Journal of English Language

Teaching and Learning

No.10,2012
Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act
Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Ph.D. Candidate in TEFL
University of Tabriz
Abstract
Condolence is part of Austin’s expressive speech act and is related to
Searle’s behabitives illocutionary act. Although a theoretically sound
issue in pragmatics, condolence speech act has not been investigated as
much as other speech acts in discourse-related studies. This paper aims
at investigating interjections and intensifiers while performing
condolence speech act among Persian and English speakers. Movie
analysis was utilized to gather information about how native speakers
used interjections and intensifiers while performing condolence speech
act. Of particular interest was the use of repetition, multiple
intensifiers, implicit intensifiers, expressing explicit concern for the
bereaved, and using adjectival intensifiers. The results of the Chi-
square revealed that: a) there was a significant difference among
intensifiers and interjections in each culture; b) interjections and
intensifiers can be organized semantically; and (c) the nature of
English and Persian intensifiers is syntactically different. To link
theory into practice, pedagogical implications are discussed in the
context of EFL.

Keywords: Pragmatics, Speech Act Theory, Interjections, Intensifiers,

Condolence.
106 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

1. Background
1.1. Speech Act Theory
Pragmatics is “the study of linguistics phenomenon from the
viewpoint of their usage properties and processes” (Verschueren, 1999,
p. 1). Delen and Tavil (2010) pointed that Pragmatics has been both
controversial and a popular topic in language research since 1960s.
Pragmatics puts emphasis on the meaning in conversations among
interlocutors. In other words, a learner with full grammatical
competence may not be pragmatically competent too. Learners may
produce correct grammatical sentences in conversations which are
pragmatically inappropriate. Therefore, such breakdowns may hinder
the communication among interlocutors which is called ‘pragmatic
failure’. One of the important factors of pragmatic failure lies in the
fact that learners transfer speech act strategies from their native
language (Beebe, Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Ellis, 1996). The
second one relates to input. Although it is necessary for learners to
receive a great amount of input from the environment, English
textbooks may have problems to present activities which target
pragmatic competence (Kasper & Rose, 2001).
Pragmatics is the study of language used in authentic conversations
which reflects the relationship among sentences, contexts, and
situations. Pragmatics has not a clear-cut definition (Ellis, 2008). As
Levinson (1983) mentioned, pragmatics considers linguistic features in
relation to users of language. One of the underlying themes in
pragmatics is speech act. The theory of speech acts is developed
mainly by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969, 1979). The central
assumption in the theory of speech act is that the minimal unit of
communication is not a sentence or other expressions but rather
language act. In another term, human language can be viewed as
actions. Individuals perform things by saying different kinds of
language acts such as refusals, requests, promises and the like. Austin
(1962, p. 67) studied speech acts from the following perspective: “to
consider from the ground up how many senses there are in which to
say something is to do something, or in saying something we do
something and even by saying something we do something.”
According to his view, any utterance is composed of the following
acts: the locutionary act (the actual words the speaker is saying), the
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 107

illocutionary act (the intention of the speaker) and the perlocutionary

act (the effect of utterance on the hearer) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
Austin’s Speech Act Identification

Drawing on the works of Austin, Searle (1975) classified speech

acts into five general categories (cited in Ellis, 2008, p. 160):

 Representatives: e.g. asserting, concluding

 Directives: e.g. requesting, ordering
 Commissives: e.g. promising, threatening
 Expressives: e.g. thanking, condoling
 Declarations: e.g. excommunicating, declaring war, marrying,
firing

As it is mentioned in the classification, condolence is part of

expressives. Expressives show the speaker’s attitude toward events
and also express the felicity condition of the speech act. In other
words, they count as expressions of a psychological state. This study
108 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

made an attempt to investigate intensifiers and interjections while

Persian and English interlocutors perform condolence speech act.

