A Pragmatic Analysis of Rapport Orientation in Selected Rehabilitated Schools in Syria

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2024 | Volume : | : | Page : –
By
vector

Ahmad Abdulkareem Shaban,

vector

Rana M. Mowafak Dakhel,

vector

Samar Habeeb Ali,

vector

Maurice Elie Moarbes,

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of General Education, Cihan University – Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
  2. Creative Writer, Department of English, University of Warwick, West Midlands, United Kingdom
  3. Teacher, Department of English, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
  4. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanese

Abstract document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_abs_128299’);});Edit Abstract & Keyword

Rapport orientations are not frequently explored in educational discourse, despite their significant role in enhancing or maintaining relationships between students and teachers, and in avoiding or mitigating embarrassing situations. This paper aims to investigate the rapport orientations of students and teachers based on Spencer-Oatey’s (2008) theory. A descriptive-analytical method was adopted to analyze and interpret the questionnaires from students and teachers in selected rehabilitated schools in Syria. The software MAXQDA was used to comprehensively analyze the data. The results showed that most students had a tendency to be focused on improving their teachers’ viewpoints. The results also show that teachers’ orientations in students’ perspectives tend to be enhancement-focused, although around half of the students do not mind whether their teachers’ rapport orientation is enhancement or neglect/challenge. It is worth noting that some teachers do not prioritize building rapport with their students or are oriented toward neglect or challenge rapport, according to students’ perspectives. Factors such as students’ motivation and satisfaction, personality, and teachers’ awareness of teaching methods are all considered in this study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon.

Keywords: Rapport orientation, educational discourse, student-teacher relationship, motivation, rehabilitated schools

How to cite this article:
Ahmad Abdulkareem Shaban, Rana M. Mowafak Dakhel, Samar Habeeb Ali, Maurice Elie Moarbes. A Pragmatic Analysis of Rapport Orientation in Selected Rehabilitated Schools in Syria. International Journal of Education Sciences. 2024; ():-.
How to cite this URL:
Ahmad Abdulkareem Shaban, Rana M. Mowafak Dakhel, Samar Habeeb Ali, Maurice Elie Moarbes. A Pragmatic Analysis of Rapport Orientation in Selected Rehabilitated Schools in Syria. International Journal of Education Sciences. 2024; ():-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijes/article=2024/view=0

Full Text PDF

Full Text PDF

References
document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’,function(){frmFrontForm.scrollToID(‘frm_container_ref_128299’);});Edit

  1. O’Keeffe A, Clancy B, Adolphs S. Introducing pragmatics in use. Routledge; 2019 Oct 8.
  2. Austin JL. How to do things with words. Harvard university press; 1975 Apr 15.
  3. Grice HP. ” Logic and conversation” In Cole, P., and Morgan, J.(Eds.). Syntax & Semantics. 1975;3.
  4. Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge university press; 1987 Feb 27.
  5. Glick DJ. Miriam A. Locher, Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Language in Society. 2006 Nov;35(5):729-33.
  6. Spencer-Oatey H. Face,(im) politeness and rapport. Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. 2008 Jun 24; 2:11-47.
  7. Spencer-Oatey H. (Im)politeness, face, and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research. 2005;1(1):95–119.
  8. Locher M. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Mouton de Gruyter. 2004.
  9. Goffman E. Interaction rituals: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon Books;1967.
  10. Watzlawick P, Beavin J. Some formal aspects of communication. American Behavioral Scientist. 1967 Apr;10(8):4-8.
  11. Reski R, Aswad M. The Effect of Interruptions on Rapport Orientation in Formal Meetings. Eduvelop: Journal of English Education and Development. 2018 Sep 24;2(1):37-47.
  12. Djenar DN. 11 Recognitional Reference and Rapport Building in the Author Interview. Z. Goebel, Rapport and the Discursive Co-Construction of Social Relations in Fieldwork Encounters. 2019 Aug 19:163-83.
  13. Culpeper J, Kan Q. Communicative styles, rapport, and student engagement: An online peer mentoring scheme. Applied Linguistics. 2020 Oct;41(5):756-86.
  14. Kádár DZ. Politeness and impoliteness in Chinese discourse. InThe Routledge handbook of Chinese discourse analysis 2019 Jan 14 (pp. 203-215). Routledge.
  15. Gibbs GR. Using software in qualitative analysis. Flick U, Scott W, Metzler K, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. 2014;281–94.
Ahead of Print Subscription Original Research
Volume
Received 02/12/2024
Accepted 13/12/2024
Published 19/12/2024
112