Skip to main content
Hassen Khammari

    Hassen Khammari

    • noneedit
    • PhD in Applied Linguisticsedit
    The present study is a cross-cultural comparison of (native) American and (non-native) Tunisian speakers of English that explores the validity and applicability of two models from different disciplines: Brown and Levinson’s (1987)... more
    The present study is a cross-cultural comparison of (native) American and (non-native) Tunisian speakers of English that explores the validity and applicability of two models from different disciplines: Brown and Levinson’s (1987) linguistic politeness framework and Hofstede’s (1991) socio-cultural model. The study aims at revisiting the relevance of the Power Distance and Individualism versus Collectivism dimensions within a changing cultural and social context. A role play about face-threatening acts (FTAs) was distributed to sixty Tunisian and American undergraduate university students. The findings showed that the responses of Tunisian non-native speakers of English (NNSE) were not affected by the systematic variation of the social factors of distance and power in the different scenarios. Varying the degree of familiarity did not change NNSE behavior. The informants used primarily direct strategies to oppose high power addressees. Native speakers (NSE) used indirect strategies with high-power interlocutors (e.g., teacher, supervisor, and father). NSE showed more awareness of the variable of power and the politeness conventions required in such contexts. The results showed also that NNSE responses are signs of the changing nature of the Tunisian culture, which has much in common with western individualist culture. The use of direct strategies to oppose a father or a teacher displays the father-son/daughter and teacher-student friendly relationship. Hofstede’s (1991) model may need to be reformulated in light of the present study because the Tunisian culture is unstable and in a state of flux. This shows that the Tunisian culture is moving to the small power distance pole of Hofstede’ model. The findings of the present study do have implications on teaching pragmatics and speech acts in the Tunisian EFL context.
    This research is a pragmatic and politeness study that deals with the speech act of disagreement in Tunisian Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in Tunisia. It accounts for disagreement in relation to the contextual factors of Social... more
    This research is a pragmatic and politeness study that deals with the speech act of disagreement in Tunisian Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in Tunisia. It accounts for disagreement in relation to the contextual factors of Social Distance, Social Power, and Rank of Imposition. Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is used to study the production of disagreement. Data was collected from a group of native speakers of Tunisian Arabic at “Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunisia”. Native speakers of TA used a variety of strategies, which were identified in other languages (e.g., Direct Refusal, Suggestion, Giving Account, and Request…) along with new strategies (e.g., Teasing, Unsympathetic advice, Challenge, and Criticism).The identification and quantification of the strategies of disagreement also helped develop insights into the Tunisian culture.  
    The present study aimed at exploring the strategies of disagreement and hedging devices used by native speakers of English. The study elicited the informants' reactions when disagreeing with higher, equal, and lower status. The responses... more
    The present study aimed at exploring the strategies of disagreement and hedging devices used by native speakers of English. The study elicited the informants' reactions when disagreeing with higher, equal, and lower status. The responses were analyzed using Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness model and Hyland's (1998) hedging taxonomy. Discourse completion test data was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings revealed that native speakers of American English used positive politeness strategies considerably with higher and equal status interlocutors (father, teacher, and friends). The respondents were concerned with saving their interlocutors' positive face regardless of their social distance and power. The only significant difference, in terms of strategy selection, was identified in highly face-threatening contexts (accusation), where the informants opted for bald on record politeness strategies because of the seriousness of the interlocutor's (supervisor) claims (plagiarism). The data showed also that native speakers relied on hedges considerably to mitigate their disagreements.