2. Condolence Speech Act

The word condolence comes from the Latin condolere meaning ‘to
suffer together’ (Zunin & Zunin, 2007). It means acknowledging a
loss, showing sympathy, or empathizing with someone. Humans are
emotional beings and one can see this emotionality in every-day
communication. Death of a loved one can bring with itself a state of
deep sorrow, grief, shock, and numbness (Parkers, Laungani, &
Young, 1997). As a condoler, individuals should express sympathy to
a bereaved and help him/her to accept that a beloved has passed away.
Crucially, the ways to express condolence differ from one culture
to another. Generally, culture and convention play an influential role
in pragmatics. Besides, by understanding the cultural background and
the belief system of the bereaved, one can express condolences in an
appropriate way. For example, in one culture, the common way to
condole may be sending flowers or sympathy cards but in another
culture, there may be other ways to console with the bereaved. It
simply means that we should be aware of cultural factors and beliefs
in condoling. In the same vein, Zunin and Zunin (2007) pointed out
that condolence messages convey particular hidden meaning which
are different across cultures.
Emotions play an important role in human communications and
individuals’ lives are replete with happiness and grief.
Communicating meaningful condolence phrases and sentences will
reduce the fear one might experience for saying the wrong thing to the
bereaved—the sentence should be influential as well. Since emotional
communication is always linked to cultural matters, it is important that
the condolence message be appreciated by the bereaved family as well
as the close friends of the deceased—equal attention should be paid to
pragmatics.
The language which is used in highly emotional situations, like
when a person is touched by the death of a loved one may be to some
extent different from the language we use in daily communication.
One of the issues which has made condolence messages complicated
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 109

is the nature of relationships among individuals. Therefore, it can be

concluded that communicating a meaningful sentiment is something
personal regarding the relationships between the individual and the
bereaved. Finding the right condolence phrases to say at the right time
can be a challenging task. For example, in Iranian culture, saying ‘I’m
sorry’ to the bereaved does not communicate anything important.
There are some situations that more than being sorry is needed. There
are situations that individuals want to show their support in a
culturally acceptable and linguistically appropriate way. In various
situations different sentences may be appreciated. Therefore, it is a
necessity to investigate a cross-cultural ways of communicating
condolence to the bereaved ones to figure out different strategies
natives will use to convey their intended meaning. On the other hand,
there may be different responses to condolences in various situations
which contribute to the intricacies of condolence speech act.
The main purpose of condolence phrases is to commiserate with
those who have experienced the death of a loved one. Sometimes the
purpose of consoling is just a conventional one and is related to
politeness. For instance, in some countries it may be considered as
being rude not to express one’s sympathy to a bereaved—whether the
bereaved is an intimate or a stranger. In this situation there are some
prefabricated phrases the interlocutors can use to console the bereaved
or the grieving family. It is of key importance to know the right
expression since the feelings the bereaved is experiencing can range
from extreme sadness to outright anger; thus, it is important how one
might verbalize sympathy. The following factors should be considered
when one wants to word sympathy. These elements influence the way
a person chooses condolence or condolence responses:

1. The bereaved relationship to the deceased

2. Speakers’ relationship with the bereaved
3. Speakers’ relationship to the deceased
4. What emotions the bereaved is experiencing

Therefore, in order to have an appropriate message of condolence

and in order to figure out the nature of condolence responses, four
factors should be considered which is revealed in the figure below:
110 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

Emotion

Condolence
Language expressions Deceased

Bereaved

Figure 2.
Factors that Influence Condolence Messages

3. Review of Literature
Current review literature showed that there is little investigation done
on interjections and intensifiers in performing condolence speech act.
However, some studies have been done on the area of interjections.
One of them relates to Wierzbicka’s (1992) research in which a
number of interjections from English, Polish, Russian, and Yiddish (as
well as) rigorous semantic formulae are proposed which can explain
both the similarities and the differences in their use. For example, the
English interjection yuk! is compared with its nearest Polish and
Russian counterparts fu!, fe!, and tfu! The author concluded that while
the meaning of interjections cannot be adequately captured in terms of
emotion words such as disgust, it can be captured in terms of more
fine-grained components, closer to the level of universal semantic
primitives. Meng and Schrabback (1999) conducted a study relating to
the acquisition of forms, interactive functions, and discourse type
constraints of German interjections, in particular ha and na. The data
consist of two sets of child-adult conversations—picture book
interactions in family and psychodiagnostic settings. By comparing the
adults and the children’s use of interjections, it was revealed that
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 111

