İngilizce Öğrenenlerin Sezdirileri Anlama ve Üretme Becerileri

Bu çalışmada orta-üstü düzey İngilizce konuşanların hedef dilde sezdirileri anlama ve üretme becerileri araştırılmıştır. Bir devlet üniversitesinde İngilizce Öğretmenliği birinci sınıf öğrencisi olan 90 katılımcının hedef dilde sezdirileri anlama düzeyleri çoktan-seçmeli bir ölçek aracılığıyla ölçülmüştür. Aynı katılımcı grubuna yazılı bir söylem tamamlama ölçeği verilerek, 12 durum için belirli söz eylemlerini sezdiri yoluyla gerçekleştirmeleri istenmiştir. Sezdirileri anlama ölçeğinde katılımcılar orta düzeyde başarı göstermiştir. Katılımcılar nicelik kuralının ihlal edildiği, olumsuz eleştiri içeren sezdiri çeşitlerini anlamada güçlük çekerken bağıntı kuralının ihlal edildiği sezdirileri anlamada oldukça başarılı olmuştur. Nitelik ve tarz kurallarının ihlalini içeren sezdirilerin anlaşılmasında ise katılımcılar orta düzeyde başarı göstermiştir. Genelleştirilmiş sezdirilerin anlaşılma düzeyinin özelleştirilmiş sezdirilere oranla daha düşük olduğu görülmüştür. Hedef dilde sezdiri üretme ölçeğine verilen yanıtların %70.6'sının sezdiri içerdiği belirlenmiştir. En yaygın üretilen tür, alayla karışık iğneleme içeren nitelik sezdirileri olmuştur. Nitelik kuralı ayrıca istenmeyen durumlarda tepki ve kızgınlığı dile getirme amacıyla ihlal edilmiştir. Katılımcıların eleştiri söz eylemini gerçekleştirirken düşüncelerini doğrudan söyleyerek karşılarındakini kırmamak için özellikle nicelik ilkesini ihlal ettikleri görülmüştür. Rica durumlarında katılımcıların çoğunluğu sezdiri kullanımına gerek duymazken sezdiri kullanan katılımcılar en çok nicelik kuralını ihlal etmiştir. İkinci dilde sezdirileri anlama ve üretme beceri düzeyleri arasında önemli bir ilişkinin olmadığı görülmüştür

English Language Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Implicatures

The present study investigated to what extent Turkish-speaking upper-intermediate level second language learners of English can comprehend and produce implicatures. To this end, 90 freshman students completed a multiple-choice test, and responded to 12 situations in a discourse completion task (DCT). The participants had a moderately high level of success in the implicature comprehension test. Although the learners had considerable difficulty in comprehending understated negative criticism items, which flout the maxim of quantity, they were highly competent in comprehending relevance implicatures. The rates of success in quality and manner implicature comprehension were moderate. The participants were more successful in understanding particularized implicatures when compared to generalized implicatures. As for the production data, 70.6% of the responses contained implicatures. The mostly widely flouted maxim was the quality maxim for the purposes of creating sarcasm and achieving face management and politeness. The maxim of quality was flouted when responding to bad news or expressing anger in an unpleasant situation. When trying to express their opinions about the quality of a particular thing/person, participants tended to flout the maxim of quantity in order to avoid expressing their opinions directly, and making the referent disappointed. The participants did not tend to make use of implicatures in the case of requesting. The participants who realized requests via implicatures flouted the quantity maxim mostly. A significant correlation was not documented between participants’ pragmatic production and comprehension

PDF

___

Alagözlü, N., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Aural pragmatic comprehension. Novitas Royal Youth Journal, 3(2), 83-92.
Bach, K. (2005). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. J. Birner & G.Ward (Eds.) Drawing the boundaries of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching. In Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, 7, 21- 39.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning? TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulk (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7, 183- 196.
Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically without being explicitly taught? L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.) içinde, Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 3 (ss. 53-65). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 5 (pp. 88–109). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Broersma, D. (1994). Do chickens have lips? Conversational implicature in the classroom. Paper presented at the 8 th Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, Urbana, IL.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1):1- 47.
Carrell, P. (1984). Inferencing in ESL: Presuppositions and implications of factive and implicative predicates. Language Learning, 34, 1- 21.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995) A pedagogical framework for communicative competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics. 6(2): 5–35.
Cenoz, C. (2007). The acquisition of pragmatic competence and multilingualism in foreign language contexts. In Soleri, A. E. (Ed.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 123-140). Dordrecht: Springer.
Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2001). Meaning and grammar. An introduction to semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. New York: Oxford.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Davis, W. (2005). Implicature, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/implicature/
Devine, J. (1982). A Question of Universality: Conversational principles and implication. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), TESOL’82. (ss. 191-206). Washington, DC:
Ergüven, T. (2001). Interpreting implicatures: A study on upper-intermediate level EFL students. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Harnish, R. (1991). Logical Form and Implicature. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader. (pp. 317-335). New York: Oxford.
Horn, L. (2004). Implicature. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269- 293). Baltimore: Penguin.
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL – EJ, 8 (2).
Green, M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. NJ: LEA.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Grice, P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical concepts. (pp. 163- 179). London: Routledge.
Grundy, P. (1995). Doing pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Harnish, R. (1991). Logical form and implicature. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 317- 335). New York: Oxford
Işık, H. (2005). Concerns for the teaching of pragmatic competence in L2: How sure are we that learners can interpret implied meaning in their L1? 4th International ELT Conference, Çanakkale.
Jernigan, J. (2007). Instruction and developing second language pragmatic competence: An investigation into the efficacy of output. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Florida.
Jianda, L. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-22.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). In Pragmatics in language teaching. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmaticsin language teaching (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden: Blackwell.
Keenan, E. (1977). On the universality of conversational implicatures. In R.W. Fasold & R. Shuy (Eds). Studies in language variation (pp. 255- 69). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRTL Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
Lachini, K. (2006). The impact of language proficiency on flouting Grice’s implicatures among EFLers. Organization in Discourse Conference 3 University of Turku, Finlandiya.
Lakoff, R.T. (1995). Conversational logic. In J. Verschueren vd. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 190-198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lee, J. S. (2002). Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English. Korea TESOL Journal. Vol. 5 Fall/Winter, 1-25.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Omara, S. (1993). Comprehension of conversational implicatures: A cross-cultural study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University.
Peccei, J. S. (1999). Pragmatics. New York: Routledge.
Recanati, F. (2004). Pragmatics and semantics. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (ss. 443- 461). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roever, C. (2001). A web-based test of interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Speech acts, routines, implicatures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness raising in an EFL context. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 5 (pp. 52- 63). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56, 269-318.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed. 1995.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation processes. IRAL, 40, 151- 176.
Taguchi, N. (2003). Pragmatic performance in comprehension and production of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehension of implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 4, 543-562.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16, 513-535.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 313-338.
Taguchi, N. (2008a). Cognition, language contact, and development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58, 33–71.
Taguchi, N. (2008b). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423-452.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-16.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL learners. Second Language Studies, 22(1). 107-175.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press