Methodology of analysis of directive speech acts in English and Arabic academic discourse

Introduction

Methodology in linguistics is understood as "a set of techniques, methods for the expedient conduct of a certain work, process, research or practical implementation of something" ^[2]. The methodology in linguistics allows researchers to use the same algorithm when studying large volumes of linguistic information and data in different languages, adhering to a certain sequence of actions in order to obtain objective research results ^[5].

This article describes the methodology for studying directive speech acts within the framework of academic discourse in English and Arabic, which was developed within the framework of our, Alhaded H.H., dissertation research on directive speech acts (hereinafter DRA) and the style of student-teacher communication within the academic discourse of the USA, Arab countries and Russia. We offer the study of DRA from the point of view of grammatical, cultural, social and lexical aspects. However, in this article we aim to propose a methodology for analyzing the DRA in a comparative aspect within the framework of academic discourse functioning in English and Arabic, since no such attempts have been made before. It should be noted that at present there are quite a large number of works devoted to individual methods of studying speech acts (hereinafter – RA) and directive speech acts. Among the research works we can highlight such works as the study of E.I. Riehakainen on the use of psycho and sociolinguistic approaches in the study of RA requests ^[4]; dissertation research by A.V. Pavlova, in which special attention is paid to pragmalinguistic approaches in the study of RA requests in a comparative perspective of American and Russian linguocultures ^[3]. Among the foreign scientists investigating the methods of studying RA, we can single out the works of M. Williams (2002) ^[10], M. Kamil and H. Hassan (2021) ^[7], etc.

Classification of DRA Serle (1979)

The methodology developed within the framework of this study for the analysis of DRA in English and Arabic academic discourse is based on the classification of DRA proposed by John Searle in 1979. According to the classification of Searle (1979), DRA are divided into five types (below we offer the author's examples of DRA from the pedagogical practice of the author of the study):

1.                 An order is a type of directive that contains a direct command to action from the speaker to the listener ^[9]. Searle notes that the DRA order is binding and cannot be rejected or not executed. Examples of such a given type of DRA can be the following expressions:

- Close the door, now!

- Put phone away, please. (Put the phone away, please). (The translation hereafter is ours, Alhaded H.H.)

- (Put your phone in your pocket).

2.                 A call is a type of directive where speech acts are attempts by the speaker to involve the listener in a certain event or to perform a certain action ^[9]. This type of directive speech act is characterized by a softening of the tone and/or wording of the DRA, as well as the circumstances of the execution of the DRA. Eg:

- If you don't mind, you can join our English Speak Club this Saturday.

- Can someone please do me a favor and get my notebook? (Someone can do me a favor and bring me my notebook).

- , / !

 (Very loudly, talk after the lesson, it's not appropriate now).

3.                 Prohibition is a type of DRA in which the speaker prohibits the listener from performing an action, additionally emphasizing the prohibition ^[9]:

- Don't you dare come near me!

- No phones in class (No phones in the classroom)

- (You can not use the phone)

4.                 A request is a type of DRA in which the speaker formulates a directive by creating acceptable circumstances for the listener ^[9]:

"Can I ask you to pick me up?"

- If you have time could you help [name] after class? (If you have time, could you help me, [name], after class?)

-  (If it's not difficult, open the window).

5.                 A sentence is a type of DRA, in which the speaker gives the listener the opportunity to choose or consider an alternative option for performing DRA ^[9]:

- As for me, I would advise you to think carefully again and make a final decision.

- Prepare better and pass the exam one more time. (Prepare for the exam and take it again)

- (Go out from the audience and talk on the phone there)

Depending on the situation, linguoculture, language, the same DRA can be attributed to two or more types of DRA identified by Searle at once.

DRA analysis methodology

As noted above, the classification of DRA Searle (1979) was chosen as the basis for creating a methodology for analyzing the directive speech act in English and Arabic academic discourse. Serle's DRA classification served as a basis for the development of situational examples of DRA included in the pragmatic test within the framework of academic discourse in English and Arabic. It is important to note that this questionnaire was developed exclusively for students, since within the framework of academic discourse they are performers of the DRA. Moreover, the DRA Searle classification (1979) was created for all DRA, regardless of the context and scope of application, however, this study is the first to present the possibility of using the DRA Searle classification within the framework of academic discourse. 