children had managed to acquire interjectional forms and functions as

well as discourse type constraints.
It has to be taken for granted that all interjections have some kind of
meaning. In this respect, every interjection is used in particular
language and situational context to convey its meaning. Therefore,
claiming that a particular interjection may have no semantic features is
not correct. Quirk et al. (1972) emphasized that “interjections are
purely emotive words which have neither referential content nor any
particularly significant grammatical function” (pp. 413-414).
Apart from interjections, intensifiers are important parts in
communication especially in condolence expressions. Intensifiers are a
class of words, generally adverbs, which are used to modify gradable
adjectives, adverbs, and verbs. Characteristically, intensifiers serve to
enhance the emotional content of an expression. It might be better to
say that the use of intensifiers subtly suggests to the reader what
emotions should be felt. The basic and common-used intensifier is
very; a versatile word which modifies many adjectives and adverbs.
There are also other intensifiers which often convey the same intention
as very.
Zellermayer’s (1991) compared the use of intensifiers in excerpts
from Hebrew and American novels and their translations into English
and Hebrew. This study revealed that intensifiers in Hebrew and
English texts are considered as markers of the relationship between
oral and written elements in that discourse and as indicators of written-
text-reader relationships in particular rhetorical communities. Because
each group of target texts - Hebrew or English - incorporated in this
study has been found to consistently add or delete intensifiers to or
from its source texts, one may conclude that such shifts reflect the
different biases of the rhetorical communities these writers and
translators identify with, in terms of literacy and textual characteristics
as well as their varied notions of the ideal text.
Language learning does not take place in a vacuum. Hence, the
quality of interactions should be analyzed according to mutual
constraints which exist among interlocutors. In the same vein,
Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued about the ecology of language which
takes into account the environmental factors of learning which in turn
put emphasis on the language use. The idea flourishes with what
112 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

Williams and Burden (1997) schematized as ecological perspectives of

language.
In their model, Williams and Burden (1997) referred to four factors:
Microsystem, Mesosystem, Ecosystem, and Macrosystem.
Microsystem is the closest environmental layer affecting the learner
which embraces parents, teachers, siblings and peers. Macrosystem,
which is placed at the outermost layer, takes into account the entire
culture of the society. These ecological perspectives which are
represented by Williams and Burden are not dissimilar to the structure
of an onion emphasizing that human beings have interactions with
cultural and societal layers covering them—as it is schematized in
Figure 3, the learner is placed at the center of an onion-like structure.
Therefore, individuals may have different styles and strategies when
talking together since they are from different social status and there
are, of course, power relations which are likely to influence the quality
of talk among interlocutors. With regard to the speech act, the
conventions of the society are strong predictors of how individuals
perform different acts in relation to others.

Macrosystem

Mesosystem

Microsystem

Learner

Figure 3.
Various Systems Affecting the Learning Environment
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 113

