Investigating condolence
responses in English and
Persian
指導教授：鍾榮富教授
Reporter:NA1C0008陳慧齡
Introduction
• With the advent of communicative approaches
toward language learning, a more focused attention
was directed toward using the language in authentic
situations (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
• Appropriateness
• Felicity conditions
• According to Hudson (2000), grammatical wellformedness does not guarantee an illocution to take
place appropriately.
Introduction
• Knowledge of pragmatics gained importance.
• Riley(1981) mentioned that every discourse
has specific features which can contribute to
the meaning of the utterances.
– formal structure
– illocutionary structure
– interactive structure
Introduction
• The knowledge of pragmatics plays an
important role in conversations between
individuals.
• The theory of speech acts describes how one
can use language to do things (Fromkin,
Rodman, & Hyams,2003).
– Verbs
– requesting
• classroom or court?
Introduction
• As a bereaved or as a condoler, one may be in
various situations.
• There is a need to acknowledge the
condolence.
• Various cultures may have different ways of
responding to condolences.
• There is no study to verify the argument.
Introduction
• This study aims at investigating responses to
condolences in Persian and English.
• The findings can be useful to reach a universal
pattern of investigating condolence responses.
• The present study proposes a classification for
comparing Persian and English condolence
responses.
This study aims at dealing with
the following questions:
1. Are there any significant differences among
condolence responses in Persian?
2. Are there any significant differences among
condolence responses in English?
3. Are there any significant differences between
Persian and English with respect to
condolence responses?
Corpus
• 200 movies
– the way Persian and English speakers respond to
others’ condolences
Transcribed
Analyzed
Research Process
• 7 generic categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Token of appreciation
Expressing sorrow
Sharing feeling
Comment on the deceased
Topic avoidance
Self-blame statement
Divine comment
The classification of comparison
• The frequency of each observed category was
counted and in the second phase.
• Chi-square test
– to find out whether there are any significant
differences between Persian and English corpuses
Results
Table 3
Results of the Chi Square Test for the
Condolence Response Types in Persian
Divine > Appreciation > Deceased >
Feeling/Sorrow/Self-blame/Avoidance
Table 4
Results of the Chi Square Test for the
Condolence Response Types in English
Deceased > Feeling > Divine > Appreciation
> Sorrow/Avoidance/Self-blame
Table 5
Distribution of Chi-square Formula in
Condolence Response Types in English and
Persian
there is a significant difference among Persian and English
response types except for token of appreciation and topic
avoidance.
• This study was a cross-cultural investigation
into the Persian and English condolence
responses.
• This paper used movies as the main source of
compiling the corpus.
• Movies can be utilized to provide researchers
with a good pile of authentic data with little
reactivity effect.
• Persian speakers
– divine comment
– token of appreciation
– comment on the deceased
• Iranians are among those cultures which are
highly dependent on tradition.
• Most Persian speakers referred to God in their
responses.
• Traditional societies try to be more
pluralistic and dependent.
– assimilation between individuals.
• Persian speakers have a high
assimilative orientation in their
condolence responses.
• English speakers
– comment on the deceased
– Expressing feeling
– divine comment
– token of appreciation
• English speakers
– particularistic orientation
– transmitting of the self and the personal attitudes
take outmost importance
• English speakers
– ‘secessionist’ society
– ‘I’ and the ‘self’ are emphasized.
• 2 features of Persian and English cultures
regarding condolence response types
– both cultures use appreciation comments
frequently as a way of gratitude
• Persian speakers used more appreciation responses
• ‘thank you’
– Persian and English speakers use topic avoidance
less frequently.
The orientation between
Persian and English
• Amersfoort (1978):
universalistic subordinates concentrated subordinates
Persian speakers
participation in society
demand equality
common grounds(e.g., God)
hearers’ feeling (thanking)
mutual involvement (comment
on the deceased)
English speakers
Individuals’ particularistic value
system
transmitting feeling and
experiences
Comment on the deceased
expressing feeling
• In Eastern societies, individuals try to represent
themselves as being part of the ‘whole’(Markus &
Kitayama, 1991).
• Independent societies (English speakers)
– individuality and self-expression
• Interdependent societies(Persian speakers)
– belonging and common grounds
Conclusion
• Persian and English speakers are significantly
different in their condolence response types
except for token of appreciation and topic
avoidance.
• Cultural factors are going to alter how
speakers perform specific speech acts such as
condolence.
• This study can be replicated in other settings
to confirm the findings of the study.