201. ēsh rāyik fi ʕaşīr bārid? (How about a cold drink.) ‫اﻟﺰﯾﻦ ﻟﻠﺰﯾﻨﺔ اﻟﺒﺴﻲ ﻋﻘﺪي ﺧﻠﯿﮫ ﯾﺤﻠﻮ‬

134
Sit#5 Sit#6
‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد؟‬ 215. ʕindi ţagim ħilu; talbisīna? (I have a set
202. ēsh rāyik fi ʕaşīr bārid iyhaddi aʕşābik? (How about a that will look nice on you; wear it?)
cold drink to cool you down?) ‫ﻋﻨﺪي ﻃﻘﻢ ﺣﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﮫ؟‬
‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد ﯾﮭﺪي أﻋﺼﺎﺑﻚ ؟‬ 216. la taʕʕibīn tafsik wiẓẓayiʕīn wagtik;
203. lēsh shāyla hamm iddiniya fōg rāsik? ēsh şāyir? ēsh rāyik fi ilʕigd illi ʕindi ħilu; inshālla byiʕjibk; ilbisīh.
ʕaşīr bārid aħsan? (What’s wrong? why are you down? How (Don’t waste your time; the necklace I have is
about a cold drink? isn’t better?) beautiful; you’ll like it God willing.)
‫ﻟﯿﺶ ﺷﺎﯾﻠﮫ ھﻢ اﻟﺪﻧﯿﺎ ﻓﻮق راﺳﻚ؟ إﯾﺶ ﺻﺎﯾﺮ؟ إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد أﺣﺴﻦ؟‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﻌّﺒﯿﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ و ﺗﻀﯿﻌﯿﻦ وﻗﺘﻚ؛ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺣﻠﻮ؛ إن‬
204. xudhi ilʕaşīr wirtāħi; tara iddinya mataswa wiħna xuliqna .‫ﺷﺎء اﷲ ﺑﯿﻌﺠﺒﻚ؛ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬
lilʕibāda.(Take the drink, and clam down, life is not worth it.
we’re created for worshiping.) ‫ﺧﺬي اﻟﻌﺼﯿﺮ و ارﺗﺎﺣﻲ؛ ﺗﺮى اﻟﺪﻧﯿﺎ ﻣﺎ‬
.‫ و اﺣﻨﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎدة‬،‫ﺗﺴﻮى‬
205. tfaẓẓalay hawwini ʕala nafsik tara rās mālha dinya fānya
(Here, it is just a vanishing life.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؛ ھﻮﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ ﯾﺎ ﺷﯿﺨﮫ؛ ﺗﺮى راس ﻣﺎﻟﮭﺎ دﻧﯿﺎ ﻓﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬
206. ya bint ilħalāl, hawwinīha withūn, baţlublik ʕaşīr bārid
iybarrid ʕala galbik! (Daughter of virtue, take it easy, I’ll order a
cold drink for you to cool you down.)
.‫ﯾﺎ ﺑﻨﺖ اﻟﺤﻼل ھﻮﻧﯿﮭﺎ و ﺗﮭﻮن ﺑﺎ ﻃﻠﺐ ﻟﻚ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد ﯾﺒﺮد ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ‬
207. xudhi ya bint ilħalāl wassʕi şadrik! (Here, take it easy
daughter of virtue; cheer up)
‫ﺧﺬي ﯾﺎ ﺑﻨﺖ اﻟﺤﻼل و ﺳﻌﻲ ﺻﺪرك‬
208. xudhi; wassʕi şadrik; tara kullina mahmumīn; iddinya
mataswa. (Take; cool down sister; we’re all depressed; life is
not worth it.)
.‫ﺧﺬي و ﺳﻌﻲ ﺻﺪرك ﯾﺎ ﺷﯿﺨﺔ؛ ﺗﺮى ﻛﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﮭﻤﻮﻣﯿﻦ؛ اﻟﺪﻧﯿﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﻮى‬
209. salāmāt? fiki shay? taʕālay nashrab ʕaşīr; ēsh tashibrīn?
(What’s up? Let’s have a drink; what do you want to drink?)
‫ﺳﻼﻣﺎت؟ ﻓﯿﻚ ﺷﻲ؟ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺸﺮب ﻋﺼﯿﺮ؛ اﯾﺶ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﯿﻦ؟‬
210. ana bafaţţirk il yōm inti faţţirīni bukra.
(I’ll treat today; you tomorrow.)
.‫أﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻓﻄﺮك اﻟﯿﻮم؛ اﻧﺖ ﻓﻄﺮﯾﻨﻲ ﺑﻜﺮة‬
In Sit#5, different PSP strategies are used, either to claim common ground with H, convey
cooperation, or to fulfill H’s face wants. Combinations of these strategies occur. To claim
common ground with H by attending to H’s needs is a major sub-strategy used to redress the
offers.

135
Attending to H’s needs is expressed through asking formulaic enquiries about health and
condition in (196)-(201), such as ēsh fīki and lēsh zaʕlāna. S shows concern about H’s
unhappiness, noticing the changes in the facial expressions or mood by asking questions as a
move to make the offer.12 S creates solidarity and minimizes the risk of H’s rejection of offer.
In-group identity markers are frequently realized by ellipsis and contraction in both situations.
In many cases, this PSP strategy is combined with the former one. In utterance (198), the
greeting, Salām (Peace) is contracted from the Islamic greeting formula assalāmu ʕalaykum
(Peace be upon you). This contraction underlines the close relationship between friends (See
Turjoman (2005) on contractions in greetings in Saudi Arabic).
Another contraction in Sit# 5, can be found in the omission of the verbal phrase of the clause
kōb ʕaşīr wiyrawwig X (a cold drink and you will X) in (198) and (199). The clause in its full
form may take ajīb lik kōb ʕaşīr (I’ll bring you a cold drink). Similarly, the question, ajīb lik
ʕaşīr? (Bring you a drink?), is the informal form of taxdhīn/ tishrabīn kōb X, or ajīb kōb ʕaşīr wi
X (You’ll take/drink a cold drink and you’ll tell X) is shortened from tħibīn/tabghēn ajīb lik
ʕaşīr? (Do you) want/like me to bring you X?). The question, ēsh rāyik fi (kōb) ʕaşīr bārid?
(How about a cold drink) in (201) and (202) may be contracted from ēsh rāyik tishrabīn ʕaşīr,
and aʕţīki/ajīb lik kōb?). In Sit# 6, contraction and ellipsis is in (215), the question talbisīna?
(Wear it?) may be contracted from thibīn/tabghēn talbisīna? ((Do you) want/like?).
Address forms are abundant in Sit# 5, when the offer is small. They do not reflect endearment
but informality. Among these are bint il halāl (the daughter of virtue) and shēxa (for female) in
(205)-(208). These forms are usually appropriate with familiar relationships, equal power status;
it is only used here when the imposition is small.

136
Religious expressions are only used in Sit# 5 to comfort H as in (204), (205) and (208). These
expressions are realized in a diglossic situation by using Standard Arabic expressions, as xuliqna
lilʕibāda, and dinya fāniya. These expressions reflect the speaker’s concern about the sad
condition of the friend, and thus function as comforting expressions to establish intimacy
between S and H. In Sit# 6, the formulaic religious expressions like wrabbi, wallāh (by God) are
used frequently to intensify praising the item (See Table 4.34 below).
Table 4.34 Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5 & 6
Sit# 5 0 0 5 5
Sit#6 0 6 0 6
Conveying that S and H are cooperators is used widely when making a small offer, but rarely
with high imposition. The speaker in (208) and (209) uses the inclusive pronoun na (us) in
kullina mahmūmīn (we all are depressed) and nishrab (we drink), respectively, to show
solidarity and emotional support to H. In (208), S includes herself in the same feeling of
depression whereas in (209), S includes herself in the activity of drinking, which creates
intimacy and in-group solidarity in both offers.
Reciprocity also conveys cooperation in Sit# 5. After noticing her friend’s changing mood
through asking questions about the reasons of sadness, S, in (210), conveys that the activity will
be shared with H; she is indicating their reciprocal rights or obligations. The use of baʔfaţţirik
ilyōm; inti faţţirīni bukra (I will offer you breakfast today you do it tomorrow) lessens the debt
that might detain H from accepting the offer.
In Sit# 6, several PSP strategies are used though not totally dissimilar to these in Si#5. In
Sit#6, conveying cooperation is realized through optimism. In (216), optimism results from the
use of the expression, inshālla byiʕjibk (you’ll like it God willing). S assumes H will like the

137
necklace and, thus, will cooperate and accept the offer. The religious formulaic expression
inshālla intensifies optimism and functions at the same time as an in-group language marker.
Offering an expensive item to a close friend has yielded overlapping strategies, which might
be attributed to the high imposition of the offer. Exaggerating interest in H, sometimes, overlaps
with presupposing familiarity with S-H relationship and fulfilling H’s face-wants. For example,
in (211) and (214), comparing H and S’s precious relationship with the preciousness of the
necklace exaggerates S’s interest and care about H. This compliment is employed to redress the
high FTA and lessen the pressure on H to accept such an expensive thing. This also indicates
how sincere S is in offering such an expensive item.
Intensifying interest in H also overlaps with fulfilling H’s face-wants. In (214) through giving
gifts of admiration, S praises her friend’s beauty and compares it to the beauty of an expensive
necklace. She also exaggerates this by expressing that her friend’s beauty would make the
necklace look more fanciful.
In Saudi Arabic, the effect of the rank of imposition is also revealed in the use of NGP. Sit# 6
has yielded a wider range of NGP strategies. The following examples illustrate this difference.
Table 4. 35 NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6

Sit# 5 Sit# 6
217. tibīn ashtiri lik ʕaşīr aw shay? (Do you 225. tabghēn asallifk ilʕigd illi ʕindi? tara ma fīha shay;
want me to buy you a drink or anything? istaʕmilīh idha xallaşti. (Do you want me to lend you the
‫ﺗﺒﯿﻦ اﺷﺘﺮي ﻟﻚ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ او ﺷﻲ؟‬ necklace I have? It’s ok, use it and when you finish give it
218. tabghēn ʕaşīr ybarrid ʕalēk? back.)
Do you want a drink to refresh you? .‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ أﺳﻠﻔﻚ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي؟ﺗﺮى ﻣﺎﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﺷﻲ اﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﯿﮫ و اذا ﺧﻠﺼﺖ رﺟﻌﯿﮫ‬
‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﯾﺒﺮد ﻋﻠﯿﻚ؟‬ 226. tiħtājēn shay, gharaẓ? ana ʕindi ʕigd; tibīna? tfaẓẓlay.
219. ēsh tħibīn tishrabīn? (What would you (Do you need anything? I have a necklace? (Do you want it?
like to drink?) Here you are.)
‫إﯾﺶ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﯿﻦ؟‬ .‫ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻦ ﺷﻲ ﻏﺮض؟ اﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﺗﺒﯿﻨﮫ؟ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬

138
Sit#5 Sit#6
220. ēsh rāyik tāxdhīn shay ybarid ʕala galbik? 227. agdar asāʕdik bshay? ana ʕindi iksiswār; tara idha
(What do you think of taking something cold.) ma gidarti truħīn issūg, ana agdar ajīb lik iksiswāri. (Can
‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ ﺷﻲ ﯾﺒﺮد ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ؟‬ I help you with something? I have some accessories, see,
221. wish tħibīn tishrabīn? farāwla? (What do you if you can’t go shopping, I can bring you mine.)
like to drink? A strawberry?) ‫اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﺑﺸﻲ؟ اﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي اﻛﺴﺴﺴﻮار؛ ﺗﺮى اذا ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪرت ﺗﺮوﺣﯿﻦ‬
‫وش ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﯿﻦ؟ ﻓﺮاوﻟﺔ؟‬ .‫ اﻧﺎ اﻗﺪر اﺟﯿﺐ ﻟﻚ اﻛﺴﺴﻮاري‬،‫اﻟﺴﻮق‬
222. ēsh tħibīn tishrabīn? What do you like 228. ana tawwini shārya ʕigd ħilu wish rāyik taxdhīna
to drink?
‫إﯾﺶ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﯿﻦ؟‬ wtalbisīna fizzwāj. (I’ve just bought a very beautiful
223. tabīn shay? ana rāyħa ajīb ʕaşʕīr? (Do you necklace? What do you think? You take it and wear it for the
want something; I’m going to bring a drink?)
‫ﺗﺒﯿﻦ ﺷﻲ؟ أﻧﺎ راﯾﺤﮫ اﺟﯿﺐ ﻋﺼﯿﺮ؟‬ party.)
224. ana rāħ ashrab; tħibīn ajīb lik shay? (I’m going ‫أﻧﺎ ﺗﻮﻧﻲ ﺷﺎرﯾﺔ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﺮة ﺣﻠﻮ؛ وش راﯾﻚ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻨﮫ و ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺰواج؟‬
to have a drink; do you like me to bring you
229. ţayyib, wish rāyik tilbisīn ʕigdi? (Ok; what do you
anything?)
think of wearing my necklace?)
‫أﻧﺎ راح اﺷﺮب؛ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ اﺟﯿﺐ ﻟﻚ ﺷﻲ ؟‬
‫ وش راﯾﻚ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ﻋﻘﺪي؟‬،‫ﻃﯿﺐ‬
230. wallah ya (name) marra widdi law tilbisīn ţagmi;
aħiss byaţlaʕ ħilu ʕalēki. (By God (name), I really wish
that you wore my set; I feel it would look nice on you.)
‫واﷲ ﯾﺎ ﻓﻼﻧﺔ ﻣﺮة ودي ﻟﻮ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ﻃﻘﻤﻲ؛ اﺣﺲ ﺑﯿﻄﻠﻊ ﺣﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ؟‬
231. ʕindi ʕigd yamshi maʕa lōn fistānik marra; idha
tħibīn tilbisīna. (I have a necklace that matches the color
of your dress; if you like to wear it.)
‫ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﯾﻤﺸﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻟﻮن ﻓﺴﺘﺎﻧﻚ ﻣﺮة اذا ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﺔ؟‬
232. bşarāħa mādri shlōn aʕabbir lik ʕan farħiti lik bas
atimanna talbisīn hādha watimanna itkūn min aħla
layālīki. (Frankly, I don’t know how to express my
happiness for you. But I wish you would wear this
necklace, and I wish it would be you most beautiful
night).
‫ﺑﺼﺮاﺣﺔ ﻣﺎادري ﺷﻠﻮن ﺑﺎﻋﺒﺮ ﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺮﺣﺘﻲ ﻟﻚ؛ ﺑﺲ أﺗﻤﻨﻰ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ ھﺬا‬
.‫اﻟﻌﻘﺪ و أﺗﻤﻨﻰ ﺗﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ أﺣﻠﻰ ﻟﯿﺎﻟﯿﻚ‬
233. idha miħāja tddwrīn ʕigd xalaş xudhi ħaggi alħīn
wistaʕmilīh wrajiʕīli ʔiyiāh. (If you need a necklace, it’s
ok, take mine now and use it for this engagement, then
give it back.)
‫إذا ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﮫ ﺗﺪورﯾﻦ ﻋﻘﺪ ﺧﻼص ﺧﺬي ﺣﻘﻲ اﻟﺤﯿﻦ و اﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﯿﮫ ﻓﻲ ھﺎذي‬
.‫اﻟﻤﻠﻜﺔ و رﺟﻌﻲ ﻟﻲ إﯾﺎه‬

139
Sit#6
234. (Name) ana ʕindi ʕigd marra ħilu; ana māni miħtājita
alħīn wala ʕindi munāsaba; fa xudhīh ilbisīh fi ħaflatk.
(Name, I have a very nice necklace I don’t need now, and
I don’t have an occasion; take it; wear it in the party.
‫ﯾﺎﻓﻼﻧﺔ اﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﺮة ﺣﻠﻮ اﻧﺎ ﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺘﮫ اﻟﺤﯿﻦ و ﻻ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ؛‬
.‫ﻓﺎﺧﺬﯾﮫ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﺔ ﺑﺤﻔﻠﺘﻚ‬
235. ʕindi ʕigd ma abghāh; idha kān tabghēn talbisīna
īilbisīh wrajiʕīh. (I have a necklace. I don’t want it; if you
want to wear it, wear it and give it back.)
.‫ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﺎ اﺑﻐﺎه؛ إذا ﻛﺎن ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﮫ؛ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ و رﺟﻌﯿﮫ‬
236. ʕigd marra rawʕa waħib aʕţīh illi yʕizūn ʕalay. (I
have a very nice necklace, I love to give it to the dear
ones.)
.‫ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﺮة روﻋﺔ و أﺣﺐ أﻋﻄﯿﺔ اﻟﻠﻲ ﯾﻌﺰون ﻋﻠﻲ‬
237. ēish rāyik; ana ʕindi ʕigd ħilu marra ynāsb fistānik?
tabghēnni aʕţīki iyya ? (What do you think? I have a very
nice necklace: do you want me to give it to you?)

‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﺣﻠﻮ ﻣﺮة ﯾﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻓﺴﺘﺎﻧﻚ؛ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻨﻲ اﻋﻄﯿﻚ اﯾﺎه؟‬
238. ana atsharraf innik yōm izzafāf tigbalīn hādhi
ilhādiyya ilutawāẓʕa fi hāda ilyōm; hādha mu gadrik;
gardik aghla. (I will have the honor if you accept my
humble gift in this day. this is not your place in my heart,
your place is higher)
‫اﻧﺎ اﺗﺸﺮف اﻧﻚ ﯾﻮم اﻟﺰﻓﺎف ﺗﻘﺒﻠﯿﻦ ھﺬي اﻟﮭﺪﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮاﺿﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﻲ ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﯿﻮم؛‬
.‫ھﻮ ﻣﻮ ﻗﺪرك ﯾﺎﻟﻐﺎﻟﯿﺔ؛ ﻗﺪرك اﻏﻠﻰ‬
239. idha tabghēn shay min ʕindi tāmrīn ʕalēh? (If you
want anything you command?) ‫إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺷﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺗﺎﻣﺮﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﺔ؟‬
240. wallāh ana ʕindi ʕigd marra ħilu wi ynāsb fistānik;
ma rāħ yaghla ʕalēki. (By God I have a nice necklace; it
won’t be precious than you.)
.‫واﷲ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﺮة ﺣﻠﻮ و ﯾﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻓﺴﺘﺎﻧﻚ ﻣﺎراح ﯾﻐﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
Language type also changes with the change of the rank of imposition in the two situations. It
changes from direct, short utterances with low imposition to long complex ones with the high
imposition. Compare (217)-(224) to (225)-(238).

140
The NGP strategies used in Sit# 6 and 5 are conventional indirectness, hedging, going on
record as not to indebt H. Besides, Sit# 6 has yielded NGP strategies such as minimizing
imposition, giving deference, and impersonalizing H.
The use of conventional indirectness is highly influenced by the degree of imposition.
Although this strategy is used in both situations, its frequency is incomparably higher in Sit# 6.
Table 4.36 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5 & 6
tibi(īni) tħib(īn)X widdik X? tiħtajēn / ēsh rāyik agdar mumkin Inform. Total
X?/ miħtāj X? Ques.
tabghēn
Sit#5 7 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 14
Sit#6 1 0 0 2 15 1 0 0 19
As Table 4.36 illustrates, the question ēsh rāyik is the most preferred question when making a
high-risk offer to an intimate friend. The question with tibīn/tabghēn X , on the other hand, is
relatively frequent when realizing a small offer. The rare use of agdar and the absence of the
modal mumkin, when addressing the close friend in the two situations, in spite of the difference
in the rank of the imposition, indicates that these modal questions occupy the highest level of
indirectness, and thus are not preferred among socially close people.
The question tabghēnni asallifik X? (Do you want me to lend it to you?) is almost avoided in
offering a friend an expensive item, except by one speaker in (225). This question may sound
face threatening since it may imply that H is in need of the speaker’s gift, which may force H to
reject the offer to save her pride. Conventional indirectness strategies, such as the use of this
question, may not always be functionally operative in the same way. There are no fixed
politeness strategies. Here is a case of a question in which S’s intention is difficult to judge as
polite or impolite. This supports Locher’s (2006) call to move away from a clear-cut dichotomy
between polite and impolite behavior (See p. 32 above).

141
Hedging is extensively used in Sit# 6, but notably avoided in Sit# 5. Almost all the utterances
in this Sit# 6 contained at least one hedge. The speakers use a series of hedges such as IF-clauses
with other expressions to avoid coercing the intimate friend and to presume that the friend may
not wish to receive the offer.
However, hedging is not always used for politeness. As El-Shafey (1990) asserts, “it may be
used as an organizational strategy to grab turn in a conversation or to interrupt.” (p.212) In this
respect, other hedging particles in the data can be seen as formulaic expressions to start the topic
of the necklace, such as tayyib (Ok, All right) in (229). Other hedges such as wallāhi (By God),
marra (very), bşarāha (frankly), mādri shlōn aʕabbir (I don’t know how to express), and bas
atimanna (but I wish you would X) in (230), (231), and (232) respectively help the speaker to
keep H and herself distant from the FTA.
Going on record as not to indebt H is a frequent strategy in both situations. In Sit# 5, in
(223), and (224), the speaker avoids any potential reluctance of H to impinge on S by indicating
that S is going to have a drink so it would be nothing if H accepted the offer. In Sit# 6, the
speakers in (233)-(235) use different expressions to disclaim debt to H through the imperatives,
xudhīh/ilbisīh/istaʕmilīh wrajiʕīh (take it/wear it/use it and bring it back).
Going on record as not to indebt H is combined in the previous utterances with minimizing the
imposition in Sit# 6. For example, by saying ma fīha shay (there is nothing in it), māni miħtājita
(I don’t need it), and māʔbgha (I don’t want it) as in (225), (234), and (23), the speaker wants to
indicate that the offer costs her nothing. She wants to alleviate her friend’s anxiety who might
not want to transgress on the offerer.
In Sit# 6, impersonalizing H is clear in (236) where the speaker is avoiding addressing her
friend by “you” so as not to impinge on the friend. The speaker implies as if the indebted were
someone other than H or only inclusive of H. The addressee, here, is replaced by an indefinite

142
expression illi yiʕizūn ʕalay (the dear ones). This lessens the effect of the FTA and makes her
friend as one of many people who might be offered the same item.
Giving deference is another instance of NGP in (238) and (239). The speaker, in (238),
humbles and abases herself while raising her friend by mentioning the honor that her friend gives
the speaker if the friend accepts the offer. This deferential behavior is also enforced by the use of
the word mutawāẓʕa, in which the speaker belittles the offer, in order to keep her intimate friend
above the situation of being face-threatened. The expression, in (239), tāmrīn (you command,
order) also implies deference to H.
The high imposition of the offer in Sit# 6 has yielded combinations of NGP strategies. For
example, in (227), hedging by idha (If)-clause is preceded by conventional indirectness,
expressed in the question agdar asāʕdik X? (Can I help you?), and is ended by another modal
agdar (can), which expresses the speaker’s ability to carry out the offer in case H accepts it. In
utterance (237) conventional indirectness is used twice with the question ēsh rāyik? and
tibghēnni? The use of these two questions in one utterance indicates that the speaker either cares
about preserving her friend’s negative face to lessen the pressure of accepting the expensive
necklace on her friend, or avoiding the imposition on herself. S may be reluctant to offer her
friend the necklace and only does it just to be courteous to her old friend. Thus, by being less
firm, the speaker might deliberately make the addressee suspect the speaker’s intention and be at
ease to reject the offer (as some participants commented). The combination of NGP strategies
helps avoid stating the FTA directly, weakening the force of the FTA on H, and avoid coercing
H by assuming that H might not be willing to accept the offer as a way to save H’s pride. Hence,
the more indirect, the less impositive the offer is. However, close social relationships and
different ranks of imposition in Sit.5 & 6 do not always yield clear-cut superstrategies. In many
utterances, the speakers repeatedly shift from PSP to NGP and vice versa.

143
Table 4. 37 Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 5& 6
Sit# 5 Sit# 6
241. haddi aʕşābik shway; ana 243. liʔannik aghla ma ʕindi; wish rāyik talbisīn ilʕigd ħaggi fi ilħafla?
bashrab; ishribi maʕay. (Cool down (Because you’re the most precious thing in my life, how do you feel about
a little; I’ll have a drink; have one wearing my necklace in the party?)
with me.) ‫ﻷﻧﻚ أﻏﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي وش راﯾﻚ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﺣﻘﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻔﻠﺔ؟‬
‫ھﺪي أﻋﺼﺎﺑﻚ ﺷﻮي أﻧﺎ ﺑﺎاﺷﺮب اﺷﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﻌﻲ‬ 244. shūfi ya galbi, wrabbi ʕindi ʕigd marra jnān; waħissa ylīg ʕalēki;
242. tabghēn shay tashribīna? aħsan wbidhdhāt il yōm; ʕārfa alʔnẓār ʕalēki? wish rāyik ajība lik? iʕtamdi akīd.
lik. (Do you want something to byaţlaʕ jnān ʕalēk(Look, by God sweetheart I have a beautiful necklace that
drink? It’s better for you.) suits you, especially today; I know you’ll get the eye?; what do you think if I
.‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺷﻲ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﯿﻨﮫ؟أﺣﺴﻦ ﻟﻚ‬ bring it? count on me; it’ll look great on you.)
‫ﺷﻮﻓﻲ ﯾﺎ ﻗﻠﺒﻲ و رﺑﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﺮة ﺟﻨﺎن و أﺣﺴﮫ ﯾﻠﯿﻖ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ و ﺑﺎﻟﺬات اﻟﯿﻮم ﻋﺎرﻓﮫ اﻷﻧﻈﺎر ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
‫وش راﯾﻚ أﺟﯿﺒﮫ ﻟﻚ اﻋﺘﻤﺪي أﻛﯿﺪ ﯾﻄﻠﻊ ﺟﻨﺎن ﻋﻠﯿﻚ؟‬
245. ya ħayāti şarāħa inti btiţlaʕīn akshax waħda fi ilʕirs; mashaʔallāh
ʕalēki; insāna dhōg wʔakīd ishtartēti wxallaşti kil ilaghrāẓ; bas taxayyali;
gabil shway kint anāẓir fi ʕigd ʕindi marra yjannin; kil malibasta inhablaw
ʕalēh; abarsila lik maʕa uxūy; win aʕjabik; ilbisīh. (My life, frankly, you’ll
look the most elegant one in the wedding; God protect you! you’re an
elegant person, and definitely you’ve finished shopping; but imagine, a
while ago I was looking at a necklace I have, it’s very beautiful; it dazzles
people; I’ll send it to you with my brother; if you like it, wear it.)
‫ﯾﺎ ﺣﯿﺎﺗﻲ ﺻﺮاﺣﺔ اﻧﺘﻲ ﺑﺘﻄﻠﻌﯿﯿﻦ اﻛﺸﺦ و ﺣﺪة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮس ﻣﺎ ﺷﺎء اﷲ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
‫إﻧﺴﺎﻧﺔ ذوق و أﻛﯿﺪ اﺷﺘﺮﺗﻲ و ﺧﻠﺼﺘﻲ ﻛﻞ اﻷﻏﺮاض ﺑﺲ ﺗﺨﯿﻠﻲ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﻮي ﻛﻨﺖ أﻧﺎﻇﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻋﻨﺪي‬
‫ﻣﺮة ﯾﺠﻨﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺒﺴﺘﮫ اﻧﮭﺒﻠﻮا ﻋﻠﯿﮫ أﺑﺮﺳﻠﮫ ﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ اﺧﻮي و إن أﻋﺠﺒﻚ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬
246 ēsh rāyik fi il ʕigd illi fīh faşş aħmar; aħiss ynāsib marra ʕala fistānik
idha tabghēna ma yaghla ʕalēki.(What do you think of the necklace with the
red gym? I feel it fits your dress; if you want it, it won’t be precious than
you.)
‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻓﯿﮫ ﻓﺺ اﺣﻤﺮ أﺣﺲ ﯾﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺴﺘﺎﻧﻚ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻨﮫ ﻣﺎ ﯾﻐﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
247. inti miħtāja shay talbisīna? wish talbisīn? tadhkirīn il ʕigd illi ʕindi
idha talbisīna tara yaţlaʕ ħilu ʕalēki? (Do you need anything to wear? What
are you going to wear? you remember the necklace I have? It’ll look great
on you?)
‫اﻧﺖ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﮫ ﺷﻲ ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﮫ؟ وش ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻦ؟ ﺗﺬﻛﺮﯾﻦ اﻟﻌﻘﺪ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي اذا ﺗﻠﺒﺴﯿﻨﮫ ﺗﺮى ﯾﻄﻠﻊ ﺣﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
Sit# 6 has yielded more mixed strategies. The struggle to keep balance between solidarity and
respect of H’s autonomy is higher when imposition is large. In (241), the utterance mixes the
going-on-record to disclaim indebtness with cooperation by including S and H in the activity. In

144
(242), on the other hand, conventional indirectness is combined with a suggestion, which shows
concern about H’s needs.
In (243), the speaker follows intensifying interest in the friendship by the conventionally
indirect question ēsh rāyik X? (How do you feel about X?/What do you think of?). In (244), the
exaggeration is supported by the address form of endearment, (ya) galbi (sweetheart), which also
shows familiarity in S-H friendship and serves in-group solidarity. Then, the speaker shifts to
using a series of hedging wrabbi (by God,) marra (very), aħiss (I feel) and bidhdhāt (especially).
The speaker shifts to conventional indirectness by giving H’s freedom of choice through asking
the question ēsh rāyik X? (How do you feel about X?/What do you think of?). Finally, she ends
her offer by fulfilliing H’s face-wants through giving gifts of admiration thereby ending this
constant strategy shift.
Again, a heavily positively polite utterance ends with a hedging adverbial clause. In (245), the
address form ħayāti (my life), showing endearment, is also used to assume familiarity with S-H
relationship. Hedging by şarāħa (frankly) is followed by giving gifts of admiration. Intensifying
interest in H is shown by S’s telling a short narrative to H. The highly positively polite utterance
ends with hedging and expressing pessimism through the conditional clause to avoid imposition.
The speaker in (246) and (247) start with conventional indirectness by asking, ēsh rāyik? (How
do you feel about X?) and at the same time, assumes H’s knowledge of the precious necklace.
This assumption indicates that H shares the same ground with S, which indicates PSP. Hedging
by idha tabghēna (If you want it), again, weakens the force of the PSP and lessens the
imposition on H.
In Saudi Arabic, seven participants in Sit# 5 chose to react nonverbally by giving the cold
drink. They commented it is inappropriate to consult a close friend about such a small offer.

145
Only three participants chose not to do the FTA in Sit# 6. They preferred the negative form, that
is, to neglect the situation completely because the imposition was too high for S or H.
b. British English
In British English, the two situations did not reveal differences in the preference for politeness
strategies. Consider the following table.
Table. 4. 38 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British English Offers

in Sit# 5 & 6
pos neg
Sit#5 Freq. 4 1 28 0 13 3 1 50
Percent 8 2 56 26 8 100%
Sit#6 Freq. 1 1 40 0 5 0 3 50
Percent 2 2 80 0 10 6 100%
Table 4.38 shows that NGP is the British speakers’ most preferred strategy in both situations
(56% for Sit#5 & 80% for Sit#6). To the contrary, PSP marks the least preferred strategy in both
situations (2% for both). BOR strategies, on the other hand, are used with small offers (8%), but
almost avoided with large ones (2%). Mixed strategies are used more frequently in Sit#5 (26%)
than in Sit#6 (10%). Don’t-do-the FTA was used rarely in both situations (8% for Sit#5 & 6%
for 6).
The rank of the imposition has shown some effect on the length of the utterance. The speakers
in Sit# 6 use longer utterances and multiple strategies. Whenever the imposition is high, the
speakers tend to elaborate using different politeness strategies.
BOR Offers are not frequent in Sit# 5, but almost avoided in Sit# 6. The participants
commented that offering any person an expensive thing might put the offeree under the pressure

146
of taking it and looking after it; they prefer to give choice rather than transgress on the addressee
even if the act is in the addressee’s interest. See Table 4.39.
Table 4. 39 BOR Offers in British English in Sit# 5& 6

Sit# 5 Sit# 6
248. Here,13 have a drink . 250. Look, I don’t mind you wear my necklace
249. Let me get you a drink. but please look after it.
In Sit# 5, the speaker uses the imperatives have and let me to impose on the friend (See Sit#
3& 4). The only instance of a BOR offer in Sit# 6 is controversial. In (250), the speaker is going
badly on record for a purpose that might be other than showing politeness. The utterance is very
face threatening. It conveys the speaker’s high concern about the necklace, which puts great
pressure on the offeree if she accepts. The utterance contains the phrase, I don’t mind you wear
my necklace, which might hedge on the force of the offer (The researcher classifies such an
utterance as a BOR offer because of the heavy use of imperatives). This is immediately followed
by a directive in the imperative mood, a command to the addressee to look after the necklace.
The speaker’s deep concern about the item might make the addressee doubt the sincerity of the
offer.
PSP appears rarely in the two contexts. Table 4.40 illustrates the PSP strategies used in both
situations.
Table 4. 40 PSP British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6
Sit# 5 Sit# 6
251. Let’s get a drink and we can have a chat. 252. You’re a precious person in my life and this is an
expression.

147
In Sit# 5, the speaker realizes PSP in (251) by including the addressee and herself in the activity
of drinking, making the offer appear as an act of cooperation. In Sit# 6, only one speaker in
(252) uses this strategy to redress the friend’s positive face by appreciating the value of their
friendship.
Table 4. 41 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6

Sit# 5 Sit# 6
253. Do you want a drink 265. Do you want to borrow my necklace for the day?
254. Do you want me to get you a drink 266. Would you like to wear my necklace for your
something? engagement?
255. Are you thirsty? do you want any drink? 267. Would you like to borrow my necklace?
256. Can I get you a drink /anything? 268. I know that you’ll be getting engaged next week,
257. Shall I get you a drink? and I wondered if you would like to borrow a really
258. Hi. Is there’s anything I can get before I sit expensive necklace of mine to wear at the party.
down? 269. I have a great necklace that would look perfect on
259. Would you like me to help you? that dress, would you like to borrow it?
260. Would you like a drink? 270. I want to offer you my necklace for the
261. Would you like me to get you a drink? engagement.
262. Would you like some (name of favorite 271. I’d love you to wear my necklace if you would
drink like to.
263. Is there something else you might like? 272. I’d be happy if you’d wear this necklace for the
264. Can I get you a drink you look like you engagement party
could use one? 273. It would make me very happy if you wore my
necklace for your engagement
274. If you like, I’d be happy to lend you a rather
lovely necklace that I have
275. Since we have been friends for so long, it would
mean so much to me if you wear this during your party.
276. I’d like to offer you my necklace for your party if
you would like to wear it.
277. I have a necklace that would really suit you
278. I have something you can borrow.
279. I’d like to offer you this necklace to wear for the
engagement
280. I have a necklace that you might like to wear
The speakers realize that offering someone an expensive necklace for a party might put the
offeree under the pressure of looking after it. Thus, the majority chooses not to coerce the

148
addressee and decide to be negatively polite as to give the offeree the freedom to accept or reject
the offer.
Although conventional indirectness is the predominant NGP strategy in both situations, the
speakers use a more varied auxiliary and modal system when the rank of the imposition is low.
Table 4.42 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 5 & 6
Do you want/ Can I X? May I Shall Would you Information Total
need X? I X? like Questions
X?
Sit# 5 7 12 1 2 14 1 37
Sit# 6 3 0 0 0 26 0 29
Table 4.42 indicates that in Sit# 5, the speakers expressed degrees of politeness through a
variety of modals and other auxiliaries. In (253) and (254), the speakers use questions that are
more direct by the use of the auxiliary do, which is less polite than the use of the modals
(Koyama, 2001). Modal can is very frequent with low-risk offers but avoided when the offer is
of high-risk. Shall is not frequent because it usually indicates formality. Yet, the expression
Would you like X? is also used by the majority. In Sit# 6, on the other hand, conventional
indirectness is almost exclusively expressed through the expression Would you like? Only three
speakers use the auxiliary Do as in (265). This may indicate the speakers’ concern to use the
most polite and indirect expression when the imposition is high.
Again, degrees of conventional indirectness are also expressed by modals in the declarative
form. For example, in (278), the speaker uses you can borrow, which Koyama (2001) classifies
as less polite than the interrogative form because it implies the speaker’s control of the situation.
This type of strategy/ is rare in both contexts since it might cast doubt on the speaker’s intention
of sincerity in the offer. Like could (See Sit# 3&4), can implies suggestions; however, it seems
less tentative (thus less polite) because, as Youmans (2001) contends, in this modal “the ‘remote’

149
conditional nuance of could is not present. This function is positively polite because it credits the
hearer with ability. More saliently, it expresses negative politeness in telling the hearer what s/he
is able to do, but not suggesting outright that s/he actually should do it, thus infringing on the
hearer’s freedom of decision-making and action.” (Youmans, 2001, p. 61)
Hedging is almost absent in Sit# 5 but frequent in Sit# 6. The speakers in Sit# 5 find the FTA
too small to use other redressing strategies. The expression you look like in (264) adds to the
politeness of the utterance which has can I together with you could to avoid imposing on the
addressee. In Sit# 6, using If-clauses as in (271)-(277) indicates the speakers’ avoidance of
coercing the addressee and showing pessimism about the speaker’s willingness to accept the
offer, especially when used with the past modals as in (273). This time-shift aims to distance the
speaker and the addressee from the FTA.
The use of the performative verb offer is frequently used in Sit# 6. As Austin (1962) asserts,
the performative verb, in a commissive, intensifies the commitment on the speaker to do the
action in the future whether he has a real intention to do it or would change his mind later.
However, the verb offer is combined with want statement in (270) and the formulaic expression
I’d like and in (276) and (279) to sound direct but polite.
Interestingly, the struggle to keep a balance between PSP and NGP strategies is more frequent
when the FTA is small. Consider Table 4.43
Table 4. 43. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 5& 6
Sit#5 Sit#6
281. Let me get you a drink; Do you want a drink? 286. My best friend I’d like you to have this
Please have a drink with me. engagement party. It goes well with your dress.
282. Are you Ok? Would you like a cup of coffee? 287. It’s really a special occasion for you and because
You look down. you’re my best friend, would you like to wear the
283. You look upset. Can I buy you a drink and we necklace. It’s really special and I know you’ll take

150
Sit#5 Sit#6
can talk? care of it.
284. Hi! You look upset, what’s the matter? May I 288. You know that necklace you said you liked the
offer you a cold drink? other day? would you like to wear for your engagement?
285. I notice you look a bit down today; 289. Would you like to wear my necklace? I know you
can I get you something to drink? like it.
290. Hey! I got this really cool necklace you could
borrow for the engagement; want to try it on?
In Sit# 5, the imperative, let me, in (281), is followed by the formulaic question Do you like X?
Please have a drink. The speaker seems concerned with many things in the context (such as the
friend’s depressed status, the friend’s autonomy, the sincerity of the offer, etc.) that made her
shift constantly between different modes of speech. The utterance is a blend of showing sincerity
of the offer and familiarity in the relationship and respecting the friend’s autonomy. Attending to
H’s needs is the only PSP strategy mixed with conventional indirectness. Many speakers in
(253)-(264) choose to make the offer ignoring the friend’s sadness whereas the speakers in
(282)-(285) use expressions to notice the friend’s mood as you look down/upset, as an expression
of showing care.
In Sit# 6, on the other hand, more varied PSP strategies are combined with conventional
indirectness. The speakers in (286)-(288), assume familiarity in S-H relationship by showing the
offer as a symbol of appreciating their friendship mixed with the expressions, I’d like you to
have, and would you like X, respectively. In (288), the speaker assumes H’s knowledge of the
precious necklace (See 247), giving at the same time the freedom of choice by Would you like?
Optimism and conventional indirectness are combined in (289). Ellipsis as in-group language is
combined with conventional indirectness in (290). These combinations help the speakers to
soften the FTA and maintain the friendship.
The type of language differs in many cases with the increase of the level of the imposition.
The speaker’s concern about the necklace could not be hidden despite the politeness strategies.