After a close examination of the pile of research (e.g. Blum-Kulka,

1982; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; House
& Kasper, 1987; Kasper, 1989; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987)
conducted on particular speech acts cross-culturally, we figured out
that the area considering condolence speech act and its response types
are underresearched. Most of the people take feelings of grief and
sadness as usual circumstances. However, when individuals want to
comfort others, they should consider many factors in mind, namely,
speakers’ feelings, the relation of the bereaved to the deceased, and the
relationship between the speaker and the bereaved; these factors may
change the easy process of offering condolence to a fearful experience.
The feeling of losing a loved one brings with itself a kind of intense
psychological pressure. Knowing how to relate to the bereaved is
something which requires subtlety and attention. Also, there is not
much at hand about the condolence responses. There are situations
which require specific linguistic path.
Cross-cultural differences play an important role when dealing with
speech acts (Green, 1975; Wierzbicka, 1985). According to ecological
perspectives, since individuals have interactions with different people
in society, there is a need to know how to use language in different
situations appropriately. It is also important to be cognizant of the
sentences which are face threatening or face saving. Learners have
little difficulty with respect to grammatical or textual competence but
when it comes to pragmatic competence, even the most proficient
learners will be challenged (Ellis, 2008; Martínez-Flor & Fukuya,
2005). In the same vein, Bardovi-Harlig (1999) posited that even very
advanced learners have difficulty with their interlanguage pragmatics.
Furthermore, being competent in the grammar of the target language
does not mean that a person is pragmatically competent too (Bardovi-
Harlig, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Kasper & Rose, 1999).
This lack of knowledge and proficiency in pragmatic aspects of
language may result in breakdowns in communications.
In the context of EFL classrooms, learners should be exposed to
sufficient amount of input so that they could increase their grasp of
pragmatics. However, textbooks are not so rich at providing students
with sufficient amount of input in the realm of pragmatics (Kasper &
114 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

Rose, 2001). Besides, the problems of teaching pragmatics are

increasing and need more research to pave the way for those teachers
who encounter difficulties in teaching speech acts (Delen & Tavil,
2010).
The existing literature concerning speech act theory shows that
there is a gap in literature about interjections and intensifiers in Persian
and English condolence utterances.

4. Significance of the Study

Although several studies have been conducted in the area of different
speech acts, investigations into the speech act of condolence have been
limited. The present study will serve as a preliminary step in
addressing the need to focus on interjections and intensifiers in
condolence speech act. Given the fact that condolences are interwoven
with emotional states, individuals put interjections and intensifiers in
practice. Every day in our language communication individuals use
forms which cannot be easily considered as words but assigned to
convey messages. These messages are not actually ideas but rather
emotions and feelings. These forms which function as pragmatic
markers are called interjections. Similarly, Wilkins (1992) postulated
that interjections have all features attributed to utterances including the
fact that they convey complete propositions and have an illocutionary
purpose. The fact that interjections exist in language, accounts for their
importance which may be less highlighted in linguistics. As a rule of
thumb, mastering any language would be incomplete without being
able to understand and use interjections and intensifiers appropriately.
Interestingly, according to Jovanović (2004), “The term interjection
literally comes from Latin interjicere with the meaning to throw or
cast between, from inter between + jacere to throw” (p.18).
5. Research Questions
After reviewing the current literature and in accordance with the
objectives of this study, four research questions are applicable:

Q1: Are there any significant differences among interjections in

Persian condolence messages?
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 115

Q2: Are there any significant differences among interjections in

English condolence messages?
Q3: Are there any significant differences between Persian and
English with respect to interjections in condolence speech act?
Q4: Are there any significant differences between Persian and
English with respect to intensifiers in condolence speech act?

6. Methodology
6.1. Corpus
Movie analysis was utilized to gather information about how native
speakers use interjections and intensifiers while performing
condolence speech act. To this end, 50 movies were analyzed (25
in Persian and 25 in English) to figure out the patterns native
speakers of Persian and English utilize while offering their
condolences. To make the comparison easier and more similar,
both Persian and English condolence speech acts were gathered by
analyzing movies. The criterion of selecting the movies was
whether they had any condolence dialog.
6.2. Procedure
First, all of the condolence comments were found and transcribed.
Those sentences which were related to interjections and intensifiers
were selected out, then, each sentence was categorized under
specific category based on its underlying meaning. Five categories
were used to compare intensifiers among English and Persian
speakers. Table 1 is used to compare intensifiers in both cultures:

Table1: A Classification of Intensifiers in Condolence Speech Act

Category Example in English Example in Persian

Repetition I am very very sorry. ‫خیلی خیلی حیف شد‬
Multiple Intensifiers I am so very shocked. ‫واقعاً خیلی ناراحت شدم‬
Implicit Intensifiers It broke my heart. !‫الهی بمیرم‬
Explicit Intensifiers I am so sorry. ‫خیلی متأسف شدم‬
Adjectival Intensifiers I extend my sincere sympathy. ‫غم جانگداز به شما تسلیت‬
116 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

Table 1 is used as the yardstick to compare the frequency of

intensifiers performed during the conversations in which the main
theme was offering condolences. Then, each sentence was placed
under its own category based on the meaning of the intensifiers
used in condolence utterances.
In the same vein, in order to compare interjections in English and
Persian, a classification was adopted by Jovanović (2004) to find
out the differences in using interjections in condolence sentences.
Table 2 provides a classification for comparing interjections in the
two cultures. According to Jovanović (2004), Table 2 categorizes
interjections on the basis of their meaning (pp. 22-23).

Table2: A Classification of Interjections in Condolence Speech Act

Category Example
Anger Damn! I cannot believe this bad luck that he is dead.
Annoyance Ouch! What a pity!
Impatience Why! She was such a healthy man!
Pain Ah! I am so sorry.
Pity Alas! I share my sorrow in this sad day.
Sorrow Eh! God bless her soul.
Sympathy Now! I felt profound sadness.
Surprise Oh, my God. I am sorry to hear that.

After determining the classifications for comparing interjections

and intensifiers, the frequency of each category was calculated.
Finally, the results were analyzed using a Chi-square test in order
to check the significance of the differences when comparing the
occurrences of each category across the two cultures. The Chi-
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 117

square test was run using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS), version 18.

7. Results and Discussion

7.1. Comparison of Intensifiers in Persian and English
To find out whether there is any significant difference regarding the
application of intensifiers in English and Persian, a classification was
designed to study the frequency of occurrence in each category. Table
3 shows the results of Chi-square in Persian regarding the distribution
of intensifiers:

Table3: Results of the Chi-square Test for the Intensifiers in Persian

Condolences
Categories Observed N Expected N df Sig. χ²
Repetition 5 16.6 4 .000 64.892
Multiple Intensifiers 24
Implicit Intensifiers 42*
Explicit Intensifiers 9
Adjectival Intensifiers 3
Total 83

As it is revealed in Table 3, there is a significant difference among

the intensifiers used in condolence sentences by Persian speakers (χ²=
64.892, p < .05). Table 3 shows that implicit and multiple intensifiers
(N= 42, 24) were used more than the expected (N= 16.6). Therefore,
Persian speakers tend to use intensifiers less explicitly in their
condolences. Moreover, the findings revealed that while Persian
speakers used implicit and multiple intensifiers more frequently, they
made few uses of adjectival intensifiers, repetition, and explicit
intensifiers (N= 3, 5, 9). Adjectival intensifiers were the least used
intensifying tool by Persian speakers.
118 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

Table4: Results of the Chi-square Test for the Intensifiers in English

Condolences
Categories Observed N Expected N df Sig. χ²
Repetition 7 17.2 4 .000 22.256
Multiple Intensifiers 16
Implicit Intensifiers 18
Explicit Intensifiers 33*
Adjectival Intensifiers 12
Total 86
Table 4 shows that there is a significant difference among the
intensifiers used in condolence sentences by English speakers (χ²=
22.256, p < .05). Table 4 also reveals that explicit and implicit
intensifiers (N= 33, 18) were used more than the expected (N= 17.2).
Moreover, the findings revealed that while English speakers used
explicit and implicit intensifying more frequently, they made few uses
of repetition, adjectival intensifiers, and multiple intensifiers (N= 7,
12, 16). Repetition was the least used intensifying tool by English
speakers.
This study supported other cross-cultural rhetoric studies. Kaplan
(1972) mentioned four discourse structures that contrast with English
hierarchy. He focused on writing and limited his study to paragraphs
to understand what he called cultural thought patterns. The structures
are:

 Parallel constructions, in which the first idea is completed in

the second part (Figure b. Semitic such as Hebrew and Arabic)
 Oriental, in which the topic is looked at from different tangents
(Figure c. Oriental)
 Freedom to digress (Figure d. Roman)
 The same as the previous one, but it has different lengths
(Figure e. Russian)

Kaplan (1972) suggested that English text was characteristically

linear and hierarchical due to the fact that English speakers tend to be
direct and straightforward in speech and writing. It can be illustrated
by the following diagrams:
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 119

(a) English; (b) Semitic (Hebrew and Arabic); (c) Oriental; (d) Roman; (e) Russian.