Thus, J. Brown and T. Hudson ^[7] divided the tests aimed at assessing pragmalinguistic knowledge into three categories: tests with a choice of answer, tests with free presentation, tests for personal assessment. A written discursive test is a test with a free presentation. For the first time, this test was used to study the pragmatic aspect of speech acts by S. Blum-Kulka in 1982 (Blum-Kulka 1982). Many researchers have addressed similar tests in their works (Kasper, Rose 2001; Woodfield 2011; Barron 2001; Trosborg 1995; Yifeng 2012; Birjandi, Rezaei 2010; Parvaresh, Tavakoli 2009). It is believed that the concept of "pragmatic test" appeared thanks to J. Oller (Oller 1979). For such tests, he proposed two limiting factors. Firstly, the material for the tests should not be presented in the form of isolated words and sentences, but in the form of real language situations, which was created within the framework of the texts of this study in English and Arabic. Secondly, the language content of the tests should be as close as possible to the real language conditions. To achieve the second factor of the condition for the fulfillment of the pragmatic test, we used the classification of DRA Searle (1979), as well as the personal experience of the author of the article when teaching and studying at the RUDN (Moscow, Russia) and the University of Jordan (Amman, Ioradnia). Taking as a basis the types of DRA proposed by Searle (1979), a written discursive test was compiled in English and Arabic, in which ten situational examples are situations to which, according to the research hypothesis, students should cite the DRA they had encountered in the framework of academic discourse earlier. It should be noted that the use of a written discursive test in this study is due to its practicality in the comparative analysis of two discourses.

 The proposed DRA situations are identical in English and Arabic. As part of the testing of the methodology of studying DRA in English and Arabic academic discourse, we conducted a survey in which 30 students from the USA and 30 students from Arab countries such as Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Mauritania, Algeria and Egypt took part. It should be noted that such a variety of Arabic-speaking countries participating in the test is justified by the fragmentation of the Arabic language into different dialects, which affects the functioning of academic discourse in Arabic as a whole ^[1].  In total, 60 people took part in the approbation of the methodology, consisting of a written discursive test and analysis stages obtained during the questionnaire from students from the USA and the Middle East.

When working with the obtained data in the course of a written discursive text, such methods of linguistic analysis as the descriptive method, the method of comparative analysis, the method of free associations, the method of contextual interpretation of examples, the method of quantitative data processing were used.

Here is an analysis of a situation that was proposed to students among others and to which, according to the research hypothesis, students should cite one of the five types of DRA put forward by Searle (1979):

The first suggested situation: "You are talking to your classmates making some noise during the lecture" ("You are chatting with your classmates, interfering with the course of the lecture"). Among the students' responses, the following DRA became the most frequent:

- Please, quiet down and focus (Please be quiet and concentrate).

This example can be attributed to such a type of DRA as a sentence, according to the classification of Searle (1979).

- Please, pay attention (Please pay more attention). Here is a DRA – request/suggestion.

- Please be respectful to your peers (Please respect your colleagues). Here is a DRA – call.

- Quiet everyone! (Quiet everyone!). Here is the DRA – order.

- I can hear you up here. If you need to talk, go somewhere else (I can hear you even here. If you need to talk, get out). Here is a DRA – offer.

As noted above, a similar method of analyzing the DRA, given by students as answers to the proposed situations, was applied to the Arabic academic discourse and the study of the DRA within the established discourse.

The second suggested situation is: " " (You're eating in the audience). Among the students' responses, the following DRA became the most frequent:

(Are you all right? Have you completely lost your conscience?). DRA – call.

(Who else could have thought of eating in the audience? Go out and eat outside of class!). DRA – prohibition/order.

(You can't do that!). DRA – prohibition.

(Stop it!). DRA is an order.

(And what will you do tomorrow? This is a university, not a restaurant). DRA – offer.

The remaining situational examples, compiled on the basis of the classification of DRA Searle (1979), which during the survey of students in English and Arabic allowed to study DRA in two linguistic cultures:

- It is stuffy in the classroom. Your teacher wants you to open the window.

.

 (The auditorium is stuffy. The teacher asks you to open the window).

- Your teacher forgot his/her notebook in another classroom. S/he wants you to bring it for him/her.

.  

 (The teacher forgot his diary in another classroom and asks you to bring it to him/her).

- One of your classmates failed to write the test. The teacher wants you to work with him after classes.

.

 (Your classmate failed the test. The teacher asks you to help him after couples).

- The teacher could not hear your answer and wants you to repeat it.

(The teacher did not hear your answer and asks you to repeat it).

- The teacher tells the students to write the exercise in class.

(The teacher says to do this exercise in writing).

- The teacher tells students to read an article for the next seminar.

(Teach (read this article for the next seminar).

Conclusions

Thus, a written discursive test in English and Arabic developed on the basis of the classification of DRA Searle (1979), the use of the methods of linguistic analysis described in the article when working with the received DRA from English-speaking and Arabic-speaking students, as well as a description of the choice of groups of respondents for conducting a questionnaire formed the basis of the developed methodology for analyzing DRA in English and Arabic academic discourse. The number of DRA received from students in English and Arabic amounted to 600 responses, which allows us to judge the effectiveness of the developed testing. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the answers received is presented in the dissertation study by Alhaded H.H., dedicated to the DRA and the style of student-teacher communication within the framework of English and Arabic academic discourse. We see the prospects for further research in the addition of the DRA analysis methodology presented in this article with the development of a study of the cultural and social components of academic discourse.