151
For example in (268) and (287), the expressions, a really expensive necklace of mine and I know
you’ll take care of it reveal the speaker’s worries about offering the necklace, making the offer
sound courteous more than sincere.
Don’t-do-the-FTA strategy is rarely used in both situations. However, whereas it was realized
in Sit# 5 through the positive type, that is, doing the offer physically without any linguistic
response, it was realized in Sit# 6 through the negative one, by opting out and ignoring the whole
situation. The large FTA can, again, justify this contrast.
4.1.2 Making Offers to People of High Social Distance
4.1.2.1 High Social Distance (Low Rank of Imposition) & Difference in Power
The degree of social distance in this group of situations varies; unfamiliar colleagues and guests
are labeled [+SD] while strange people at public places are labeled [++SD].
In Sit# 7, the participant is offering a pen to the dean (or boss) because her pen has dried out. In
Sit# 8, on the other hand, the speaker offers some biscuits to a guest whom the speaker is not
acquainted with and hosting for the first time. The imposition in both situations is low, and the
addressees’ gender is the same as the speaker’s.
The only factor that differs is power. Hence, the effect of power on the type of politeness
strategy among socially distant people is tested in Sit# 7 and Sit# 8.
a. Saudi Arabic
Table 4. 44. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7
&8
BOR PSP NGP OFR. Mixed Don’t do Total

pos neg
Sit# 7 Freq. 26 1 22 0 0 1 3 53
Percent 49.1 1.9 41.5 0 0 7.5 100%
Sit# 8 Freq. 34 10 8 0 1 0 0 53
Percent 64.2 18.9 15.1 0 1.9 0 100%

152
Although BOR offers are predominant in both situations (49.1% in Sit# 7 & 64.2% in Sit# 8),
NGP is markedly higher in Sit#7 (41.5%). PSP, on the other, hand, is frequent when offering
something to a new guest (18.9%) but almost avoided when making an offer to a superior
(1.9%). Mixed strategies are absent in Sit# 7 and rare in Sit# 8 (1.9%). Not doing the FTA is
present in Sit# 7(7.5%), but avoided with the guest in Sit# 8.
The BOR offers are used extensively in both situations to convey different meanings. Table
4.45 illustrates that.
Table 4. 45 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7& 8
Sit# 7 Sit# 8
291. tfaẓẓalay (Please, take) 295. tfaẓẓalay (Please, take)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬ .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬
292. tfaẓẓalay (name), galam. (Please, have a pen.) 296. tfaẓẓalay ħalli (Please, have some sweets.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﻗﻠﻢ‬،‫اﺳﻤﮭﺎ‬ .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﺣﻠﻲ‬
293. xudhi il galam. (Take, the pen) 297. tfaẓẓalay xudhi (Please, take)
.‫ﺧﺬي اﻟﻘﻠﻢ‬ .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﺧﺬي‬
294. tfaẓẓalay, xudhi il galam. (Please, take il 298. tfaẓẓalay yalla lazim tidhūgīn illi sawēta. (Come on;
galam) you must taste what I made.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﺧﺬي اﻟﻘﻠﻢ‬ .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﯾﻠﻼ ﻻزم ﺗﺬوﻗﯿﻦ اﻟﻠﻲ ﺳﻮﯾﺘﮫ‬
299. ħalli (Have some sweets)
.‫ﺣﻠﻲ‬
300. dhūgīh (Taste it.)
.‫ذوﻗﯿﮫ‬
301. jarribi hādha il ħala (Try this sweet.)
.‫ﺟﺮﺑﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻰ‬
302. xudhi hādha marra ladhīdh; jarribīh
.‫( ﺧﺬي ھﺬا ﻣﺮة ﻟﺬﯾﺬ ﺟﺮﺑﯿﮫ‬Take this. It’s very tasty.)
303. tfaẓẓalay; xudhi ħalli. (Please, take some sweet.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﺧﺬي ﺣﻠﻲ‬
304. tfaẓẓalay; la tistiħīn; xudhi. (Please, take, don’t be shy.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؟ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﯿﻦ ﺧﺬي‬
In Sit# 7, this strategy is due to the fact that where maximum efficiency is very important, and
both S and H mutually know this, no face redress is necessary. The speaker senses the dean’s
urgent need for a pen; thus, the speaker goes baldly on record without mitigation since the

153
imposition is too small and for H’s interest. In Sit# 8, on the other hand, BOR offers comprise
the largest part of the politeness strategies in this situation because offering food to a new guest
in your house is part of conventions of society and is respected by the guest. A new guest,
however, may find it inappropriate to have food or drink before she is allowed to do so. Hence,
BOR offers alleviate the guest’s anxiety to impinge on S’s preserves. In the Saudi society,
insisting that your guest have food is a sign of hospitality.
BOR offers in Saudi Arabic are expressed in different forms of imperatives in both situations.
In Table 4. 45, the formulaic BOR offer tfaẓẓalay is extensively used in both contexts. The
preference for tfaẓẓalay in these situations results from the dual function of the expression,
which makes it easier for the speaker to go baldly on record to show sincerity and generosity,
while at the same time, show respect to and high sensitivity of social distance whether between
the dean and the speaker or the new guest and host.
The expression tfaẓẓalay, which indicates respect and formality, is more frequently used as an
utterance by itself when the offer was made to a superior though occasionally it appears in both
situations with the gesture of extending the pen or welcoming someone to food as in (291) and
(295).
Further, tfaẓẓalay is used with other imperatives. When offering some biscuits to an unfamiliar
guest, tfaẓẓalay is less frequently used singly but more frequently used with other simple
imperatives. This combination is rare in Sit# 7. Only two participants use tfaẓẓalay to soften the
imperative xudhi (take) to address the female dean.
In Sit# 8, the speakers in (296)-(298) initiate the offer with the polite expression tfaẓẓalay then
go badly on record because of using another imperative such as xudhi, dhūgi, and ħalli. In (298),
after being formal with tfaẓẓalay, the speaker goes more baldly on record by using another
formulaic expression that indicates command and informality at the same time by using the

154
imperative form, yalla (come on). The imperative lazim tudhūgīn (you must taste) shows that
more imposition is exercised by the speaker. This extreme directness supports Leech (1983) and
B&L (1987) who assert that the more direct the offer, the more polite it is.
Some speakers are inclined to go baldly on record by using the simple imperatives without any
formal or polite formulaic expressions. These simple imperatives include jarribi (try ), dhūgi
(taste), and ħalli (have sweets). They are mostly dominant in Sit#8.
The use of multiple imperatives is a feature of many offers in Sit# 8, but avoided in Sit# 7 due
to the higher power of the addressee. The formal and polite dimensions of this formulaic
expression make it possible for the speakers to use it with other simple imperatives without using
other strategies of mitigation. In Sit# 8, (303) and (304), the speakers manifest their firmness in
making the offer by using more than one imperative. In (304), the speaker uses the two
imperatives xudhi and the negative imperative la tistiħīn together with the formal imperative
tfaẓẓalay.
The use of PSP in Saudi Arabic differs markedly in both situations (1.9% for Sit#7 & 18.9%for
Sit# 8). Consider the following examples.
Table 4.46. PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7& 8

Sit# 7 Sit# 8
305. sammi; tfaẓẓalay (Please, take.) 306. Wallāh ma tgūmīn illa mxallişa şīnīyatk.
.‫ﺳﻤﻲ؛ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬ (By God; you don’t get up before you finish your plate.)
.‫واﻟﻠﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻣﯿﻦ اﻻ ﻣﺨﻠﺼﺔ ﺻﯿﻨﯿﺘﻚ‬
307. tfaẓẓalay (ħalli); il bēt bētik. (Please, have some candy;
make yourself at home.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ )ﺣﻠﻲ(؛ اﻟﺒﯿﺖ ﺑﯿﺘﻚ‬
308. ħalli; walla msawwiya rijīm.
‫ﺣﻠﻲ؛ و اﻻ ﻣﺴﻮﯾﺔ رﺟﯿﻢ؟‬
309. tfaẓẓalay; tara idha ma akalti ma ākul fi bētik.
(Please take; if you don’t eat, I won’t eat at your home.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؛ ﺗﺮى اذا ﻣﺎ أﻛﻠﺖ ﻣﺎ آﻛﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺑﯿﺘﻚ‬
310. ma tdhūgī ilħala? ana msawwīta. yimkin yiʕjibk inshālla
(Won’t you have sweet? I made it you make like it; Go willing.)

155
Sit#8
.‫ﻣﺎ ﺗﺬوﻗﯿﻦ اﻟﺤﻠﻰ؟ اﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﻮﯾﺘﮫ؛ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ ﯾﻌﺠﺒﻚ ان ﺷﺎء اﷲ‬
311. tfaẓẓalay ħalli; tara byiʕjibk inshālla.
(Please, have sweets, you’ll like it.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﺣﻠﻲ؛ ﺗﺮى ﺑﯿﻌﺠﺒﻚ ان ﺷﺎء اﷲ‬
312. hydra min sun did bilʕāfya ʕala galbik. (I made it
myself; good appetite.)
.‫ھﺬا ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻊ اﯾﺪي؛ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﻓﯿﮫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ‬
The only instance of PSP in Sit# 7 is the use of in-group language to claim common ground. In
(305), the expression sammi (Please, take) is more frequent in the Najdi dialect. Although it
conveys the same meaning as tfaẓẓalay, samm(i) (literally means “ Say the Name of Allah!”) is
more informal and dialectal. 14 Thus, it has been classified here as in-group dialect which claims
common ground with H.
In contrast, in Sit# 8, in spite of the high social distance between the guest and the host because
the guest is making the visit for the first time, the host is using frequent PSP strategies thereby
attempting to establish familiarity and in-group solidarity. If this proves anything, it shows that
social determinants are negotiable. They are not fixed. They depend on what the interactants are
making of them.
Again, swearing to God as an intensifier and a PSP marker appears in offering the guest some
biscuits. In (306), the offer with the intensifier and the expression wallāh ma tgūmīn illa mxallişa
şīnīyatk (By God you don’t get up before you finish your plate) might appear very face
threatening. However, in Saudi culture, using the religious intensifier conveys the offerer’s
sincerity and consequently makes the offer sound more polite (See example (19)). The use of
swearing to God, as aforementioned, appears to be rare in these situations because it is more
likely to take place as a response to the offeree’s rejection of the offer made for the first time
(Abd el-Jawad, 2000; Migdadi, 2003), which is not implemented in the DCT.

156
Table 4. 47 Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers
in Sit# 7 & 8
Swearing to God Religious Islamic Teachings Total
Formulaic
Expressions
Sit# 7 0 0 0 0
Sit# 8 1 1 2 4
In (307), by using the metaphor ilbēt bētik (make yourself at home/my house is yours),
together with tfaẓẓalay, the speaker presupposes familiarity in S-H relationship, which,
therefore, lessens the pressure on the guest as a stranger.
Joking is a popular strategy in the Saudi context to establish familiarity. In (308), the speaker is
teasing her guest with humor. The joke, walla msawwiya rijīm? (Are you on diet?), aims to
redress the BOR offer, ħalli and, thus, minimize the FTA on the guest, on the one hand, and the
social distance on the other.
In (309), the speaker indirectly assumes reciprocity to show that she and the guest are
cooperators. However, the reciprocal act, here, is given a negative form in which the speaker
states that if the guest does accept the offer, the speaker is going to do the same if she pays the
guest a visit. Hinting at this reciprocal act functions as a minimizer of the social distance and
establishes intimacy.
In (310), to assume common ground with the new guest, the female speaker presupposes
knowledge of the addressee’s wants and needs. ma is negated with the present form of the verb
taste. Thus, it can be seen as an equivalent to won’t you or don’t you taste that (See B&L (1987,
p. 123). The question is associated with another PSP strategy, optimism in (310).
Optimism, used in (310) and (311) to presuppose knowledge of H’s wants, enforces this
common ground between the guest and her hostess. The speaker is optimistic about the offeree’s
enjoying the taste of the food, which entails that the addressee will cooperate and accept the

157
offer. In byiʕjibk inshālla (you will like it), the formulaic expression enforces optimism in Saudi
Arabic, and, thus, redresses the FTA.
Some utterances contained more than one PSP strategy. The speaker in (312) uses more than
one strategy to satisfy the addressee’s positive face. In hādha min şunʕ īdi, the speaker indicates
her care about the guest. Making something special for the guest conveys hospitality and valuing
the guest’s visit. This is reinforced by the strategy of giving gifts of care and sympathy. In the
expression bil ʕāfya ʕala galbik, S is praying for H to have good appetite, which establishes
familiarity and in-group solidarity.
In Saudi Arabic, NGP is used heavily in Sit# 7 but restrictively in Sit# 8. The following
utterances illustrate this.
Table 4.48 NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 7& 8

Sit# 7 Sit# 8
313. tfaẓẓalay; ustādha (Teacher, please take.) 329. xudhi ħalli ʕalashāni. (Take this for me.)
.‫ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ‬،‫أﺳﺘﺎذة‬ .‫ﺧﺬي ﺣﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﺸﺎﻧﻲ‬
314. tfaẓẓalay; ya duktōra (Please take, Dr.) 330. tfaẓẓalay, dhūgi hādha il ħala ʕalashāni
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﯾﺎدﻛﺘﻮرة‬ (Please, taste this for me.)
315. tibīn galam? (Do you want a pen?) .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؛ ذوﻗﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﺸﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺒﯿﻦ ﻗﻠﻢ؟‬ 331. xudhi lik waħda.(Take one.)
316 tfaẓẓalay; tiħtājēna (please take, do you need it?) .‫ﺧﺬي ﻟﻚ وﺣﺪة‬
‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؛ ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻨﮫ؟‬ 332. xudhi waħda ʕalashāni.
317. miħtāja galam? (Do you need a pen?) .‫( ﺧﺬي وﺣﺪة ﻋﻠﺸﺎﻧﻲ‬Take one to please me.)
‫ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺔ ﻗﻠﻢ؟‬ 333. tfaẓẓalay; hādha şunʕ bēt; nijība lil ʕazizīn.
318. tiħtājēn galam; maʕay galam. (Do you need a pen? (Please, take; this is home-made; we bring it to
I have.) the dear ones.)
. ‫ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻦ ﻗﻠﻢ؟ ﻣﻌﻲ ﻗﻠﻢ‬ .‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؛ ھﺬا ﺻﻨﻊ ﺑﯿﺖ ﻧﺠﯿﺒﮫ ﻟﻠﻌﺰﯾﺰﯾﻦ‬
319. Duktōra; tabghēn musāʕada? (Dr., do you want help?) 334. hādha il ħala ana msawiyita; tara marra
‫ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟‬، ‫دﻛﺘﻮرة‬ ladhīdh. (I made this myself. It’s delicious.)
320. ʕafwan duktōra;tabghēn galam? (Pardon Dr., Do you .‫ھﺬا اﻟﺤﻠﻰ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﻮﯾﺘﮫ؛ ﺗﺮى ﻣﺮة ﻟﺬﯾﺬ‬
want a pen?)
‫ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﻗﻠﻢ؟‬،‫ﻋﻔﻮا دﻛﺘﻮرة‬
321. mumkin agaddim musāʕada ya duktōra? (May I help,
Dr?)
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﻗﺪم ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﯾﺎ دﻛﺘﻮرة؟‬

158
Sit#7
322. ēsh rāyik? ʕindi galam sāyil ħilu; mumkin tjarribīna.

(What do you think? I have a pen; you can use it.)
.‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ؟ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻗﻠﻢ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺣﻠﻮ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﻨﮫ‬
323. tfaẓẓalay; ʕindi galam; idha tabghēn. (Here, I have a
pen if you want.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ؛ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻗﻠﻢ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬
324 ustādha, tfaẓẓalay; idha tabghēn galam. (Teacher, here,
if you want.)
.‫ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﻗﻠﻢ‬،‫أﺳﺘﺎذة‬
325. in kān tabghēn, tara galami kwayyis. (If you want,
my pen is fine.)
.‫ ﺗﺮى ﻗﻠﻤﻲ ﻛﻮﯾﺲ‬،‫إن ﻛﺎن ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬
326. ma maʕik galam? ana maʕay idha tabghēn. (Don’t you
have a pen? I have if you want.)
.‫ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﻚ ﻗﻠﻢ؟أﻧﺎ ﻣﻌﻲ ﻗﻠﻢ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬
327. iẓẓāhir galamik xallaş; tfaẓẓalay galami. (It seems that
you pen has dried out; please have my pen.)
.‫اﻟﻈﺎھﺮ ﻗﻠﻤﻚ ﺧﻠﺺ؛ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﻗﻠﻤﻲ‬
328. tfaẓẓalay, duktōra; hādha galam ziyāda maʕāy. (Here,
please Dr.; this is an extra pen.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ دﻛﺘﻮرة؛ ھﺬا ﻗﻠﻢ زﯾﺎدة ﻣﻌﺎي‬
In Saudi Arabic, the two contexts have yielded different NGP strategies. In Sit# 7, the
speakers vary their strategies such as conventional indirectness, deference, hedging, and
minimizing the imposition. In Sit# 8, on the other hand, few instances of NGP are realized
through minimizing the imposition, impersonalizing H and going on record to incur a debt to H.
When addressing a female person of higher power and higher social distance, giving
deference through honorifics is very common. Participants use the address terms ustādha and
duktōra with BOR offers. The term, duktōra indicates the academic status of the addressee
whereas ustādha can be also used to show respect to any unfamiliar person regardless of his/her
power-status. Such address terms are used to give deference to the dean and treat her as a
superior. Using honorifics is an expression of respect to someone who is in power in the Saudi

159
culture.15 Saudi female speakers have to show deference to people of higher power and higher
social distance.
Conventional indirectness comes second in Sit# 7 but is avoided in Sit# 8. The use of
conventional indirectness aims at respecting and preserving the social distance with H and the
H’s power status. Conventional indirectness has been expressed in different ways. See Table
4.49
Table 4.49 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers
in Sit# 7&8
tibi(īni) tħib(īn)X widdik tiħtaj(ēn)/ ēsh rāyik mumkin Information Total
X?/tabghēn X? miħtāj(a) X? Questions
Sit#7 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 6
Sit#8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The most frequent way is using the verbs need/want, which Rabinowitz describes as the
linguistic features of an offer (See 2.1). The speakers in (315)-(322), use the interrogative form
to inquire about the addressee’s willingness or desire to receive the offer. In order to intensify
politeness, and keep more distance with H, conventional indirectness is supported by the use of
attention getters, and honorifics in (319)-(321). The formulaic expression law samaħti, as an
attention getter in offers, is usually used with people of high social distance (El-Shafey, 1990).
Such an expression is not common among friends and close people. By using this attention
getter, the speaker conveys formality, expresses respect to the addressee’s high power and
maintains social distance.
In Saudi Arabic, expressing conventional indirectness through modals in Sit# 7 is not
frequent in making an offer to the dean when the risk is low. The speaker in (321) and (322) uses
modal mumkin only once to avoid imposing. The formulaic question ēsh/wish rāyik is used also
once in Sit# 7 combined with modal mumkin. The question ēsh rāyik implies a suggestion in

160
guise of asking for one’s opinion. This is almost avoided with a superior. Thus, the speaker in
(322) is making up for the use of such a question by using conventional indirectness mumkin
tijarribīnah to show respect to the dean’s freedom of choice.
In (317), the speaker is nominalizing the verb tiħtāj to miħtāja galam? ((Do) you) need a
pen?) Nominalization, in this respect, helps the speaker to be more formal and distant from the
dean.
Hedging comes as the third preferred strategy in Sit# 7 but is completely absent in Sit# 8. The
use of conditional IF is very frequent. Such a clause minimizes the illocutionary force of the
speech act. In Saudi Arabic, the speakers use inn and idha (IF-clauses) in (323)-(326) to soften
the imperative mood of the expression tfaẓẓalay.
Hedging with conditional clauses is also used with conventional indirectness. In (326),
combining the question with hedging conveys the speaker’s attempt to mitigate the effect of the
question and expresses pessimism about the addressee’s compliance. The speaker starts going
conventionally indirect by drawing the dean’s attention to a possible action that the speaker is
going to take as a response to the dean’s need for a pen. The speaker then expresses her respect
to the dean’s freedom of choice by using the conditional clause in case the dean may not like to
receive such an offer.
Another expression of hedging is used in (327). The use of iẓẓāhir (It seems( that)) may
disclaim the assumption that S’s point is to inform H. The participant does not aim to tell the
dean (boss) that her pen has dried, but rather to prepare the dean for the offer.
The few instances of NGP in Sit# 8 are going on record as not to indebt H, and minimizing the
imposition. Claiming indebtedness to H is used in (329) and (330). In using ʕalashāni (for me/to
please me), S implicitly puts herself in debt to H if H accepts the offer. This will change the offer
from a benefit that S gives to H to a benefit that H is giving to S. The expression also indicates

161
that S is begging H to accept the offer so S will be satisfied. The hint of begging conveys S’s
care to satisfy the addressee’s need for being treated as an important person.
Minimization is almost avoided in both situations. It appears once in Sit# 7 and in Sit# 8.
Expressing minimization differs, however, in both contexts. Usually minimization indicates
belittling the quantity or the quality of a thing or action. In (328), the word extra is used for
minimization. Although extra indicates “more than needed” or “abundance,” it still minimizes
the imposition because it belittles the worth of the offered pen in that it is not needed. Hence, this
saves H from feeling indebted to S or costing S anything. In Sit# 8, on the other hand,
minimizing is expressed by belittling the quantity of the offered items in (331) and (332). The
speaker in (331) uses the word waħda (one piece) to minimize the imposition on the addressee
Thus, by saying waħda, the speaker lessens the pressure the addressee would create on the
speaker by accepting the offer. In (332) the same strategy of minimization is combined with
incurring indebt to H to redress the FTA.
Avoiding using the first-person and second-person pronoun is traced in Sit# 7. The speaker in
(333) starts with the formal imperative tfaẓẓalay to convey respect of the social distance between
S and H. Impersonalization is in using şunʕ bēt instead of sunʕ bēti or īdi as in (312). The
avoidance of pronoun -iy (my), here, aims at distancing the speaker from the FTA and from the
addressee. The speaker also impersonalizes pronoun you. The speaker avoids addressing the
guest and uses the indefinites ilʕazīzīn (the dear ones) while referring to the addressee. The
expression, ilʕazīzīn (the dear ones), in spite of its NGP function, contains some PSP effect that
conveys solidarity and familiarity with H. Both expressions indicate that S does not want to
impinge on H. She phrases the FTA as if the agent were other than S.

162
In (334), the speaker uses the highest degree of indirectness. The utterance moves closer to off-
recordness rather than on-recordness. The context between the guest and the host makes it easier
for the addressee to interpret the utterance as an offer despite the absence of the head-act offer.
Combinations of superstrategies appear only in Sit# 8. Examine the following utterance.
Table 4.50. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 8
Sit# 8
335. ma dhūgti hādha innōʕ ya jāra. (You didn’t taste this sort, neighbor.)
.‫ﻣﺎذﻗﺖ ھﺬا اﻟﻨﻮع ﯾﺎﺟﺎرة‬
In (335), the speaker makes the offer by indirectly inviting the guest to try another piece while
showing friendliness, and solidarity to the neighbor. The addressee term jāra indicates a strong
social bond between the speaker and her guest. This helps to make a balance between the need to
respect the new guest and create intimacy in the relationship.
In Sit# 7, two participants chose not to do the FTA. They avoided saying anything and
preferred the positive response through extending the object as an act of offering. Such positive
responses can be attributed to the fact speakers find the imposition too small and the urgency
high since the speaker also benefits from the offer since she needs the papers to be signed. In
offering a new guest some biscuits, no participant chose not-to-do the FTA.
b. British English
In British English, the effect of power does not show a significant difference on the speaker’s
overall choice of the politeness strategies between the two contexts. Table 4.50 shows that the
female speakers in both situations show high preference for NGP (78% for Sit#7& 64% for 8)
and the restrictive use of PSP (4% for Sit#7 & 6% for Sit# 8). However, some differences exist
at the level of the BOR strategies. BOR offers are used more frequently when the power status of

163
the addressee is equal to the speaker’s (12% for Sit# 7 & 26% for Sit# 8). Mixed and Don’t-do-
the FTA strategies are rare in both situations (2% in both cases). The formal setting in Sit#7 may
have contributed to this difference.
Table 4.51 Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British English

Offers in Sit# 7 & 8
pos neg
Sit#7 Freq. 6 2 39 0 2 1 0 50
Percent 12 4 78 0 4 2 100%
Sit#8 Freq. 13 3 32 0 1 1 0 50
Percent 26 6 64 0 2 2 100%
The BOR offers are used in both situations with higher frequency in Sit# 8. Examine the
following responses.
Table 4.52 BOR Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 7&8

Sit# 7 Sit# 8
336. Please, use mine (my pen). 341. Have some biscuits
337. Use this pen. I’ll get a refill for yours. 342. Have a biscuit.
338. Here, 16 take mine. 343. Have a biscuit with your tea.
339. Here, try mine. 344. Please, have a biscuit.
340. Here, use mine. 345. Please, help yourself.
346. Help yourself to a biscuit.
347. Please, help yourself to some biscuits.
The BOR offers are expressed through imperatives in each context. The imperatives in both
situations comprise the typical verbs of offer such as try, have, and help (Rabinowitz, 1993). The
verbs use, and take are determined by the context in Sit# 7. In Sit# 8, the formulaic expression
help yourself is frequently used as a polite expression of offering.
Softening imperatives is used in both contexts. The use of please to soften the BOR offer is
used in both situations with higher frequency when making an offer to a new guest, that is, a

164
person who is equal in power. To the speaker, the concern of being hospitable and polite at the
same time may have caused this difference (See p. 37). Using some in Sit# 8 indicates
hospitality, more than does the expression a biscuit (Leech, 1983).
PSP is used on a limited scale in both situations (4% for Sit# 7 & 6% for Sit# 8). Consider the
following examples.
Table 4.53 PSP in British English Offers in Sit#7&8

Sit# 7 Sit# 8
348. Pen? 350. Fancy a biscuit?
349. I have a pen. Here you go! 351. Biscuits?
352. Care for something to eat? I made these myself.
Forms of PSP in both situations are ellipsis and in-group language. The headwords, pen and
biscuits in the interrogative way in (348), (350)-(352), are examples of ellipsis (See the different
type of questions in Table 4.54). The speaker in (349), uses another formulaic expression, here
you go. Such an expression is highly informal, and may be interpreted as impolite if used with
superiors (Fletcher, personal communication, 2008). PSP strategies in Sit# 8 may be interpreted
either as an attempt to minimize the relationship with a new guest or as a result of the
insignificance of the offered object.
NGP forms the largest part of the speakers’ preferences when making the offer in both
contexts. Consider the following.
Table 4.54 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 7&8
Sit# 7 Sit# 8
353. Do you need this (a pen)? 366. Do you like a piece?
354. May I offer you a pen? 367. Do you want some candy?
355. May I help you? Would you like to have my pen? 368. Would you like one?
356. Would you like a pen? 369. Would you like a biscuit with your tea?
357. Excuse me. Would you like to use my pen instead? 370. Would you like something to eat?
358. Would you like to use (my pen) mine/this one? 371. (present) Would you like one of these?
359. Would you like to borrow my pen, Madam? 372. Would you like some biscuits?

165
Sit#7
360. Here, you can use my pen.
361. I’ve got a pen in my bag. You can use it.362. Excuse me;
but you may use my pen.
363. I have a pen available if you want.
364. Here, you can use my pen if you like.
365. Are you looking for a pen? I think I have one in my bag.
Conventional indirectness has dominated the speaker’s utterances. Hedging and deference are
limited and only used when making an offer to the socially distant superior.
Conventional indirectness has been expressed by using different auxiliaries. Examine Table 4.
55.
Table 4.55 Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British Offers in Sit# 7& 8
Do you Would Shall Do you How Could Would May I Total
want/ you I X? think would you X? be (offer)?
need/like like X? you like X? interested to
X? X? X
Sit# 7 4 23 0 0 0 0 0 3 30
Sit# 8 8 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
The use of the typical question, Do you like/want, is more frequent in Sit# 8, when addressing a
new guest (i.e., someone of equal power), using the verb need only once. The formality of the
context has yielded the use of may in (355) and (356). This modal is absent in addressing a new
guest. Modal can in Sit# 7, which is less formal than may, is used only in the declarative form in
(360) and (364). Such a modal is avoided when offering a biscuit to an unfamiliar guest. This
may be because the common use of can conveys giving permission. The use of can in this
context may express lack of hospitality (See Koyama, 2001).

166
In both situations, Would you like to X, is the dominant form of conventional indirectness.
Again, as in all the previous situations, the question remains the most polite form of offer even
when the level of power and social distance varies.
Giving deference is very rare and used only when addressing a superior. The speaker in (359)
uses the term Madam to show respect. However, generally speaking, the British female speakers
show avoidance of using deferential terms. This may be due to the democratic ambience of the
English-speaking culture.
Minimization is frequently used in Sit# 8 but not in Sit# 7. It appears with conventional
indirectness in Sit# 8. The use of the expressions one piece, one of these, a piece aims to lessen
the imposition on the guest and encourage her to accept the offer (See example (331)).
Hedging is only used in Sit# 7 in (362)-(365). In (364), the speaker hedges by the If-clause,
together with conventional indirectness, you can to give more respect to the dean’s freedom of
action. The hedging phrase, but in (362) and I think in (365) are used to distance S from the
addressee and the FTA (See example (183)).
Mixed superstrategies exist in both situations. Consider Table 4.56.
Table 4.56. Mixed Superstrategies in British Offers in Sit#7&8

Sit# 7 Sit# 8
373. Would you like to get a pen? Please, use mine 374. Would you like a biscuit? Please, help
yourself
In (373) and (374), the speakers initiate their offers by using the most preferred expression,
Would you like X, following it with a softened imperative. This mixture helps to make a balance
between the speaker’s respect to the addressee’s freedom of choice and her intention to show
sincerity in the offer to urge the addressee accept it (See examples (41)-(45)).

167
Only one speaker uses the Don’t-do-the FTA strategy in each situation. In offering a pen to a
superior of a high social distance, the speaker opts out, stating that with people of high social
distance and power, she does not like to interfere. In offering a new guest a piece of biscuit, one
participant chooses the positive form of Don’t-do- the FTA. She decided to extend the plate
without saying anything. The act in this way will save the speaker the trouble of choosing the
best strategy and at the same times shows the guest the highest level of sincerity.
4.1.2.2 High Social Distance (High Rank of Imposition) & Difference in Power
The addressee’s power-status differs between Sit# 9 and Sit# 10. In Sit# 9, the speaker offers
her services to a female dean (or boss) to deliver some important papers. In Sit# 10, on the other
hand, the speaker offers help to exchange shifts (or turns of presentation) to a socially distant
female colleague (i.e., someone of equal power).
a. Saudi Arabic
Table 4.57. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic

Offers in Sit# 9 & 10
pos neg
Sit# Freq. 1 2 36 1 1 0 12 53
9
Percent 1.9 3.8 67.9 1.9 1.9 22.6 100%
Sit# Freq. 1 5 37 0 5 0 5 53
10
Percent 1.9 9.43 69.8 0 9.43 9.43 100%
In Saudi Arabic, the speakers choose to be almost exclusively negatively polite in both
situations (67.9% in Sit#9 & 69.8% in 10). BOR (1.9% in both), and PSP (3.8% in Sit#9 &
9.43% in Sit#10) are rare. OFR offers are rare in Sit#9 (1.9%) but absent in Sit#10. Mixed

168
strategies were rare in both situations (1.9% in Sit#9 & 9.43% in Sit# 10). Don’t-to-do-the FTA
is frequent when the addressee’s power-status is higher than the speaker’s (22.6%).
The BOR strategy is limited in both situations. The rare use of this strategy in this context is
justified by the large FTA. In Sit# 9, the speaker avoids impinging on the dean, who might not
want to allow anybody to take such papers except officials whom she knows and trusts well. The
speaker also finds it face threatening to take responsibility for delivering important papers or
switch turns when she is not prepared. Table 4.58 illustrates these offers.
Table 4.58 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9& 10

Sit# 9 Sit# 10
375. xalāş utrukīha ana bawaşşilha. 376. la tshīli hamm; rāħ āxudh makānik
(It’s done; leave it; I’ll deliver them for you.) .‫ﻻ ﺗﺸﯿﻠﻲ ھﻢ؛ راح اﺧﺬ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ‬
.‫ﺧﻼص اﺗﺮﻛﯿﮭﺎ؛ اﻧﺎ ﺑﺄوﺻﻠﮭﺎ‬
In Sit# 9, BOR offers appear only in one utterance. The speaker in (375) uses the imperative
utrukīha (leave them), intensified by the expression xalāş (it’s over, it’s done), to maximize the
force of the offer, bawaşşilha (I’ll deliver them). In this respect, the phrase bawaşşilha (I’ll
deliver them) indicates the speaker’s determination and insistence to deliver the papers because
of the attached particle, ba (will). Particles attached to the verb to indicate futurity, such as, ba
(will) indicate stronger commitment than the detached ones (for example, rāħ in this data)
(Yunis, n.d.).17 The speaker goes baldly on record to persuade the dean (boss) to transgress on
her because the dean might be reluctant to infringe on the speaker’s preserves due to the high
rank of the imposition on the addressee.
Another instance of the BOR strategies is traced in Sit# 10. In (376), the utterance follows
B&L’s (1987) example of BOR offers (p. 100). The use of the comforting negative imperative la
tshīli hamm (Don’t worry) intensifies, the force of the BOR offer and relieves the hearer from
the pressure. The imperative in the negative form is followed by phrase expressed by rāh (will)

169
in rāħ āxudh makānik (I’ll take your place). The modal rāħ (as a detached future marker),
expresses determination, insistence and willfulness of carrying the act in the future (Yunis, n.d.).
(The imperative shūfi (look) is used very frequently as an attention getter in Sit# 10, but
completely avoided in Sit# 9. This avoidance results from the difference in power between S and
H).
PSP is also used on a limited scale in both situations with higher occurrence in Sit# 10. The
following responses illustrate that.
Table 4. 59 PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9 & 10

Sit# 9 Sit# 10
377. ayy musaʕda?(Any help? (smiling)) 379. xalāş ħabībti; bāxudh dōrik winti xudhi dōri.
(‫أي ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟ ا )ﺑﺎﺑﺘﺴﺎﻣﺔ‬ (Ok, sweetheart; I’ll take your turn; but let’s tell the doctor
378. abshiri; bawişlha lik (With pleasure, I’ll first.)
Deliver them for you. .‫ ﺑﺎﺧﺬ دورك و اﻧﺖ ﺧﺬي دوري؛ ﺑﺲ ﺧﻠﯿﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ اﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮر أول‬،‫ﺧﻼص ﺣﺒﯿﺒﺘﻲ‬
.‫اﺑﺸﺮي؛ ﺑﺎوﺻﻠﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ‬ 380. abaddil dōri makān dōrik?(switch turns?)
‫أﺑﺪل دورك ﻣﻜﺎن دوري؟‬
381. shūfi; baʔabaddil maʕik watwakkal ʕala Allāh.
(Look, we’ll switch turns and I’ll leave it to God.”
.‫ و أﺗﻮﻛﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ اﷲ‬،‫ﺷﻮﻓﻲ؛ ﺑﺄﺑﺪل ﻣﻌﺎك‬
382. illa nitbādal wiman farraj ʕan axīhi kurba, farraja Allāhu
ʕanhu kurba min kurabi yōm ilqiyāma. (Yes we have to
switch turns, and “he who helps his brother in this life; God
will help him in the Hereafter.)
‫إﻻ ﻧﺘﺒﺎدل و ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮج ﻋﻦ اﺧﯿﮫ ﻛﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﺮج اﷲ ﻋﻨﮫ ﻛﺮﺑﮫ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺮب‬
.‫اﻟﻘﯿﺎﻣﺔ‬
383. ukē, ana āxidh dōrik winti ixdhi dōri baʕd arbiʕaʔ
axyām. (Ok. I’ll take your turn and you take mine after four
days.)
.‫ أﻧﺎ اﺧﺬ دورك و اﻧﺖ اﺧﺬي دوري ﺑﻌﺪ أرﺑﻊ أﯾﺎم‬،‫اوﻛﻲ‬
In-group language is realized in both situations through ellipsis, and address forms. Address
forms of endearment like ħabībti (darling), umri (my life), and galbi (sweetheart) are frequent
when addressing the female addressee of equal power even if socially distant (The last two forms
are used with mixed strategies.) These forms are almost avoided when addressing the female

170
dean (boss). Only one speaker uses the form of endearment, ʕazīzti (my dear) to address the dean
(See (437)). These forms aim to soothe the addressee, who might be reluctant to transgress on
the speaker because of the large FTA. They may also indicate the speaker’s wholeheartedness to
make the offer in spite of the high imposition.
Ellipsis is used in both situations. In Sit#9, the speaker in (377) uses the contracted form of the
question, ayy musāʕada? (Any help?). It can be contracted from many utterances such as
tabghēn /tiħtājēn ayy musāʕada (Do you need/ want any help?). The question aims to minimize
the social distance with the addressee as to establish mutual confidence.
In Sit# 10, using ellipsis as an in-group-language marker appears in (380) in the question,
abaddil dōri makān dōrik? (Switch turns?). The rare occurrence of such a strategy in both
contexts indicates the informal dimensions of such questions, which are not preferred under such
contextual determinants.
In-group language through religious expressions is realized in (381). The head offer is
expressed by using bāxudh makānik (I’ll take your place) followed by the use of the religious
expression, atwakkal ʕala Allah (I’ll depend on God), emphasizes the speaker’s sincerity to go
ahead with the act, and enforces the in-group values. Code-switching appears through religious
expressions in Sit# 10, but is absent in Sit# 9. In (382), the speaker is code switching to
diglossia by using standard Arabic when quoting one of the Prophet’s sayings to convey the
message of unity and cooperation among the Muslims in critical times.
Table 4.60. Frequencies of Religious Expressions in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9 & 10
Sit# 9 0 1 0 1
Sit# 10 0 2 2 4

171
Another code-switching occurs in (383). Here, it is done from Arabic to English by using the
expression, “OK” to initiate the offer. Such code-switching is usually used in informal situations,
and may minimize the social distance with the addressee because the speaker presupposes
agreement with the addressee.
Fulfilling H’s face-wants by giving the addressee a moral gift is used in Sit# 9. To redress the
hearer’s positive face, one speaker uses the expression abshiri in (378) to convey, not only the
speaker’s willingness to do the offer, but, more importantly, her enthusiasm and desire to help.
NGP is used equally in both situations; yet longer, complex clauses are used more in
Sit#10 than in Sit# 9. The power-status of the addressee may have caused this difference. In
many cases, this complexity results from the combination of conventional indirectness and
adverbial clauses used for hedging. Whenever the power-status is equal as in Sit#10, the
speaker elaborates, using long utterances and different multiple strategies. With people of
higher power and high social distance, speakers usually tend to be formal and brief in order
to appear firm and polite. The following utterances are cited for exemplification.
Table 4. 61. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9& 10

Sit# 9 Sit# 10
384. tabghēn asāʕdik? awaşşillik il awrāg? (Do you 412. tibīn atbādal ana wiyyāk fi il ʔadwār? tara ana
want me to help you; deliver the papers for you?) binnisba li ma fi mushkila. (Do you want us to switch
‫ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟ أوﺻﻞ ﻟﻚ اﻷوراق؟‬ turns. for me, there is no problem.
385. tibīn musāʕada? barūħ ana. (Do you want help? .‫ﺗﺒﯿﻦ أﺗﺒﺎدل أﻧﺎ وﯾﺎك ﻓﻲ اﻻدوار؟ ﺗﺮى اﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻓﯿﮫ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬
I’ll go.) 413. inti jāhza walla la? tħibīn atbādal ana wiyyāk?
.‫ﺗﺒﯿﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟ ﺑﺎ روح أﻧﺎ‬ (Are you ready or not? Do you want us to switch
386. tiħtājēn musāʕada? ana ma ʕindin shay, agdar turns?)
āxidha (Do you need help? I have nothing; I can take ‫اﻧﺖ ﺟﺎھﺰة واﻻ ﻻ؟ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ ﻧﺘﺒﺎدل اﻧﺎ وﯾﺎك؟‬
them.) 414. yimkin agdar asāʕdik. (I can possibly help you.)
.‫ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺷﻲ اﻗﺪر آﺧﺬھﺎ‬ .‫ﯾﻤﻜﻦ أﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬
387 tħibīn awaddi il awrāg? ana ma ʕindi shay alħīn. 415. shūfi, ēsh rāyik āxidh dōrik wtāxdhīn dōri? (Look!
(Do you like me to pick those papers? I have nothing What do you think? I take your turn and you take mine.)
now.) ‫ﺷﻮﻓﻲ! إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ آﺧﺬ دورك و ﺗﺎ ﺧﺬﯾﻦ دوري؟‬
416. ēsh rāyik āxidh mikānik bukra winti in taħassanat