Figure 4.
Discourse Structures by Kaplan (1972)

He also stated that each diagram relates to a particular language and

identified his discourse patterns of each language written structure. As
it can be understood by these diagrams, English speakers use direct
expressions and patterns while oriental people prefer using indirect
patterns.

Table 5: Distribution of Chi-square Formula in English and Persian

Application of Intensifiers
Categories English Persian Expected Sig. χ²
observed observed
Repetition 7 5 6 .564 .333
Multiple Intensifiers 16 24 20 .206 1.600
Implicit Intensifiers 18 42 30 .002* 9.600
Explicit Intensifiers 33 9 21 .000* 13.714
Adjectival Intensifiers 12 3 7.5 .02* 5.400
Total 86 83 - - -

Finally, Table 5 advocates that there is significant differences

regarding three categories of intensifiers in Persian and English speech
act of condolence (they are shown with an asterisk). With regard to
repetition, there is no significant difference between English and
Persian (χ²= .333, p <.05). This shows that English speakers tend to
120 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

use intensifying condolences such as ‘I’m very very sorry’ as equally

as Persian speakers. Above all, this category was the least used
intensifying strategy used by Persian and English speakers. Persian
speakers used more utterances relating to multiple intensifiers than
English speakers; however, there is not a significant difference
between them (χ²= 1.600, p <.05). In other words, both English and
Persian speakers used ‘multiple intensifiers’ with almost similar
frequencies. Persian speakers implicitly intensified their condolences
more than English speakers. The results of Chi-square showed that
there is a significant difference between them (χ²= 9.600, p <.05). The
first greatest Chi-square frequency relates to this category. As it is
related to explicit intensifying, English speakers outperformed Persian
speakers with a significant difference observed between them (χ²=
13.714, p <.05). Regarding adjectival intensifiers, English speakers
outperformed Persian speakers with a significant difference (χ²= 5.400,
p <.05).
7.2. Comparison of Interjections in Persian and English
After investigating the distribution of intensifiers in English and
Persian, it was revealed that out of five categories, only three
categories were significantly different. In this part, the same attempt is
done on interjections to find out similarities and differences in the
application of interjections in English and Persian.

Table6: Results of the Chi-square Test for the Interjections in Persian and
English Condolences
Categories English Persian Expected Sig. χ²
p <.05
observed observed
Anger 14 3 8.5 .008 7.118
Annoyance 30 18 24 .083 3.000
Impatience 10 5 7.5 .197 1.667
Pain 13 42 27.5 .000 15.291
Pity 28 11 19.5 .000 7.410
Sorrow 9 21 15 .028 4.800
Sympathy 25 39 32 .080 3.062
Surprise 21 11 16 .077 3.125
Total 150 150 - - -
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 121

As Table 6 manifests, just in four categories out of eight there

obtained a significant difference between the way Persian and English
speakers use interjections in their condolences. The categories in
which a significant difference obtained are Anger (sig= .008), Pain
(sig= .000), Pity (sig= .000), and Sorrow (sig= .028)

