صدیقه زینالی

Following Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz’s (1990) classification, this study examines the relationship between power and gender of the addressees and the type and number of refusal strategies employed by Sarawani Baloch male university students (SBMUS). Fifty SBMUS studying in Azad University of Sarawan were randomly chosen as the participants of the study. Data collection was accomplished through applying a revised version of DCT (Discourse Completion Test). The data collected were then coded and analyzed according to Beebe et al.'s (ibid.) taxonomy, and Chi-square and Correlation test results. The results show that refusal strategies extracted, are, for the most part, similar to those given in Beebe et al.’s work, which, in turn, confirms the universality of applying refusal strategies. However, SBMUS also employ some new strategies not predicted in the given scheme, suggesting the effect of their religion and culture. Research findings also denote the ineffectiveness of power and gender of the addressees on the type of refusal strategies employed by SBMUS. Moreover, results indicate that although power of the addressees affects number of refusal strategies used by the participants, their gender does not affect this variable. “Excuse, reason, explanation” dealing with all the addressees, the combination of 3 refusal strategies in reply to those in higher social power, and the combination of 2 strategies in response to those with equal and lower power are the most frequent refusal strategies regarding the type and number of refusal strategies.

Giving certain elements more significance than others in the same context is called prominence. This study aims at identifying and comparing markers of focal and thematic prominence in Persian general       practitioners’ books (GPBs) and Persian online medical journals (OMJs) based on Levinsohn’s model. The data were gathered from 100 texts from two written Persian GPBs and 100 texts from two Persian OMJs. SPSS software version 24 was used to evaluate the data. Results demonstrated “emphatic   markers” such as fæqæt ‘just’ were used for focal prominence much more frequently in OMJs than in GPBs. In addition, significant differences were observed between GPBs and OMJs with regard to the markers of focal prominence and prominence in general, but not with regard to markers of thematic prominence. This may be related to the twofold effect of the different discourse types and different addressees of these texts.