172
‫ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ أودي اﻷوراق أﻧﺎ؟ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺷﻲ أﻟﻠﺤﯿﻦ؟‬ ẓurūfik xudhi mikāni? (What do you think? I take your
388. mumkin agdar asāʕdik? (Can I help you?) turn tomorrow, and when circumstances get better you
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬ take mine?).
389. ʕafwan, agdar asāʕdik? awaşşil il awrāg ilgisim? ‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ اﺧﺬ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ ﺑﻜﺮة و اﻧﺘﻲ ان ﺗﺤﺴﻨﺖ ﻇﺮوﻓﻚ ﺧﺬي ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻲ؟‬
(Pardon, can I help you? pick those papers to the 417. (Name) idha ma gidarti tistiʕidīn wiẓurūfik şaʕba,
department.) tara xalāş ana mistiʕida abaddil maʕik.(If you couldn’t
‫ﻋﻔﻮا اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك أوﺻﻞ اﻷوراق ﻟﻠﻘﺴﻢ؟‬
get prepared and you have circumstances, see, it’s ok, I’m
390. law samaīħi, mumkin tiʕţīni hādhi il awrāg ready to switch turns with you.)
awaşşilha lik? (Excuse me; can you give me the papers ‫)اﺳﻢ( إذا ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪرت ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺪﯾﻦ و ﻇﺮوﻓﻚ ﺻﻌﺒﺔ ﺗﺮى ﺧﻼص أﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪة أﺑﺪل‬
to deliver?) .‫ﻣﻌﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻌﻄﯿﻨﻲ اﻻوراق ھﺎذي اوﺻﻠﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ؟‬ 418. xalāş, idha inti mu mistiʕida, mumkin tāxdhīn dōri.
391. mumkin ustādha awaşşilha lik? (Teacher, can I
(It’s
pick them for you?)
‫ﺧﻼص إذا اﻧﺖ ﻣﻮ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪة ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ دوري؟‬
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺘﺎذة أوﺻﻠﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ؟‬
419. maʕlēsh ya (Name) idha bukra ma tigdarīn wşaʕba
392. duktōra, ħābba asāʕdik? (Dr, do you want me to
help you?) ʕlēk wiẓurūfik ma tasmaħ ana ẓurūfi afẓal; ana āxidh
‫دﻛﺘﻮرة ﺣﺎﺑﮫ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬ bidālik.
،‫ و ﺻﻌﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ و ﻇﺮوﻓﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ‬،‫ﻣﻌﻠﯿﺶ ﯾﺎ ﻓﻼﻧﺔ؛ إذا ﺑﻜﺮة ﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪرﯾﻦ‬
393. ēsh rāyik? tabghēn awaddiha? ʕādi awaddiha
.‫ان ﻇﺮوﻓﻲ اﻓﻀﻞ اﻧﺎ اﺧﺬ ﺑﺪاﻟﻚ‬
bsurʕa waji. (What do you think? I’ll deliver them for
420. idha tabghēn, agdar arūħ bidālik bukra. (If you want,
you. It’s normal; I’ll do it quickly.)
I can go instead of you tomorrow.)
.‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ أودﯾﮭﺎ؟ ﻋﺎدي أودﯾﮭﺎ ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ‬
.‫إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ اﻗﺪر اروح ﺑﺪاﻟﻚ ﺑﻜﺮة‬
394. idha tħibīn awaşşil il awrāg? ana jāhza. (If you
421. (Name) tara ana ma ʕindi mishkila fi tabdīl alʔdwār
want me to deliver them, I’m ready.)
.‫إذا ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ أوﺻﻞ اﻷوراق أﻧﺎ ﺟﺎھﺰة‬ ma dāmik ma tagdarīn wiẓurūfik şaʕba. (See, I don’t
395. agdar asāʕdik idha tabghēn? (I can help you if you have a problem in switching turns since you can’t and
want.) you have circumstances.)
.‫اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك إذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬ ‫ﻓﻼﻧﺔ ﺗﺮى أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺒﺪﯾﻞ اﻷدوار ﻣﺎ داﻣﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪرﯾﻦ و‬
396. agdar awaşşil lik il awrāg in tabghēn. (I can pick .‫ﻇﺮوﻓﻚ ﺻﻌﺒﮫ‬
them if you want.) 422. la tagligīn; tagdirīn tāxdhīn yōmi wana āxidh yōmik
.‫اﻗﺪر أوﺻﻞ ﻟﻚ اﻷوراق إن ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬ ʕashān yimdīki tħaẓrīn nafsik wana basāʕdik. (Don’t
397. idha kān min il mumkin asāʕdik? (If it is possible worry. you can take my day and I take yours so you can
I can help you.) have time to prepare and I’ll help you.)
‫إذا ﻛﺎن ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬ ‫ﻻ ﺗﻘﻠﻘﯿﻦ؛ ﺗﻘﺪرﯾﻦ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ ﯾﻮﻣﻲ واﻧﺎ اﺧﺬ ﯾﻮﻣﻚ ﻋﺸﺎن ﯾﻤﺪﯾﻚ ﺗﺤﻀﺮﯾﻦ‬
.‫ﻧﻔﺴﻚ و اﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬
398. law samaħti, ana fāẓiya ma ʕindi shay; idha kinti
423. ʕādi tagdirīn tāxdhīn dōri wana āxidh dōrik; ʕasa fi
ħābba inni awaşşil lik il awrāg, ma dām ma ʕindik
dhālik xēr inshālla (It’s nothing,; you can take my turn
aħad. (Excuse me; I’m free; I have nothing to do; if you
and I take yours; may goodness be in that, God willing.)
like, I can pick the papers for you since you don’t have
‫ ﺗﻘﺪرﯾﻦ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ دوري و اﻧﺎ اﺧﺬ دورك؛ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ ﺧﯿﺮ ان‬،‫ﻋﺎدي‬
anyone.)
.‫ﺷﺎءاﷲ‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ أﻧﺎ ﻓﺎﺿﯿﮫ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺷﻲ إذا ﻛﻨﺖ ﺣﺎﺑﮫ إﻧﻲ أوﺻﻞ‬
.‫اﻷوراق ﻣﺎدام ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪك اﺣﺪ‬ 424. idha ẓurūfik şaʕba, tara ʕādi; ana mumkin āxidh
399. idha miħtāja musāʕda mumkin awaşşil lik il ʕannik iddōr. (If you have circumstances, it is normal
awrāg. (If you need help, I can pick the papers for you.) (ok), if I take your turn.)
.‫إذا ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اوﺻﻠﻚ اﻷوراق‬ .‫ ﻋﺎدي اﻧﺎ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺧﺬ ﻋﻨﻚ اﻟﺪور‬،‫إذا ﻇﺮوﻓﻚ ﺻﻌﺒﺔ ﺗﺮى‬

173
400. miħtāja asāʕdik? awaşşil lik il awrāg ? aw ayy 425. idha tħibīn, ana rāħ agaddim gablik; wallah ʕādi; ma
shay? tara ma ʕindi māniʕ. (Do you need help? pick the fīha shay.(if you like, I’ll present before you; By God, it’s
papers for you or anything? I have no objection.) ok, the subject is easy.)
.‫ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺔ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟ أوﺻﻞ ﻟﻚ اﻷوراق أو ﺷﻲ ﺗﺮى ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻣﺎﻧﻊ‬ .‫إذا ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ أﻧﺎ راح أﻗﺪم ﻗﺒﻠﻚ؛ و اﷲ ﻋﺎدي ﻣﺎﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﺷﻲ اﻟﻤﺎدة ﺑﺴﯿﻄﺔ‬
401. Duktōra, idha baghēti aħad ywaşşilah, tara agdar 426.ana ma warāy shay; tibīn tāxdhīn dōri; adha manti
wibkul thiqa waʔmāna inshālla (Dr. if you wanted mustaʕida baʕd arbʕa ayyām (I have nothing; do you
someone to deliver it, I could do it with full integrity want to switch? you take my turn if you’re not ready.)
God willing.) ‫أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ وراي ﺷﻲ؛ ﺗﺒﯿﻦ ﺗﺒﺪﻟﯿﻦ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ دوري اذا ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪة ﺑﻌﺪ ارﺑﻌﺔ‬
.‫دﻛﺘﻮرة اذا ﺑﻐﯿﺖ اﺣﺪ ﯾﻮﺻﻠﺔ ﺗﺮى اﻗﺪر و ﺑﻜﻞ ﺛﻘﺔ و اﻣﺎﻧﺔ ان ﺷﺎء اﷲ‬ ‫اﯾﺎم؛‬
402. ana agdar awaşşil il awrāg idha ħabbēti (I can 427.ana ʕindi wagt fāẓi; agdar asāʕdik; āxidh bidālik (I
deliver the papers if you liked.) have spare time; I can help you; I take your turn.)
.‫أﻧﺎ اﻗﺪر أوﺻﻞ اﻷوراق إذا ﺣﺒﯿﺖ‬ .‫أﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي وﻗﺖ ﻓﺎﺿﻲ؛ اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك اﺧﺬ ﺑﺪاﻟﻚ‬
403. idha ħabbēti, ya ustādha ana fil xidma; agdar 428. ya (Name); ana simiʕt ʕindik ẓurūf wa la rāħ
awaşşilha lik. (If you liked, teacher, I am at your
tagdirīn tgaddimīn il mawẓūʕ; tara ma ʕindi māniʕ law
service; I can deliver it for you.)
kint bukra mikānik; wish rāyik? ((Name), I heard that you
.‫إذا ﺣﺒﯿﺖ ﯾﺎ اﺳﺘﺎذة اﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ؛ اﻗﺪر اوﺻﻠﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ‬
have circumstances; and you can’t present tomorrow; see,
404. idha tiħtājēn aħad; ana mawjūda fil xidma. (If you
I have no problem to take your place; what do you
need someone, am at your service.)
think?)
.‫إذا ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻦ اﺣﺪ اﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮدة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ‬
،‫ و ﻻ راح ﺗﻘﺪرﯾﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﯿﻦ اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع‬،‫ أﻧﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻋﻨﺪك ﻇﺮوف‬،‫ﯾﺎ ﻓﻼﻧﺔ‬
405. agdar asāʕdik? tara ana taħt amrik. (Can help you?
‫ﺗﺮى ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﻟﻮ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ ﺑﻜﺮة وش راﯾﻚ؟‬
I’m under your command.)
429. ya (Name); ana ʕaraft in ʕindik ẓurūf tamnaʕk min
.‫اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟ ﺗﺮى أﻧﺎ ﺗﺤﺖ أﻣﺮك‬
il imtiħān; wibşarāħa ħabbēt asāʕdik wa lidhālik abgha
406. law samaħi, maʕlēsh simiʕtik yōm tkallimīn;
abādlik iddōr. ((Name), I knew you have circumstances
wtarāni agdar asāʕdik; watishrraf bhādha ishshay; ya
that deter you from the exam; and frankly speaking, I
lēt tiʕţīnni il awrāg ʕashān awaşşilha. (Excuse me. loved to help you, and so I want to switch turns.)
Sorry, I heard you, and see, I can help you; Wish that ‫ و ﺑﺼﺮاﺣﺔ‬،‫ أﻧﺎ ﻋﺮﻓﺖ إن ﻋﻨﺪك ﻇﺮوف ﺗﻤﻨﻌﻚ ﻣﻦ اﻻﻣﺘﺤﺎن‬،‫ﯾﺎ ﻓﻼﻧﺔ‬
you give the papers so I can deliver them.) .‫ﺣﺒﯿﺖ اﺳﺎﻋﺪك و ﻟﺬﻟﻚ اﺑﻐﻰ اﺑﺎدﻟﻚ اﻟﺪور‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﻣﻌﻠﯿﺶ ﺳﻤﻌﺘﻚ ﯾﻮم ﺗﻜﻠﻤﯿﻦ و ﺗﺮاﻧﻲ اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬ 430. rāħ aħāwil’ kinni gidart abaddil dōri maʕāk. (I’ll try
.‫و أﺗﺸﺮف ﺑﮭﺬا اﻟﺸﻲ ﯾﺎ ﻟﯿﺖ ﺗﻌﻄﯿﻨﻲ اﻷوراق ﻋﺸﺎن أوﺻﻠﮭﺎ‬
if I could to switch turns with you.)
407. law samaħi, ustādha, ana agdar awaddīha lik idha
.‫راح أﺣﺎول ﻛﻨﻲ ﻗﺪرت اﺑﺪل دوري ﻣﻌﺎك‬
kinti miẓţarra.
431. ʕādi, ana tara mumkin āxidh ʕanni iddōr idha ma
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ أﺳﺘﺎذة أﻧﺎ اﻗﺪر أودﯾﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ إذا ﻛﻨﺖ ﻣﻀﻄﺮة‬
ligēti ħall thāni. (It’s all right; I can take your turn if you
408. ʕfwan, law samaħi; āsfa law tadaxxalt, bas fihimt
didn’t find another solution.)
min kalāmik innik miħtāja aħad ywaşşil il awrāg; idha .‫ أﻧﺎ ﺗﺮى ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺧﺬ ﻋﻨﻚ اﻟﺪور اذا ﻣﺎ ﻟﻘﯿﺖ ﺣﻞ ﺛﺎﻧﻲ‬،‫ﻋﺎدي‬
mumkin ana awaşşilha(Pardon, excuse me; sorry for
432. shūfi, ana dōri baʕd arbʕa ayyām; bas idha ma ligēti
interference, but I understood that you need someone to
aħad; tara ʕād mumkin āxidh dōrik. (Look, my turn is in
pick those papers, if it is possible, I can pick them.)
‫ﻋﻔﻮا ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ آﺳﻔﺔ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺪﺧﻠﺖ ﺑﺲ ﻓﮭﻤﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻼﻣﻚ‬ four days time; but if you didn’t find anybody, it’s ok, I
can take your turn.)
.‫اﻧﻚ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺔ اﺣﺪ ﯾﻮﺻﻞ اﻷوراق إذا ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﻧﺎ أوﺻﻠﮭﺎ‬
‫ﺷﻮﻓﻲ! أﻧﺎ دوري ﺑﻌﺪ ارﺑﻌﺔ اﯾﺎم؛ ﺑﺲ اذا ﻣﺎ ﻟﻘﯿﺖ اﺣﺪ ﻋﺎدي ﺗﺮى ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺧﺬ‬
409. maʕlēsh ana simiʕt innik bitwadīn awrāg, ʕādi;
.‫دورك‬
ma ʕindi shay (Sorry, I heard you’re taking some
433. Allāh la yhīnik; bima innik ma tagdirīn tgaddimīn
papers. It is normal; I have nothing to do.)
bukra; idha widdik nitbādal? liʔnni min jidd māli xilg
.‫ﻣﻌﻠﯿﺶ أﻧﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻧﻚ ﺑﺘﻮدﯾﻦ أوراق؛ ﻋﺎدي أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﺷﻲ‬

174
Sit#9 Sit#10
410. law samaħi, idha baghēti awaşşil lik il awrāg; ilʔisbūʕ iljāy. (May God not abase you! since you
ʕādi binnisba li. (Excuse me; if you wanted me to can’t present tomorrow, if you want, we can switch
deliver the papers for you; it’s normal, it’s nothing.) turns, because I really don’t like to do it next week.)
.‫ ﻋﺎدي ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻲ‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ إذا ﺑﻐﯿﺖ أوﺻﻞ ﻟﻚ اﻷوراق‬ ‫إذا ودك ﻧﺘﺒﺎدل ﻷﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ‬،‫اﷲ ﻻ ﯾﮭﻨﯿﻚ؛ ﺑﻤﺎ اﻧﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺪرﯾﻦ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﯿﻦ ﺑﻜﺮة‬
411 Duktōra, tabghēn musāʕada? tara ʕādi ana rāyħa .‫ﺟﺪ ﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﺧﻠﻖ اﻻﺳﺒﻮع اﻟﺠﺎي‬
ilgisim awaşşil il awrāg lah. (Dr., do you want any 434. tara ʕādi ana jālsa fil maktab; idha tabghēn, āxidh
help? See, it’s nothing; I’m going on my way to the yōmik. (See. I’m staying, if you want I Can take your
department; I deliver the papers.) turn today.)
‫دﻛﺘﻮرة ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟ ﺗﺮى ﻋﺎدي اﻧﺎ راﯾﺤﺔ اﻟﻘﺴﻢ‬ .‫ﺗﺮى ﻋﺎدي أﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﻟﺴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺐ اذا ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ اﺧﺬ ﯾﻮﻣﻚ‬
.‫اوﺻﻞ اﻷوراق ﻟﮫ‬ 435. ēsh rāyik tāxdhīn dōri; shift nafsi widdi agadim
bukra, wa ya lēt tbādlīni idha tshūfīn inna min ilʔfẓal
lik ittaʔjīl; ana widdi agaddim wʔbaddil. (What do
you think? you take my turn. I feel like presenting
tomorrow; I wish you could switch with me if you
find it better for you.)
‫إﯾﺶ راﯾﻚ ﺗﺎﺧﺬﯾﻦ دوري؟ ﺷﻔﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ودي اﻗﺪم ﺑﻜﺮة و ﯾﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺗﺒﺎدﻟﯿﻨﻲ‬
.‫اذا ﺗﺸﻮﻓﯿﻦ اﻧﮫ ﻣﻦ اﻻﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻚ اﻟﺘﺎﺟﯿﻞ اﻧﺎ ودي اﻗﺪم و اﺑﺪل‬
Conventional indirectness appears in many cases, sometimes combined with adverbial clauses.
Table 4.62 shows the frequencies of questions in Sit# 9 & 10.
Table 4.62. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Sit# 9 & 10
tabghēn/ tħib(īn) widdik X? tiħtāj(ēn) ēsh rāyik agdar mumkin Information Total
tibi(ī)ni)) X? X? /miħtāj(a) X? Questions
Sit# 2 2 0 4 1 3 2 0 14
9
Sit# 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 7
10
Conventional indirectness is more frequent in Sit# 9. It is expressed by the verbs tiħtājēn,
tabghēn and tħibīn (want, need and like) as in (384)-(387). These questions are less frequent in
Sit# 10; they are only used in (412) and (413).

175
Other types of questions are used in Sit# 9, where the speakers use the modals, mumkin and
agdar extensively as in (388)-(391) to indicate a higher degree of politeness and social distance.
Nevertheless, in Sit# 10 conventional indirectness, expressed by modals, is absent in the question
form, but present in the declarative form. In (414), the speaker is using two modals yimkin agdar
to redress the on-record offer. This pessimism, however, weakens the force of the offer, making
it sound insincere (Atawneh, 1991).
Only one instance of the question ēsh rāyik (what do you think of X? or how do you feel about
X?) is used in Sit# 9 whereas it is more frequent in Sit# 10. In (393), (415) and (416), the
speaker implies a suggestion for the dean or the female colleague to let her do the offer or find
someone else. The question, ēsh rāyik?is used once in Sit# 9, which shows that speakers avoid
asking people of higher power how they feel about receiving an offer, especially if they are also
of high social distance. This avoidance may indicate the informal dimension of this question.
The data shows a notable use of the formulaic attention getters, law samaħti (excuse me) and
ʕafwan (pardon) in Sit# 9, whereas it shows the use of the first name, as an attention getter in
addressing a person of equal power even if of a high social distance in Sit# 10. This may be
attributed to the difference in power between the S and H in both situations.
Nominal forms are common in Sit# 9 but less frequent in Sit# 10. In (398)-(400), ħābba,
miħtāja and musāʕada are nominalized from tħibīn and tabghēn asāʕdik. In contrast, these
forms are just used once in Sit#10. In (421), tabdīl ilʔdwār is nominalized from nitbadal
ilʔadāwr. These nominal expressions help to keep the addressee remote, and therefore, uphold
formality by avoiding using the attached pronoun ka, ta (you) or na (we), respectively.
In Saudi Arabic, hedging is used in Sit# 9 and Sit# 10, but with higher occurrence in Sit# 10.
Hedging is expressed in words, phrases or adverbial clauses. In Sit# 9, expressions like maʕlēsh,
ʕādi and xalāş are mainly used to hedge on the force of the offer, making the offer less

176
impositive (The force of xalāş is weaker than in utterances, such as (7), in which xalāş precedes
an imperative). However, such expressions may have other functions. The expressions, maʕlēsh,
and ʕādi in (418) function as an apology marker and a minimizer, respectively (See below). In
Sit#10, the force of the expression, xalāş is weakened since it is followed by hedging, not an
imperative as in (417) and (418).
Clauses are extensively used for hedging in both situations. Conditional clauses are mainly
expressed by the use of idha or in (if). These clauses are used to distance S from the FTA, and to
avoid presuming that H is willing to accept the offer. These If-clauses are frequently used with
the verbs tħibīn, tabghēn and tiħtājēn (want/like/need). The effect of the rank of the imposition is
clear in (432). By using the If-clause idha ma ligēti ħall thāni, S makes her offer as the last
resort for the addressee, which conveys hesitancy in performing the offer.
Adverbial clauses are used either to justify making the offer, or to convey a conditional state.
The conditional clause, ma dām (as long as/so) is used in Sit# 9 and 10. In (398) and (421), the
speakers use ma dām (since) to give reasons why the speaker is making the offer.
More varied hedging clauses are used in Sit# 10. In (422), ʕashān (so) is another hedging
expression in which the speaker gives reasons for doing the FTA. The word ʕasa, indicates hope
and is used to soften the impact of the FTA on the both S and H. There is doubt or suspicion that
the offered service could be of help. These hedging expressions together with conventional
indirectness make the utterance highly polite.
The speaker, in (429), uses the hedging expression, bşarāħa (Frankly). This
quality-emphasizing adverb (Watts, 2003) aims to stress the speaker’s commitment to the truth
of her utterance, which alleviates the addressee’s anxiety, who might feel reluctant to impinge on
the speaker. In the same utterance, the speaker code-switches to Standard Arabic by using the
expression, walidhālik, (so), which is not common in spoken Saudi Arabic. This expression is

177
more formal and more appropriate for the written language. Thus, this shows that code-switching
does not always indicate PSP (as has been discussed in the use of the expressions from the
Quran.) Here, they may indicate formality rather than solidarity.
In Saudi Arabic, combinations of NGP strategies of conventional indirectness and hedging
with nominalization, point-of-view distancing, minimization, apologizing, giving deference, and
disclaiming indebtness to H occur in many utterances in both situations. The speakers in both
situations use multiple NGP strategies to realize the high social distance. It seems that the high
rank of the imposition has caused the existence of this overlapping of strategies in both situations
despite the difference in power between the two addressees.
Minimizing the imposition is combined with hedges in both contexts because of the high rank
of the imposition. The most common expression in the two situations is the hedging word ʕādi
(normal= it’s nothing), which indicates that the offer costs the addressee nothing. Minimization
of imposition in the two situations can be seen in expressions like ana fāẓiya, ma ʕindi shay;
ʕindi farāgh (I am free) ma ʕindi mushkila (I have no problem), ma warāy shayy (I have nothing
behind me) and awaddīha bsurʕa waji (I’ll deliver them fast and come back) (See 386, 387, 393,
394, 400, 408). In Sit# 10, in (425), the use of the formulaic swearing intensifier, wallāhi, with
the minimizer-hedge, ʕādi intensifies the minimization of the offer. Thus, the addressee will feel
at ease and make sure that there is no cost to the speaker when switching turns.
Shifting the point of time from the moment of speaking to some point in the past to express an
offer that will take place in the future is a common strategy in both situations. In both situations,
point-of-view distancing occurred mostly with conditional clauses and/or after negation
particles. Some If-clauses are expressed in the past to indicate an act that will take place in the
future. Compare (401)-(403) to (394)-(396). The shift of tense expresses the speaker’s pessimism
about the hearer’s desire to receive the offer. For example, in (401), the speaker chooses the past

178
idha baghēti (if you wanted) instead of the present idha tabghēn (if you want) to avoid assuming
the addressee’s willingness to cooperate, which minimizes the imposition on H and satisfy H’s
negative face since the dean in Sit# 9 might not like other people to transgress on her preserves.
In Sit# 10, the function of point of view of distancing indicates pessimism not about the
addressee’s acceptance of the offer but about the speaker’s ability to do the offer in (428)-(432).
In (430), the conditional clause is in the first-person speaker kinni gidart (if I could). Expressing
pessimism indicates the speaker’s reluctance to make the offer. Redressing the FTA in this case
is not to satisfy the H’s but S’s negative face who finds the offer too large to carry out. The use
of baħāwil (I’ll try) in the same utterance is another expression of pessimism and lack of
firmness in the offer. Such offers can be classified as, what we may call, “courteous offers.” In
such offers, the speaker for one reason or another finds herself compelled to make the offer. She
expresses her reluctance in different ways, hinting that she wants to help but the offer might be
beyond her abilities. Such offers may violate the two major conditions of an offer that
Rabinowitz (1993) refers to as the speaker’s willingness and ability to provide the benefit for the
receiver of the offer.
Apologizing for interference or for making the FTA is only used in Sit# 9, where the addressee
is of higher power. It is expressed, in (406)-(410), by expressions: ʕafwan, āsfa law tadaxxalt
and maʕlēsh. In (408), the speaker is using the attention getter that conveys apology ʕafwan
(pardon) and āsfa law tadaxxalt (sorry to interfere) to express apology. In (406) and (409), S
uses the formulaic word maʕlēsh (sorry) which Ismail (1998) classifies as an apology particle.
This expression hedges to indicate reluctance to impinge on the hearer. Its major function is to
apologize. In all the cases, the speaker apologizes for what might be understood as overhearing.
She admits impingement and apologizes for that as a move to gain the addressee’s trust.

179
Deference is expressed either in the use of honorifics or other formulaic expressions. The
honorific term, ustādha (female teacher or instructor) and duktōra (female Doctor) are used to
address a female with higher power. This indicates respect to the addressee as an out-group
member. In Sit# 10, honorifics are not frequent when offering a service to a person of an equal
power, even if of a high social distance.
Deference in Sit# 9 is expressed not only by honorifics, but also, more importantly, by
expressions that show the speaker’s honor to serve the dean. In (403)-(406), the speaker uses the
formulaic expressions, ana taħat amrik (I’m under your command) or mumkin axdimik, (can I
serve you) ana fi ilxidma, (I’m at your service). In (406), the speaker uses some deferential
expressions. In atisharraf bhādha ashshayy (honored to do this), the speaker emphasizes the
honor she will gain if the boss accepts the offer and lets the speaker deliver the papers. This
expression of deference is enforced by the hedging modal lēt which expresses wish as if begging
the dean to give her the papers to satisfy this wish. In these expressions, the speaker abases
herself and raises the position of the addressee by conveying that she is at the addressee’s
command and will just do what the addressee orders her to do. In Sit#10, a very common
formulaic expression in spoken Saudi Arabic is used in (433). Allāh la yhīnik (May Allah not
abase you/ humiliate you). By using this expression, S implies that she does not mean to abase H
when asking her to do something for S. This expression in (433) is supported by going on record
as not to indebt H.
Going on record as not to indebt H is used in both situations. In many cases, this strategy
appears with minimizers. In (411), the speaker claims that she is already on her way to the
department so that the addressee will feel at ease to accept the offer without feeling indebted to
S. Similarly, in Sit# 10, in (433), the speaker claims that the addressee is actually the one who is
giving the speaker help by swapping turns because the speaker is not in the mood to do it the

180
other week. The hedging expression, min jidd (really), as B&L (1987) state, strengthens the
offer. In (434), the speaker conveys that offer is not going to cost her anything because she is
staying anyway. In (435), in a highly negatively polite utterance, the speaker is using a series of
hedging expressions shift nafsi, ya lēt, and the conditional clause idha to alleviate the FTA on H
by claiming the mutual benefit which the speaker will accrue by switching turns. Again, the
speaker attempts not to indebt H. The use of the expressions widdi (I’d love) and ya lēt (I wish)
conveys that by her compliance, the addressee is satisfying the speaker’s wish to shift turns,
which changes the offer from being of a benefit to the addressee to her own benefit.
One instance of going off record is found in Sit# 9 combined with the deferential term ustādha
in the following utterance.
Table 4.63. OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9
Sit# 9
436. ustādha tara ana fāẓya ʕādi…(teacher, I’m free, it is Ok…)

‫أﺳﺘﺎذة ﺗﺮى أﻧﺎ ﻓﺎﺿﯿﮫ ﻋﺎدي‬
The speaker in (436) is giving an incomplete utterance in which she leaves the FTA half done.
The speaker leaves it to the addressee to infer the implicature. This strategy, as B&L (1987)
assert, is highly favored with superiors. The speaker realizes that it is very face threatening to
make an offer to a person of higher power, especially when the rank of imposition is very high,
too. Thus, using incomplete utterances makes the speaker’s intention of communication vague
and ill-defined. The speaker relies on the addressee’s understanding of the context to interpret
the intention, which helps the speaker to avoid any confrontation with the superior.
Mixture of strategies is used in some utterances in both situations. Table 4.64 is used for
exemplification.

181
Table 4. 64. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 9&10
Sit# 9 Sit# 10
437. baʕd idhnik ʕazīzti; tibīn awaşşilha? 438. ya ʕumri, wish rāyik āxidh dōrik winti ʕabāl ma tistaʕidīn
(Excuse me wtitħassan ẓurūfik yikūn yōm tagdīm mawẓūʕi. (My life, what
dear; do you want me to pick them?) do you think I take your turn, and whenever you’re ready and
‫ﺑﻌﺪ إذﻧﻚ ﻋﺰﯾﺰﺗﻲ؛ ﺗﺒﯿﻦ أوﺻﻠﮭﺎ؟‬ your circumstances get better, it will be the time for my turn.)
‫ﯾﺎ ﻋﻤﺮي وش راﯾﻚ اﺧﺬ دورك و اﻧﺖ ﻋﺒﺎل ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺪﯾﻦ و ﺗﺘﺤﺴﻦ ﻇﺮوﻓﻚ ﯾﻜﻮن ﯾﻮم‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‬
439. yagalbi inti wāẓiħ in ʕindik ẓurūf şaʕba wiħna tarāna lbaʕẓ;
widha ma kinti mistaʕidda, ʕādi, abaddil maʕik ma tafrig maʕi.
(Oh sweetheart, it seems that you have circumstances; we are for
each other; if you’re not ready, it’s ok; I switch with you, it
makes no difference to me.)
‫ﯾﺎ ﻗﻠﺒﻲ اﻧﺖ واﺿﺢ إن ﻋﻨﺪك ﻇﺮوف ﺻﻌﺒﺔ و إﺣﻨﺎ ﺗﺮاﻧﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ و إذا ﻣﺎ ﻛﻨﺖ‬
.‫ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪة ﻋﺎدي أﺑﺪل ﻣﻌﻚ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺮق ﻣﻌﻲ‬
The mixture of PSP and NGP appears in some cases in both situations. The speakers
struggle to maintain balance between approaching the addressee and distancing themselves
from the FTA. In Sit# 9, the endearment expression azīzti (my dear) in (437) precedes the
FTA that is performed in NGP through the conventional question tibīn X? In Sit# 10, in
(438), the speaker uses the address form umri (my life) to establish in-group solidarity, and
then she distances herself and the addressee from the FTA by going conventionally indirect
through the question, wish rāyik (What do you think of?). The question is again followed by
the hedging expression, ʕabāl (while) to weaken the force of the utterance and to help the
speaker avoid imposing on the addressee. In (439), PSP initiates the offer by the expression,
ya galbi (my heart) to indicate sympathy with the addressee. This is followed by the hedging
phrase min ilwāẓiħ (it’s obvious) which maximizes the distance since it is used in the formal
form of the language. The distance is again minimized by using the PSP strategy, assuming
reciprocity and cooperation. iħna tarāna ilbaʕaẓ (we’re for each other). This closeness is
lessened by a series of hedging (the phrase, min ilwāẓiħ, idha clause, and the minimizer

182
hedge, ʕādi). The utterance ends with minimizing the imposition, using the expression ma
tafrig maʕay (makes no difference to me) that again distances S from both the FTA and H.
The Don’t-do-the FTA strategy is common in the two situations with higher frequency in
Sit#10. The reason is that the FTA is very big on both S and H. In Sit# 10, many speakers
commented that they might help the colleague to study but they cannot swap turns and endanger
their academic performance. Thus, it can be concluded that the choice of this strategy cannot be
always interpreted as the highest level of politeness as claimed by B&L (1987).
b. British English
In British English, the female speakers, as Table 4.65indicates, have shown exceptional
inclination to NGP in both situations with higher frequency when the addressee’s power is equal
to the speaker’s (78.72% in Sit#9 & 93.61% in 10). BOR offers are rare in both situations (6.4%
for Sit# 9 & 2.1% for Sit# 10). PSP is avoided in both situations regardless of the addressee’s
power. Mixed strategies were also rare in both contexts (4.25% in Sit# 9 & 2.12% in Sit# 10).
Don’t-do-the FTA is not frequent in both contexts (10.63% for Sit# 9/2.12% for Sit# 10).
Table 4.65. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 9 &10

pos neg
Sit# Freq. 3 0 37 0 2 0 5 47
9
Percent 6.4 0 78.72 0 4.25 10.63 100%
Sit# Freq. 1 0 44 0 1 0 1 47
10
Percent 2.12 0 93.61 0 2.12 02.12 100%
In British English, BOR offers are rarely used in both situations. Consider Table 4.66.

183
Table 4.66. BOR Strategies in the British English Offers in Sit# 9 & 10
Sit# 9 Sit# 10
440. Let me pick up the papers for you. 441. Let me do your shift; mine is three days time.
The same form is used in both situations. Speakers in (440) and (441) used only let me X to
perform the offer. The use of the imperative, let me conveys a polite sense because it implies
asking for the addressee’s permission (See example (47)).
PSP appears in both situations only in combination with NGP. (See Mixed Super-strategies in
Table 4.69).
Table 4.67. NGP in the British English Offers in Sit# 9 & 10
Sit# 9 Sit# 10
442.Can I do it for you? 461. Do you want to swap your shift with mine?
443. Would you like me to collect them? 462. Do you need any help with your shift?
444. Would you like me to take the papers for you, 463. Would you like to shift turns?
or you would find someone else? 464. Would it help to swap with my shift?
445. Can I be of any assistance? Would you like me 465. Would it help if I swapped with you?
to take them for you? 466. Hey, would it help if I swapped a shift with
446. Can I be of help to you? Would you trust me to you?
pick up those papers for you? 467. I know you really need tomorrow off; do you
447. Is something wrong, that I might be able to help want to swap shifts?
with? 468. If you like, I’ll swap with you.
448. Is there anything I can help you with? 469. I can change shifts with you if you like.
449. Sorry for listening but would you like me to 470. I’m happy to take your shift tomorrow;
help? I could probably arrange something with you.
450. I can pick the papers up for you. 471. I could probably switch shifts with you.
451. I can pick up your papers for you if you want. 472. If you like/want, we could swap shifts.
452. I’d be happy to get them for you. 473. I’m really busy but if you really need
453. Look! if you need somebody to help, I’m quite somebody to do it, maybe I could help you.
happy but if you got somebody else in mind, don’t 474. If you need a bit more time, we could swap
worry. turns.
454. If you need somebody to take them, I can. I’m 475. I’ve finished my presentation. I don’t mind
not busy. swapping shifts with you
455. I don’t mind doing it if you want me to. 476. Hello dear. I hear that it’s your turn to carry
456. I’m sorry I couldn’t help overhearing that you out your presentation tomorrow but you’re not
need someone to take the papers. I’ll be more than ready. My turn is only in four days time and I’m
happy to do that for you. well prepared. Would you like to take my turn and
457. I’m free. I can do this for you. I’ll take yours.

184
Sit#9 Sit#10
458 I’m free if you’d like some help. 477. I’m already prepared so we can just swap.
459. I can collect them for you Madam.
460. I can take the papers to the other department for
you. I have a class then I can do it after the class.
NGP is used overwhelmingly in both situations. The inclination towards such a strategy is due
to the large FTA on both the speaker and the addressee (See Sit# 9 & 10, Saudi Arabic).
British speakers in Sit# 9 and Sit# 10 show tendency to use hedging rather than questions. This
tendency is higher in Sit# 10.
Table 4.68 Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in British English offers in Sit# 9 & 10
Do you Would Shall I Can Could Would Is there Total
want/need you X? I X? you X? it be X? something
/like X? like X?
X?
Sit# 0 9 0 5 0 0 2 16
9
Sit# 9 16 0 0 0 3 0 28
10
Table 4.68 shows that conventional indirectness in the interrogative form is expressed
predominantly in Sit# 9 mainly by the use of the formulaic question Would you like X? The
expression Can I X? comes as the second preferred question. Similarly, in Sit# 10 the
expression, Would you like to X? is the most frequent question. Moreover, whereas the
expression Can I do X? is absent in Sit# 10, the expression, Do you (want/need) X, which is
considered, according to Koyama (2001), less polite than the one with the modals, is used more
in Sit#10. This is present only when the offeree’s power status is equal and the rank of the
imposition is high.

185
In both situations, conventional indirectness in the declarative form is more frequent than in
the interrogative form as in (450)-(452). The expression I can do X is listed as less polite than the
question forms because it implies that the speaker, not the hearer, has control over the act by
indicating the speaker’s ability to perform the action (Koyama, 2001; Youmans, 2001).
Hedging expressions in Sit# 9 and Sit# 10 are varied. The expression, I can do X, if you
like/want, is combined with If-clauses as in (451) in Sit# 9 and (469) in Sit# 10. This
combination is considered less polite (Koyama, 2001) than the former expressions of
conventional indirectness. The speaker in (453) uses a series of hedges to take account of any
possible rejection of the offer by supposing that there is someone else the dean wishes to take
those papers. Some hedge expressions as, I don’t mind doing X if in (455) also function to
minimize the imposition.
Whereas IF-clauses in Sit# 9 express doubts about the addressee’s willingness to accept the
offer, they express the speaker’s pessimism about her ability to carry out the offer in Sit# 10 as
in (472)-(474). Past modal could and the negatively polite hedge-modal, maybe are combined
with the If-clause. I (we)could (probably) is used in (470)-(474). The negatively polite hedge, I
could leaves the option open to the socially distant colleague to accept or reject the offer. It may
simply reinforce the notion that it is the hearer’s individual choice to act or not, thus obscuring
the speaker’s impact (Youmans, 2001). This pessimism is combined with other hedges in (473),
making the face-threat in the act more salient, lessening the speaker’s commitment in the act of
offering (See I think in (179)). The speaker initiates the offer with the apology, I’m really busy,
which reveals her covert intention of not desiring to make the offer. The intensifier, really, is
followed by the If-clause and modal maybe to emphasize the speaker’s reluctance to make the
offer. Equal power has made it easier for the speaker to avoid showing firmness in the offer. The
participants commented that they usually make such offers reluctantly to show sympathy with

186
the addressee but not sincerely to carry out the act. (Compare to (454) I’m not busy when
addressing the dean).
Besides hedging and conventional indirectness, the speakers in the two situations have used
varied the NGP strategies, including minimizing the imposition, apologizing for impingement,
expressing pessimism (in both situations), and showing deference (in Sit# 9 only).
The speakers use different expressions to minimize the imposition. In Sit# 9, the speaker in
(454)-(458) use the expressions, such as I’m not busy, I’m free, after the class, and I’ve got time
to reassure the addressee that the offer is not going to cause the speaker any trouble. In Sit# 10,
minimizing the offer is less frequent. The use of bit in (474) minimizes the imposition although
it might sound less polite since it may imply that the speaker is short of time, which might not
help her to perform the offer properly.
Deference is used only once in Sit# 9. The speaker in (459) uses the term Madam, which
does not indicate an academic position but a social status.
Apologizing for impingement is a common strategy in making the offer to the dean but not to
the socially distant colleague even when the FTA is large in both offers. In (449) and (456), for
example, the speaker apologizes for overhearing the conversation. This apology functions as a
move to initiate the offer.
Going-on record to disclaim H’s indebtness is used in both situations. The speakers either
express happiness to offer the service as in (452), (453), (456), and (470), or claim that shifting
turns is a wish because of their progress in their own work as in (475)-(477).
Mixed strategies are rare in both situations. Examine Table 4.69.