8. Conclusion
This study shed light on some important features regarding Persian and
English cultures in that sociocultural norms are going to have great
effect on the way speakers perform different speech acts. This study
paves the way for further cross-linguistic researches to find out
whether there is a universal pattern considering pragmatic competence
or each language has its own idiosyncratic way of performing
particular speech acts.
The importance of this study is fourfold. First, it is useful for the
EFL learners in that they will be familiar with the way native speakers
apply interjections and intensifiers in their condolences. Furthermore,
the findings of this study may be a fruitful source for EFL learners in
order to be acquainted with the way different interjections and
intensifiers are used. When learning L2, most students resort to their
mother tongue to come up with different speech acts (Delen & Tavil,
2010). This may cause miscommunication among interlocutors. This
cross-cultural study would shed light on the way natives use
interjections and intensifiers in different ways to reveal their feelings.
The findings can help EFL learners to overcome the difficulty of using
appropriate interjections and intensifiers in various situations.
Moreover, it is possible for learners to understand intensifiers and
interjections and their functions.
Second, teachers as the conductors of the class can use the findings
in order to instruct learners and also predict where students may have
difficulty using and interpreting interjections and intensifiers. This
study also helps teachers find out why some learners have problem
learning and applying speech acts appropriately.
Third, this study may be of interest for material developers.
Learners interact most of their time with their books. Textbooks are
also a road map for most teachers and learners. Material developers
can use the findings of this study to classify different situations in
122 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

which interjections and intensifiers take place. Material developers can

also provide beneficial exercises in order to increase learners’
pragmatic competence concerning condolence. Learning particular
speech acts will increase the quality of interactions among individuals.
Fourth, researchers can use the classification presented in this study
to compare condolence speech acts in other cultures. It is also useful
for those who want to investigate the discoursal features of language.
Moreover, it is possible to reach a universal pattern of dealing with
interjections and intensifiers.
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 123

References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic
transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderso & S.
D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a
second language (pp. 55-94). New York: Newbury House
Publishers.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching:
Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. Bouton & Y.
Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Monograph
3 (pp. 21-39). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois
Division of English as an International Language.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of
interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional
pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners
recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical
awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2),
233-262.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a
second language: A study of speech act performance of learners
of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of
utterances and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 8(2), 165-179.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Delen, B., & Tavil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four course books in
terms of three speech acts: Requests, refusals and
complaints. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 692-697.
Ellis, J. (1966). Towards a general comparative linguistics. Mouton:
The Hague.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
124 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No.10 /Autumn&Winter 2012

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in

interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House,
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 221-247).
Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Green, G. (1975). How to get people to do things with words: Syntax
and semantics. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts,
Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting
in foreign language. In W. Loerscher & R. Schulze (Eds.),
Perspectives on language in performance: Festschrift for
Werner Huellen (pp. 1250-1288). Tuebingen: Narr.
Jovanović, V. Ž. (2004). The form, position and meaning of
interjections in English. Linguistics and Literature,3(1), 17-28.
Kaplan, R. B. (1972). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural
education. In H. B. Allen & R. N. Campbell (Eds.), Teaching
English as a second language (2nd ed.) (pp. 294-309). New
York: McGraw Hill.
Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realization. In
S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.),
Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and
pragmatics (pp. 37-58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching
(pp.1-9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction
on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate
suggestions. Pragmatics in Instructed Language Learning,
33(3), 463-480.
Meng, K., & Schrabback, S. (1999). Interjections in adult-child
discourse: The cases of German HA and Na. Journal of
Pragmatics, 13, 1263-1287.
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech
act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew.
 Discourse Structures of Condolence Speech Act Mostafa Morady … 125

In J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic

perspective (pp. 195-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Parkes, C. M., Laungani, P., & Young, B. (Eds.) (1997). Death and
bereavement across cultures. New York: Routledge.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A
grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan
(Eds.), Syntax and semantics Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 59-82).
New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Wilkins, D. P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics,
18, 119-158.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages and
different speech acts. Pragmatics, 9, 145–178.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). The semantics of interjection. Journal of
Pragmatics, 18, 159-192.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language
teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zellermayer, M. (1991). Intensifiers in Hebrew and in English. Journal
of Pragmatics, 15, 43-58.
Zunin, L. M., & Zunin, H. S. (2007). The art of condolence. Canada:
Harper Collins Publishers.