187
Table 4.69 Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 9& 10
Sit# 9 Sit# 10
(478). I’ve got a bit of spare time; want me (480). Seems we both have a problem without shift;
to collect them for you? would it be possible to do a swap with you? Would that
(479) Oh dear, what’s the matter? I would really work for you?
like to help you by picking up the papers for you.
In Sit# 9, the speaker in (478) initiates the offer by minimizing imposition (See (474) above),
mixing it with in-group language through the contracted form of the question, want me X? to
show informality. Such a mixture aims at minimizing the distance with the addressee to gain the
dean’s trust. It is not prevalent, however.
Attending to H’s needs is used in (479) in the expression, Oh dear, what’s the matter? to
show sympathy while the question with hedging in I would really maintains balance between
solidarity and deference. In Sit# 10, contraction as a PSP strategy is used in (480). The speaker
contracts the hedging phrase, It seems into seems. The speaker also redresses the addressee’s
face by pretending that she and the addressee need to shift turns as not to indebt H. The utterance
also conveys including S and H in the activity by using the inclusive pronoun, we. These
together with the contraction establish solidarity.
Not doing the FTA by opyong out is the choice of a few speakers in both situations, with
higher frequency when the power-status of the addressee is higher. The speakers either avoid
take accountability of the act or avoid intruding in the others’ private affairs.
4.1.2.3 Very High Social Distance (The Same Gender) & Low Rank of Imposition
Sit# 11 investigates the effect of a very high degree of social distance when the addressee and
the speaker are of the same gender. The female speaker is offering help to an unfamiliar woman

188
who is going out of the supermarket struggling with her bags. The rank of imposition is low,
whereas the social distance between S and H is very high [++SD].
a. Saudi Arabic
Table 4.70. Frequencies & Percentages of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic
offers in Sit# 11
pos neg
Sit# Freq. 5 23 5 0 14 2 4 53
11
Percent 9.4 43.4 9.4 0 26.4 11.3 100%
Despite the fact that the action goes on in a public place, many Saudi speakers choose PSP
(43.4%) whereas very few choose the BOR offers (9.4%) and NGP (9.4%). The Don’t-to-do-the
FTA strategy is not frequent in this situation (11.3%). Interestingly, the Saudi speakers have
shown high inclination towards mixing PSP and NGP (26.4%).
The situation has yielded few BOR offers. Consider Table 4.71.
Table 4.71. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11
Sit# 11
481. hāti asāʕdik. (Give me; I help you).

.‫ھﺎﺗﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬
482 hāti ʕannik. (Give me instead of you.)
.‫ھﺎﺗﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ‬
483. xallīni asāʕdik. (Let me help you.)
.‫ﺧﻠﯿﻨﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬
484. tfaẓẓalay ħuţţi ilʔaghrāẓ fil ʕarabiya. (please, put the stuff in the
cart)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ﺣﻄﻲ اﻷﻏﺮاض ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬
485. tfaẓẓalay hāti ʕannik. (Please, give me.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ ھﺎﺗﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ‬

189
This situation is an instance of communicative urgency. S realizes that in such a situation,
doing the FTA with maximum efficiency is more important than redressing H’s face, especially
if the act is in H’s interest and of a low rank of imposition. However, only a few have chosen
this strategy because there might be a risk in this situation that H may not wish to receive the
offer, especially if occurring in a public place.
Softened imperatives are used all throughout. The imperative, hāt(i), in (481), appears in
conjunction with asāʕdik. In (482), the imperative is softened by the expression, ʕannik (See
example (2)). Again, in (483) xallīni (let me) (See utterance (3)) sounds more polite because it
indicates a suggestion and asking for permission to transgress on H. In (484) and (485), the
female speaker softens the BOR offer, the imperative huţţi (put) (female), by using the polite
formulaic expression tfaẓẓalay to indicate the speaker’s consciousness of the social distance
between her and the unfamiliar addressee.
The majority, however, has chosen PSP to redress the on-record offers. Examine Table 4.72.
Table 4.72. PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11
Sit# 11
486. xalli/ʕaţīni ʕannik ya xāla. (Leave it/give it to me aunt..)

.‫ﻋﻄﯿﻨﻲ ﻋﻨﻚ ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ‬/ ‫ﺧﻠﻲ‬
487 jībi ya xāla ashīl ʕannik; awaşşillik lissayāra. (Give it to me aunt; carry it to the car.)
.‫ﺟﯿﺒﻲ ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ أﺷﯿﻞ ﻋﻨﻚ أوﺻﻠﻚ ﻟﻠﺴﯿﺎرة‬
488 xālti, xallīni asāʕdik?(Aunt, let me help you.)
.‫ﺧﺎﻟﺘﻲ ﺧﻠﯿﻨﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك‬
489. asāʕdik? (Help you?)
‫أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
490. ashīl ʕannik? (Carry it instead of you?)
‫أﺷﯿﻞ ﻋﻨﻚ؟‬
491. ʕannik (Instead of you.)
.‫ﻋﻨﻚ‬
492. ʕannik ya xāla (Instead of you aunt.)
.‫ﻋﻨﻚ ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ‬
493. asāʕdik ya xāla? (Help you aunt?)

190
Sit#11
‫أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ؟‬
494. la ya xāla; xallīni ashīl ʕannik. (No aunt, let me carry it instead of you.)
.‫ﻻ ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﻠﯿﻨﻲ أﺷﯿﻞ ﻋﻨﻚ‬
To claim common ground with a strange woman in this context, Saudi speakers mainly use in-
group identity markers through address forms and ellipsis. The use of the address form xāla is
dominant in these utterances. The term xāla (aunt) is significant in the Saudi context. S, the
offeree, realizes the high social distance between her and the woman, and, therefore, minimizes
it by using the kinship address form, xāla to indicate that S and H belong metaphorically to the
same family, and, thus, should help each other. In (488), the use of the first person possessive
pronoun in xālti (my aunt), reveals more intimacy than in xāla.
Elliptical forms indicate informality and establish solidarity in (489)-(493). The ellipsis,
asāʕdik? and ashīl ʕannik? can be contractions of (495), and (496). In (491) and (492), ʕannik,
the shortest form of the structure, conveys more informality, and thus, closeness.
Disagreeing with H by rejecting the state that is not in the best interest of H is used as a polite
strategy. The speaker in (494) initiates her offer by saying, la xāla (No, aunt) to show concern
for the strange woman. By saying, la xāla (No aunt), the speaker also shows that she does not
want to compromise when performing the offer. This firmness intensifies S’s concern for H’s
need.
In Sit#11, many Saudi speakers use conventional indirectness, and minimizing the imposition
as negative-face strategies. Examine Table 4.73.

191
Table 4.73. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11

Sit# 11
495. mumkin asāʕdik? (Can I help you?)

‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
496. law samaħti; mumkin asāʕdik? (Excuse me; can I help you?)
‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
497 . aʕţīni shway ashīl maʕik; idha fīh mikān muʕayyan awaşşila lik. (Give me
A little to carry with you; if there is a place to take it to?)
‫أﻋﻄﯿﻨﻲ ﺷﻮي أﺷﯿﻞ ﻣﻌﻚ؛ إذا ﻓﯿﮫ ﻣﻜﺎن ﻣﻌﯿﻦ أوﺻﻠﮫ ﻟﻚ؟‬
498. maʕlēsh ashīl ʕannik. (Allow me; carry it instead of you.)
.‫ﻣﻌﻠﯿﺶ أﺷﯿﻞ ﻋﻨﻚ‬
Conventional indirectness takes different forms of questions. Table 4.74 illustrates the types
and frequencies of these questions in Sit# 11.
Table 4.74. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11
tibi(īni) tħib(īn) widdik X? tiħtāj (ēn)/ ēsh /rāyik agdar Mumkin Information. Total
X? X miħtāj(a) X? Questions
Sit# 11 2 2 0 1 0 1 8 0 14
In such a context, many people do not feel comfortable about accepting help with their
purchases from strangers. Thus, the speakers use a great deal of conventional indirectness to
avoid imposition. Most of these questions are used with the address form, xāla (See mixed
super-strategies). Modal mumkin, the most polite form of question (Atawneh, 1991), is the most
frequent modal in Sit# 11. The linguistic features of the offers are present in the use of the verbs
want, like and need. Modal agdar is rare. Utterance (496) is highly respectful since it includes
the formulaic, attention getter, law samaħti, together with the modal mumkin (can or possible).
In (497), S uses the word shwayy (a little) to redress the woman’s negative face by
ameliorating the infringement. Moreover, the woman may also be reluctant to impinge on the

192
speaker’s preserves. Therefore, by using shwayy (a little), the speaker also conveys that the help
would not be of much trouble to any of the interlocutors.
Apologizing for impinging is another NGP strategy. In (498), the formulaic expression,
maʕlēsh, hedges on the force of the utterance. It is used as a formulaic entreaty to indicate that S
is apologizing or begging for forgiveness for impinging on H to do the FTA (Ismail 1998).
Mixed strategies are also prevalent in Sit# 11. Examine the following examples.
Table 4.75. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11

Sit# 11
499. ya xāla, tabghēn/tħbīn asāʕdik? (Aunt, do you want/like me to help you?)

‫ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬/‫ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬،‫ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ‬
500. ya xāla, tiħtājēn musāʕada?( Aunt, are in need of help?)
‫ ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟‬،‫ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ‬
501. agdar asāʕdik ya xāla? (Can I help you aunt?)
‫اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ؟‬
502. mumkin ashīl maʕāki ya xāla? (Can I carry with you aunt?)
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺷﯿﻞ ﻣﻌﺎك ﯾﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺔ؟‬
503. xāla, mumkin asāʕdik? (Aunt, can I help you?)
‫ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬،‫ﺧﺎﻟﺔ‬
504. law samaħti uxti, tabghēni asāʕidk? (Excuse me sister, do you want me to help
you?)‫ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻨﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ أﺧﺘﻲ‬
Conventional indirectness through questions is combined with the kinship address form in
(499)-(504). The address form, uxti (my sister) is used instead of xāla (aunt) in (504). The
mixture, as B&L (1987) assert, “operates as a social accelerator and a social brake.” In this
context, such mixture aims to minimize the distance between S and H, and express respect for
H’s autonomy at the same time.
Don’t-do-the FTA is used in this context. Some participants chose to do rather than to say by
carrying the bags without speaking. Although B&L (1987) considered Don’t-to-do- FTA
strategy as the highest in politeness, this non-linguistic act in this context cannot be always
interpreted as such. Taking action without saying anything, the offerer may be at risk of being

193
misjudged as robbing (Some participants commented that they once had to make such an offer,
but the woman was not pleased with the offer and felt suspicious about the offerer’s intention.)
b. British English
In British English, as Table 4.76 indicates, offering help to an unfamiliar woman has yielded
different politeness strategies as illustrated in Table 4.76. NGP is the most preferred strategy in
this context (72%). Other strategies are rarely used (6% for BOR offers, 14% for PSP, 2% for
mixed, and 6% for Don’t-do-the FTA strategies).
Table 4.76. Frequencies & Types of Politeness Strategies in British English
Offers in Sit# 11
pos neg
Sit# Freq. 3 7 36 0 1 0 3 50
11
Percent 6 14 72 0 2 6 100%
BOR offers are rare when addressing a strange woman. Only one pattern is used as BOR.
Examine the following utterance.
Table 4.77. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit#11
Sit# 11
505. Please, let me help you.
Speakers who went badly on record in offering help to a woman at the supermarket chose the
most polite form of imperatives, let me, which conveys S’s seeking H’s permission to do the act
(See utterance (47)), and softened with the politeness marker, please.
In British English, PSP is restricted to assuming common ground with H. Consider the
following utterances.

194
Table 4.78. PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 11
Sit# 11
506. Here, let me help you/carry that for you.
507. Here, I’ll carry some of those
508. Don’t you like me to carry your bag? Are you Ok?
Place switch through the adverb, here, is frequently used to mitigate the imperative, let me.
Here minimizes the distance between the unfamiliar woman and the speaker, and increases
empathy. In (508), the speaker presupposes knowledge of H’s wants and attitudes. She uses the
negative question to indicate that she knows the woman is in need of help and that the women is
going to give a positive answer to the offer, which, as B&L (1987) assert, partially redresses the
imposition of the FTAs.
NGP is exclusively expressed in conventional indirectness in this context. Consider the
following.
Table 4.79. NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 11
Sit# 11
509. Do you need any help with those?
510. Can I help you with those?
511. Can I give you a hand with those?
512. May I assist/help you with your parcels?
513. Please may I help you?
514. Would you like me to help you?
515. Would you like some help/a hand with those?
516. It seems you have a lot of shopping there and I don’t have very much, may I help you to the car?
517. Excuse me. Would you like me to help you? That looks very heavy.
518. Excuse me, Would you like some help? I see you struggling with these.
The speakers in Table 4.79 have used a wide range of questions to make the offer. Table 4.80
illustrates the distribution of types and frequencies of these questions.

195
Table 4.80. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British English Offers in Sit# 11
Do you want/ Would you like Can I X? May I X? Total
Need X?
/like X?
Sit# 11 5 10 17 4 36
In spite of being the most polite type of offers, the expressions Would you like (me) to and May
I X? are less frequent than Can I (help you/give you a hand)? British speakers prefer Can I when
offering a strange woman some help with her bags although such an expression is considered as
more informal and may be less polite (Watts, 2003; Koyama, 2001). This may be attributed to
the low rank of imposition and the desire to get closer to the strange woman. The expression Do
you need X? is also rarely used. Interestingly, the formulaic attention getter, excuse me, is only
used with the question Would you like X? whereas the politeness marker, please, is only used
with May I X?
Conventional indirectness is also combined with hedging, minimization and place-switch to
alleviate the threat the addressee may feel because of interfering with her privacy. In (516), the
speaker uses the hedging phrase, It seems, to avoid assuming that the woman wants the speaker
to do the act. Hedging softens the face threat, which may result from accosting the woman.
Minimizing the imposition is done through I don’t have much. S wants to convey that H’s
impingement will not bother S to encourage the woman to accept the offer. The use of the place-
switch distancing there makes the utterance highly negatively polite. There aims to uphold the
distance with H. It conveys social distance and avoidance of imposition (It reflects emotional
distance from the source of distress, and thereby, comfort. (B&L, 1987))
Giving reasons for impingement is used in (516)-(518). The expressions, You have a lot of
shopping, That looks heavy and I see you struggling, indicate reasons why the offerer is
impinging on the women. In this view, such a strategy may serve other purposes besides

196
politeness such as avoidance the addressee’s misunderstanding of the speaker’s intention in
giving helping with the purchases.
The mixture of two superstrategies appears in the combination of the PSP strategy attending to
H’s needs and the NGP strategy, conventional indirectness.
Table 4.81. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit#11
Sit# 11
519. Are you ok? Do you need any help?
In (519), before doing the FTA in an indirect speech act, S first claims common ground with
the strange woman to establish familiarity and minimize the social distance. The female speaker
first shows concern about the woman’s struggling with the bags with, Are you Ok? She, then,
does the FTA indirectly.
A very small number of the participants chooses not to do the FTA by opting out. They also
find it highly face threatening to help a stranger at the supermarket because of the possibility of
having their intentions being misunderstood.
4.1.2.4 Very High Social Distance (Opposite Gender/Low Rank of Imposition) & Difference
in Power
Sit#12 and Sit# 13 investigate the type of politeness strategies when the addressees are of
different power status, and when the gender of the addressee is the opposite of the
speaker’s. In Sit#12, the female speaker makes an offer to a cashier whose calculator is
broken and is struggling to make the discount. The speaker has a calculator on her cell
phone and wants to offer the cashier some help with calculation. In Sit# 13, on the other
hand, the female speaker offers help to guide a man who seems lost in the library.

197
a. Saudi Arabic
Table 4.82. Types & Frequencies of politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in
Sit# 12 & 13
pos neg
Sit# 12 Freq. 19 3 16 1 0 2 12 53
Percent 35.84 5.66 30.18 1.9 0 26.41 100%
Sit# 13 Freq. 0 0 17 0 4 0 32 53
Percent 0 0 32.1 0 7.54 60.37 100%

The most prominent difference between the two situations is the frequency of the BOR offers.
Whereas BOR strategies are highly frequent in Sit#12 (35.84%), such strategies are avoided in
Sit#13. PSP and OFR strategies are absent in Sit#13 and rarely used in Sit#12 (5.66% for PSP&
1.9% for OFR). Mixed strategies are used only in Sit#13 (7.54%). NGP, on the other hand, is
frequent in both situations (30.18% in Sit#12 & 32.1% in 13). In Sit# 13, the Saudi speakers
show exclusive inclination toward not doing the FTA (60.37%).
BOR strategies are only used in Sit#12. It is clear that urgency in this case is behind using this
type of strategy. The speaker is waiting and the cashier needs help to finish counting. Thus,
offering the cell phone or any help may solve the problem. This case indicates that sometimes an
offer can be for the benefit of both interlocutors, which contradicts Rabinowitz’ (1993) claim
that the offer is just a benefit given to the offeree. Different types of BOR offers are used in Sit#
12. Examine the following table.

198
Table 4.83. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12

Sit# 12
520. aʕţīni iħsib

.‫أﻋﻄﯿﻨﻲ اﺣﺴﺐ‬
521 aʕţini akammil maʕāk ʕala jawwāli. (Give me to carry on my cell phone.)
.‫أﻋﻄﻨﻲ أﻛﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﺎك ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮاﻟﻲ‬
522. xudh xalliş/iħsib. (Take; finish/count).
.‫ اﺣﺴﺐ‬/ ‫ﺧﺬ ﺧﻠﺺ‬
523. bsurʕa xalliş/iħsib. (Hurry up/finish counting)
.‫ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﺧﻠﺺ اﻟﺤﺴﺎب‬
524. xalāş, xallini aħsib ilʔaghrāẓ hādhi. (It’s final. let me count.)
.‫ﺧﻼص ﺧﻠﻨﻲ اﺣﺴﺐ اﻷﻏﺮاض ھﺎذي‬
525. xalāş aʕţīni ilgīma wana aħsiba. (It’s final; give me the price and I count it.)
.‫ﺧﻼص أﻋﻄﯿﻨﻲ اﻟﻘﯿﻤﺔ و أﻧﺎ اﺣﺴﺒﮫ‬
526. yalla; kam ilgīma wana baħsibha fil jawwāli.(Come on; how much is the price, and I’ll
count it by my cell phone.)
.‫ﯾﻠﻼ ﻛﻢ اﻟﻘﯿﻤﺔ و اﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﺣﺴﺒﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮاﻟﻲ‬
527. xallīni aħsib lik. (Let me count it.)
.‫ﺧﻠﯿﻨﻲ اﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻚ‬
528. tfaẓẓal. (Here, please, take it)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ‬
529. tfaẓẓal iħsib fi iljawwāl. (Please, count in the cell phone.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ اﺣﺴﺐ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻮال‬
530. tfaẓẓal; xudh iħsib. (Please, take; count.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ ﺧﺬ اﺣﺴﺐ‬
There is an exclusively intensive use of imperatives such as xudh, iħsib, aʕţīni, xallīni. Simple
imperatives that have no polite dimensions outnumber the use of the formal polite imperative,
tfaẓẓal. In some utterances, a combination of imperatives is used as in (520) and (522). The
imperatives xudh iħsib (take count), (give me to count/continue) convey firmness and strong
command, and, thus, may appear face threatening. However, the reason for using such non-
redressed acts, as B&L (1987) state, is that the speaker does not care about being rude because
S’s want to satisfy H’s face is small because S is powerful and does not fear retaliation or non-
cooperation. In Sit#12, some utterances sound face threatening, and thus, impolite. In (522), and

199
(523), for example, the imperatives xudh xalliş, and bsurʕa xalliş, while extending the cell phone
are commands that indicate the female speakers’ concern about being efficient rather than polite.
The speaker’s feeling of annoyance and discontent, because of the bad service, may have
interacted with the lower power-status of the addressee to yield these strong BOR offers.
Therefore, it appears that unlike B&L’s (1987) categorical analysis, contextual determinants may
interact with the psychological and physical features of the context.
The intensifier xalāş is also used frequently to strengthen the BOR offers. In (524) and (525),
the female speaker gives no chance to the addressee to reject the offer.
An expression that indicates the imperative mood is the formulaic yalla in (526). It is used to
hasten someone to do something (come on). The expression yalla is used to urge the addressee to
do something rapidly. The use of such an expression in this context might open the utterance to
impoliteness. This might be attributed to fact that the Saudi female speaker finds it less face-
threatening to make an offer to a cashier or even talk to him than to offer or talk to a strange man
wandering in a library.
A more polite imperative appears in the use of xallīni (let me) in (527). It implies a suggestion
rather than a command. However, it is not frequent in this context. The polite formulaic
imperative, tfaẓẓal is used in isolation as in (528), or in combination with other imperatives as
tfaẓẓal xudh iħsib in (529) and (530) to counterbalance the tone of respect.
PSP is only used when the addressed male is of lower power in Sit# 12 (5.7%). In Sit# 13,
PSP appears mixed with NGP (See Table 4.88). The PSP strategies appear only in including both
H and S in the activity and using in-group language to establish common ground.

200
Table 4.84 PSP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12
Sit# 12
531. yalla, xallīna naħsib maʕa baʕẓ maʕlēsh (Come one, let’s count together.) (To avoid giving
him my cell phone.)
(‫ﯾﻠﻼ ﺧﻠﯿﻨﺎ ﻧﺤﺴﺐ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻌﻠﯿﺶ )ﺗﺠﻨﺐ اﻋﻄﺎءه‬
532. aħsibha lik? (Count it for you?)
‫اﺣﺴﺒﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ؟‬
533. ana aħsib. (I count.)
.‫أﻧﺎ اﺣﺴﺐ‬
In (531), the female speaker uses the inclusive attached pronoun, na in the two verbs xallīna
naħsib and the word together to convey cooperation in the activity. However, the speaker
commented that she used this type of strategy to avoid giving her cell phone to the cashier. Thus,
it is obvious that the speaker’s intention in many cases may go beyond the interpretations of
politeness (Watts, 2003). In-group language appears in the use of contraction in (532) and (533).
In (532), the question is contracted. The omission of the auxiliary makes the question sound
more informal (See example (12)). Similarly, (533) sounds informal if seen as contracted from
xallini or aʕţīni aħsib in which the speaker avoids the imperative form (See Utterance (9)).
NGP is used frequently in both situations with a slightly higher frequency in Sit# 13 where the
addressee’s power is equal. The speakers restricted their use of NGP to conventional indirectness
and hedging.
Table 4.85. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 & 13

Sit# 12 Si# 13
534. ilʔāla il ħāsba tibīha?(The calculator, do you 550. law samaħt tibi ayy musāʕada? (Excuse me; do
want it?) you want any help?)
‫اﻵﻟﮫ اﻟﺤﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﺗﺒﯿﮫ؟‬ .‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﺗﺒﻲ أي ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة‬
535. tħib tistaxdim jawwāli? (Do you like to use 551. tibi musāʕada? tiħtāj shay min ilmaktiba?
my cell phone?) (Do you want help; need something from the library?)
‫ﺗﺤﺐ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﺟﻮاﻟﻲ؟‬ ‫ﺗﺒﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺗﺤﺘﺎج ﺷﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ؟‬
536. fīh ʕindi āla ħāsba, idha tabgha tistaxdimha. (I 552 miħtāj musāʕada aw shay? (In need of help or any thing?)
have a calculator, if you want to use it?)

201
Sit#12 Sit#13
‫ﻣﺤﺘﺎج ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة أو ﺷﻲ؟‬
.‫ﻓﯿﮫ ﻋﻨﺪي اﻟﮫ ﺣﺎﺳﺒﺔ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﮭﺎ‬ 553. tibi shay imʕayyan tħib inni asāʕidk fīh? (Do you
537. idha tabghāha; tiħtājha; tfaẓẓal. (If you want it; want anything specific you like me to help you with?)
please take it.) ‫ﺗﺒﻲ ﯾﺸﻲ ﻣﻌﯿﻦ ﺗﺤﺐ إﻧﻲ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﻓﯿﺔ؟‬
.‫إذا ﺗﺒﻐﺎه ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﮭﺎ؛ ﺗﻔﻀﻞ‬ 554. agdar asāʕidk?(Can I help you?)
538. tfaẓẓal ʕashān aħsib aghrāẓi.(Please take so I ‫اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
can count my stuff.) 555. mumkin axdimk? (Can I serve you?)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ؛ ﻋﺸﺎن اﺣﺴﺐ أﻏﺮاﺿﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺧﺪﻣﻚ؟‬
539. xudh iħsib; ʕashān abgha amshi.(Take, count 556. law samaħt; shaklak imẓayyiʕ; mumkin asāʕidk?
because I want to leave.) (Excuse me; you look lost; can I help you?)
.‫ﺧﺬ اﺣﺴﺐ ﻋﺸﺎن أﺑﻐﻰ اﻣﺸﻲ‬ ‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﺷﻜﻠﻚ ﻣﻀﯿﯿﻊ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
540. tfaẓẓal jawwāli ʕashān ilwagt; iħsib bsurʕa. 557. ayy xidma mumkin axdimk fīha, law samaħt. (Any
(please take my cell phone because of time; count; service you want me to give you please?)
hurry up count.) ‫أي ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺧﺪﻣﻚ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؟‬
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ ﺟﻮاﻟﻲ ﻋﺸﺎن اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﺣﺴﺐ ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ‬ 558. iddawwir ʕala shay? fīh shay imʕayyan tibīh?
541. xudh iħsib ʕashān abgha axalliş. (Take my cell (Looking for something? anything specific?)
phone to count because I want t finish.) ‫ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲ؟ ﻓﯿﮫ ﺷﻲ ﻣﻌﯿﻦ ﺗﺒﯿﮫ؟‬
.‫ﺧﺬ ﺟﻮاﻟﻲ اﺣﺴﺐ ﻋﺸﺎن أﺑﻐﻰ اﺧﻠﺺ‬ 559. iddawwir ʕala shay? ēsh illi int miħtāja? (Looking for
542. xudh axalliş bsurʕa; ana warāy shughul. (Take; something? what do you need?)
hurry up finish soon; I’m busy.) ‫ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲ؟إﯾﺶ اﻟﻠﻲ اﻧﺖ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺔ؟‬
.‫ﺧﺬ ﺧﻠﺺ ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ أﻧﺎ وراي ﺷﻐﻞ‬ 560. tara ʕindi xalfiyya ʕan ilkutub’ idha tabgha
543. ilʔāla tibīha? shaklaha xarbāna illi ʕindik.(The musāʕada? (I have a background about the books if you
calculator, do you want it? the one you have seems want help?)
broken.) .‫ﺗﺮى ﻋﻨﺪي ﺧﻠﻔﯿﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻜﺘﺐ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة‬
.‫اﻻﻟﮫ ﺗﺒﯿﮭﺎ؟ ﺷﻜﻠﮭﺎ ﺧﺮﺑﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪك‬ 561.tara aʕrif ilmaktiba; idha tħib agaddim lik musāʕada?
544. xudh iħsib; hādhi asraʕ lik. (Take; this is faster.) (See, I know the library if you like me to give you help?)
.‫ﺧﺬ إﺣﺴﺐ؛ ھﺬي أﺳﺮع ﻟﻚ‬ .‫ﺗﺮى اﻋﺮف اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﮫ إذا ﺗﺤﺐ أﻗﺪم ﻟﻚ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة‬
545. law samaħt; ana maʕay ħāsba fi jawwāli idha 562. law samaħt, ma azʕijk; bas ħāssa innik iddawwir ʕala
tabgha jarrib fīha?(Excuse me; I have a calculator; if agsām wana ʕārfa hādhi ilmaktiba; idha iddawwir ʕala
you want, try it) gism ʕashān tlāgi ktāb. (Excuse me; I don’t want to bother
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ أﻧﺎ ﻣﻌﻲ ﺣﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮاﻟﻲ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﺟﺮب ﻓﯿﮭﺎ‬ you, but I feel that you’re looking for departments; and I
546. law samaħt; ʕindi āla ħāsba bjawwāli; yimkkini know this library; if you’re looking for a department to
aħsib. (Excuse me; I have a calculator in my cell find a book.)
phone, I can count.) ‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ﻣﺎ أزﻋﺠﻚ ﺑﺲ ﺣﺎﺳﺔ اﻧﻚ ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ أﻗﺴﺎم و أﻧﺎ ﻋﺎرﻓﮫ ھﺬي‬
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﻋﻨﺪي اﻟﮫ ﺣﺎﺳﺒﮫ ﺑﺠﻮاﻟﻲ ﯾﻤﻜﻨﻨﻲ اﺣﺴﺐ‬ .‫اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ؛ إذا ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺴﻢ ﻋﺸﺎن ﺗﻼﻗﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب‬
547. shūf; idha tibi musāʕada? tara ʕindi āla 563. law samaħt; int iddawwir ʕala shay? (Excuse me; are
ħāsba.(Look; if you want help, I have a calculator.) you looking for something?)
.‫ﺷﻮف؛ إذا ﺗﺒﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺗﺮى ﻋﻨﺪي آﻟﺔ ﺣﺎﺳﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ اﻧﺖ ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲ؟‬
548. laħẓa, laħẓa shway; xalāş baħsibha. (a monment,
ok I’ll count it.). ‫ﻟﺤﻈﮫ ﻟﺤﻈﮫ ﺷﻮي ﺧﻼص ﺑﺤﺴﺒﮭﺎ‬

202
Sit#12
549. maʕlēsh; gulli ilgīma killiha bkamm wana

baħsib. (It’s ok; give me the prices and I’ll count.)
.‫ﻣﻌﻠﯿﺶ ﻗﻞ ﻟﻲ اﻟﻘﯿﻤﺔ ﻛﻠﮭﺎ ﺑﻜﻢ و أﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﺣﺴﺐ‬
Conventional indirectness, expressed in questions, is more frequent in Sit# 13. Table 4.86
illustrates the types and frequencies of questions in both questions.
Table 4.86. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12 & 13
tibi(īni) tħib(īn) widdik miħtāj/ ēsh Agdar Mumkin?Inform. Total
X?/ X? X? tiħtājēn rāyak X? X? Q
tabghēn /rāyik
Sit# 12 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
Sit# 13 3 0 0 3 0 1 4 4 15
The Saudi female speakers use the typical questions for offers using the verbs tibi/tabgha (want)
tħib (like) in both situations. In Sit# 12, however, the questions are only expressed through these
verbs, which are considered less polite than the modals (Koyama, 2001). In Sit#12, only one
speaker used the question, ēsh rāyak to address the cashier. This formulaic question is rarely
used due to the implication of suggestion. For Saudi female speakers it is inappropriate to ask a
strange man about his opinion as a way of suggestion since that may indicate informality and
closeness with a strange male. In contrast, in Sit#13, many speakers addressed the man using the
modals agdar in (554), and mumkin in (555)-(557), which may indicate that women use more
formally polite questions with men of equal power to maintain distance. Again, the context in
which the two offers take place may have also contributed to these differences. In Saudi society,
approaching a strange man to offer him help is face threatening for both interlocutors.
Hedging is extensively used in both situations mainly through adverbial clauses. If-clauses
with idha (if) are prevalent in both situations as in (537) and (561).
Giving compelling reasons for doing the offer is used in both situations. Interestingly,
however, this strategy is more frequent when addressing a man of lower power. Some Saudi

203
female speakers find it face threatening to give a strange man her cell phone or offer him
help in a library. Thus, they avoid this pressure by justifying their offers. This strategy is
realized in Sit# 12 in (538)-(541) by the hedge, ʕashān. Utterance (542) is closer to
impoliteness. The use of the imperative xudh xalliş bsurʕa (Here, hurry up; finish) makes
the offer highly face threatening since it indicates a strong command to the cashier
accompanied by the justification, warāy shughul (I have something to do). Again, this
indicates that a linguistic strategy is not inherently polite or impolite. Although giving
reasons is a polite strategy, it might not be acceptable as polite here. However, the cultural
rules of the Saudi society may make this utterance less face threatening than if used in a
different cultural context.
However, not all the reasons are face threatening. By using hādhi asraʕ lak (this is faster for
you), in (544), the speaker is justifying the offer by implying advice which shows care about the
addressee.
In Sit# 13, on the other hand, the speakers realize this strategy mostly by mentioning their
acquaintance with the library as in (560)-(562). In this case, these reasons might also help the
speaker to go on record as not to indebt the hearer. In (556), the speaker uses an expression that
might sound impolite to justify the offer. The expression, shaklak mẓayyiʕ (you look lost) implies
criticism. Such an expression is rare because it might appear insulting, especially if used with
unfamiliar people.
Nominalization and impersonalization are combined and only used in Sit# 13 as in (552)
where the typical offer tiħtāj asāʕidk is nominalized from miħtāj musāʕda to avoid using
pronoun you, which in its turn distances the speaker from the hearer and the FTA.
Utterance (562) is heavily negatively polite. Apologizing for impingement initiates the offer.
The formulaic expression law samaħt (if you please) indicates formality and high distance

204
between the two interlocutors. Hedging follows the apology in the expression bas ħāssa (but I
feel), and the use of the conditional clause idha followed by another adverbial clause to give
justifications for why she is making the offer and keep herself away from the man and FTA.
The extreme indirectness in (563) moves the utterance closer to the domain of off-recordness.
However, the formulaic use of the question iddawir ʕala shay (Are you looking for something),
which is typically interpreted as an implied offer to help, makes this offer remain in the domain
of NGP and, thus, on-record offers.
OFR strategies are only used once in Sit# 12 when addressing a man of lower power. The
following utterance illustrates that.
Table 4.87. OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 12

Sit# 12
564. wish ilmishkila? (What’s the problem?)
‫وش اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ؟‬
In (564), the female speaker states the FTA indirectly in a non-conventional manner. The
speaker may have found it face threatening to offer her cell phone to a strange man, thus, she
decides to go off record. The question is a hint in which the speaker inquires about the problem
and hints for readiness to help. It preserves the man’s autonomy. The man’s response to her
indirect offer will guide her to state the FTA directly or not. This emphasizes the sequential
nature of offers. The offerer may need more than one turn to make an offer while assessing all
the contextual determinants and other interfering factors.
Mixed strategies appear frequently only in Sit#13 in which PSP appears in many cases with
NGP.

205
Table 4. 88. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 13
Sit# 13
565. miħtāja musāʕada yuba? (Do you need of help, father (dad)?)
‫ﻣﺤﺘﺎج ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﯾﺒﮫ؟‬
566. laħẓa uxūy; ana aʕrif ilkutib; agdar asāʕidk? (one moment brother; I know the books; can I help you?)
‫ﻟﺤﻈﺔ اﺧﻮي؛ أﻧﺎ اﻋﺮف اﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻗﺪرأﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
567 ya ʕamm/xāl agdar asāʕidk? (Uncle, can I help you?)
‫ﺧﺎل اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬/‫ﯾﺎ ﻋﻢ‬
While address forms are absent in Sit#12, such forms are the only realization of PSP in Sit#13.
However, these forms coexist with NGP as illustrated in Table 4.88. Some female speakers use
in-group forms to indicate family membership such as ʕamm, xāl (uncle), uxūy ((my) brother),
yuba ((my) father) to convey that she considers the man as an (older) person in her family. By
describing the addressee as a father, uncle or brother, the speaker is establishing a would-be-
family tie to clear any misunderstandings in the interaction. However, the reason for the frequent
use of father and uncle, as the speakers themselves asserted, is that they only make such offers to
old men. In (565)-(567), these address forms are used with conventional indirectness expressed
in question forms.
The Don’t-do-the FTA strategy is highly frequent in both situations, yet more significantly
frequent in Sit# 13. The difference in the prevalence of such a strategy may result from two
factors. The nature of the offer might have caused this difference. More women felt they were
not compelled to make the offer in Sit# 13. In Sit#12, on the other hand, they were deeply
involved in the event. Secondly, approaching a strange man in a public place and starting a
conversation with him is inappropriate in the Saudi society and explains the prevalence of the
Don’t-do-the FTA strategy in this situation.

206
b. British Englsih
In British English, Sit# 12 and Sit# 13 have yielded different types of strategies as illustrated in
Table 4.89.
Table 4. 89 Types & Frequencies of Politeness Strategies in British Offers in Sit# 12 & 13
pos neg
Sit# Freq. 11 2 34 0 1 0 2 50
12 Percent 22% 4% 68% 0 2% 4% 100
Sit# Freq. 0 0 48 0 2 0 0 50
13
Percent 0 0 96% 0 4% 0 100
Table 4. 89 indicates that NGP dominates the females’ use of the politeness strategies in
British English in both situations (68% in Sit# 12, 96% in Sit# 13). In Sit# 12, there is a high
frequency of BOR offers (22%), but complete absence of this strategy in Sit# 13. PSP is rare in
Sit# 12 (4%) and only expressed in combination with NGP strategies in Sit# 13 (2% in Sit#12).
Opting out was used only in Sit#12 (4%).
Table 4.90. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 12
Sit# 12
568. I have a calculator on my phone; use it.
569. Please, use this.
570. Here,18 use mine.
571. Here, borrow my phone, it’s got a calculator on it.
572. Here, take my cell phone and use the calculator on that.
573. Use my cell phone calculator.
574. Let me do it for you.
575. Let me help. Give me the prices.

207
The imperatives use, take, and borrow are frequently used. The politeness marker, please, is
used only once in (569), to lessen the effect of the imperative on the cashier. The imperative let
me X is also used frequently in such a context. It conveys a sense of politeness since it implies
asking for the addressee’s permission (See Utterance (46)).
As indicated in Table 4.91, PSP is only used in Sit# 12. It is realized by optimism. Examine the
following utterance.

Sit# 12
576. Why don’t you use my calculator? It’ll be much quicker for you.
The speaker in (576) uses the question, why don’t you, assuming that there are no reasons why
the cashier does not cooperate with the speaker and accept the offer. She is politely asking the
cashier to let her get involved in the act of calculating by offering him her phone or help in
counting. Such questions are rare in this context because of the dimension of friendliness they
have, which may not to be appropriate with unfamiliar people especially in a society like the
British that has a high scale of social distance.
NGP is the most frequently used strategy in both contexts. However, this strategy is
exclusively dominant when offering help to a man in the library.
Table 4.92. NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 12& 13

Sit# 12 Sit# 13
577. Here, do you want to borrow my calculator? 589. Do you need some help?
578. Do you need a calculator? 590. Do you want help to find a book?
579. Do you want to borrow my calculator? 591. Excuse me but do you need any help?
580. Can I offer you the use of my calculator? 592. Excuse me are you lost? do you need some help?
581. Would you like me to add it up for you? 593. Can I help you (find something)?
582. Would you like to use/ borrow my phone (to 594. Can I help you? What are you looking for?
add this up)? 595. Can I be of help/any assistance?

208
Sit#12 Sit#13
583. Would you like me to add it up on my 596. Can I help you at all?
calculator? 597. Would you like some help?
584. Would this be of any use? 598. May I help you?
585. It seems you’re having a problem adding up 599. May I assist you in finding a certain section of the
the bill. Would you like to use my phone? library?
586. I think it would be better if you take the phone 600. Is there something particular you’re looking for?
to help you add it up. 601. Are you looking for a section/something in
587. I have a calculator on my phone; I’ll add them particular?
up for you? 602. What are you looking for?
588. You can use my phone. 603. What are you looking for? The lady will help you.
604. What do you need? I can get you any book.
it’s easy.
605. Sir, would you like some assistance?
606. Can I help you; you seem lost?
607. You look a little lost; can I help you with anything?
NGP is mostly expressed in conventional indirectness in both situations reinforced by other
NGP strategies, such as hedging, going on record as not to indebt H, and deference.
Table 4.93. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in British English in Sit# 12 & 13
Do you Would Shall I Can I May Are you/ Info. Total
want/ you X? X? IX Is there X? Ques.
need X? like
X?
Sit# 12 5 19 0 3 0 0 1 28
Sit# 13 9 8 0 17 2 4 4 44
Table 4.93 shows that the speakers vary their questions from one context to another. Whereas
the expression, would you like is the most preferred expression in Sit# 12, Can I is the dominant
question when offering help to guide a man in a library. Would you like in Sit# 12 is used twice
as many as in Sit# 13. Can I in Sit# 12 is rarely used (three speakers only). This means that
British speakers assume more formality in addressing the cashier. To the contrary, the question
Do you want/ need is higher in Sit#13. The formal expression, May I X is absent in Sit# 12 and is

209
rare in Sit# 13. Individual responses in (584) and (596) are expressed by Would this be of any
use? and Can I help you at all, respectively.
In Sit# 13, however, the speakers in (600)-(602) use the questions, Are you looking for
something, or Is there something you’re looking for, and What are you looking for? These
questions are considered very high in the degree of indirectness. The speakers find the offer
violating to the man’s privacy, and thus, preferred to state the FTA indirectly in case the man
does not want any help. The use of the formulaic attention getter, excuse me is common only in
Sit# 13. Interrupting the man’s privacy in such context justifies the frequent use of such an
expression.
The use of hedging is limited in both situations. If-clauses are rare in Sit# 12, and absent in
Sit# 13. In Sit# 12, the speaker in (586) uses a series of hedging, I think, it would be and If you X
to distant herself and the addressee from the FTA. The use of polite forms such as I think seem
to lessen the force of the propositions it modifies (See utterance (179)). In Sit# 13, the only
hedging phrase you seem/look is used in (606) and (607) to justify the speaker’s interference. In
(607), the speaker implies criticism of the man for not knowing how to use the library. For a
person to say to anther, “You look lost” is an impolite belief. The speaker, therefore, uses a little
as an understatement, as Leech (1983) contends, to avoid criticizing the man openly.
Going on record as not to indebt H is used in Sit# 13. The speaker in (604) tries to overcome
any possible reluctance on the part of the man to accept the offer by indicting that the offer is of
no trouble to her.
Deference is rare and only used in Sit# 13. The term, sir in (605) is the only honorific term.
The degree of S’s involvement in the event in Sit# 12 is higher than in Sit# 13. In this view, the
speakers may have found the offer in Sit# 13 more violating to H’s freedom and, hence, demands
showing more respect before doing the FTA.

210
The struggle to keep a balance between solidarity and respect to H’s autonomy through the use
of mixed strategies is rare in both situations. These mixed strategies are illustrated in the
following.
Table 4.94. Mixed Superstrategies in British English Offers in Sit# 12 & 13

Sit# 12 Sit# 13
608. Can I help you count; come on I’ll help you; 609. Are you Ok? Would you like some help?
have the calculator on my cell phone; it works. 610. Good morning! I come here quite a lot I know.
my way round quite well; can I help you?
In Sit# 12, the speaker, in (608), is shifting repeatedly between NGP by the question, Can I to
keep distance and two BOR offers to transgress on the addressee as an expression of sincerity. In
Sit# 13, in (609) and (610), noticing H’s needs is combined with conventional indirectness. The
speaker starts by greeting the man to establish comity and open a channel for communication.
She then shifts to keep distance and avoid imposition by using conventional indirectness, mixed
with going on record as not incur indebt to H in (610) which also gives justification or reasons
for her intrusion to make the offer.
British speakers use Don’t-do-the FTA strategy only in Sit# 12. Those few British, who opted
out, commented that it is very face threatening to give any unfamiliar person their cell phones for
any reason.
4.1.2.5 Very High Social Distance (Equal Power/Opposite Gender) & Difference in Rank
of Imposition
In Sit# 14 and 15, the addressee’s power is equal to the speaker’s power and the social distance
is very high since both addressees are strangers. The rank of imposition, however, in Sit#14 is
lower than in 15. In Sit#14, the female speaker offers an unfamiliar man her batteries at a shop

211
whereas, in Sit#15, she is offering service to a man who does not know how to use the bank
machine. Examine Table 4.95.
a. Saudi Arabic
Table 4.95. Types & Frequencies of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit#
14 & 15
Pos neg
Sit# Freq. 2 0 16 4 5 2 24 53
14
Percent 3.8 0 30.18 7.54 9.43 49.05 100%
Sit# Freq. 0 1 29 6 2 0 15 53
15
Percent 0 1.9 54.71 11.32 3.8 28.3 100%
The two situations have yielded almost exclusive preference for NGP (30.18% in Sit#14&
54.71% in Sit#15), and Don’t-do-the FTA strategies (49.05% in Sit#14& 28.3% in 15). BOR
offers are rare in Sit#14 (3.8%) and absent in Sit#15. PSP is absent in Sit#14 and rare in Sit#15
(1.9%). OFR (7.54% in Sit#14 & 11.32% in Sit# 15) and mixed strategies (9.43% in Sit#14& 3.8
in Sit#15) are not frequent in both situations.
BOR offers are avoided when the rank of the imposition is high. The speakers find it highly
face threatening to transgress on a strange man when offering him help with the bank machine.
Moreover, this strategy is rare when the rank is low. The only two instances in Sit#14 are as
follows.
Table 4.96. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit#14
Sit# 14
611. tfaẓẓal (Please, take.)

.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ‬
612. tfaẓẓal, law samaħt. (Take if you please.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ‬

212
The imperative tfaẓẓal is used because of its polite and formal dimensions. The female speakers
realize that, in the Saudi context, women should be brief and formal when involved in verbal
interaction with strange men. Thus, the use of tfaẓẓal in (611) and (612) shows how the woman
is careful not to elaborate in conversing with the unfamiliar man while still making the offer. The
use of the formulaic attention getter, law samaħt (excuse me or if you please), together with the
formal imperative tfaẓẓal in (612), aims to keep higher distance with the man.
In Saudi Arabic, PSP is rare in 15 and absent in Sit# 14. In Sit# 14, PSP is used mixed with
NGP (See below), whereas it is used in one utterance in Sit#15. Consider the following.

Sit# 15
613. uxūy, asāʕidk?(Brother, help you?)

‫ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬،‫اﺧﻮي‬
In Sit#15, one speaker uses an address form and ellipsis. In (613), uxūy, asāʕdak? (Brother,
help you,?) is the contracted form of many questions as (631-636). The address form, uxūy
(Brother) is the only strategy used to claim common ground to redress H’s, as well as S’s face.
The term uxūy (Brother) indicates that the man is like her brother and she wants for him what she
wants for her brother, which alleviates the pressure on both S and H.
As mentioned above, NGP overweighs all the other types of politeness strategies in
Sit#14&15. Examine Table 4.98.

213
Table 4.98. NGP in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 15

Sit# 14 Sit# 15
614. law samaħt, tibi illi maʕāy? (Excuse me; do you 630. tabghāni/widdik/tħib asāʕdik? (Do you want/like
want the ones I have?) me to help?)
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ﺗﺒﻲ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻣﻌﺎي‬ ‫ ﺗﺤﺐ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬/ ‫ودك‬/ ‫ﺗﺒﻐﺎﻧﻲ‬
615. mumkin arrajiʕ ilbaţţāriyya, wint xudh-ha. (I can 631. fi mishkila tabghāni asāʕdik fīha? (Is there any
return the batteries and you take them.) problem I can help you with?)
.‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ارﺟﻊ اﻟﺒﻄﺎرﯾﺔ واﻧﺖ ﺧﺬھﺎ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺗﺒﻐﺎﻧﻲ اﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﻓﯿﮭﺎ؟‬
616. ana abgha arrajiʕ hādhi. (I want to give this back.) 632. law samaħt fi shay tibīni asāʕidk bah?(Excuse me; is
.‫أﻧﺎ أﺑﻐﻰ ارﺟﻊ ھﺎذي‬ there anything I help you with?)
617. idha tabgha, tara māni miħtājatha. (if you want it; ‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ﻓﯿﺔ ﺷﻲ ﺗﺒﯿﻨﻲ اﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﺑﮫ؟‬
see I don’t need them.) 633. agdar asāʕidk ibshayy? (Can I help you with
.‫ ﺗﺮى ﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺘﮫ‬،‫إذا ﺗﺒﻐﺎھﺎ‬ anything?)
618. xalāş xudh hādhi idha int tiħtājha. (It’s final take ‫اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﺑﺸﻲ؟‬
this if you need it.) 634. mumkin asāʕidk? (Can I possibly help you?)
.‫ ﺧﺬ ھﺎذي إذا اﻧﺖ ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﮭﺎ‬،‫ﺧﻼص‬ ‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬
619. ana maʕāy ʕilbitēn; xalāş barrajiʕ waħda; ana 635. ʕafwan, mumkin asāʕidk? (Pardon, can I help you?)
māni miħtājat-ha; baʕdēn ana māni mistaʕjila ʕalēha. ‫ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬،‫ﻋﻔﻮا‬
(I have two packets; its ok, I’ll give one back; I don’t 636. fi mishkila agdar asāʕidk fīha? (Any problem I can
need it; besides I I’m not in a hurry.) help you with?)
‫أﻧﺎ ﻣﻌﺎي ﻋﻠﺒﺘﯿﻦ؛ ﺧﻼص ﺑﺎرﺣﻊ وﺣﺪة أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﺘﮭﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﯾﻦ اﻧﺎ ﻣﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﻓﯿﮭﺎ؟‬
.‫ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ‬ 637. law samaħt; agdar asāʕidk kēf taddaxxil ilbiţāga?
620. idha miħtājha ẓarūri, mumkin aʕţīk iyyaha. (If (Excuse me; can I help you how to insert the card?)
you need them badly, I can give them to you.) ‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ اﻗﺪر اﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﻛﯿﻒ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ اﻟﺒﻄﺎﻗﺔ؟‬
‫إذا ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺟﮭﺎ ﺿﺮوري ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﻋﻄﯿﻚ إﯾﺎھﺎ‬ 638. idha tabgha aʕallimik, tara ittaʕlīmāt kidha. (If you
621. law samaħt, hādhi zāyda; xudh. (Excuse me; this is want me to help you; the instructions are as follows.)
extra, take.) .‫إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ أﻋﻠﻤﻚ؛ ﺗﺮى اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻤﺎت ﻛﺬا‬
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ھﺎذي زاﯾﺪة؛ ﺧﺬ‬ 639. ʕafwan; idha kānat hādhi ilʔāla jidīda ʕalēk, idha
622. ana ʕindi ziyāda law tabgha.(I have an extra one, if hāb aʕallimk kēf iţţarīga, ana mistiʕida. (Pardon; if this
you want.) machine is new to you; if you like me to teach you the
.‫أﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي زﯾﺎدة ﻟﻮ ﺗﺒﻐﻰ‬ way, I’m ready.)
623. mumkin tāxidh waħda min ilʕilab; ana maʔħtāja-ha ‫ اﻧﺎ‬،‫ إذا ﺣﺎب أﻋﻠﻤﻚ ﻛﯿﻒ اﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﺔ‬،‫ﻋﻔﻮا؛ إذا ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ھﺎذي اﻻﻟﺔ ﺟﺪﯾﺪة ﻋﻠﯿﻚ‬
kullaha. (You can take one of these packets; I don’t need .‫ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪة‬
them all.) 640. law samaħt, laħẓa, awarrīk hādhi ilʔāla kēf
.‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺎﺧﺬ وﺣﺪة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻠﺐ؛ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺎ اﺣﺘﺎﺟﮭﺎ ﻛﻠﮭﺎ‬ tistaxdimha. (Excuse me; one moment; I show you
624. ana tawwini shārya; wmaʔħtāj illa waħda; xudha; how to use this machine.)
idha tiħtājha. (I’ve just bought it, and I only need one; ‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ﻟﺤﻈﺔ أورﯾﻚ ھﺬي اﻵﻟﺔ ﻛﯿﻒ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﮭﺎ؟‬

214
Sit#14 Sit#15
take it if you need it.) 641. ʕafwan; āsfa law tadaxxalt; bas idha mu ʕārif
.‫أﻧﺎ ﺗﻮﻧﻲ ﺷﺎرﯾﺔ؛ و ﻣﺎ أﺣﺘﺎج إﻻ وﺣﺪة؛ ﺧﺬھﺎ ذا ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﮭﺎ‬ tistaxdimha, tara mumkin asāʕid. (Pardon, sorry for
625. tfaẓẓal waħda ana yakfīni illi ʕindi.(Please; take intruding; but if you don’t know how to use it, I can
one, I have enough.) help.)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ وﺣﺪة؛ أﻧﺎ ﯾﻜﻔﯿﻨﻲ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪي‬ ‫ ﺗﺮى ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪ؟‬،‫ﻋﻔﻮ؛ا آﺳﻔﺔ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺪﺧﻠﺖ؛ ﺑﺲ إذا ﻣﻮ ﻋﺎرف ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﮭﺎ‬
626. law samaħt; ana ʕindi zyādat baţţāriyyāt; idha 642. āsfa ʕala ittadaxxul; bas tibi ayy musāʕada?
tiħtāj-ha, ana mumkin astaghna ʕnha. (Excuse me; I (Sorry for intrusion, but do you need any help?)
have batteries if you need them; I can do without ‫آﺳﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ؛ ﺑﺲ ﺗﺒﻲ أي ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟‬
them.) 643. law samaħt; miħtāj musāʕada? (Excuse me; do
‫ أﻧﺎ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺘﻐﻨﻰ‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ أﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي زﯾﺎدة ﺑﻄﺎرﯾﺎت؛ إذا ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﮭﺎ‬ you need help?)
.‫ﻋﻨﮭﺎ‬ ‫ ﻣﺤﺘﺎج ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ‬
627. law samaħt; idha tabgha baţţāriyya, ana maʕay 644. law samaħt; tabgha musāʕada? (Excuse me; do
ʕilbitēn. (Excuse me; if you want batteries, I have two you want help?)
packets.) ‫ ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ‬
.‫ أﻧﺎ ﻣﻌﻲ ﻋﻠﺒﺘﯿﻦ‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﺑﻄﺎرﯾﺔ‬ 645. law samaħt; tiħtāj musāʕada? ana mistaʕjila.
628. āsfa ʕala ittadaxxul; bas xudh ʕilba; ana (Excuse me; do you need help? I’m in a hurry.)
shwārya kadha waħda. (Sorry for intruding; but take ‫ ﺗﺤﺘﺎج ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؛ أﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺠﻠﺔ؟‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ‬
one packet; I’ve bought more than one.) 646. law samaħt; idha tabgha musāʕada, ʕashān
.‫آﺳﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ؛ ﺑﺲ ﺧﺬ ﻋﻠﺒﮫ؛ أﻧﺎ ﺷﺎرﯾﮫ ﻛﺬا وﺣﺪة‬ abgha axalliş. (Excuse me; if you want help because
629. idha ħabbēt, mumkin atrik lik waħda min ilʕilab. I want to finish.)
(If you liked, I can leave one for you.) .‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟ﻋﺸﺎن أﺑﻐﻰ اﺧﻠﺺ‬
.‫ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺗﺮك ﻟﻚ وﺣﺪة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻠﺐ‬،‫إذا ﺣﺒﯿﺖ‬ 647. law samaħt, agdar aʕallimk kēf; liʔann ţarīgatk
galaţ.(Excuse me; I can teach you how because your
way is wrong.)
‫ اﻗﺪر أﻋﻠﻤﻚ ﻛﯿﻒ ﻷن ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺘﻚ ﻏﻠﻂ؟‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ‬
648 tabgha musāʕada, ya sayyid? (Do you want help,
sir?)
‫ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﯾﺎ ﺳﯿﺪ؟‬
The use of questions is more frequent in Sit#15. Table 4.99 illustrates that the use of the
questions is higher when offering someone help with the bank machine. This shows S’s concern
about H’s freedom when the imposition is high.

215
Table 4.99. Types and Frequencies of Question Forms in Saudi Arabic Offers Sit# 14 & 15
tibi(īni) tħib(īn)X widdik X? miħtāj(a)// ēsh rāyik agdar mumkin Information Total
X? tiħāj(ēn) X? quesions
Sit 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 5
14
Sit# 11 1 1 1 0 4 8 7 33
15
Table 4. 99 illustrates how conventional indirectness is expressed in higher degrees of
politeness in Sit# 15. In Sit# 14, conventional indirectness is expressed by tibi (do you want) and
mumkin in the declarative form (can possibly). The speakers in Sit# 15, on the other hand, have
used all variety of modals and question forms when the rank of imposition is high tabghāni/ tħib/
widdik/asāʕdak? (Do you) want (me to) /like/love help?).
Although the two groups of questions (i.e., questions with verbs, tibi/tħib and those with
modals) give the man’s freedom of choice to reject or comply, the use of the modals make
questions (633)-(637) sound more polite than the questions in (614), and (630)-(632). Formulaic
attention getters, such as law samaħt (excuse me/if you please) and ʕafwan (pardon) that have
NGP effect intensifies the formality of these utterances.
In Sit# 14, indirectness is also realized by modal mumkin (can possibly/may) in the declarative
form (615) and the use of the want-statement in (616) to convey the speaker’s desire to give the
batteries back, which indirectly tells the man that he can have them.
Hedging is another productive source of NGP in both situations. Conditional clauses with idha
(IF-clauses) are extensively used in both situations. In Sit#14, in (618), idha-clause is used with
the intensifier, xalāş. The speaker shifts between two modes of speech. First, the speaker uses
xalāş, which works as an intensifier to show firmness in the offer. Yet, the strong force of xalāş
before the imperative might be face threatening to the addressee. The speaker thus shifts to the
IF-clause, a softening hedging-expression, to express more respect to H’s freedom.

216
Another hedging expression is the formulaic expression baʕdēn to soften the force of the
utterance in (619). The expression means “besides.” In Sit#15, the speaker hedges by idha-clause
(If) in many utterances. In (639), the speaker uses two hedging clauses with idha to distance
herself from the addressee, on the one hand, and from the FTA, on the other because of the high
risk of offering help with the bank machine to a strange man.
Minimizing the imposition is another frequent strategy in both situations, used either solely or
with the support of the other NGP sub-strategies. Nonetheless, such a strategy is used more
extensively in Sit#14 despite the low rank of imposition. In (621), the imperative xudh (take) is
redressed by the word zāyda (extra) and the formulaic attention getter, law samaħt. Usually
minimization indicates belittling the quantity or the quality of a thing or action. However,
although zāyda (extra) indicates or “abundance,” it still minimizes the imposition because it
saves the addressee from the feeling of costing the speaker anything (See (328), Sit#7). Among
other expressions of minimization used in this context are ʕilba waħda (one packet), waħda min
ilʕilab (one of the packets), yakfīni illi ʕindi (the ones I have are enough), and ma abghāha
kullaha (I don’t need all of them).
Minimizing the imposition in Sit#15 appears only in (640). The speaker minimizes the FTA of
the offer by using the expression, laħẓa (a moment). She may take longer than a moment to
show the man how to use the machine, however, the speaker uses this belittling of the amount of
time to imply that the offer will not cost her or H anything.
Apologizing for impingement is also used to redress the offer in both situations, with higher
occurrence in Sit# 15. In (628), (641) and (642), āsfa law tadaxxalt (ittadaxxul) (sorry to
interfere) is used. In all the utterances, apologizing is enforced by other NGP strategies to
mitigate the offer. In (628), the speaker admits the infringement and apologizes for that to
redress the imperative (take). The imperative is followed by another mitigation strategy

217
expressed by the akthar min waħda (more than one) to belittle the offer. In (641), the speaker
apologizes twice, using ʕafwan (pardon) together with āsfa (sorry) to indicate reluctance about
impeding H’s autonomy.
To avoid direct confrontation with the strange man, some speakers in Sit#14 and 15, resort to
the nominal forms. In both situations, many speakers avoid using the verb tiħtāj (you need),
which conveys more directness in interaction, changing it to the nominal form miħtāj (in need
of). The form, ittadaxxul is nominalized from tadaxxalt, making (628) and (642) more indirect
than (641). In Sit#15, nominalization is more frequent, changing the verbal phrase asāʕdak (help
you) into the nominal form, musāʕada (help), and the noun ħāb (liker of) the doer from the verb
tħib (you like). The strategy overlaps sometimes with impersonalization.
Pronoun avoidance appears in the deletion of the pronoun ni (me) in tabghāni (want me)
(interference), and the question, tabgha musāʕada? ((you) want help?). In (641), the use of noun
mu ʕārif (you’re not a knower of X) is nominalized from int ma taʕrif. (You don’t know). The
avoidance of the pronoun int (you) has lessened the negative impact of what might appear as
underestimating H’s abilities of not knowing how to use the machine.
Point-of-view distancing is only used in Sit#14 whereas giving compelling reasons to do the
FTA and giving deference are used only in Sit#15. In (629), the speaker is using the past tense
while referring to the moment of the utterance when she says, “idha ħabbēt” (if you liked) to
distance herself from H and from the FTA.
Giving compelling reasons for doing the FTA is used only in Sit# 15 when the FTA is large.
The speaker in (645)-(647) indicates that she would not think of any impingement if she did not
have a compelling reason. That is, S is in a hurry and wants to help the man so she can also
benefit from that. In (647), the speaker is criticizing the man by giving a stronger reason for why
she is offering him help to use the machine, that is, he is misusing the machine.

218
In the Saudi society, giving overwhelming reasons might have reasons other than politeness. It
helps the woman to avoid any possible misunderstandings that might result from such
communication. These justifications also help redress the negative face of the man who might
feel suspicious about anybody approaching him near the cash machine. These utterances support
Mills’ (2003) view that women and men err greatly when interacting with each other; women
often adopt a rude and militant attitude towards men. It seems that women in these utterances
tried to be more masculine in speech to appear stronger.
Giving deference is used by one speaker in Sit#15. In (648), the speaker maximizes the
distance by showing deference to the man through the use of the honorific term, sayyid (Sir) to
address the unfamiliar man. The term conveys respect to the man, indicates the formal aspect of
interaction, and defuses potential face-threatening acts by indicating that S is not in the position
to coerce H’s compliance in any way.
Multiple NGP strategies are used in many utterances in both situations. Minimizing the
imposition, nominalizing, impersonalizing, and apologizing are combined in most utterances.
The combination increases the degree of politeness in these utterances. This complexity of
strategies reveals the speaker’s concern about keeping distance with the strange man regardless
of the risk of imposition.
OFR offers are used in both situations. Examine the following.
Table 4.100. OFR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 15

Sit# 14 Sit# 15
649. (Give it back to the shopkeeper in front of the 653. ēsh ilʔāla ʕaţlāna? willa ma fī fulūs willa il biţāga
man) xalāş; ma rāħ ashtiri hādhi. (Ok, I’m not buying fīha shay? (Is the machine not working? Or there is
this. ) something wrong with the card?)
.‫ ﺧﻼص ﻣﺎ راح أﺷﺘﺮي ھﺎذي‬:‫ﺳﺄﻋﯿﺪھﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺋﻊ أﻣﺎم اﻟﺮﺟﻞ و أﻗﻮل‬ ‫إﯾﺶ اﻵﻟﺔ ﻋﻄﻼﻧﺔ؟ و إﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻓﯿﮫ ﻓﻠﻮس؟ واﻻ اﻟﺒﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﺷﻲ؟‬
650. law samaħt ya bāyiʕ; abgha arrajiʕ hādhi ilʕilba. 654. hiyya ilʔāla ʕaţlāna? bāgi ʕalēk kithīr? (Is the
(Excuse me shopkeeper; I want to return this packet.) machine not working? Do you still have long time?)
‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﯾﺎ ﺑﺎﯾﻊ؛ أﺑﻐﻰ ارﺟﻊ ھﺎذي اﻟﻌﻠﺒﺔ‬ ‫ھﻲ اﻵﻟﺔ ﻋﻄﻼﻧﺔ؟ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ ﻛﺜﯿﺮ؟‬
651. (To the shopkeeper) tfaẓẓal hādhi zāyda 655. fī mushkila fi ilʔāla? (Something is wrong with the

219
Sit#14 Sit#15
(Please, take; this is extra.) machine?)
.‫)ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻣﻞ( ﺗﻔﻀﻞ ھﺎذي زاﯾﺪة‬ ‫ﻓﯿﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻵﻟﺔ؟‬
652. (To the shopkeeper) tfaẓẓal aʕţ hādhi lilli 656. xūy, wish il mishkila? (Brother, what’s the
yabghāha. (Give this to the one who needs it.) problem?)
.‫ﺗﻔﻀﻞ؛ أﻋﻂ ھﺎذي ﻟﻠﻲ ﯾﺒﻐﺎھﺎ‬ ‫ﺧﻮي وش اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ؟‬
657. law samaħt; fī mishkila fi ilʔāla? ʕashān abgha
axalliş. (Excuse me; any problem with the machine
because I want to finish.)
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ؛ ﻓﯿﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﮫ ﻓﻲ اﻵﻟﺔ؟ ﻋﺸﺎن أﺑﻐﻰ اﺧﻠﺺ‬
658. ya xūy, imţawwil? ʕindak mishkila? ana aħtāj
ilʔāla. (Brother, is it going to take you long? do you
have a problem? I need the machine.)
.‫ﯾﺎ ﺧﻮي ﻣﻄﻮل؟ ﻋﻨﺪك ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ؟ أﻧﺎ اﺣﺘﺎج اﻵﻟﺔ‬
Displacing H is a prominent strategy in Sit#14. Because of the awareness of the
communicative context as well as the cultural and religious boundaries of the Saudi society, as
Takano (2005) asserts, the female speaker avoids direct interaction with strange men. The
context indicates that the speaker and the addressee are at the shop, which entails that the
addressee is one of the over hearers or bystanders. The speaker is making an advantage of this
factor in (649)-(652) to avoid direct face-to-face confrontation with the addressee when doing
the FTA. The female speaker is addressing the shopkeeper as if he were the addressee with the
intention to make the strange man, the real addressee, hear the offer, and thus accept it with no
direct confrontation.
Giving hints is the main OFR substrategy in Sit#15. It is used many times with PSP markers.19
In (653) and (656), the questions imply the speaker’s care about the problem and might hint,
therefore, her readiness to give help if needed. The speaker pretends assuming that the machine
is out of order not that the man is taking long time. This will help her avoid coercing the man
and will force the man to tell her about his need for help. The man’s response to her indirect
offer will guide her to state the FTA either directly or not.

220
In (657) and (658), the hints are stronger. By saying, “you’ve spent a long time,” “I’m in a
hurry” and “I need the machine,” the speaker implies a complaint in order to perform the offer
indirectly (Although these hints might appear as requests, the speaker’s intention to make an
offer is decided by the instructions of the DCT and the participants’ comments.) Thus, the
speaker starts the offer by giving hints, and based on the addressee’s reaction to these hints, the
speaker decides whether to state the offer directly or not to perform the FTA at all. These strong
hints, softened by the PSP marker, brother, might force the addressee to give justifications for
the delay, which will make it easier for the speaker then to state the offer directly. This would
make the offer less face threatening. The cultural context in which these utterances take place
justifies what might appear as impoliteness. This again supports Locher’s (2006) rejection of
judging what is not polite as impolite. Some utterances may stand in the middle of this
dichotomy due to cultural and other interfering factors (See Chapter Five (5.5)).
Sit#14 & 15 have also yielded mixed super-strategies. Consider the following responses.
Table 4.101. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 14 & 15

Sit# 14 Sit# 15
659. uxūy, ʕafwan; ana ʕindi ʕilba zāyda; tfaẓẓal. (Brother, 661. uxūy, agdar asāʕidk? (Brother, can I help
pardon; I have an extra package; please, take.) you?)
.‫اﺧﻮي ﻋﻔﻮا؛ اﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻋﻠﺒﺔ زاﯾﺪة؛ ﺗﻔﻀﻞ‬ ‫ اﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك؟‬،‫أﺧﻮي‬
662. ʕafwan uxūy, bas tara agdar asāʕidk idha
660. ya xūy, tara il baţţāriyyāt hina. (Brother, see; the batteries are
here.) ʕindak mishkila. (Pardon brother; but see I can
.‫ ﺗﺮى اﻟﺒﻄﺎرﯾﺎت ھﻨﺎ‬،‫ﯾﺎ ﺧﻮي‬ help you if you have a problem.)
.‫ ﺑﺲ ﺗﺮى أﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك إذا ﻋﻨﺪك ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬،‫ﻋﻔﻮا أﺧﻮي‬
In (659)-(662), the balance between distancing H and creating in-group solidarity is realized
through a repeated shift between the PSP marker uxūy (Brother) and the NGP strategies,
apologizing and minimization of the FTA in (659) and, conventional indirectness in (660). In

221
Sit# 15, the speaker in (661), uses uxūy (Brother) with conventional indirectness, whereas it is
used with apologizing, conventional indirectness and hedging in (662).
In Saudi Arabic, not doing the FTA was a major strategy in both situations. The speakers’
opting out is a manifestation of their awareness of the social and cultural factors that shape their
linguistic behavior when dealing with strange men. Unexpectedly, in Sit# 14, 49.05% did not do
the FTA when the rank of the imposition was low, compared to 28.3% in Sit# 15, when the rank
of imposition was high. The Saudi female speakers may have found it unnecessary to talk to a
strange man for a small offer. In Sit# 15, on the other hand, they found themselves compelled to
make the offer to the man because they felt there was a real need to make the offer and they were
involved in the act.
b. British Englsih
In British English, Sit# 14 and Sit# 15 have yielded exclusive use of NGP. Table 4.102
illustrates the frequency of these strategies.
Table 4.102. Types & Frequencies of Politeness Strategies in British English

Offers in Sit#14 & 15

pos neg
Sit# Freq. 0 0 44 0 0 0 3 47
14
Percent 0 0 93.62 0 0 6.38 100%
Sit# Freq. 0 0 38 1 0 0 8 47
15
Percent 0 0 80.85 2.12 0 17.02 100%
NGP dominated the offers in both situations (93.62% for Sit# 14/80.85% for Sit# 15). The other
strategies are either rare (2.12% for OFR in Sit#15) or completely avoided in both situations as
PSP and BOR. Don’t-do-the FTA is more frequent in Sit#15 (17.02%).

222
NGP, as mentioned above, dominates the strategies in both situations. Conventional
indirectness forms the largest part of NGP in both situations. Hedging, pessimism, apologizing,
deference, and minimization are also used in both situations. Examine the following table.
Table 4.103. NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 14 & 15
Sit#14 Sit#15
663. Do you need batteries? Is it urgent? 684. Do you want me to show you how this works?
664. Do you want one of these? I just need one. 685. (Excuse me) Do you need a hand/help with this
665. I’ve just got the last, do you like to have one? (cash) machine?
666. Would you like one of mine? 686. Do you like me to help you with the machine?
667. (Excuse me)Would you like one of these 687. Do you know how to use the machine, or you
(packets)? need my help?
668. Would you like these, I have two packs? 688. (Excuse me) Can I help you with that?
669. Excuse me, I’ve just bought the last three one 689. Can I help at all?
packets; I really need two of them; would you like to 690. May I help you?
have the third one? 691. May I assist you to read the instructions?
670. I’ve just bought these, would you like to buy one 692. You seem to have trouble. Do you need help?
from me? 693. You seem to be having a little trouble. Can I help
671. Would you like one of these? I really don’t need you in any way?
both packets 694. Excuse me, you’re having some difficulty; can I
672. I have some (two); would you like one of mine? help you?
673. Would you like one of my packets? I just bought 695. Would you like me to tell you how to use the
two. machine?
674. Excuse me. I have bought three would you like to 696. Would you like me to help you with this
buy one of me? machine?
675. Do you need them urgently? you can take a 697. Excuse me; but would you like some help?
packet of mine. 698. Sir, would you like me to help you work the
676. I’ve just bought the last two, but you can buy one buttons?
of these off me? 699. Excuse me sir; may I help you?
677. I have two packets you can have one. 700. Excuse me sir; can I help you with it? I’m not
678. I can give you one; I have two. trying to find out your pin number; I’ll just tell you
679. Here, you can buy one of my packets if you like. what button you need to press.
I don’t need all three. 701. Are you all right with that?
680. I’ve got three packets. I could give you one. 702. Are you having difficulty?
681. Well, you could have one of these.
682. Well, actually you could have one of these.
683. Sorry, but I was the one who bought the last couple.

223
In British English, conventional indirectness in Sit# 14 and Sit# 15 is expressed in different
degrees of politeness. Table 4.104 illustrates the types of questions used in both situations.
Table 4.104. Types & Frequencies of Question Forms in the British Offers in Sit# 14 & 15
Do you Would Can I X? May Are Info. Total
want/need you like I X? you X? Ques.
/like X? X?
Sit# 14 5 22 0 0 0 0 27
Sit# 15 15 7 8 4 2 0 36
In Sit# 14, the majority prefers the expression Would you like. Only a few speakers use the
expression, Do you need/want? To the contrary, the speakers in Sit# 15 use a larger variety of
modals and auxiliaries with higher preference for using Do you want/need X?, followed by Can I
X?. The expression, Would you like X is less frequent in Sit# 15. The formal type of question
May I help/assist X? is only used in Sit# 15. This shows the speakers’ care about the addressee’s
privacy since any interruption may cause inconvenience to the addressee’s confidentiality in
using the cash machine.
Other questions, in Sit# 15, are so high in the degree of indirectness that they could be seen as
closer to OFR strategies than to the NGP ones. These utterances have a weak indication of an
offer because of the high degree of indirectness. The act in (701) and (702) can still be
understood as an offer. The speaker’s asking if the man got any problem with the machine
reveals her concern and readiness to do something about the problem.
The large FTA of the offer in Sit# 15 has an impact on the frequent use of the formulaic
attention getter excuse me. The frequent use of such an alerter is to draw the man’s attention
when interfering in an act that demands highly confidential information. In Sit# 14, on the other
hand, no attention getter is used. The speakers may have found the interruption not as face
threatening as in Sit# 15.

224
Hedging is used on a limited scale in both contexts. In both contexts, the speakers use
gambits, such as really, actually, and downtoners, just (in both situations) and a little (only in
Sit# 14), which, according to Watts (2003), downgrade the impact of the utterance. Conditional
If-clauses are rare in Sit# 14, and absent in Sit# 15. In Sit# 14, in (679), the conditional If-clause
is supported by minimization and conventional indirectness. Another hedging is used in (692) by
the clause, you seem to have trouble, which keeps the speaker distant from the addressee and
from the FTA.
In spite of the low rank of imposition, minimizing the imposition is used extensively in
Sit#14, but rarely in Sit# 15. Minimization in Sit# 14 is expressed by extra, spare, one of mine
(these packets), I don’t need them, I don’t need all the three, and I have two. It serves at the same
time as a justification for doing the offer. In (674), the speaker suggests that the addressee can
buy the batteries from her so the offer will not be understood as a debt to the man. One instance
of minimization in Sit# 15 is expressed in (700), by the use of just to lessen the effect of
intrusion.
In Sit# 15, giving compelling reasons for doing the FTA has turned the offer into a face-
threatening act in (700). After being negatively polite to avoid imposing on the machine
user, the speaker assures him of her good intentions and that she is trying only to help. Such
a justification might be face threatening since it might put the offeree under the pressure of
defending himself against the female’s implied accusation of suspecting her intentions.
In spite of the difference in the degree of the imposition, apologizing appears only once in
Sit#14. In a heavily negatively polite utterance, the speaker in (683) chooses to apologize not for
impingement but for buying the last batteries. Such an apology helps to avoid indebting H since
the speaker indicates that she is the one behind the trouble of not finding the item he is looking
for.

225
Showing deference is only present in Sit# 15 in (698)-(700) by the honorific term, Sir.
OFR offers are rare in Sit# 15 but avoided in Sit# 14. Only one speaker goes off record in
Sit#15 due to the high degree of the imposition.
Table 4. 105. OFR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 15
Sit# 15
703. Is the machine not working?
The speaker in (704) starts the offer by a question to convey the speaker’s concern about the
addressee. The addressee’s response will guide S to state the FTA directly or ignore the situation
completely.
In British English, some speakers chose to opt out in both situations. The number of those who
chose the Don’t-to-do-the FTA strategy in Sit# 15 (17.02%) is higher than in Sit#14 (6.38%).
The speakers found the act in Sit# 15 very face threatening to both the speaker and the addressee
since it could be considered as interference with others’ privacies (Unlike in the Saudi data, no
English participant mentioned any effect of the addressee’s gender on such a choice in any of the
two situations.)
4.2. Analysis of the Interviews
As stated above, the interview technique has been widely recognized as an effective means of
collecting data for language studies (See 3.2.2). The significance of interviews for the present
study is that they may provide additional related information on causal factors for female
realization of offers. In this respect, the interviews focus on areas that the researcher expects the
DCT not to yield effectively pertaining to the cultural role in the speakers’ use of polite
strategies. In this section, the interviews will be content-analyzed and percentages will be

226
reported. The findings of this analysis will be discussed in relation to the findings of the DCT in
Chapter Five.
a. What strategies would you like to use to show sincerity in your offer?
Both groups provided expressions of insistence and begging. To show sincerity, Saudi
women preferred expressions of insistence as tikfēn (please or I beg you), swearing and
other religious expressions, and BOR strategies to give no chance of rejection. They
provided some expressions of insistence la tfashilīni/la trudīni (Don’t let me down) that
change the offer into a face-threatening act to persuade the offeree to accept the offer. The
British speakers, on the other hand, preferred only the use of please.
b. Do you like to insist on the acceptance of your offer?
For the Saudi female speakers, 54% found insisting on H’s acceptance of an offer
appropriate because it shows the offerer’s sincerity to carry out the offer since many people
reject the offer for the first time because they are either embarrassed or shy to accept it.
Some participants (32%) showed high awareness of the context in terms of the social
distance with the addressee and the rank of imposition of offer. To them, insisting is
conditional; it depends on how close the addressee is, how sincere the offerer is, and how
serious the FTA is. That is, they insist and repeat the offer if it is simple, but not if it is large.
Moreover, the partcipnats are likely to repeat the offer and insist on its accpetance if the
offeree needs it. With formal relationships, they would make the offer only once. They
emphasized that whenever the distance is big, insistence and swearing are not appropriate if
the offer is once rejected. Only 14% commented that they find it inappropriate if someone
insists that the addressee accept the offer after s/he rejects it.

227
For the British speakers, 70% commented that it is inappropriate for anybody to insist that
the addressee accept the offer if he/she once rejects it. They remarked that they would not
choose to repeat the offer because in their culture, saying no means no and they should
respect the addressee’s wish. Some of them commented that insisting might be insulting.
Only 30% commented that it depends on the social distance and the rank of the imposition.
They would repeat the offer in certain circumstances, that is, if the offeree needs the offer
but embarrassed to accept it. In small offers, offerers do not like to insist. Many others
pointed out the importance of the social distance with the offeree. They may repeat the offer
if the person is a husband, a relative or a close friend.
c. Have you heard someone swear to God to convince you to accept the offer? Do you
use this expression with everybody?
In the Saudi group, the majority (60%) found swearing to God appropriate in the
realization of offers. However, they only would insist on those who are socially close even if
of higher power like the mother, teacher. They all almost avoided swearing to God with
people of high social distance and opposite gender. 40% asserted that they do not like to use
God’s Name in vein, but they emphasized that it is a societal must to indicate sincerity and
firmness in offer.
Most of the British speakers found the question weird. Only two said they heard swearing
to God due to their interaction with Arabs whereas 94% said they have not heard it and they
do not find it appropriate to use such expressions in offers. One participant commented that
swearing signals bad luck and should be avoided in speech.

228
d. Is there a difference in making offers to men and women? What if the man is a
relative?
For the Saudi women, the majority (90%) said there are differences, unless the man is a
father or a brother, but if the man is an outsider, then there will be extreme differences.
With women, whether close or distant, the female offerer usually feels more comfortable to
make the offer, joke, and insist whereas with distant men, she tends to be formal and
cautious as to avoid misunderstanding. The minority, 10%, claimed no difference in the way
they make an offer to a man or a woman.
Although 85% stated that gender makes no difference in realizing offers, surprisingly, a
few British female speakers (5%) remarked that they realize an offer to a man differently
from a woman. Some remarked that they are likely to be more insistent with women because
women are sometimes more shy and hesitant. Some speakers added that they would make
more offers to men because this would show that women are confident and equal to men.
The 10% of the participants emphasized the role of the context in the choice and the type of
the offer, rather than the addressee’s gender. It depends on the type of offer and the degree
of urgency. In urgent offers, there is usually no difference in making offers to men or
woman, close or distant.
4.3 Summary
This Chapter presented a micro sociopragmatic analysis of the collected data. The analysis took
a form of comparison of pairs of situations that agree in most of the contextual determinants but
differ in one. The aim of this contrast, at this level of analysis, is to investigate the effect of the
different determinants on the use of politeness strategies among Saudi and British female
speakers. The analysis has been supported by some quantitative statistics of the frequencies of

229
these strategies in both groups. Interviews were held to complement the results of the DCT and
provide additional information about the use of politeness strategies in realizing offers.
As abovementioned, this chapter was restricted to micro sociopragmatic analysis. Therefore,
conclusions about the results are relegated to Chapter Five to ensure verifications of these results
on statistical basis.

230
Chapter 5
Findings & Discussion
The aim of this study is to investigate the differences in the female use of politeness strategies
at a cross-cultural level between Saudi Arabic and British English in realizing offers, focusing
on the effect of some social and contextual variables on these strategies. To this end, the DCT
consisted of 15 situations testing the speakers’ realization of the contextual determinants of
power, social distance and the rank of imposition. The addressee’s gender, a prime social
variable, was also tested to investigate the cultural differences. Another influential variable, the
degree of the speaker’s involvement in the speech event, has been discovered in the course of
data collection and its effect will be analyzed in this chapter.
To answer the research questions, two methods of analysis were adopted in this study.
Chapter Four (4.1) attempted a qualitative sociopragmatic analysis in which the researcher
looked in the politeness strategies, their frequencies, and the effect of the social and cultural
factors on their implementation. Chapter Four revealed some differences in frequencies and
types of politeness strategies between Saudi and British female speakers.
The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to test the significance of these differences and the role
of the contextual determinants and the other variables in causing these differences. The
chapter consists of three major sections. The first section (5.1) answers the research questions
using an SPSS program to test the significance of the differences in frequencies in Chapter
Four. The second section (5.2) discusses the findings of the tests, and the third section (5.3) is
a commentary on B&L’s (1987) model based on the findings of the analysis. Sections 5.4 and
5.5 discuss some views about the speech act of offer in the light of the present findings.
In Chapter One, the researcher based her study on the following questions:

231
1. Are there significant inter-group differences between Saudi Arabic and British English
female speakers in using politeness strategies in realizing offers?
2. Are there intra-group differences between Saudi Arabic and British English groups? That
is, are there variations in the use of politeness strategies in realizing offers within the
same female group in each culture?
3. Are there significant differences in the way Saudi Arabic and British English female
speakers realize the contextual determinants of politeness (i.e., power, social distance &
rank of imposition) in the speech act of offering?
4. How is the addressee’s gender realized in offers by Saudi Arabic and British English
female speakers?
5. Is there a significant relationship between the contextual determinant and the type of
politeness strategy?
6. Are there other factors that may affect female speakers’ use of politeness strategies in
realizing offers?
7. Is Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model of politeness applicable to the Saudi context?
To answer the research questions, different tests were run. To answer the first question about
the significance of the inter-group differences in politeness strategies, a chi square and an
ANOVA test were run. A paired sample test was also run for the intra-group differences. To
answer the third question about the differences between the two groups in realizing B&L’s
(1987) contextual determinants (power, social distance, rank), and gender, a T-test, and an
ANOVA test were used. For the fourth, fifth and sixth questions, a Pearson Correlation test
was also used to investigate the relationship between the contextual variables and the type of
the politeness strategies in both cultures.

232
5.1 Inter- & Intra-group Differences in the Use of Politeness Strategies

5.1.1 Using a Chi-square for Inter-group Differences
First, the inter-group differences were investigated in two ways: regarding the use of
politeness strategies in the designed situations, on the one hand, and the preference of the type
of strategy in general, on the other.
A chi-square was run to investigate the inter-group differences in the realization of politeness
strategies in the targeted situations. The test showed significant differences in frequencies of
the politeness strategies in most of the situations that were collected in Chapter Four. Examine
the following table.
Table 5.1. Chi-square Test for the Significance of the Inter-group Differences
between the Saudi and the British Female Speakers according to the Situations
Sit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
χ2 9.357 34.202 26.202 60.133 40.104 10.589 21.302 31.117
Sig. .096 .000** .000** .000** .000** 0.032* .000** .000**
Sit 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
χ2 6.600 9.075 44.690 21.111 47.404 42.100 10.350
Sig. .252 .059 .000** .001** .000** .000** .035*

Sit= Situation χ2 = Chi-square Sig.= Significance
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 5.1 indicates significant differences in most of the situations except in Sit#1, 9, and 10.
To begin with, when making an offer to the mother (i.e., very close social distance), when the
rank of imposition was low and the addressee’s power was high, the differences in the
politeness strategies were significant (χ2 (4, 50) = 34.202, p < .000). The majority of the Saudi
group chose the positive way of Don’t-do-the FTA; they performed the offer in action instead
of uttering it. The British, on the other hand, were conventionally indirect.

233
When the offer, made to the mother, was of high imposition, the differences remained
significant between the two female groups (χ2 (4, 47) = 26.202, p < .000). Many Saudi female
speakers were positively polite. In contrast, although the offer yielded more PSP compared to
the other situations, the majority of the British remained negatively polite.
When making a high-imposition offer to the maid, who is of a lower power status in the
Saudi culture, the differences were more salient between the two cultural groups (χ2 (4, 47) =
60.133, p < .000). The Saudis were more direct, using PSP and BOR offers, whereas the
British were exclusively negatively polite to keep distance. The maid, as mentioned above, is
treated as a member of the family in the Saudi society with whom she usually resides and lives
permanently. However, in the British society, the relation between the maid and the employers
is less intimate because the maid or housecleaner usually comes for a few hours to do the house
chores on agreed times.
Significant differences persisted even when addressing a close friend. Whether the rank of
imposition was low (χ2 (4, 50) = 40.104, p < .000), or high (χ2 (4, 47) =10.589, p < .032), NGP
remained dominant in the British group. The Saudis were positively polite in the former case
but negatively polite in the latter. Despite the inclination towards NGP in the two groups when
the rank of the imposition was high, significant differences existed because the frequency of
NGP was much higher among the British group.
Another instance of significant differences appeared when making a simple offer to a
socially distant female speaker of higher power (χ2 (4, 50) = 21.302, p < .000). BOR strategies
and NGP were prevalent among the Saudis, whereas NGP was dominant in the British group.
In this case, the differences may be attributed to analyzing expression tfaẓẓal(ay) as a BOR
offer. The dual function of such an expression enabled the Saudi speakers to be direct and
deferent at the same time. By the use of this expression, the Saudi speakers in many cases did

234
not have to resort to NGP or other OFR strategies. The absence of such an expression in
English obliged the speakers to express deference by relying heavily on negatively polite
expressions. The absence of such expressions in English, therefore, made the speakers resort to
NGP to redress the offer.
When offering food to an unfamiliar female guest who is visiting the speaker for the first
time, the two cultures seem to value establishing intimacy with the guest to relieve the guest
from the unease of the situation. Nonetheless, the differences remained significant (χ2 (5, 50) =
31.117, p < .000). The Saudi Arabic offers showed exceptional high frequency of BOR
strategy. In spite of the high frequency of NGP as a common expression of respecting
autonomy, the frequency of the BOR offers in Sit# 8 was relatively high in the British group
compared to the other situations. Again, analyzing tfaẓẓal(ay), here, as a BOR offer might have
played a crucial role in these differences.
Making an offer to a strange woman at the supermarket (i.e., the social distance is at the
highest level) brought about significant differences between the two groups (χ2 (4, 50) =
44.690, p < .000). PSP was much more frequent among the Saudis than the British, who
remained negatively polite. The difference was mainly caused by the use of the address form,
xāla (aunt), which is classified as an in-group identity marker. This cultural-specific feature of
kinship address forms in Arabic made it easier for the Saudis to establish solidarity with the
most socially distant people. Calling a strange woman aunt is not common in the British
society as some speakers reported.
When the gender of the addressee was different, the Saudi female speakers changed their
strategies markedly, that is, from direct (BOR & PSP) to indirect and OFR strategies. In
contrast, the British female speakers showed no difference in the use of politeness strategies;

235
NGP remained the choice of the majority. Hence, the differences between the two groups
remained significant regardless of the male addressee’s power status.
Significant inter-group differences rose when the male addressee was of lower power, and the
offer was of low rank of imposition (χ2 (5, 50) =21.111, p< .001). BOR offers were dominant
among the Saudi female group whereas the British female speakers remained exclusively
negatively polite.
When the female speakers had to approach a man of equal power to offer him help of
guidance, the differences remained significant (χ2 (2, 50) = 47.404, p< 000) because of the high
frequency of opting out among the Saudi speakers. In another speech event, when the male
addressee was also of equal power and the rank of imposition was low, as in offering a strange
man some batteries, significant differences persisted (χ2 (4, 47) = 42.100, p < .000), again with
opting out as the dominant strategy in the Saudi female group.
But, when the socially distant man was of equal power, and the rank of imposition was high,
significant differences persisted (χ2 (4, 47) = 10.350, p < .035). The Saudi female speakers
used NGP and opting out as prevalent strategies, whereas NGP was the dominant strategy in
the British group.
Insignificant inter-group differences existed when offering the father (i.e., low social
distance) help of low rank of imposition (χ2 (5, 50) = 9.357, p= .096). The inclination was geared
towards NGP in both groups.
Similarly, insignificant differences existed when making an offer of high rank of imposition to
a socially distant and powerful female addressee (χ2 (5, 47) = 6.600, p= .252). NGP was
prevalent in both groups.

236
Another instance of insignificant inter-group differences existed when addressing a socially
distant female speaker of equal power, but when the rank of the imposition was high (χ2 (4, 47) =
9.075, p = .059). NGP was also prevalent in both groups.
5.1.2 ANOVA Tests for Inter-group Differences
Another way to investigate the inter-group differences was to compare the means of the used
politeness strategies in general, regardless of the situations in which these strategies were used.
Table 5.2 and 5.3 illustrate these differences.
Table 5.2. Mean Difference in the Overall Use of Politeness Strategies between
the Saudi and British Group
Strat. Gr N Mean Std. Dev
BOR S 15 9.2000 10.32473
B 15 3.3333 4.09994
PSP S 15 9.8667 9.22626
B 15 3.0000 3.62531
NGP S 15 17.8667 11.12826
B 15 36.5333 6.63181
OFR S 15 .8667 1.64172
B 15 .1333 .35187
Mix S 15 4.2000 4.10922
B 15 3.1333 3.56304
NOTDO S 15 11.0000 9.22729
B 15 2.7333 2.60403
Strat=strategy Gr= group N= number of situations Std.Dev=Standard deviation BOR=bald on record PSP= positive politeness
NGP= negative politeness OFR= off-record NOTDO= Don’t-do-FTA
Table 5.3. ANOVA Test for the Significance of Differences between the Saudi
& British Groups in the Type of Strategy
Sum of Mean
Strat. Squares df Square F Sig.
BOR Between Groups 258.133 1 258.133 4.183 .050*
Within Groups 1727.733 28 61.705
Total 1985.867 29
PSP Between Groups 353.633 1 353.633
7.197 .012*
Within Groups 1375.733 28 49.133
Total
1729.367 29
NGP Between Groups 2613.333 1 2613.333 31.145 .000**
Within Groups 2349.467 28 83.910
Total 4962.800 29

237
Table 5.3. Continued

Sum of Mean
Strat. Squares df Square F Sig.
OFR Between Groups 4.033 1 4.033 2.861 .102
Within Groups 39.467 28 1.410
Total 43.500 29
Mix Between Groups 8.533 1 8.533 .577 .454
Within Groups 414.133 28 14.790
Total 422.667 29
NOTDO Between Groups 512.533 1 512.533 11.151 .002**
Within Groups 1286.933 28 45.962
Total 1799.467 29
Strat.= Strategy Gr.= group df= degree of freedom BOR=bald on record PSP= positive politeness NGP= negative politeness OFR=
off-record
NOTDO= Don’t-do-FTA
**The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
Table 5.2 and 5.3 indicate that the significant differences in the politeness strategies between
the two cultural groups are centered around the BOR, PSP, NGP, and Don’t-do-the FTA. The
first two strategies plus the fourth were more significantly frequent among Saudi female
speakers, F (1, 28) = 4.183, p < .050 and F (1, 28) = 7.197, p < .012, F (1, 28) = 11.151, p <
.002, respectively. NGP, on the other hand, was more significantly frequent among the British
female speakers, F (1, 28) =31.145, p < .000. This supports Larina’s (2005) view that the
attempt to reduce the imposing nature of an act is typical in English communication. English
speakers tend to prefer more structurally indirect constructions. Don’t-do-the FTA was
significantly high among the Saudis because of the high frequency of opting out with male
addressees. No significant differences were traced in the use of the OFR and mixed strategies.
The two groups used these strategies almost in the same frequency, F (1, 28) = 2.861, p =.102,
F (1, 28) = .577, p = .454, respectively because no one usually makes an offer through using
OFR. The nature of the offer as a speech act requires and necessitates directness as appearing
from on-record strategies. These significant differences in the use of the politeness strategies

238
between the two groups contradict Mills (2003) and Holmes’ (1995) assumption that PSP is
characteristic of woman’s language across cultures.
5.1.3 Paired-Sample Test for Intra-group Differences
To answer the second question, the intra-group differences were also investigated in two ways.
First, as indicated in Table 5.2, the standard deviation among the Saudi speakers is always
larger than among their British counterparts in all the types of politeness strategies. This may
indicate that the individual differences in the use of politeness strategies were higher among
the Saudi female speakers because they used more varied direct and indirect strategies than the
British, whose majority was always inclined to using conventional indirectness in their offers.
Second, a pair-sample test was used to investigate the intra-group differences to examine how
the speakers within each group changed their strategies from one situation to another.
Table 5.4. Paired-Sample Test for the Intra-group Differences of the Two Groups
Sit. Pair Saudi British
T-value D.F Sig. T-value D.F Sig.
sit1 - sit2 -3.124 52 .003** -.798 49 .429
sit3 - sit4 2.209 52 .032* -3.163 46 .003**
sit5 - sit6 -6.596 52 .000** 1.229 49 .225
sit7 - sit8 5.312 52 .000** 1.915 49 .061
sit9 - sit10 3.332 52 .002** .659 46 .513
sit11-sit13 -9.909 52 .000** -.785 49 .436
sit12 - sit13 -10.744 52 .000** -2.401 49 .020*
sit14 - sit15 3.879 52 .000** -2.406 46 .020*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ** The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 5.4 indicates significant differences within each group. However, such differences were, in
most cases, more frequent and at a higher level of significance in the Saudi group across the
situations, which supports the previous results of the standard deviations of the two groups.

239
The Saudi female speakers realized offering help of a low rank of imposition to the mother in a
way that is significantly different from the father (t (52) = -3.124, p< .003). The Saudi female
speakers were more negatively polite to the father. They used a variety of PSP strategies with the
mother. They also chose not to say anything but to do the offer nonverbally instead of consulting
the mother.
Offering an expensive item to the mother and the maid showed significant differences among
the Saudis (t (52) = 2.209, p < .032). The Saudis used more BOR and PSP with the maid. In
making an offer to a close female friend, the Saudis changed their strategies markedly from PSP
to NGP as the rank of the imposition increased (t (52) = -6.596, p < .000).
The intra-group differences were also significant among the Saudi female speakers when
realizing an offer of low-imposition to two addressees of different power-status (t (52)= 5.312, p
< .000). They changed their strategies from NGP when addressing the superior to more BOR
offers when addressing a female with equal power.
Similarly, when the rank of the imposition of the offer of help was high with two addressees of
different power status, the Saudis intra-group differences were significant (t (52) = 3.332,
P < .002). In spite of the prevalence of NGP in both situations, opting out was more frequent
with a superior.
The intra-group differences in the Saudi female group were also significant when approaching a
strange man and a strange woman in a public place (t (52) = -9.909, p< .000). The Saudi female
speakers changed their strategies from PSP when approaching a strange woman to an
exceptionally high frequency of opting out when addressing the strange man.
For the Saudi female speakers, the previous situation of approaching a strange man to make
him an offer was also more face threatening than offering a shopkeeper (a cashier) a cell phone

240
calculator; thus, opting out was the most frequent strategy in the former situation (t (52)= -
10.744, p < .000).
The intra-group differences in the Saudi female group were also significant when addressing
two strange men of equal power (t=3.879, p < .000). The Saudis changed their strategies
according to the rank of imposition of the offer; there was a lower frequency of opting out than
all the former situations of male addressees when the rank of the imposition was high.
The intra-group differences within the British female were insignificant in most of the
situations. In most cases, the British female speakers did not vary their strategies from one
situation to another. They did not vary their strategies between the mother and the father
(t (49) = -.798, p= .429). The British remained negatively polite with both addressees.
In addressing a close friend whether the rank of imposition was high or low, the British female
speakers were constantly negatively polite (t (49) = 1.229, p= .225). The intra-group differences
in the realization of an offer of low rank of imposition to two female addressees of different
power-status were not significant among the British (t (46)= 1.915, p= .061). NGP was dominant
in both situations. When the rank of the imposition was high and the two socially distant female
addresses were of different power status, the differences were insignificant in the realization of
the strategies (t (46) = .659, p= .513). NGP was dominant in both situations regardless of the
addressees’ power-status.
Significant differences existed within the British group when they made an offer to the mother
and the maid (t (46) = -3.163, p < .003). The British speakers were more exclusively negatively
polite with the maid than with the mother. This salient difference underlines the influence of
culture on the speaker’s linguistic behavior regarding the social relationship with a housecleaner.

241
Similarly, the British female speakers seemed to find approaching a man to offer him help less
impeding to the man’s privacy than offering the cell phone to a man of lower power (t (49)= -
2.401, p < .020). This was expressed in the excessive use of NGP with the latter addressee.
Making an offer of two different ranks of imposition to two strange men of the same power-
status revealed significant differences (t (46) = -2.406, p < .020). The British speakers used more
NGP when the rank of imposition was high and more opting out when it was low.
The previous intra-group differences have contributed to provide additional insight into some
other inter-group differences that were not explained in the previous analyses. For example, the
intra-group differences showed that the relationship between the father and the daughter is more
formal than that with the mother among the Saudi female speakers whereas the British female
speakers realize the relationship equally between the mother and the father. Similarly,
approaching a strange woman to offer her some help was less face threatening to the Saudi
female speaker than approaching a strange man. The British female speakers responded equally
to both addresses, using NGP in both situations.
The previous analyses displayed significant differences between the two cultures. Thus, the
first two null hypotheses are rejected. There are significant inter- and intra-group differences
between the Saudi and the British female groups.
However, the previous tests could not explain what causes these the inter- and intra-group
differences. It is of the same importance, though, to study the causes that underpin these
differences. According to B&L (1987), differences across cultures in the use of politeness
strategies result from the different realizations of the contextual determinants. Larina (2005) also
contends, “(…) differences in politeness systems reflect differences in social relationships and
are determined by culture-specific values.” (p. 38) Thus, the next section (5.1.4) will investigate
the exact role of these determinants in these differences.

242
5.1.4 ANOVAs & T-tests for Contextual Determinants
As aforementioned, B&L (1987) claim that these cultural differences in the use of
politeness strategies derive from the different realizations of the contextual determinants
across cultures. This section aims at investigating the reasons of the significance of the
differences that appeared in the micro-sociopragmatic analysis supported with frequencies in
Chapter Four and the analyses in 5.1.1-5.1.3.
An ANOVA and a T-test were run to answer the question that investigates the realization
of the contextual determinants in the two cultures. Consider the following tables.
Table 5. 5. One-way ANOVA Test for the Effect of Power on the Use of Politeness Strategies
Sum of
Strategy d.f. Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 102.700 2 51.350 .443
Within Groups 1389.700 12 115.808 .652
BOR
Total 1492.700 14
Between Groups 46.533 2 23.267 .244 .787
PSP Within Groups 1145.200 12 95.433
Total 1191.733 14
Between Groups 109.200 2 54.600
NGP Within Groups 1587.200 12 132.267 .413 .671
Total 1696.400 14
OFR Within Groups 35.200 12 2.933 .432 .659
Total 1.733 14
Between Groups 2.033 2 20.863 1.286 .312
MIX Within Groups 175.700 12 16.223
Total 236.400 14
NOTDO Within Groups 1166.800 12 97.233 .130 .880
Total 1192.000 14
BOR=bald on record PSP= positive politeness NGP= negative politeness OFR= off-record NOTDO= Don’t-do-FTA

243
Table 5. 6. One-way ANOVA for the Effect of Power on the Use of Politeness
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups 12.133 2 6.067 .326 .728
BOR Within Groups 223.200 12 18.600
Total 235.333 14
Between Groups 52.300 2 26.150 2.383 .134
Total 184.000 14
NGP Between Groups 109.433 2 54.717 1.297 .309
Within Groups 506.300 12 42.192
Total 615.733 14
Between Groups .058 2 .029 .209 .814
OFR Within Groups 1.675 12 .140
Total 1.733 14
Between Groups 2.033 2 1.017 .069 .933
Total 177.733 14
Between Groups 7.258 2 3.629 .497 .621
NOTDO Within Groups 87.675 12 7.306
Total 94.933 14
Table5.7. One-way ANOVA for the Effect of Social Distance on the Use of Politeness
Sum Mean
Strategy d.f. F Sig.
of Squares Square
Between Groups 239.450 3 79.817 .701 .571
Total 1492.400 14
PSP Within Groups 610.800 11 55.527 3.307 0.056
Total 1161.733 14
NGP Within Groups 1302.950 11 118.450 1.107 0.387
Total 1696.400 14
OFR Within Groups 27.750 11 2.523 1.319 0.318
Total 37.733 14
Between Groups 39.600 3 13.200 .738 .551
Total 236.400 14
NOTDO Within Groups 696.700 11 63.336 2.607 0.104
Total 1192.000 14

244
Table 5.8. One-way ANOVA for the Effect of Social Distance on the Use of Politeness
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups 33.283 3 11.094 .604 .626
Total 235.333 14
Between Groups 99.700 3 33.233 4.336 .030*
Total 184.000 14
Between Groups 168.483 3 56.161 1.381 .300
NGP Within Groups 447.250 11 40.659
Total 615.733 14
Between Groups .183 3 .061 .434 .733
OFR Within Groups 1.550 11 .141
Total 1.733 14
Between Groups 117.183 3 39.061 7.096 .006**
Total 177.733 14
Between Groups 4.633 3 1.544 .188 .902
NOTDO Within Groups 90.300 11 8.209
Total 94.933 14
Table 5.9. T-test for the Effect of the Rank of Imposition on the Use of Politeness
Std.
Strategy RANK N Mean T-value Sig.
Deviation
low 9 13.1111 11.54821
BOR 1.974 .070
high 6 3.3333 4.03320
low 9 9.5556 8.95979
PSP -.154 .880
high 6 10.3333 10.46263
low 9 13.3333 7.59934
NGP -2.174 .049*
high 6 24.6667 12.72268
low 9 .6667 1.00000
OFR -.564 .583
high 6 1.1667 2.40139
low 9 3.7778 4.38115
MIX -.474 .644
high 6 4.8333 3.97073
low 9 12.5556 11.33701
NOTDO 0.789 .444
high 6 8.6667 4.67618
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

245
Table 5.10. T-test for the Effect of Rank of Imposition on the Use of Politeness
Std.
Strategy RANK N Mean T-value Sig.
Deviation
low 9 4.7778 4.76387
BOR 1.800 .095
high 6 1.1667 1.16905
low 9 3.2222 2.99073
PSP .281 .783
high 6 2.6667 4.71876
low 9 35.1111 7.89691
NGP -1.019 .327
high 6 38.6667 3.77712
low 9 .1111 .33333
OFR -.290 .777
high 6 .1667 .40825
low 9 3.7778 4.32371
MIX .849 .411
high 6 2.1667 1.94079
low 9 2.6667 2.34521
NOTDO -.117 .909
high 6 2.8333 3.18852
The above analyses showed similarities and differences between the two cultural groups in
the realization of the contextual determinants. For both groups, the ANOVA test did not show
a significant impact of power on the use of polite offers. The social distance for the Saudi
group, on the other hand, showed a semi-significant impact on PSP (F= 3.307, p= .056). For
the British, the impact of social distance was obvious; there was a significant impact of this
variable on PSP (F= 4.336, p < .030) and the mixed superstrategies (F= 7.096, p< .006). The
T-test, on the other hand, showed a significant influence of the rank of the imposition on the
use of NGP in the Saudi group (F= -2.174, p< .049). For the British group, the rank of the
imposition showed no significant impact on the type of strategy.
The previous tests indicated a significant effect of some of the contextual determinants;
however, they could not explain how these determinants affected the politeness strategies, or
the direction of the significance of the effect. Thus, it was necessary to run a Pearson
correlation test to verify the previous results, on the one hand, and probe interpretation for the
relationship between these determinants and the type of politeness strategies, on the other.

246
Table 5.11. Pearson Correlation Test between the Type of Strategy & B&L’s (1987)
Contextual Determinants in Saudi Arabic Offers
Strategy
P SD R
BOR Pearson Correlation -.119 -.039 -.480
Sig. (2-tailed) .674 .890 .070
PSP Pearson Correlation .027 -.644** .043
Sig. (2-tailed) .948 .010 .880
NGP Pearson Correlation .203 .215 .516*
Sig. (2-tailed) .468 .442 .049
OFR Pearson Correlation -.103 .435 .154
Sig. (2-tailed) .715 .105 .583
Mix Pearson Correlation .036 .000 .130
Sig. (2-tailed) .899 1.000 .644
NOTDO Pearson Correlation -.137 .351 -.214
Sig. (2-tailed) .625 .199 .444
Table 5.12. Pearson Correlation Test between the Type of the Strategy & B&L’s (1987)
Contextual Determinants in British English Offers
Strategy
Correlation P SD R
BOR Pearson Correlation -.103 .136 -.447
Sig. (2-tailed) .715 .628 .095
PSP Pearson Correlation .408 -.575* -.078
Sig. (2-tailed) .131 .025 .783
NGP Pearson Correlation -.312 .521* .272
Sig. (2-tailed) .257 .047 .327
OFR Pearson Correlation .180 -.374 -.218
Sig. (2-tailed) .521 .170 .435
Mix Pearson Correlation .102 -.577* -.209
Sig. (2-tailed) .717 .024 .455
NOTDO Pearson Correlation .042 -.092 .169
Sig. (2-tailed) .881 .743 .548
The Pearson Correlation test supported most of the results of the previous tests pertaining to
the realization of the contextual determinants in the two cultures. However, unlike the ANOVA
test, the correlation test of the Saudi Arabic offers indicated a strong negative relationship

247
between social distance and PSP (r = -.644, p < .010) and a positive one between the rank of
the imposition and NGP (r =.516, p < .049). For the British female speakers, on the other hand,
the test showed effect only of social distance on the strategies used. There was a significant
negative correlation between social distance and PSP (r = -.575, p < .025) and mixed
superstrategies(r = .577, p< .024), on the one hand, and a positive one with NGP (r = .521 p <
.047) on the other. Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 will explain the significance of these relationships.
5.2 Contextual Determinants & Polite Offers
5.2.1 Power vs. Social Distance
One of the most difficult variables to analyze in the feminist linguistic behavior is power
(Mills, 2003). Both types of tests (ANOVA and Pearson Correlation) indicated no significant
impact of the addressee’s power on the speakers’ choice of politeness strategies in both
cultures, regardless of the level of imposition or social distance. This finding is supported by
the results of the interviews in which the two cultural groups remarked that they used intimate
expressions only with familiar people even if of higher status of power. Many British
interviewees remarked that their society is not hierarchical. That is, the power of the addressee
is not significant in the way the speaker interacts in discourse.
The social distance, on the other hand, showed a significant impact on the use of the
politeness strategies in both groups. There was a negatively significant correlation between the
social distance and PSP in the Saudi group. That is, whenever the social distance increased, the
use of PSP decreased. The Saudi female speakers expressed intimacy and solidarity with closer
people by using forms of endearment, in-group language, religious expressions, jokes, and so
forth (See 4.1). They avoided such strategies when the social distance increased. Similarly, but
at a lower level of significance, in British English, PSP correlated negatively with social

248
distance. British speakers were positively polite whenever the social distance decreased. NGP,
on the other hand, correlated positively with social distance among the British speakers; that is,
whenever the social distance increased, the British speakers were likely to use NGP as a
manifestation of respecting the other’s freedom. Mixed strategies were also more frequent
when the social distance decreased. That is, the British female speakers varied their strategies
in the same utterance to combine solidarity with deference.
These results contradict B&L’s (1987) view about the simple relationship between power and
politeness strategies. They also contradict Holmes’ (1995) view regarding the effect of power
on female use politeness, but support her claim about the strong relationship between social
distance and females’ use of polite speech acts.
These findings about the effect of power and social distance on the two female groups also
support Larina’s (2005) assertion that the English society has a horizontal scale of social
distance rather than the vertical scale of power. In English interaction, those who are of higher
social status treat the subordinates as their equal emphasizing the cultural value of equality. On
the other hand, the scale of social distance is longer in English culture than in the Saudi. The
preference for conventional indirectness in British English is characteristic not only in formal
occasions, but also in everyday encounters. This stresses, as Larina contends, that the British
speakers place a higher value on privacy. Thus, the cultural norms demand a more distant
system of behavior. Social distance in English culture surrounds every person despite his/her
age or status (Larina, 2005).
In contrast, it seems that in the Saudi culture, the social distance is shorter and the personal
preserve is smaller. PSP and BOR offers are broadly used in Saudi interaction. In Saudi Arabic
discourse, polite usage permits many direct imperatives than English. Hence, treating the
addressee in a direct way is conventionally acceptable in Saudi Arabic.

249
The above analyses, either in this chapter or in the previous one, have shown that contextual
determinants are flexible and changeable across cultures. For example, pertaining to social
distance, what Saudi females consider close, their British counterparts may consider distant. A
prime example can be taken from the relationship with the maid (or house cleaner). The rating
of the social distance with the maid in Appendix G showed a huge difference between the two
cultures. The majority of the Saudi group regarded the maid as very close whereas a small
number of the British group considered her so. In the realization of this relationship in the
DCT, the discrepancy persisted; the Saudis were more direct and positively polite whereas the
British were highly negatively polite when offering something to the maid (See 4.1 & 5.1-5.3).
This assumption accords with what Larina (2005) contends that “the asymmetry of social
relationships and differences in cultural values gives an indication of how to understand
differences in the politeness systems as they are clearly reflected in the way people use the
language in their interaction.” (p. 37)
However, in spite of the statistically insignificant relationship between power and the type of
strategy in the both cultures, there were instances that showed an impact of power on the type
of language used. With the two addressees of lower power (i.e., the maid and the cashier), the
speakers in both cultures (only with the maid for the British) used many expressions that may
sound inappropriate if used with people of equal or higher power (See 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.2.3 for
the socio-pragmatic analysis). Regarding making an offer to people of relatively high social
distance and the offer of high rank of imposition, the speakers’ language in most utterances
was more formal, brief, and less complex, compared to their language when the addressee
under the same contextual determinants was of equal power (See 4.1.2.2 for the socio-
pragmatic analysis).

250
5.2.2 Rank of Imposition
Contrary to the common belief in the literature that the rank of imposition is less influential
than the other two contextual determinants (Watts, 2003; Wongwarangkul, 2000) and that the
degree of imposition is highly dependent upon the tolerance level of the individual involved
(Cheng, 2005), the analyses above showed a strong effect of this variable on the use of
politeness strategies in the Saudi culture. Tables 5.9 and 5.11 indicate a significant effect of the
rank of imposition on the Saudi female use of NGP in offers. That is, the higher the imposition
of the offer, the more negatively polite the speakers were. As the Saudi speakers commented in
the interviews, they find large offers face-threatening acts to them and to offerees regardless of
the other contextual determinants. When the offer is large, they usually avoid using strategies
of insistence, such as swearing. Instead, they give freedom of choice to the offeree to accept or
reject the offer to avoid embarrassing the addressee and to save themselves the trouble of
carrying out such offers.
Table 5.13 illustrates how the rank of imposition of the offer affected the use of politeness
strategies in the pair of situations that had similar contextual determinants but differed in the
rank of imposition.
Table 5.13. Paired-sample Test of the Effect of the Rank of Imposition on the Politeness
Strategies in Saudi Arabic and British English Offers
Sit2 –3 Sit5 –6 Sit14-15 Sit6-10
Paired
Test Saudi British Saudi British Saudi British Saudi British
df 52 46 52 49 52 46 52 46
t 2.969 2.843 -6.596 1.229 3.879 -2.406 -.389 2.297
Sig. .005** .007** .000** .225 .000* .020* .699 .201
**The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level * The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Sometimes the rank of the imposition showed influence independent of the influence of the
other determinants. The closeness of social distance diminished when the rank of imposition
went higher (mainly in the Saudi group). For example, as explained before, in offering help of

251
low rank of imposition and offering an expensive item to the same addressee (i.e., the mother),
the Saudi speakers changed their strategies significantly (t (52) = 2.969, p < .005) in the two
situations in spite of the stability of the other contextual determinants (i.e., social distance &
power). When the rank of imposition was higher, more distancing strategies such as NGP and
negative silence (i.e., opting out) were used despite the intimate relationship with the mother.
Similarly, significant differences rose between offering a cheap item and offering an
expensive item to the same addressee (i.e., a close friend) in Saudi Arabic offers (t (52) =
-6.596, p < .000). The rank of the imposition yielded more distancing strategies (i.e., NGP &
opting out).
With the British speakers, the difference in the rank of the imposition between the two offers
made to the mother yielded significant differences (t = 2.843, p < .007). On the other hand, it
did not yield any significant differences between the two offers of different rank of the
imposition made to an intimate friend (t = 1.229, p = .225). This might be attributed to the fact
that social distance is longer in the British society than the in Saudi. The degree of social
distance with the mother is lower than with the friend. In other words, the British speakers had
more freedom to change their strategies with the mother. They used more direct strategies with
the mother when the rank of the imposition was low and more indirect ones when the rank of
the imposition was high. With the close friend, in contrast, they were more careful to maintain
the friend’s privacy in both situations.
Additionally, when offering an expensive item to a close friend and offering help of high
rank of imposition to a socially distant female colleague, the Saudi female speakers remained
negatively polite in both situations in spite of the difference in the degree of social distance
between the speaker and the two addressees. The difference in the frequencies of use was

252
insignificant between the two situations (t (52) = -.389, p = .699) because the rank of the
imposition was more influential.
Another instance of the effect of the rank of the imposition is manifested in Sit# 14 and
Sit#15. Although the addressees’ gender in both situations is opposite to the speaker’s and the
social distance is very high with both addressees, indirect strategies were significantly higher
when the rank of the imposition was high in both groups. Significant differences existed within
the two female groups (t (52) = 3.879, p < .000, for the Saudis & t (46) = -2.406, p <.020, for
the British).
The analyses showed significant differences between the Saudi and British female speakers
in realizing the contextual determinants. They also showed a significant relationship between
some contextual determinants and certain types of politeness strategies in both cultures. Thus,
the third and the fourth null hypotheses are rejected.
The above analyses indicate that the use of politeness strategies cannot be attributed to one
determinant at a time. The contextual determinants were changing constantly and interacting
with each other across the situations. Other factors have been found influential on the use of
these strategies. Their effect and realizations in the two cultures will be discussed in 5.2.3.
5.2.3 Other Contextual Determinants
Restricting the contextual determinants that affect the speaker’s use of the politeness strategy
to only three variables is an oversimplification of the intricate nature of politeness as a socially
interactive process. The previous analysis of the oral DCT and the interviews revealed
interference of other factors that can be as influential as B&L’s (1987) contextual determinants
and that can also influence the role of these determinants in making an offer. These interfering
factors include the addressee’s gender, and what I call, the degree of personal (the speaker’s)
involvement in the event of offering (See 3.3.1).

253
5.2.3.1 Addressee’s Gender
Gender is an important parameter in assessing politeness in any situation (Mills, 2003). In this
study, the gender of the addressee in relation to that of the speaker was investigated with
respect to its effect on the type of politeness strategies used.
A T-test and Pearson Correlation test were run to test the effect the addressee’s gender on
the speaker’s use of politeness strategies. Consider the following tables.
Table 5. 14. T-test for the Effect of Addressee’s Gender on the Use of Politeness
Strategy Gender N Mean Std. Deviation T-value Sig.

male 5 5.6000 8.41427
BOR -.952 .359
female 10 11.0000 11.11555
male 5 3.4000 5.50454
PSP -2.155 .051
female 10 13.1000 9.17061
male 5 20.4000 6.22896
NGP .609 .553
female 10 16.6000 13.04011
male 5 2.2000 2.38747
OFR 2.665 0.019*
female 10 .2000 .42164
male 5 3.4000 2.40832
MIX -.519 .612
female 10 4.6000 4.81202
male 5 18.0000 11.29159 0.032*
NOTDO 2.407
female 10 7.5000 5.91138
male 5 16.6000 11.39298
OPTOUT 3.097 .008
female 10 4.3000 4.27005
Table 5. 15. T-test for the Effect of Addressee’s Gender on the Use of Politeness
strategy Gender N Mean Std. Deviation T-value Sig.

male 5 2.2000 4.91935
BOR - 0.745 0.470
female 10 3.9000 3.78447
male 5 1.8000 3.03315
PSP - 0.900 0.384
female 10 3.6000 3.89301
male 5 39.4000 6.46529
NGP 1.203 .251
female 10 35.1000 6.55659

254
Table 5. 15. Continued
strategy Gender N Mean Std. Deviation T-value Sig.

male 5 .4000 .54772
OFR 2.404 .032*
female 10 .0000 .00000
male 5 2.0000 2.91548
MIX -.863 .404
female 10 3.7000 3.86005
male 5 3.0000 3.00000
NOTDO .271 .791
female 10 2.6000 2.54733
male 5 3.0000 3.00000
OPTOUT 1.398 .186
female 10 1.3000 1.76698
Table 5. 16. Pearson Correlation of the Relationship between the Addressee’s Gender & the
Type of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic & British English Offers
Strategy Gender
Correlation
Saudi British
BOR Pearson Correlation .255 .202
Sig. (2-tailed) .359 .470
PSP Pearson Correlation .513 .242
Sig. (2-tailed) .051 .384
NGP Pearson Correlation -.167 -.316
Sig. (2-tailed) .553 .251
OFR Pearson Correlation -.594* -.555*
Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .032
Mix Pearson Correlation .142 .000
Sig. (2-tailed) .612 1.000
NOTDO Pearson Correlation -.555* .217
Sig. (2-tailed) .032 .438
OPTOUT Pearson Correlation -.652** -.361
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .186
The two tests showed a significant relationship between the addressee’s gender and the OFR
and Don’t-do-the FTA strategies among the Saudi female speakers, but only with OFR
strategies among the British ones. That is, the Saudi female speakers were more direct, using
more different on-record strategies with female addressees, whereas they used more OFR and
silence strategies when addressing men. In contrast, with the British group, OFR offers with

255
unfamiliar men were only present in two instances in two situations. (The significant
correlation between OFR strategies and the addressee’s gender in the British group is not
representative of the data. Hence, it appears that the correlation in this case is deceptive and
cannot be generalized to the British women’s verbal interaction with men. See 4.1) It can be
concluded that the gender of the addressee was more influential on the Saudi female speaker’s
choice of polite strategies.
To explain these results, two prime examples can be taken from contrasting pairs of
situations that differ only in the variable of the addressee’s gender. Examine Table 5.17.
Table 5. 17. Intra- and Inter-group Differences in the Realization of Gender among the Saudi
& British Female Speakers in Polite Offers
Paired Test Sit1 – Sit2 Sit13 - Sit11
Group Saudi British Saudi British
df 52 49 52 49
t -3.124 -.798 -9.909 -.785
Sig. .003** .429 .000** .436
When the three contextual variables of power, social distance, and rank of imposition were
equal in Sit#1 and 2, the gender of the addressee showed a significant impact on Saudi Arabic
offers (t (52) = -3.124, p <.003). The Saudi female speakers used more BOR and PSP strategies
and doing the offer without consulting the offeree with the mother than with the father. Using
NGP was higher in addressing the father.
However, whereas the Saudis showed significant differences in making an offer between the
mother and the father, the British used almost the same strategies with both addresses (t (49) =
-.798, p = .429). Thus, it is clear that the Saudis used more direct strategies with the mother
whereas the British reacted linguistically equally to both sexes. The British female speakers
were negatively polite in both contexts (See 4.1.1). The interviews showed that the majority of
the British group found H’s gender not influential on the use of politeness strategies.

256
Another instance of the effect of gender was found in comparing the offer made to a highly
socially distant man to that of a socially distant woman when the other variables of the rank of
imposition and power were equal. Although the two offers involved approaching a stranger to
offer him/her help, for the Saudi female speakers, there was a significant difference in the use
of politeness strategies between male and female addressees (t (52) = -9.909, p<.000). The
Saudi female speakers found it more face threatening to approach a strange man and offer him
help than to do the same thing for a strange woman. Opting out was more highly frequent in
the former situation but PSP was higher in the latter. For the British English female speakers,
the gender of the two addressees showed no significant differences in the use of politeness
strategies (t (49) = -.785, p = .436). The gender of the addressee did not affect their choice of
strategies. NGP was dominant in both situations.
In addition, as Tables 5.15 and 5.16 indicate, opting out correlates highly significantly
with gender in the Saudi female group (r = - .652, p <.008), but not among the British
female speakers (r = -.361, p = .186). The Saudi women resorted to opting out with
unfamiliar men, which indicates that they, as they commented, are aware of the social and
cultural boundaries that shape their linguistic relationship with strange men, and thus, use
the strategy that is most appropriate in such a context. The findings showed that the effect of
gender on this type of strategy derives from the social practices of each society (Cameron,
2005) plus the influence of the contextual determinants. This also supports Nakane (2006),
and Shigemasu and Ikeda’s (2006) view, which posits that the interpretations of silence
depend on cultural differences; Westerners avoid silence in interaction while non-
Westerners value it. Hence, it was not surprising to find out that opting out was more
frequent among the Saudi female speakers when the addressee was a male.

257
The results also support Shigemasu and Ikeda’s (2006) argument that when people use
Don’t-do-the FTA as a nonperformance strategy, they place a higher priority on
appropriateness than clarity. The results support their view that considers silence as a
communication style because it is one way of delivering a message. The Saudis found it
more appropriate not to get involved in any linguistic interaction with men, conveying the
cultural message that the interaction with male strangers should be avoided. Therefore,
opting out is not a sign of passiveness, as stereotypically claimed (Ephratt, 2008), but a
precise assessment of what Takano (2005) calls the “communicative needs of the context.”
These findings also refute the stereotypical views about Arab women as being deferent to
secure themselves because of feeling powerless (Mills, 2003). The results showed that Saudi
Arabic female speakers varied their strategies according to the different determinants of the
context.
Thus, these findings reject the fifth null hypothesis. It has been concluded that there are
significant differences in the way Saudi Arabic and British English female speakers realize the
addressee’s gender in the speech act of offering.
5.2.3.2 Personal Involvement in the Event of Offering
Personal involvement in this study refers to how far the speaker finds him/herself compelled to
make an offer or how much they are immersed in the event of offering. It can be also seen as
dependent on the benefit that the speaker will gain from making the offer whether directly or
indirectly (See Table G2 for measurement). It has been found influential on the choice of some
types of politeness strategies in both groups.

258
Table 5.18. Pearson Correlation Test for the Effect of the Degree of Involvement on the
Use of Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic & British English Offers
Strategy Deg. of Involv.

Correlation
Saudi British
BOR Pearson Correlation .715** .710**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .003
PSP Pearson Correlation -.281 -.175
Sig. (2-tailed) .310 .532
NGP Pearson Correlation -.140 -.351
Sig. (2-tailed) .618 .199
OFR Pearson Correlation .355 .150
Sig. (2-tailed) .195 .593
NOTDO Pearson Correlation -.138 .264
Sig. (2-tailed) .625 .341
OPTOUT Pearson Correlation -.172 .081
Sig. (2-tailed) .539 .775
Deg. of Involv. = degree of involvement
The test showed a significant relationship between the degree of involvement and the BOR
offers in both groups. For both groups, the correlation was positively significant (r = .715,
p < .003 for the Saudis, & r = .710, p < .003 for the British). That is, when the speakers’
personal involvement in the event of offering increased, they were more inclined towards using
the most direct type of offers. BOR offers were used more frequently when the speakers in
both groups found themselves compelled to make the offer either because they found it a social
and religious obligation to do so as in offering mother help, or offering food to a guest, or
because they would benefit from the event as in offering a man help with the cash machine.
These BOR offers were absent when the speakers found it unnecessary to make the offer as in
offering help to a strange man in the library.
Another instance of the role of the speaker’s involvement in the use of polite strategies,
although not statically significant, is the use of opting out, the negative type of the Don’t-do-
the FTA strategy. When the degree of the speaker’s involvement in the speech act of offering

259
was low, the frequency of opting out decreased. In both groups, in Sit# 5 when they were
moderately involved in making an offer to a friend sitting at the same table at the cafeteria, the
number of those speakers who opted out was less than in Sit# 6 where the speakers felt less
compelled to offer an expensive necklace to a close friend. In Sit# 10, where the speaker was
not involved in the offer (volunteering to swap shifts with a socially distant female colleague),
some speakers in both groups (more in the Saudi group) opted out whereas none of them opted
when they found themselves compelled to serve an unfamiliar guest. Similarly, in the four
situations that investigated the effect of gender, Sit# 12 and 15 had the lowest number of Saudi
participants who opted out in spite of the difference in the degree of imposition and the level of
power with the two addressees. The reason was that the Saudi speakers were involved in the
event felt compelled to make the offer in these situations unlike in Sit# 13 and 14.
5.3 Remarks on B&L’s (1987) Model

The central claim of the model is that “broadly comparable linguistic strategies are available
in each language, but that there are local cultural differences in what triggers their use”
(Grundy, 2000, p. 156). Thus, this section aims to draw conclusions from the above analyses
in (4.1) and this chapter pertaining to the applicability of B&L’s (1987) model of politeness
to Saudi Arabic offers.
The results of the present study showed high applicability of B&L’s (1987) model to the
Saudi context. The Saudi female speakers realized all the super-strategies, using most of the
substrategies. BOR offers were realized mainly through imperatives; PSP politeness was
realized through different strategies such as attending to H’ needs, exaggerating interest in H,
in-group identity markers, jokes, intensifying interest in H, conveying that S and H are
cooperators, and so forth. NGP was also realized through different substrategies such as

260
conventional indirectness, hedges, pessimism, nominalization, minimization, deference,
apologizing, impersonalization, point-of-view of distancing, and so forth. OFR strategies were
displacing H and using ellipsis. Thus, this study adds to the previous studies that applied the
model to other dialects of Arabic such as El-Shafey (1990) to Egyptian Arabic, Atawneh
(1991) to Palestinian Arabic, and Elarbi (1997) to Tunisian Arabic.
This high applicability leads to conclusions about the central claim of universality stated
above. The speakers in both cultures were aware of saving H’s as well as S’s face. Thus, they
used politeness strategies to redress the FTA. At a cross-cultural level, the speakers of the two
languages used all the types of the superstrategies. The two languages under investigation
made use of imperatives, address terms, honorifics, and conventional indirectness using
modals, hedging by words, phrases, clauses and other formulaic expressions to redress face. In
both languages, certain politeness strategies were expressed by using modals in the past tense.
However, although the modal system is more elaborated and varied in English, both Saudi and
British female speakers used modals for the same purpose which is that of disassociating H
from the act and minimizing the imposition. However, the British speakers made more
extensive use of modals provided by their varied system (See 4.1). Identical utterances of
English and Arabic appeared in many instances. For example, in using minimization strategies
in offering an expensive dress and batteries to the maid and a strange man in a library,
respectively, utterances (129) and (556) in Saudi Arabic are identical and almost literal to the
English utterances (170) and (606), respectively.
The results also support B&L’s (1987) assertion that the realization of specific strategies is
cultural specific. That is, what differs from one culture to another is the emphasis people put on
the contextual determinants or the situational variables (Nakane, 2006) of power, social
distance, and the rank of the imposition. However, in spite of the significant inter-group

261
differences illustrated in the previous sections pertaining to the realization of some contextual
determinants, there were instances of similarities between Arabic and English. There were
similarities and differences in the way the two groups realized social distance. Power also did
not show a significant impact on the choice of the two group’s politeness strategies. The
realization of these social variables and how it affects the use of the super-strategies similarly
or differently have already been discussed.
Some culture-specific realizations of B&L’s (1987) model appeared in Saudi use of religious
expressions. See 5.3.1.
5.3.1 Religious Expressions
The applicability of the model to the Saudi context, however, does not preclude evidence of
other realizations of politeness strategies completely absent in the British data. The use of
religious expressions, as in-group language, expressing PSP, characterizes the Saudi data. It
reveals how the realization of politeness strategies differs across cultures thereby reflecting the
cultural values of a society. Being an Islamic society, Saudi speakers rely on religious
expressions in their verbal interaction. These included swearing by God’s Name and some of
the Islamic teachings (See 4.1). The British, on the other hand, commented that they find it
inappropriate to use such expressions in verbal interaction.
However, the use of these expressions was less frequent than expected among the Saudis in
this data. This may be due to the fact that the DCT comprised only one turn for the speaker to
initiate the dialogue by realizing the offer. Thus, it was not likely for the speakers to use these
strategies of insistence because it is known that the offer in the Arab culture is usually done in
a series of turns (Migdadi, 2003). In this view, swearing to God and other religious expressions
are strategies of insistence in offers that usually occur after more than one turn. The results of
the interviews also indicated that most of the speakers use God’s Name when they sense the

262
offeree’s reluctance to accept the offer. Moreover, offers are uninitiated speech acts (Bilbow,
2002, See 2.1.3.1).That is, the offer can be performed with no relevance to a previous utterance
(Migdadi, 2003, Abd el-Jawad, 2000). Thus, it was not likely to hear someone using religious
expressions or swear to God to initiate an offer.
Another reason for the low frequency of swearing to God in realizing offers is that it is not
religiously appropriate to use God’s Name just to make people accept an offer. Many speakers
also commented that they found it face threatening and rather imposing if someone used God’s
Name to persuade them to accept an offer.
To investigate the relationship between religious expressions and the contextual determinants
of politeness, a Pearson Correlation test was run. Consider Table 5.19.
Table 5. 19. Pearson Correlation test between the Use of Religious Expressions & the
Contextual Determinants
P SD R G
Religious Pearson
-.036 -.527* .144 .604*
expressions Correlation
Sig. (2-
.898 .044 .608 .017
tailed)
N 15 15 15 15
P= power SD= social distance R= rank of the imposition G= gender of the addressee
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The analysis showed that Saudi female speakers used religious expressions with certain
contextual factors. Table 5.19 indicates a significant negative correlation between religious
expressions and the social distance (r = -.527, p < .044) and a positive one with the addressee’s
gender (r = .604, p < .017).
In Saudi Arabic, there was a vivid tendency to use religious expressions with socially close
people. Whenever the social distance increased, the Saudi female speakers avoided using
swearing to God or any other religious expression for insistence. Such avoidance indicates the
PSP dimension of these expressions. It indicates that the speakers used these expressions to

263
enhance solidarity and cooperation. These results are supported by the results of the interviews
in which the majority of the Saudi female speakers asserted that they use swearing to God only
with the female members of the family and close people. Power was not influential in
determining the use of religious expressions. This supports the interviewees’ comments about
the use of swearing with people of power. They found it appropriate to swear in the presence of
their teachers only if they are close to them.
The gender of the addressee had a significant impact on the use of religious expressions. The
Saudi female avoided using swearing to God or any other religious expression with male
addressees whether close, as the father, or distant, as strange man. This, again, supports the
above analysis in that swearing to God in making offers expresses intimacy and, thus, PSP.
5.3.2 Politeness Strategies in Saudi Arabic not Accounted for in B&L’s (1987) Model
Besides religious expressions, two other strategies were found culture-specific for the Saudi
context: disagreement with H and evoking H’s sympathy. In the disagreement strategy, the
speaker does not compromise when the act is for the addressee’s interest or benefit. El-
Shafey called this strategy “Seeking disagreement.” (See 2.1.2.3) She concluded that this
strategy was particularly used by Arabic Egyptian speakers but not their British English
counterparts. Conclusions of this study accord with El-Shafey’s (1990) results. The strategy
was used in Saudi Arabic but not British English. The researcher in this study calls this
strategy “Disagreement with H for (or over) H’s interest.” This strategy was mainly used in
this data when offering help to someone. It was frequent in offering mother help as in (22),
or when offering help to a strange woman as in (494). In this strategy, the offerers used the
particle No to convince the offeree to accept help. The disagreement was employed to
indicate the speakers’ concern about H’s interest.

264
Evoking the offeree’s sympathy was used in Saudi Arabic offer as indicted by the DCT
and the interviews. This strategy was used to create a desired pressure on the offeree to
accept the offer as in (20) and (95), and begging expressions as tikfēn (please, I beg you),
and la tfashilīni (Literally, “Don’t cause me shame!”). Although the offer has turned into a
face-threatening act in these expressions since they show high imposition on the offeree, the
pressure of this strategy is considered appropriate in the Saudi culture for it shows sincerity
in making an offer.
5.3.3 The Dynamic Nature of P, SD & R
B&L (1987) have been criticized for their unrealistic view of the social variables (Mills, 2003;
Watts, 2003). If Watts believes that politeness is dynamic, then it is logical to conclude that the
social parameters that control the interpretation and existence of such a notion are also
dynamic. The results of this study showed that social distance and power are not static; they
move back and forth in an ongoing interaction. With strange people, the interaction may start
with the highest level of social distance, then the familiarity that results from this interaction
and negotiation of meaning shortens the distance, and thus, gears the linguistic behavior
towards gradually increasing intimacy and solidarity, or vice versa.
Power is interactional (Mills, 2003). According to Mills, power is not a set rules delineated
for us (by our relations to institutions, positions, etc.) before an interaction. In verbal
interaction, even speakers in powerless position might gain power in speech by a set or
resources available to everyone regardless of their institutional power, their confidence, and
linguistic directness. People shielded with power may lose it during interaction (For example,
students heckling in classroom may make the teacher lose power.)

265
The data of this study provides abundant evidence on this dynamic nature of social interaction
and its determinants as it appears in the use of mixed strategies. We can recall two prime
examples as in utterance (439):
• ya ħayāti, şarāħa inti btiţlaʕīn akshax waħda fi ilʕirs; mashaʔallāh ʕalēki; insāna dhōg
wʔakīd ishtartēti wxallaşti kil ilʔghrāẓ; bas taxayyali; gabil shway kint anāẓir fi ʕigd
ʕindi marra yjannin; kil malibasta inhablaw ʕalēh; abarsila lik maʕa uxūy; win aʕjabk;
ilbisīh. (My life, frankly, you’ll look the most elegant one in the wedding; God protect
you! you’re an elegant person, and definitely you’ve finished shopping; but imagine, a
while ago I was looking at a necklace I have, it’s very beautiful; it dazzles people; I’ll
send it to you with my brother; if you like it, wear it.)
‫ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺎء اﷲ ﻋﻠﯿﻚ إﻧﺴﺎﻧﺔ ذوق و أﻛﯿﺪ اﺷﺘﺮﺗﻲ و ﺧﻠﺼﺘﻲ‬،‫ ﺻﺮاﺣﺔ إﻧﺘﻲ ﺑﺘﻄﻠﻌﯿﯿﻦ أﻛﺸﺦ و ﺣﺪة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮس‬،‫ﯾﺎ ﺣﯿﺎﺗﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻞ اﻷﻏﺮاض؛ ﺑﺲ ﺗﺨﯿﻠﻲ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺷﻮي ﻛﻨﺖ أﻧﺎﻇﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻣﺮة ﯾﺠﻨﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺒﺴﺘﮫ اﻧﮭﺒﻠﻮا ﻋﻠﯿﮫ؛ أﺑﺮﺳﻠﮫ ﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ‬
.‫اﺧﻮي و إن أﻋﺠﺒﻚ اﻟﺒﺴﯿﮫ‬
When the speaker had to make an offer of high imposition to a close female friend, she
started the conversation with an address form of endearment conveying intimacy, switching
immediately to a hedging expression to keep herself distant from stating the FTA. This was
followed by a series of PSP strategies to maintain closeness, and then she ended her offer by
hedging on the force of the offer as an attempt to distance the friend and herself from the FTA.
Similarly, consider utterance (373) in the British data:
• Would you like to get a pen? Please, use mine
To make an offer of low imposition to a socially distant superior, the British speaker started by
using NGP to preserve the distance with the addressee as an expression of deference then
directed the conversation to bridging the distance by using the most direct form of the offer, the
imperative.
Thus, social distance appears to be changeable and subject to modification even within the
same turn. However, the nature of the DCT might not provide an ideal argument in this issue.

266
More natural methodology is needed to support this view, using this argument as a point of
departure for further research.
5.3.4 Comments on B&L’s (1987) Don’t-do-the FTA
To calculate the weightiness of the FTA (Wx), B&L (1987) suggest the following equation
Wx = D(S, H) + P(S, H) + Rx
They state that an FTA is a composite of the three variables: social distance, power, and rank
of imposition. They claim that if the three contextual determinants are high, the outcome is the
use of the Don’t-do-the FTA. However, the analysis of the data proved reverse instances.
As abovementioned, B&L (1987) were criticized for not elaborating on this strategy (See
2.1.2.1). Their model fails to account for the two types of the Don’t-do-the FTA strategy. The
results of the present study support the classification proposed by El-Shafey (1990), Thomas
(1995), Sifianou (2001) Nakane (2006), and Shigemasu and Ikeda (2006) that the Don’t-do-the
FTA (silence) strategy is classified as a positive-politeness strategy when it functions as a sign
of solidarity and rapport, that is, when the act is done nonverbally although the FTA is not
uttered). It can also be classified as a negative-politeness strategy if it functions as a distancing
tactic (i.e., opting out).
The analysis of the data has shown that the higher degree of social distance, power, and rank
of imposition did not always yield higher frequency of the Don’t-do-the FTA strategy as
claimed by B&L (1987). For example in Sit# 9, for the Saudi group, the high degree of the
three determinants yielded fewer Don’t-do-the FTA strategies than in the Sit# 12, where all
these determinants were low (See 4.1.2.2 & 4.1.2.4). The positive type of this strategy, on the
other hand, was most frequent, in both groups, when social distance and the rank of the
imposition were low as in offering the mother help in housework (See 4.1.1.1).

267
Hence, B&L’s (1987) claim about the use of the Don’t-do-the FTA strategy neglects other
factors of context that can also affect the use of such a strategy such as the gender of the
addressee and the degree of involvement as indicated in Tables 5.14-5.18.
5.4 tfaẓẓal(ay): Is It an Inherently Polite or a Formulaic Expression?
The dynamic nature of contextual determinants brings to attention the impossibility of the
fossilization of particular expressions as inherently polite. No linguistic structure is inherently
polite or impolite is a notion propagated as early as 1981 by Fraser and Nolan.
Watts (2003) argues that politeness cannot be equated with formulaic or semi-formulaic
structures that are used as rituals in verbal interaction. He claims that many highly
conventionalized and semi-formulaic expressions that are often interpreted as expressions of
politeness do not in themselves denote politeness. Rather, they lend themselves to individual
interpretation as polite in instances of the ongoing verbal interaction As he states, we need to
know something about the situation in which linguistic structures occur in order to evaluate
whether they are beyond what can be expected and are thus potentially open to interpretation
by participants as polite. To this end, Watts labels those expressions that go beyond our
expectations of the context as polite behavior and those that are ritualized or socially expected
as politic behavior.
There is abundance of examples in this data that supports Watts’ (2003) claim that the
formulaic function of structures that are usually thought by people to be polite are politic. The
data of British English was rich in such formulaic expressions such as please, and the semi-
formulaic expressions as Would you like X? and Can you X?
In Saudi Arabic offers, tfaẓẓal(ay), can be a prime example of Watt’s (2003) classification of
formulaic politic expressions that might not be polite in themselves but are sometimes

268
necessary to make the utterance open to interpretation of politeness. It is, therefore, important
to shed light on whether tfaẓẓal(ay) is an inherently polite expression.
tfaẓẓal(ay) may be treated as a commissive directive (Rabinowitz, 1993) in which the
speaker asks the addressee to do something for the benefit of the addressee. The expression
usually indicates a polite way of inviting the addressee to do something (eating, sitting, taking,
etc.) for the benefit of the addressee. Thus, it was highly frequently used in this data when
offering items to someone.
The results of the analysis in 4.1 revealed that such an expression served more than just a
softened imperative. Saudi female speakers used this expression more frequently with
unfamiliar people. This, however, does not deny the existence of a few instances of its use with
close people.
As appeared in the socio-pragmatic analysis in 4.1, the expression was used in different
frequencies under different contextual determinants. The lowest frequency of tfaẓẓal(ay) was
scored when the social distance was low. To verify the frequencies and test whether the effect
of the contextual factors on the use of expression tfaẓẓal(ay) is significant, a Pearson correlation
test was run (only on the situations that yielded the expression). Consider Table 5.20.
Table 5. 20. Pearson Correlation Test of the Relationship between

the Use of tfaẓẓal(ay)& the Contextual Determinants
SD P R G
Pearson
Correlation .282 .283 -.517 .094
tfaẓẓal(ay) Sig. (2-tailed) .462 .460 .154 .809
N 9 9 9 9
N= number of situations SD= social distance P= power R= rank of imposition G= gender of the addressee
Unexpectedly, Table 5.20 indicates no significant correlation between tfaẓẓal(ay) and any of
the contextual determinants. The expression was used with familiar and unfamiliar people. The

269
power and the gender of the addressee seem not to have an impact on the use of this negatively
polite imperative.
The insignificant relationship between the expression tfaẓẓal(ay) and the contextual
determinants including the addressee’s gender supports the view that it is an instance of politic
behavior. In other words, the speakers used the expression with all people and in all situations
regardless of the changing features of each context. This might indicate that the expression did
not carry a specific function of politeness in itself but was a normal expression that the
interlocutors expect in the ongoing interaction. It was used in this data as a social ritual rather
than an expression of politeness. However, further research is recommended in this domain to
verify these results and shed light on the polite dimensions of this expression.
5.5 Are Offers Face Threatening or Inherently Polite?
In line with the rejection of the inherently polite structures, the results of the present study
support B&L’s (1987) view of offers as potentially face-threatening acts, and cast doubt on
Leech’s (1983) claim that offers are inherently polite because they are addressed to H’s
positive face. The results also detract from the view that direct offers are more polite and
appropriate than indirect ones.
If Leech’s (1983) assumption were accepted, BOR offers would have been used more
frequently than any of the other redressing strategies in the collected data. Speakers in both
cultures would not have resorted to mitigating strategies. Nonetheless, the frequency of BOR
offers in the Saudi context varied according to the contextual determinants (See 5.1 & 5.2); this
strategy was highly frequent in some situations, but absent in others. BOR offers were rare in
the British data in almost all the situations. This rare occurrence of the BOR offers refutes what
Leech claims about the relationship between directness and politeness in offers. Many speakers

270
in many situations in both cultures used a great deal of indirectness to redress their offers. This
is evident in the many instances in which the speakers used strategies of mitigation that would
have not been used if offers were inherently positively polite (Leech, 1983) or face-enhancing
(Koutlaki, 2002).
The interviewees in both cultures found many offers in this data face threatening to them (the
speakers) and hearer or to both, especially with high rank of imposition. The participants used
a series of negatively polite strategies to redress the offer. Take the following examples from
both cultures.
Saudi Arabic:
• agdar asāʕdik bshay? ana ʕindi iksiswār; tara idha ma gidarti truħīn issūg, ana agdar
ajīb lik iksiswāri. (Can I help you with something? I have some accessories, see, if you
can’t go shopping, I can bring you mine.)
.‫أﻗﺪر أﺳﺎﻋﺪك ﺑﺸﻲ؟ أﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪي اﻛﺴﺴﺴﻮار ﺗﺮى إذا ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪرت ﺗﺮوﺣﯿﻦ اﻟﺴﻮق أﻧﺎ اﻗﺪر أﺟﯿﺐ ﻟﻚ اﻛﺴﺴﻮاري‬
• law samaħt, ma azʕijk; bas ħāssa innik iddawwir ʕala agsām; wana ʕārfa hādhi ilmaktiba;
idha iddawwir ʕala gism ʕashān tlāgi ktāb? (Excuse me; I don’t want to bother you, but I
feel that you’re looking for departments; and I know this library; if you’re looking for a
department to find a book.)
.‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ ﻣﺎ أزﻋﺠﻚ ﺑﺲ ﺣﺎﺳﺔ اﻧﻚ ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ أﻗﺴﺎم و أﻧﺎ ﻋﺎرﻓﮫ ھﺬي اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ إذا ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺴﻢ ﻋﺸﺎن ﺗﻼﻗﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب‬
• ʕafwan āsfa law tadaxxalt; bas idha mu ʕārif tistaxdimha, tara mumkin asāʕid. (Pardon,
sorry for intrusion; but if you don’t know how to use it, I can help.)
‫ﻋﻔﻮا آﺳﻔﺔ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺪﺧﻠﺖ ﺑﺲ إذا ﻣﻮ ﻋﺎرف ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﮭﺎ ﺗﺮى ﻣﻤﻜﻦ أﺳﺎﻋﺪ؟‬
British English:
• I know that you’ll be getting engaged next week, and I wondered if you would like to
borrow a really expensive necklace of mine to wear at the party.
• Good morning! I come here quite a lot I know my way round quite well; can I help you?
• Excuse me sir; can I help you with it? I’m not trying to find out your pin number; I’ll just
tell you what button you need to press.

271
Leech’s assumption (1983) treats all the contexts alike; it ignores the ongoing and changing
nature of the context and its determinants, and their different cultural realizations. Leech’s
assumption does not apply in the above cases because it decontextualizes linguistic behavior
from the other factors that compelled speakers to mitigate their offers. The speakers in the
above examples used a series of mitigating strategies to redress H’s face or to save their own,
either because the imposition was high on them and the addressee, or to respect H’s privacy.
Had offers been inherently polite, we would have expected BOR offers in the above situations.
The speakers would not have used a series of redressing strategies even in the simplest offers.
These examples and many others in the data confirm the potential face-threatening nature of
the offer under different contextual determinants.
Besides, a big number of participants chose to opt out in some situations, especially in the
Saudi context. This manifests the potential face-threatening nature of offers and the influence
of the contextual determinants on this type of linguistic behavior. As many speakers in both
cultures commented, in some situations they needed to opt out because the offer was highly
face threatening to them (the speakers) and the hearer. Had the offers been inherently polite,
the speakers would not have opted out.
The results of this study cast doubt on Leech’s (1983) view of politeness which depicts
verbal interaction as a static, not as an ongoing process. The analysis of the utterances and
the interviews showed that what makes an offer sound polite varies from one context to
another and cannot be determined before the interaction takes place. It can be again
concluded that directness and indirectness do not represent politeness in themselves but it is
the context in which they are used that determines the degree of politeness expressed by the
two notions. Indirectness is not blindly tied to deference and respect. In many cases, the

272
Saudi female speakers were indirect with men to maintain distance, abiding by the religious
and social rules of their culture rather than showing deference.
Related to the above dichotomies (i.e., inherently polite vs. face-threatening acts, and
directness vs. indirectness) is the dichotomy that evaluates any linguistic behavior as either
polite or impolite. B&L (1987) and Holmes (1995) contend that context is crucial in judging
the politeness of an utterance. What is meant and perceived as polite in a given context,
however, as Mills (2003) asserts, will depend on judgments of appropriateness. These
judgments are based on cultural knowledge of norms of appropriateness.
In this study, the context and the speaker’s intention (analyzed on the basis of the speakers’
comments on their offers) were two prime factors in interpreting the politeness of the utterance.
Occasionally, the speakers in both groups used strategies that could be open to interpretation of
impoliteness. For example, to sound firm and sincere in making an offer to the mother, many
Saudi speakers used expressions that might sound impolite when offering help as in:
• mashaʔllāh! trattibīn wbintik gaʕda? wallāh ma tamsikīn shay; ana akammil.

.‫(( ﻣﺎ ﺷﺎء اﷲ! ﺗﺮﺗﺒﯿﻦ وﺑﻨﺘﻚ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة!واﷲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻤﺴﻜﯿﻦ ﺷﻲ؛ أﻧﺎ أﻛﻤﻞ‬Really) God bless! You’re tidying up the
house while your daughter is sitting down? By God, don’t touch anything, I’ll carry on.)
Therefore, within this context, (See 4.1.1.1), when the female speaker implies criticism as a
move to offer her mother help with housework, she, actually, employs this criticism to show
care. The speaker, in this view, knows that her mother realizes the intimate family bond with
her daughter, and thus will interpret the daughter’s intention not as criticism but as an
expression of care and sincerity to urge the mother to accept the offer. Thus, this
employment was based on the addressee’s intimate relationship with the speaker, a salient
contextual factor.

273
Similarly, when addressing the maid, the Saudi and the British female speakers used
expressions that may not indicate politeness but are employed in such a context to serve a
special use of politeness such as of the context:
• Saudi: xudhi hādha; ʕindi wāħid yashbahla. (Take this; I have one that looks like it.) ‫ﺧﺬي‬
.‫ھﺬا ﻋﻨﺪي و اﺣﺪ ﯾﺸﺒﮫ ﻟﮫ‬
• British: Take this dress; I don’t wear it anymore.
Hence, Mill’s (2003) norms of appropriateness may justify the use of these minimization
strategies. When someone offers an expensive dress to someone, the polite offer is to praise the
item and compliment the beauty of the addressee if he/she wears it. Belittling the item or
showing no care about it to justify the offer to someone may be perceived as impolite offers.
However, when the speaker offers one of her expensive dresses to the maid, her intention
would be interpreted as polite or at least would not be interpreted as impolite. Her aim was to
lessen the pressure on the maid to urge her to accept the offer. This is mutually known to the
two interlocutors that belittling the item will save the hearer’s face from feeling indebted to her
employer, and thus will make it easy for her to comply and accept the offer.
Likewise, when the offer was highly face threatening, as in offering help with the cash
machine to a strange man, many speakers in both cultures used expressions that made their
utterances sound impolite but were used to save the speaker’s face in the interaction:
• Saudi Arabic: law samaħt idha tabgha musāʕada, ʕashān abgha axalliş. (Excuse me;
if you want help because I want to finish.)
.‫ إذا ﺗﺒﻐﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؟ﻋﺸﺎن أﺑﻐﻰ اﺧﻠﺺ‬،‫ﻟﻮ ﺳﻤﺤﺖ‬
• British English: Excuse me sir, can I help you with it? I’m not trying to find out
your pin number; I’ll just tell you what button you need to press.
Thus, in the Saudi context, both the speaker and the addressee may not interpret the
utterance as impolite because they are both aware of the cultural rules of the society in which

274
the woman is not expected to make an offer to a strange man. However, the man may not take
the offer offensively in the Saudi context as it might be interpreted if used in another Western
culture. Likewise, when the British female speaker says, “I’m not trying to see your code
number” to offer a strange man help with the cash machine, she does not mean to be impolite.
She is trying to sound firm and honest to gain the man’s trust, and show respect to his privacy
according to the British rules of the society. The speaker evaluates all the situational factors to
make sure that the addressee will not interpret her linguistic behavior as impolite.
In this respect, the utterances above support Mills’ (2003) and Watts’ (2003) view that the
utterance should be judged within the ongoing interaction, focusing on the individual’s role
within a community of practice. In both cultures in question, the speakers used strategies of
offers that could open the utterances to interpretations of impoliteness if judged out of their
context. However, those strategies serve functions related to politeness. It can be concluded
that to distinguish politeness from impoliteness, we should consider the speaker’s intention or
motivation behind committing the FTA, and the values and norms of a specific culture.
5.6 Summary
This chapter has provided answers to the research questions, making use of the frequencies
collected in Chapter Four. In this view, it has also tested the hypotheses of this study. The
chapter has provided some remarks on B&L’s (1987) model based on the findings of the
present study.
The chapter has illustrated the significant inter-group differences that existed between the
Saudi and the British female speakers in most of the situations used. BOR and PSP were more
frequent among the Saudis whereas NGP was more frequent among the British speakers in the
targeted the situations.

275
The findings of the study also showed significant inter-group differences in the realization of
some of the contextual determinants. Whereas power did not influence the speakers’
performance of polite offers in both cultures, social distance was more significantly influential
on the British use of politeness strategies. All the tests showed a significant impact of social
distance on the use of politeness strategies in making offers among the British speakers,
pertaining to the use of PSP, NGP and mixed strategies. In contrast, only one test showed a
significant influence of social distance on the Saudi’s use of PSP; the Saudis used PSP more
frequently with familiar people than with the unfamiliar. The rank of the imposition, on the
other hand, showed significant influence on the Saudi speakers’ use of NGP. The higher the
imposition, the more negatively polite the Saudi speakers become.
The study has introduced two important variables that were found significantly influential in
this study: the addressee’s gender and the speaker’ involvement in the event of offering. The
first variable was more influential on the Saudi female use of politeness strategies than on that
of the British. The Saudis used more OFR and Don’t-do-the FTA strategies with men. This
difference underlies the cultural differences between the two groups. The degree of the
speaker’s personal involvement in the act of offering was influential on the female use of
politeness strategies in both groups. BOR offers were more frequent when the speakers found
themselves related to the context and compelled to make the offer.
The findings supported B&L’s classification of offers as face-threatening acts, and refuted
Leech’s claim (1983) about offers as inherently polite speech acts. It also supports the cross-
cultural similarities and differences that B&L (1987) claim in their model of politeness.
The findings, however, revealed some shortcomings in B&L’s (1987) model, pertaining to
the lack of elaboration on the Don’t-do-the FTA strategy. The study showed that the two types
of this strategy have different functions and should not be included under one category.

276
Chapter 6
Conclusion
The aim of this study is to investigate female use of politeness strategies in Saudi Arabic
and British English in the speech act of offering. The findings indicate significant cultural
differences in the use of politeness strategies between the two female groups. The factors
that have caused these differences include the social distance between the speaker and the
addressee, the rank of the imposition, and the addressee’s gender. Power seems not to have
significant impact on realizing offers in any of the two cultures. The degree of involvement
in the event of offering has also been found influential on the type of politeness strategies
employed. These findings are hoped to contribute to the domains of sociolinguistics, gender
research, and pedagogy.
6.1 Sociolinguistic Implications
Offering as sociolinguistic behavior is rarely investigated in the literature (Rabinowitz,
1993), which has resulted in scarce information about how different cultures realize this
behavior. Hence, it is hoped that the findings of this study have shed light on the cultural
differences that exist between Saudi Arabic and the British English female speakers in
realizing polite offers, which may contribute to bridging gaps in intercultural
communication. The study has focused on areas where the two cultures differ and where
pragmatic failure may occur. A Saudi woman’s strategies of insistence, religious
expressions, and BOR offers, which might be interpreted by a British woman as intrusion or
interference in one’s privacy, are now justified and interpreted as expressions of generosity
and sincerity in Saudi Arabic.

277
6.2 Implications for Gender Research: Woman’s Speech &Politeness
Although the present study did not include male speakers, it yielded results that might
refute some stereotypical views about women’s language at a cross-cultural level. First, the
significant differences that appeared between the Saudi and the British female groups
support the constructivist approach that woman’s talk in general is not a matter of
biologically inherited features but of assuming social roles. If women were gendered from
birth, as claimed by the proponents of the traditional approaches, Saudi and British female
speakers would have used identical strategies in all the situations. However, as stated above,
the results showed significant discrepancies.
The Western values of respecting autonomy were reflected in the British female negative
politeness. They were more negatively polite irrespective of social distance. The Saudi
female, on the other hand, sought solidarity and intimacy, especially with family and close
relationships.
The social roles of women in the West differ from those in the East, especially in Saudi
Arabia, where there is a segregated society, and where the roles of men and women are
defined according to the rules of Islam. Thus, the most salient social practice that triggered
discrepancies in the realization of offers emanated from the enactment of Saudi cultural and
social roles of men and women. Saudi women avoided unnecessary verbal interaction with
strange men. Their linguistic behavior as discussed, in many parts of the body of the thesis,
was formal and usually indirect. Opting out was significantly higher when they interacted
with male addressees. However, this avoidance of interaction cannot be interpreted in terms
of powerlessness or inferiority but a careful assessment of the contextual parameters while
responding. This is manifested in the use of more direct strategies and less opting out when
the Saudi female found it compelling to perform an offer to a male addressee.

278
Takano’s (2005) rejection of stereotyping women as being powerless as a result of their
negative politeness or more concerned with other’s feelings as a result of their positive
politeness is relevant to the conclusions of this study. Women in both cultures were aware of
the demands of the communicative needs of the context. The results of the DCT, supported
by the interviews, showed that the impact of social practices that stem from the cultural
background of every society condition language choices of both Saudi and British female
speakers. Saudi BOR offers are not impolite and British negatively polite offers are not
expressions of powerlessness.
6.3 Pedagogical Implications
Some pedagogical implications can be drawn from the present study for language teaching
and language learning.
1. A pragmatic approach to foreign language teaching should take into consideration the
politeness principle and the implementation of different politeness strategies to enable
learners to perform better in the target language. Such an approach might also help to
minimize instances of pragmatic failure which a foreign-language learner experiences in
intercultural communication.
2. Teachers should be aware of the differences that might cause negative transfer and thus
choose the method that best, as House and Kasper (1981) contend, minimize native cultural
interference and prevent impolite, ineffective or otherwise, inappropriate behavior on the
part of the learner.
3. Syllabus and textbook designers might use the findings of this study to include activities
that might help Saudi EFL students to get engaged in real-life situations and practice
realizing offers under different contextual determinants.

279
6.4. Suggestions for Further Research
This study can be extended in three main dimensions: informants, field, and methodology.
Regarding informants, future research may include male informants to compare their
linguistic behavior to that of females’ mono- and cross-culturally. Inclusion of male
speakers in a study might help investigate the effect of social practices on male and female
linguistic behavior and verify the results of the assumptions about gender differences in
language. Foreign-language learning can be investigated by including Saudi EFL students in
the sample to test the effect of cultural differences on language learning and the areas of
transferability in realizing offers. Natural data in combination with eliciting instruments of
the DCTs might also contribute to attaining more reliable methods of collecting data and
better results.

280
References
Abd el-Jawad, H. ( 2000). A linguistic and sociopragmatic and cultural study of swearing in
Arabic. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 217-240.
Al-Issa, A. S. (1998). Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance of refusals by Jordanian

EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors. Dissertation Abstracts International,
59(02), 467A. (UMI No. 9823511)
Al-Khatib, M. A. (2001). The pragmatics of letter-writing. World Englishes, 20,

179-200.
Al-Khatib, M. A. (2006). The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian

society. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5, 272-289.
Al-Zowbai,T. (1997). Semantics. Binghazi, Tunisia: Qar Yunis University.
Anatasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Atawneh, A. M. A.. (1991). Politeness theory and the directive speech-act in Arabic-
English bilinguals: An empirical study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(02)
479A. (UMI No. 9219306)
Atawneh, A., & Sridhar, N. (1993). Arabic-English bilinguals and the directive speech act.
World Englishes, 5, 279-297.
Attabtabai, T. (1994). Speech act thoery. Kuwait: Kuwait University Press.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bajri, E. A. (2005). A sociolinguistic study in politeness strategies of apology and request

among British and Saudis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, King Abdul Aziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hratford, B. S. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing the open
questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4,
143-165.
Bataineh, R, & Bataineh, F. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native

speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 792–821.

281
Bharuthram, S. (2003). Politeness phenomena in the Hindu sector of the South African
Indian English speaking community. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1523–1544.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bilbow, G. T. (2002). Commissive speech act use in intercultural business meetings. IRAL,
40, 287-303.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal

of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual. In S. Blum-
Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies
(pp. 273-294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.
In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp.56-
311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D. (2005). Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions.
Applied Linguistics, 26, 482-502.
Cheng, S. (2005). An explanatory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic

development of expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Crystal D. (1992). International encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse. NY: Author.
Dynel, M. (2008). [Review of the book Gendered discourse in the professional workplace].
Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1620-1625.
Eckert, P., & McConnel-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Author.
Elarbi, N. (1997). Face and politeness in traditional and modern Tunisia: An application of
Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (07),
2460A. ( UMI No. 9802865)

282
El-Shafey, F. (1990). Politeness strategies in spoken British English and spoken Egyptian
Arabic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cairo University.
Emery, P. (2000). Greeting, congratulating and commiserating in Omani Arabic. Language,

Culture and Curriculum, 13, 196-216.
Enssaif, Z. (2005). Compliment behavior: Its strategies and realizations in English and
Arabic: A case study of female students of the English department, King Saud University.
Unpublished master’s thesis, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ephratt, M. (2008). The functions of silence. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1909–1938.
Ermida, I. (2006). Linguistic mechanisms of power in nineteen eighty-Four: Applying

politeness theory to Orwell’s world. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 842–862.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (2001). The place of gender in developmental pragmatics: Cultural factors.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 131–147.
Farghal, M., & Al-Khatib, M. (2001). Jordanian college students’ responses to compliments:
A pilot study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1485-1502.
Fishman, P. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of

language: A reader, (pp. 234-241). London: Routledge.
Fraser, B., & Nolan, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.
Gill. W. (2005). [Review of the book Apologizing in British English]. Language in Society,
34, 314-317.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). NY: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics,14, pp.

237–257.

283
Haney, W., Russell, M., Gulek, C., and Fierros, E. (1998). Drawing on education: Using
student drawings to promote middle school improvement. Schools in the Middle, 7, 38-
43.
Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in institutional settings.
Text, 23, 27–52.
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the
study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language learning, 3, 33-52.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse & language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Heath, S. B. (1986). Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language
minority students. CA: California State of Education.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and Multiple Choice data. Applied
Linguistics, 18, 1-26.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ide, S. (1992). Gender and function of language use: Quantitative and qualitative evidence
from Japanese. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 117-129.
Ismail, M. A. (1998). Apology behavior: Its strategies and realizations in English and
Arabic: A case study of female students of the department of English at King Saud
University. Unpublished master’s thesis, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Johnstone, B., Ferrara, K, & Bean, J. M. (1992). Gender, politeness, and discourse
management in same-sex and cross-sex opinion-poll interviews. Journal of Pragmatics,
18, 405-430.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden:
Blackwell.
Kouletaki, E. (2005). Women, men and polite requests. In R. Lakoff, & S. Ide (Eds.),
Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (pp. 175-193). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Koutlaki, S. A. (2002). Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: Tæ’arof in
Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1733–1756.

284
Koyama, T. (2001). Universals in perceived politeness: Comparison of native and non-

native English speakers. Masters Abstracts International, 40(01), 10A. (UMI No.
1405047)
Kraikosol, S. (2004). The interview technique and spontaneous speech data collection. The
University of Thai Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved February, 2007, from
http://www.utcc.ac.th/article_research/PDF/chapter5.pdf
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistic
Society, 9, 292–305.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. NY: Harper & Row.
Lakoff, R. (2005). Civility and its discontents: Or, getting into your face. In R. Lakoff, & S.
Ide (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (pp. 175-193). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Larina, T. (2005). Cultural values and negative politeness in English and Russian. General
and Theoretical Papers, Essen: LAUD 2006. Universitat Duisburg-Essen. (No. 647)
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leet-Pellgrini, H. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise.

In H. Giles, W. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological
perspectives (97-104). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Locher, M. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to
politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249-267.
Macaulay, M. (2001). Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 293-316.
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). The social dimension of proficiency: How
testable is it? In Language testing: The social dimension (pp.43-78). Malden, MA &
Oxford: Blackwell.
Margalef-Boada, T. (1993). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics: An inquiry into

data collection procedures. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (02), 233A. (UMI
No. 9418796)
Mazid, B. M. (2006) (Translating) Emirati Arabic politeness formulas: An exploratory study

and a mini-dictionary. A paper presented at The Seventh Annual U.A.E University
Research Conference, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, U.A.E University.

285
Migdadi, F. H. (2003). Complimenting in Jordanian Arabic: A socio-pragmatic analysis.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02), 485A. (UMI NO. 3080466)
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university

seminars. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1811–1835.
Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment responses:
Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 17, 411-432.
Nelson, G. L., Al Batal, M. & El Bakary, W. (2002). Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian
Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 26, 39–57.
Nureddeen, F. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic.

Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 279–306.
Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistics politeness and socio-cultural variations of noti. Journal of

Pragmatics, 18, 309-320.
O’Driscoll, J. (2007) What’s in an FTA? Reflections on a chance meeting with Claudine.

Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 243-268.
Okura, K. (2003). Declining an invitation as performed by Japanese ESL learners:

Pragmatic transfer and its causes. Masters Abstracts International, 42(01), 49A. (UMI
No. 1414952) .
Pedersen (2004). Transliteration of Arabic. Retrieved April, 2007, from

http://transliteration.eki.ee
Rabinowitz, J. F. (1993). A descriptive study of the offer as a speech behavior in American

English. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(03), 919A (UMI No. 9321459)
Rose, K. (1994). On the validity of DCTs in non-Western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15,
1-14.
Rundquist, S. (1992). Indirectness: A gender study of flouting Grice’s maxims. Journal of

Pragmatics, 18, 431-449.
Ruzickova, E. (2007). Strong and mild requestive hints and positive-face redress in Cuban
Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1170–1202.

286
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of

production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Sato, S. (2008). Use of ‘‘please’’ in American and New Zealand English. Journal of
Pragmatics, 40, 1249–1278.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics: Speech acts (pp. 1-24). New York: Academic Press.
Shigemasu, E., & Ikeda, K. (2006). Face threatening act avoidance and relationship
satisfaction between international students and Japanese host students. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 439-455.
Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary

perspectives (pp. 63-84). Berlin/NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sifianou, M. (2001). “Oh! How appropriate!” Compliments and politeness. In A.

Bayraktarog lu, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case
of Greek and Turkish (pp. 391-430). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Srinarawat, D. (2005). Indirectness as a politeness strategy of Thai speakers. In R. Lakoff,

& S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (pp. 175-193).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sugawara, K. (2009). Speech acts, moves, and meta-communication in negotiation: Three

cases of everyday conversation observed among the jGui former-foragers. Journal of
Pragmatics 41, 93–135.
Takano, S. (2005). Re-examining linguistic power: strategic uses of directives by

professional Japanese women in positions of authority and leadership. Journal of
Pragmatics, 37, 633–666.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and conversational interaction. NY: Author.
Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London:

Longman.
Tiersma, P. M. (1986). The language of offer and acceptance: Speech acts and the question
of intent. California Law Review, 74, 189-232.

287
Tseng, M. (1999). A pragmatic study on speech acts in Chinese invitational conversations.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(12), 4399A. (UMI No. 9953163)
Turjoman, M. O. (2005). Saudi gender differences in greetings and leave-takings.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(11), 1159A. (UMI No. 3194879)
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Author.
Weatherall, A. (2002). Towards understanding gender and talk-in-interaction. Discourse &

Society, 13, 767-781.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis,. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1977). Women’s place in everyday talk: Reflections on
parent-child interaction. Social Problems, 24, 521-529.
Wongwarangkul, C. (2000) Analysis of the nature of interlanguage pragmatics in choice

making for requesting strategies by Thai EFL learners. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62(01), 149A. (UMI No. 3000637)
Woo, C. (1995). Rules of Speaking: Analysis of conversational politeness in an ESL

communication class. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 4385A. (UMI No.
9605779)
Yamashita, S. O. (1996). Six measures of JSL pragmatics. (Technical Report #14).

Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at
Manoa.
Youmans, M. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in polite epistemic modal use in American

English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22, 57-75.
Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response
behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679–1710.
Yunis, M. (n.d.). The semantics of Al-Mabni in Arabic: A study on Sīn and Sawfa in the
Quran. Al-Shaam Literary Lobby. Retrieved February, 2007, from
http://www.odabasham.net/ta3reef.php
Zayid, A. (1996). Semantics: Theory and practice. Egypt, Cairo: Al-Shabab.

Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In
B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105-
129). Mass.: Rowley.

‫‪288‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺰوﺑﻌﻲ )ﻃﺎﻟﺐ(‪ :‬ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺑﻼﻏﺔ اﻟﻘﺪاﻣﻰ و أﺳﻠﻮﺑﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﺪﺛﯿﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻗﺎر ﯾﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﻐﺎزي‪.1997 ،‬‬
‫اﻟﻄﺒﻄﺒﺎﺋﻲ )ﻃﺎﻟﺐ(‪ :‬ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺔ اﻷﻓﻌﺎل اﻟﻜﻼﻣﯿﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﺻﺮﯾﻦ و اﻟﺒﻼﻏﯿﯿﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻜﻮﯾﺖ‪ ،‬اﻟﻜﻮﯾﺖ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1994‬‬
‫زاﯾﺪ )ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮازق(‪:‬ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﯿﻦ اﻟﻨﻈﺮﯾﺔ و اﻟﺘﻄﺒﯿﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﺸﺒﺎب‪ ،‬اﻟﻘﺎھﺮه‪.1996 ،‬‬
‫ﯾﻮﻧﺲ )ﻣﺤﻤﺪ(‪ :‬ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﺩﻻﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻥ ﻭﺴﻭﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺁﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺭﻴﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﺃﺩﺒﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺩ ﺕ‪.‬‬

289
Appendix A
Consent Form (English Version)
You are invited to participate in this study to aid the researcher to gather her data on female
use of linguistic politeness in the performance of offers. The following information is provided
to help you decide whether to participate or not.
The purpose of the study is to investigate the female use of linguistic politeness strategies when
making an offer. I request your participation in this study. Your participation is voluntary. You are
free not to participate in this study or to withdraw any time you want without affecting your
relationship with your university. If you decide to participate, all the information will be kept in
strict confidentiality and will have no bearing on your academic status.
If you agree, you will be first interviewed to answer some background questions. The
researcher will then set time to give a test session. You will answer orally. Your answers will be
audio-taped for research purposes, but names will remain anonymous. The test will take
approximately 20 minutes.
This data will be used for my master’s thesis and/or conference presentations with no monetary
compensation to you now or in the future. The audio records will be destroyed upon the completion
of the study.
By signing this consent form, you are demonstrating that you have read all the information
above and that you have agreed to be audio-taped. There is no risk to you by participating in this
research.
If you have, please contact Hana’a Qahtani, the researcher at XXXXXXXX
---------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------

Participant's Signature Printed Name Date
---------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------

Researcher's Signature Printed Name Date

‫‪290‬‬
‫‪Appendix B‬‬
‫)‪Consent Form (Arabic Version‬‬
‫أﺧﺘﻲ اﻟﻌﺰﯾﺰة‪ :‬أﻧﺖ ﻣﺪﻋﻮه ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ؛ ﺣﯿﺚ أن اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﯿﺔ ھﺪﻓﮭﺎ ﺗﺰوﯾﺪك ﺑﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺟﯿﻨﮫ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻘﺮري ﻓﯿﻤﺎ إذا ﻛﻨﺖ ﺳﺘﺸﺎرﻛﯿﻦ أم ﻻ‪.‬‬
‫إن اﻟﮭﺪف اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺴﻲ ﻟﮭﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ھﻮ اﺳﺘﻘﺼﺎء أﺳﻠﻮب اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻟﺪى اﻹﻧﺎث ﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﻮك اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻠﻐﻮي‪ .‬أرﺟﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻚ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺑﺄن ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺘﻚ ﻃﻮﻋﯿﺔ؛ ﺣﯿﺚ أﻧﮫ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻚ ﻋﺪم اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ أو‬
‫اﻻﻧﺴﺤﺎب ﻣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎ أردت ذﻟﻚ دون أي ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ دراﺳﺘﻚ أو ﻋﻤﻠﻚ؛ و إذا واﻓﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ ﻓﺈن ﻛﻞ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻚ ﺳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺴﺮﯾﺔ؛ و ﺳﺘﻘﻮم اﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﺔ ﺑﺈﺟﺮاء ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻣﻌﻚ ﻟﻤﺪ ﻋﺸﺮون دﻗﯿﻘﺔ ﺳﯿﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺠﯿﻠﮭﺎ ﺑﺪون اﺳﻤﻚ؛ و‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ اﻻﻧﺘﮭﺎء ﺳﯿﺘﻢ إﺗﻼف ﺟﻤﯿﻊ اﻟﺘﺴﺠﯿﻼت‪.‬‬
‫إن ﺟﻤﯿﻊ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﺳﺘﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻹﺗﻤﺎم رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ اﻟﺘﻲ أﻗﻮم ﺑﺈﻋﺪادھﺎ‪ .‬و ﺗﺄﻛﯿﺪا ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت ﻟﻦ ﺗﺘﻢ‬
‫اﻹﺷﺎرة إﻟﻰ أي ﺑﯿﺎﻧﺎت ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻚ‪.‬‬
‫أرﺟﻮ أن ﺗﻮاﻓﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ؛ و أﻋﺘﻘﺪ أﻧﮭﺎ ﺳﺘﻜﻮن ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻤﺘﻌﺔ و ﻣﺜﻤﺮة ﻟﻨﺎ ﺟﻤﯿﻌﺎ‪ .‬إذا واﻓﻘﺖ‪،‬‬
‫أرﺟﻮ اﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻊ أدﻧﺎه‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﻛﺮة ﻟﻜﻢ ﺗﻌﺎوﻧﻜﻢ‬
‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻷول‪.....................................‬اﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ‪.............................................................‬‬

291
Appendix C
Pre-interviews (English Version)
Age  Below 20  20-25 26-30  31-35  36-39 40-45 above 45
Level of  Below BA  BA  Above BA

Education
Nationality ___________
Place of Birth_____________
Occupation___________
Native language_________
No. of Years of Stay in Saudi Arabia____________
4. Would you like to be interviewed by the researcher?
□Yes □ No
5. If yes, please complete the following:
First name____________________Tele.___________________________
Best time to reach you: □ Morning □ Afternoon □ Evening

‫‪292‬‬
‫‪Appendix D‬‬
‫اﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﺣﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ‬
‫)‪Pre-interviews (Arabic Version‬‬
‫اﻟﺮﺟﺎء ﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ اﻟﺨﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﯿﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺮﻗﻢ اﻟﺘﺴﻠﺴﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪  45-40 ‬ﻓﻮق‪45‬‬ ‫‪39-36 ‬‬ ‫‪35-31‬‬ ‫‪30-26‬‬ ‫‪25-20‬‬ ‫□أﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪20‬‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﺮ‬
‫□أﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮرﯾﻮس‬ ‫□ﺑﻜﺎﻟﻮرﯾﻮس‬ ‫□ دون اﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮرﯾﻮس‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆھﻞ اﻟﺪراﺳﻲ‬
‫______________‬ ‫اﻟﺠﻨﺴﯿﺔ‬
‫______________‬ ‫اﻟﻤﮭﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ .1‬ھﻞ ﺗﻮاﻓﻘﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ إﺟﺮاء ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻣﻌﻚ؟‬
‫ﻻ□‬ ‫ﻧﻌﻢ□‬
‫‪ .2‬إذا ﻛﺎن اﻟﺠﻮاب ﺑﻨﻌﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺟﺎء إﻛﻤﺎل اﻟﺒﯿﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﺎﻟﯿﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻻﺳﻢ اﻷول___________________________رﻗﻢ اﻟﺘﻠﯿﻔﻮن‪____________________.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻣﺎ ھﻮ أﻓﻀﻞ وﻗﺖ ﻟﻼﺗﺼﺎل ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺎﺗﻔﻚ‪:‬‬
‫□ ﻣﺴﺎءا‬ ‫□ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﻈﮭﺮ‬ ‫□ﺻﺒﺎﺣﺎ‬

293
Appendix E
Post-Interviews (English Version)
Dear participant, answering the following questions will support the results of your previous
tasks.
1. What strategies would you like to use to show sincerity in your offer?
2. Do you like to insist on your offer?
3. Have you heard someone swearing by God’s Name to convince someone to accept
the offer? Do you use swearing with everybody?
4. Is there a difference in making offers to men and women? What if the man is a
relative?

‫‪294‬‬
‫‪Appendix F‬‬
‫)‪Post-interviews (Arabic Version‬‬
‫ﻋﺰﯾﺰﺗﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ‪ ،‬إﺟﺎﺑﺘﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﺳﯿﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﺰﯾﺰ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺘﻚ اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .1‬ﻣﺎھﻮ اﻷﺳﻠﻮب) أو اﻷﺳﺎﻟﯿﺐ( اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﯿﻨﮫ ﻟﺘﺸﻌﺮي اﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺑﺄﻧﻚ ﺻﺎدﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮﺿﻚ؟‬
‫‪ .2‬ھﻞ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ اﻻﺻﺮار ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﺮض؟‬
‫‪ .3‬ھﻞ ﺗﺤﺒﯿﻦ اﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎل اﻟﺤﻠﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮض؟ ھﻞ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﯿﮫ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻜﻞ؟‬
‫‪ . .4‬ھﻞ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪﯾﻦ أن ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﻋﺮﺿﻚ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﺷﻲ ﻟﻠﺮﺟﻞ ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﻋﺮﺿﻚ ﻟﻠﻤﺮأة ؟ و إذا ﻛﺎن ھﺬا اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ھﻮ ﻗﺮﯾﺒﻚ؟‬

295
Appendix G
Evaluating the Contextual Determinants
Table . G1 Percentages of the Participants’ Evaluation of the Contextual Determinants
Sit Addressee R
SD Power
S 100% B 100% S 100% B100% S 100% B 100%
Sit1 90 87 100 90 90 95
Very close Very close -P -P Low Low
Sit 2 100 100 95 90 98 97
Very Very Low Low
Sit3 close close -P -P 85 90
High High
Sit4 70 38% 88 55 90 95
Very close Very close +P +P High High
Sit5 85 80 100 100 99 100
Close Close =P =P Low Low
Sit6 96 98
High High
Sit7 88 100 100 70 95 95
Low Low
Sit9 Distant Distant -P -P 97 98
High High

296
Table G1 Continued
Sit Addressee R
SD Power
S B S B S B
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Sit8 85 80 95 100 100 100
Distant Distant =P =P Low Low
Sit10 80 90 100 100 95 90
Distant Distant =P =P High Low
Sit11 95 100 95 98 87 88
Very Very distant =P =P Low Low
distant
Sit12 100 100 80 60 65 80
Very Very distant +P +P Low Low
distant
Sit13 100 100 90 100 70 100
distant
Sit14 100 100 90 100 90 90
distant
Sit15 100 100 90 100 98 98
Very Very distant =P =P High High
distant

297
Table G2. Evaluation of the Degree of Involvement
Sit Degree of Saudi British
Involvement
1 Moderate 70% 65%
2 Very high 90% 85%
3 Low 75% 85%
4 Very low 85% 95%
5 Moderate 75% 70%
6 Very low 90% 90%
7 Moderate 85% 80%
8 High 85% 80%
9 Very low 85% 90%
10 Very low 95% 90%
11 Very low 95% 100%
12 High 70% 60%
13 Very low 100% 90%
14 Very low 90% 95%
15 Very high 85% 75%

298
Appendix H
DCT: English Version
Fifteen real-life situations are going to be described. Please listen to the situation carefully before
you respond to it. In every situation, you will be asked to imagine a situation in which you offer
something to someone. It is important that you understand the situation fully. Try to respond as
naturally as possible. No marks will be given. There is no right or wrong answer. Thanks for
participating in the study!
At University
1. You are at the dean’s office. The dean is signing your papers, when suddenly her pen ran out of
ink. She starts looking for something. You anticipate that she is looking for a pen. You want to offer
her your pen. What would you say?
2. You entering the cafeteria when you see your best friend sitting at a table. She looks upset. You
want to offer her a cold drink. What would you say?
3. You are at the dean’s office. She is talking over the phone complaining that she needs someone
to pick some important papers to the neighboring department, but she can’t find any. She hangs
up. She looks worried. You want to offer her some help to pick the papers for her. What would
you say?
4. a. Your teacher (boss) has made a timetable for the final presentations in the course (or for the
shifts at work). Your turn (shift) is in four days’ time. You have arranged up everything
accordingly. One of your classmates (colleagues) whom you hardly know is having some
problems. Her turn (shift) is tomorrow. Everybody knows she is in trouble. You feel you have to
offer her help to switch turns (shifts). What would you say?

299
5. Your best friend is preparing for her engagement. You thought of offering her your expensive
necklace that means a lot to you. Now, you are sitting together talking about the preparations for
the enjoyment. You feel you have to offer her that necklace to wear it for the engagement. What
would you say?
At Home
6. Your father is fond of reading newspapers. He wants to read a newspaper, but his glasses are
sent to be fixed. You want to offer him some help with reading the newspaper? What would you
say?
7. You are coming home. You find your mother tidying up the saloon. You want to offer her some
help. What would you say?
8. You know that a new neighbor has moved in. You decide to invite her. The new neighbor
accepts the invitation. At the table, there are some biscuits. You want to offer her some. What
would you say?
9. Your mother is getting dressed for a party. She is standing in front of the mirror trying to put on
her earrings. You want to offer her your expensive earnings. What would you say?
10. The housecleaner is in your room. You want to offer her one of the nicest dresses you have.
What would you say?
Outside Home
11. You are in a small shop. You have finished shopping and ready to check out. The shopkeeper is
struggling with adding up the items because the calculator seems broken. You have a calculator on
your cell phone. You want to offer him some help with calculations. What would you say?
12. You are entering the supermarket. You see a woman going out, struggling with her bags. You
want to offer her some help. What would you say?

300
13. You are at the library. One man seems to be lost at the library. You approach him to offer him
some help. What would you say?
14. At the store, you have bought two packets of batteries. Suddenly, another man enters, asking for
some batteries. The shopkeeper tells him that all the types of batteries are sold out. You want to
offer the man one of the packets you have already bought. What would you say?
15. You are at the cash machine. You want to withdraw some money. There is a man in front of you
using the machine. He does not seem to know how to use it. You want to offer him some help.
What would you say?

‫‪301‬‬
‫‪Appendix I‬‬
‫‪DCT: Saudi Arabic Version‬‬
‫ﻋﺰﯾﺰﺗﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻛﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﯿﻤﺎ ﯾﻠﻲ وﺻﻒ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻧﻤﺮ ﺑﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺣﯿﺎﺗﻨﺎ اﻟﯿﻮﻣﯿﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮم ﺑﻌﺮض ﺷﻲء ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﺎ‪ .‬اﻟﺮﺟﺎءاﻻﺳﺘﻤﺎع ﺟﯿﺪا ﻟﻠﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﻗﺒﻞ أﻛﻤﺎل اﻟﻄﻠﺐ‪ .‬ﺣﺎوﻟﻲ ﻋﺰﯾﺰﺗﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ أن ﺗﺘﺨﯿﻠﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﺟﯿﺪا و ﺗﺠﯿﺒﻲ ﺑﻌﻔﻮﯾﺔ و‬
‫ﻃﺒﯿﻌﯿﺔ ﻗﺪر اﻹﻣﻜﺎن ﺑﻠﮭﺠﺘﻚ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﯿﺔ؛ ﺗﺬﻛﺮي ﺑﺄﻧﮫ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ إﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺻﺤﯿﺤﺔ أو ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ ﻓﻜﻞ اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺎت ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺷﺎﻛﺮﯾﻦ ﻟﻚ اﻟﺘﻜﺮم‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺎھﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫‪ .1‬أﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻤﯿﺪة اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻷول ﻣﺮة ﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻊ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷوراق‪.‬؛ أﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻮﻗﯿﻌﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮغ ﺣﺒﺮ اﻟﻘﻠﻢ؛ وﺗﺒﺪأ ﺗﺪور ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲء و‬
‫ﺗﺘﻮﻗﻌﯿﻦ اﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﺪورﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﻢ؛ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﻗﻠﻤﻚ ؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪. 2‬دﺧﻠﺘﻲ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﺘﺮﯾﺎ وﻟﻘﯿﺘﻲ ﺻﺪﯾﻘﺘﻚ اﻟﻤﻘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻨﻚ ﻣﺤﺒﻄﺔ و زﻋﻼﻧﺔ ؛ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﺗﺸﺮب ﻋﺼﯿﺮ ﺑﺎرد؛ اﯾﺶ راح‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﻌﻤﯿﺪة واﻧﺖ واﻗﻔﺔ ﺗﺘﺤﺪث اﻟﺮﺋﯿﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﮭﺎﺗﻒ و ﺗﻔﮭﻤﯿﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﻮار ﺑﺎﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻦ ﯾﻮﺻﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻷوراق اﻟﻤﮭﻤﮫ‬
‫ﻷﺣﺪ اﻷﻗﺴﺎم وﺗﺸﻜﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻠﻔﻮن اﻧﮭﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻘﺖ أﺣﺪ ﻟﮭﺬه اﻟﻤﮭﻤﮫ و ﺗﺮﯾﺪﯾﻦ ﻋﺮض اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﺑﺄن ﺗﻮﺻﻠﻲ اﻷوراق ﻟﮭﺎ؛ اﯾﺶ راح‬
‫‪ .4‬أﺣﺪى اﻟﺰﻣﯿﻼت اﻟﻠﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻚ ﻓﯿﮭﻢ ﺳﻄﺤﯿﺔ ﺟﺪا‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪھﺎ ﻇﺮوف ﺻﻌﺒﺔ و ﺑﻜﺮة دورھﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﯾﻢ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع )او دورھﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺎوﺑﺔ(‬
‫وﺗﻌﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﺑﻈﺮوﻓﮭﺎ اﻟﺼﻌﺒﺔ و دورك اﻧﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ارﺑﻌﺔ اﯾﺎم و اﻧﺖ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺪة وﻟﻜﻦ ﺣﺴﯿﺖ اﻧﻚ ﻻزم ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺗﺒﺪﯾﻞ‬
‫اﻷدوار‪ ،‬اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺰل‬
‫‪ .5‬و اﻧﺖ داﺧﻠﺔ اﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ؛ ﺗﻠﻘﯿﻦ اﻣﻚ ﺗﺮﺗﺐ ﺗﻨﻈﻒ؛ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .6‬واﻟﺪك ﻣﻐﺮم ﺑﻘﺮاءة اﻟﺠﺮاﯾﺪ ﻛﻞ ﯾﻮم؛ ﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻈﺎرﺗﮫ ﻣﺎھﻲ ﻣﻌﮫ؛ و اﻟﺠﺮاﯾﺪ ﺟﻨﺒﮫ ﻣﺎ ﯾﻘﺪر ﯾﻘﺮاھﺎ؛ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ ﻗﺮاءة اﻟﺠﺮﯾﺪة‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﮫ؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .7‬واﻟﺪﺗﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺪ ﻟﻌﺰﯾﻤﺔ اﻟﻠﯿﻠﺔ و ھﻲ ﺗﺘﺠﮭﺰ ﻗﺪام اﻟﻤﺮآﯾﺔ و ﺗﺤﺎول ارﺗﺪاء ﺣﻠﻖ ﻋﻨﺪھﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﺗﻠﺒﺲ أﻏﻠﻲ وأﺛﻤﻦ ﺣﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪك‪ ،‬اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .8‬ﺗﺰورك ﺟﺎرة ﺟﺪﯾﺪه ﺗﻮھﺎ ﺳﺎﻛﻨﮫ ﺟﻨﺒﻚ ﻷول ﻣﺮة؛ و ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺴﻔﺮة ﺣﻠﻰ و ﺗﻼﺣﻈﯿﻦ اﻧﮭﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺪت ﯾﺪھﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺤﻠﻰ؛ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ ﺗﺎﺧﺬ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﺤﻦ؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .9‬أﻋﺰ ﺻﺪﯾﻘﺎﺗﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺪ ﻟﺤﻔﻞ ﺧﻄﻮﺑﺘﮭﺎ وﻓﻜﺮﺗﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮض أﺛﻤﻦ وأﻏﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻟﺪﯾﻚ وأﺛﻨﺎء اﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﻋﻦ اﺳﺘﻌﺪاداﺗﮭﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻔﻠﺔ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ أن ﺗﻠﺒﺲ ﻋﻘﺪك ﻓﻲ ھﺬه اﻟﺤﻔﻠﮫ؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .10‬اﻟﺨﺎدﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪك ﻓﻲ ﻏﺮﻓﺘﻚ؛ ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ اﺣﺪ ﻓﺴﺎﺗﯿﻨﻚ اﻟﺠﻤﯿﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ؟ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬

‫‪302‬‬
‫ﺧﺎرج اﻟﻤﻨﺰل‬
‫‪ .11‬اﺷﺘﺮﯾﺖ ﻋﻠﺒﺘﯿﻦ ﺣﺠﺎر )ﺑﻄﺎرﯾﺔ( ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﻞ و ﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﺮوﺟﻚ ﯾﺪﺧﻞ رﺟﻞ و ﯾﺴﺄل ﻋﻦ ﺑﻄﺎرﯾﺎت و ﯾﺨﺒﺮه اﻟﺒﺎﺋﻊ ﺑﺄن ﻛﻞ اﻧﻮاع اﻟﺒﻄﺎرﯾﺎت‬
‫اﻧﺒﺎﻋﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ وﺣﺪة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻠﺐ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻣﻌﻚ‪ ،‬اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .12‬ﺗﺮﯾﺪﯾﻦ ﺳﺤﺐ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺔ اﻟﺼﺮاف ﻓﻲ أﺣﺪ اﻷﺳﻮاق و ﻗﺪاﻣﻚ رﺟﻞ ﯾﺤﺎول ﯾﺼﺮف و ﺣﺴﯿﺖ اﻧﮫ ﻣﺎ ﯾﻌﺮف ﻛﯿﻒ ﯾﺴﺘﺨﺪم اﻻﻟﺔ ؛‬
‫ﺗﺮﯾﺪﯾﻦ ﻋﺮض ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﻚ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ * .13‬أﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﻞ ﺻﻐﯿﺮ؛ و أﻧﺘﮭﯿﺖ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﺮاء وأﻧﺖ واﻗﻔﺔ أﻣﺎم اﻟﺒﺎﺋﻊ ﻟﻠﺤﺴﺎب‪ ،‬ﺗﻼﺣﻈﯿﻦ ان اﻟﺒﺎﺋﻊ ﻋﻨﺪه ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻻﻟﮫ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺎﺳﺒﮫ ؛ ﯾﻌﯿﺪ اﻟﺤﺴﺎب اﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮة و ﻋﻨﺪك آﻟﺔ ﺣﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮاﻟﻚ؛ ﺗﺮﯾﺪﯾﻦ ﻋﺮض ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة ﻋﻠﯿﮫ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﺎب؛ اﯾﺶ راح‬
‫‪ .14‬أﻧﺖ داﺧﻠﺔ اﻟﺴﻮﺑﺮﻣﺎرﻛﺖ‪ ،‬ﺷﻔﺖ ﻣﺮأة ﺧﺎرﺟﮫ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ أﻛﯿﺎس ﻛﺜﯿﺮة وﺑﺎﯾﻦ اﻧﮭﺎ ﺗﻌﺒﺎﻧﮫ ؛ ﺗﺮﯾﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻤﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫اﻻﻛﯿﺎس ؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬
‫‪ .15‬اﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺷﻔﺖ رﺟﻞ واﺿﺢ اﻧﮫ ﺗﺎﺋﮫ و ﻣﺎﯾﻌﺮف اﻗﺴﺎم اﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﮫ و ﯾﺴﺄل ﺑﻌﺾ اﻻﺷﺨﺎص ﻋﻦ اﺣﺪ اﻻﻗﺴﺎم؛ و ﺗﺒﻐﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﺿﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪة؛ ؛ اﯾﺶ راح ﺗﻘﻮﻟﯿﻦ؟‬

303
Appendix J
Evaluating the DCT (English Version)
1. A. How do you evaluate of the following situations regarding the clarity of description
S1 Clear Unclear
1.B. If you think there are unclear situations, what do you suggest to improve them?
_________________________________________________________________
2. A How do you evaluate the situations regarding their cultural familiarity?
S1 Familiar  Unfamiliar
S6  Familiar  Unfamiliar
S7  Familiar  Unfamiliar
2.B. Do you suggest other situations that are culturally appropriate?

‫‪304‬‬
‫‪Appendix K‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﯿﯿﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن‬
‫‪ .1‬ﻗﯿﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﺮرت ﺑﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﯿﺔ اﻟﻮﺿﻮح‪:‬‬
‫‪ ‬ﻏﯿﺮ واﺿﺢ‬ ‫‪ ‬واﺿﺢ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ‪1‬‬

‫‪ ‬ﻏﯿﺮ واﺿﺢ‬ ‫‪ ‬واﺿﺢ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ‪2‬‬
‫‪‬ﻏﯿﺮ واﺿﺢ‬ ‫‪‬واﺿﺢ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ‪12‬‬
‫‪ .2‬إذا ﻛﺎن ھﻨﺎك ﻣﻮاﻗﻒ ﻏﯿﺮ واﺿﺤﺔ؛ ﻣﺎ ھﻲ اﻗﺘﺮاﺣﺎﺗﻚ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﯿﻨﮭﺎ؟‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻗﯿﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﺮرت ﺑﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﺘﺒﯿﺎن ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﯿﺔ إذا ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺄﻟﻮﻓﺔ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺎ ﻟﺪﯾﻚ‪:‬‬
‫‪ ‬ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺄﻟﻮف‬ ‫‪‬ﻣﺄﻟﻮف‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ‪1‬‬

‫‪ ‬ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺄﻟﻮف‬ ‫‪‬ﻣﺄﻟﻮف‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ‪2‬‬
‫‪ .4‬ھﻞ ﺗﻘﺘﺮﺣﯿﻦ ﻣﻮاﻗﻒ ﻣﺄﻟﻮﻓﺔ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺎً ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺮض؟‬

‫______________________________________________________________________‬

305
Notes
1
The translation is derived from Atawneh’s (1991) inshāʔ as initiation, and ţalabi ‫ ﻃﻠﺒﻲ‬as directive.
2
The DCT at the initial stage consisted of 11 situations. After the pilot study, some situations were
added and some were modified to comply with B&L (1987) contextual determinants.
3
Although the prosodic features were not included in this study, such features were taken into
consideration when analyzing the utterances. The oral DCT helped the researcher to decide whether
the utterance is meant to be a question, joke, statement, etc.
4
The final version of the DCT consisted of 16 situations. Every two situations were contrasted. One
of the lately added situations unfortunately was found invalid by an expert. Thus, the researcher was
compelled to omit this situation at the analysis stage, which left one situation to be analyzed
individually.
5
The researcher had to include the maid under the family group, following the Saudi evaluation,
and aiming to extract the cultural differences in the course of analysis.
6
Following B&L’s (1987) and Watts’ (2003) analysis of the offer let me.
7
El-Shafey (1990) finds it difficult to decide whether such questions convey politeness or not. They
do not carry much content of politeness.
8
In Koyama’s listing of polite offers, May I X, and Would you like are considered the most polite
offers. Let me X, Do you want, and How about X are considered less polite than the previous ones. I
can give you X if you want, and Why don’t you X are considered even less polite. You must have X is
considered the least polite one.
9
Actually, the expression “tfaẓẓal(ay)” is contextually triggered since it conveys different
pragmatic meanings in different contexts. The linguistic meaning of the word “tfaẓẓal(ay)” itself
can not be easily determined in Arabic, which makes it difficult to find its appropriate equivalent in
English. For example if some one wants to give something to a person, usually, of a high social
power, he/she should extend the object saying “tfaẓẓal(ay),” a guest sitting at the table can not start
eating before the host allows him to do so by saying “tfaẓẓal(ay)” if some one wants to permit
another one to talk, he/she might say “tfaẓẓal(ay)”, opening the door and allowing the person in,
someone might say “tfaẓẓal(ay).” So the linguistic properties of the word itself not help in
determining the meaning of the utterance. The pragmatic uses of “tfaẓẓal(ay)” are usually
accompanied by kinesics, mostly by moving the hand as a gesture of allowing someone to get in, or
have food, etc.
These different pragmatic uses of the expression have put pragmaticians in dilemma when
studying politeness in the Arabic context. Mazid (2006) translates it as kindly together with the
bald-on record. If some one allows a person in the house “kindly, get in.” if someone says “tfaddal”
to invite someone for food” it can be translated as “kindly, join in.”

306
Alshafey (1990), Atawneh (1991), Marghalani (2007, Personal Communiction), and Saleh (2007,
Personal Communcation) among others, translate “tfaddal” as please, followed by imperative. For
example, for offering food, “tfaddal” means (Please, have some food.)
Thus, there is a tendency towards translating “tfaẓẓal(ay)” as the politeness particle please (or
adverb “kindly”) + the imperative (guessed from the context) . However, such translation of the
politeness content of “tfaẓẓal(ay)” results in using please in contexts which are not common in
English. It might sound odd if you offer some one a pen and say for the first time “please take!” or
offer coffee and say “please, have some coffee” using please in such contexts conveys a different
prelocutionary force. It conveys that S wants to insist because the offer has been or is likely to be
rejected.
In this respect, Emery (2002) expands his analysis to give the English appropriate pragmatic
function of “tafaddal.”
….tfaDDalu. (please come in!). An invitation to coffee is expressed through tafaDDal
bitataqahwa (Have some coffee) at the end of a meal. The host may exhort the guests to eat
with such expressions as tafaDDalu. laa tistiHu. al-beet beetkum (Help yourselves. Don’t be
ashamed. The house is your house) or tafaDDalu jamaa’a hibshu (Help yourselves. Fall to!).
(p. 206 )
In spite of his attempt to equate “tfaẓẓal(ay)” to its English appropriate contextual translation,
Emery (2002) has neglected the polite effect embedded in the expression. The word “tfaẓẓal(ay)’
"(‫ " ﺗﻔﻀﻞ)ي‬is used to soften imperatives in offers and invitations. In “Have some coffee,” for
example, the imperative does not carry the same effect of
politeness as in the imperative “tfaẓẓal(ay) (il-gahwa).” Secondly, it was easy for Emery (2002) to
find appropriate equivalents in English regarding offering hospitality, but it might not be easy to
find appropriate equivalents for tfaẓẓal(ay) in other contexts.
In spite of the inadequacies of using the expression please (kindly) + imperative to translate
“tfaẓẓal(ay),” the researcher will adopt it in this study. Accordingly, the researcher will classify the
utterance “tfaẓẓal(ay)” as a softener + bald on record offers. This goes in line with B&L’s (1987)
assertion that bald-on record offers may be softened by please.
10
Here in these utterances is not classified as PSP strategy. It functions more like an attention getter
and a demonstrative. To be classified as PSP, here should be used metaphorically to refer to
closeness (See B&L (1987, p. 121).
11
This supports Sugawara’s (2009) view, which states that a speech act is the composite of various
indirect acts. Thus, a move can be composed of two or more speech acts; there cannot be a finite
number of rules that govern the infinite number of combinations or sequences of different acts.
12
The researcher designed this situation to investigate whether the speaker is going to show how
she notices the addressee’s miserable mood which B&L(1987) consider a type of PSP or will ignore
the addressee’s mood and say the offer plainly which is a type of NGP. The speakers’ responses
varied. Some decided to show care and others decided to ignore it.
13
See footnote 10 above.
14
This was stated by many speakers of Najdi dialect in this study.

307
15
Personal observation plus the participants’ comments.
16
See note 10
17
Yunis (n.d.) proposed his view on Standard or Classic Arabic. The same view is applied here to
colloquial Saudi Arabic based on personal communications with different professors, Saleh (2007)
& Marghalani (2007).
18
See footnote 10 above.
19
Such utterances are not considered mixed strategies because OFR strategies stand on the other
side of the continuum against the on-record strategies. Mixed strategies comprise only mixture of
on-record strategies.

Female Use of Politeness Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Female Use of Politeness Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

King Saud University

Female Use of Politeness Strategies in the Speech Act of Offering: A

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Under the Supervision of

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺳﻌﻮد‬

‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻹﻧﺎث ﻻﺳﺘﺮاﺗﯿﺠﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﺄدب اﻟﻠﻐﻮي ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض اﻟﻜﻼﻣﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﻣﻜﻤﻞ ﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺎت اﻟﺘﻄﺒﯿﻘﯿﺔ‬

‫اﻟﻔﺼﻞ اﻟﺪراﺳﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

model of politeness to Spoken Saudi Arabic.

The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. First, a socio-pragmatic

test, and a Pearson Correlation Test.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

strategies in both cultures. It correlated significantly positively with bald-on-record offers.

solidarity. Implications for sociolinguistics and pedagogy were discussed.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

‫ﻟﯿﻔﻨﺴﻮن )‪ (1987‬ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﮭﺠﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺔ‪.‬‬

‫أﻋﻄﻲ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر ل ‪ 53‬ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﯾﺎت و ‪ 50‬ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻤﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﯾﻄﺎﻧﯿﺎت‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ T-test- ANOVA‬و ‪ Pearson‬ﻟﻘﯿﺎس اﻟﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ‪.‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

dedicate this work.

I also would like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee members. My deepest

University. He offered advice and suggestions whenever I needed them.

program and at the end of the program by being in my thesis committee.

uncle Saud Misfer.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Chapter One: Introduction 1

2.1.3. Offers & Politeness 26

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

2.1.3.4 Offers & Indirectness: Are Indirect Offers More Polite? 32

3.7.2 Inter-coder Reliability 61

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

4.1.2 Making Offers to People of High Social Distance 128

5.1.3 Paired-Sample Test for the Intra-group Differences 215

5.2.2 Rank of Imposition 227

5.2.3 Other Contextual Determinants 229

5.2.3.1 Addressee’s Gender 230

5.2.3.2 Personal Involvement in the Event of Offering 234

5.3 Remarks on B&L’s (1987) Model 236

5.3.1 Religious Expressions 238

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

5.3.3 The Dynamic Nature of P, SD & R 241

5.3.4 Comments on B&L’s (1987) Don’t-do-the FTA 243

5.4 tfaẓẓal(ay): Is It an Inherently Polite or a Formulaic Expression? 244

6.3 Pedagogical Implications 255

6.4. Suggestions for Further Research 256

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Table 4.2. BOR Offers in Saudi Arabic in Sit# 1& 2 67

Table 4.13 NGP in British English Offers in Sit# 1& 2 84

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Table 4.18 BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 88

Table 4.19. PSP in the Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 3& 4 90

Table 4. 26. BOR Strategies in British English Offers in Sit# 3 100

Table 4.27 PSP in British English Offers in Sit# 3& 4 100

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Table 4.50. Mixed Superstrategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 8 139

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Table 4.71. BOR Strategies in Saudi Arabic Offers in Sit# 11 165

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com