Refusal production via DCTs and role-plays

This study was conducted as a twofold investigation. Firstly, it focused on refusal strategies and modification tools employed by a group of Turkish EFL learners. Secondly, it aimed to compare the content of data collected via two different data collection tools popular in interlanguage pragmatics research: Discourse Completion Task and open role plays. As the target speech act, refusals have been the focus of the investigation. The results showed that the participants could use a range of refusal strategies appropriately and the data collected via DCT and role plays were significantly compatible in terms of variety of strategies employed by the participants.

Yazılı söylem tamamlama testi ve canlandırma aracılığıyla ret eyleminin gerçekleştirilmesi

Bu çalışma, iki boyutlu bir araştırma olarak gerçekleştirildi. İlk olarak, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen bir grup Türk öğrencinin ne çeşit ret stratejileri ve niteleme ürünleri kullandığında odaklandı. İkincil olarak ise ara dil gelişimi üzerine yapılan araştırmalarda sıklıkla kullanılan iki farklı veri toplama aracı vasıtasıyla, yazılı söylem tamamlama testi ve canlandırma tekniği, elde edilmiş verinin içeriğini karşılaştırmayı hedefledi. Hedef söz eylem olarak ise ret eylemi inceleme konusu olarak seçildi. Sonuçlar göstermiştir ki katılımcılar bir dizi ret stratejisini uygun biçimde kullanabilmekte ve yazılı söylem tamamlama testi ve canlandırma tekniği kullanılan stratejilerin çeşitliliği açısından önemli derecede uyumlu veri üretimi sağlamıştır.

PDF

___

Arnándiz, O. M., Espurz, V. C., & Campillo, P. S. (2012). Measuring pragmatic knowledge: Have written and oral DCTs outlived their usefulness?. In Empiricism and analytical tools for 21 Century applied linguistics: selected papers from the XXIX International Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA) (Vol. 185, p. 77). Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language learning, 49(4), 677-713.

Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (2006). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, (pp. 65-86). New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 275-301.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54, 587-653.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTS, role plays, and verbal reports. In A. M. Flor & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues (pp. 41-56). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.

García, C. (1996). Teaching speech act performance: Declining an invitation. Hispania, 79, 267-279.

Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90-121.

Hartford, B.S. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 33-52.

Jorda, MPS. (2007). Pragmatic production of third language learners: A focus on request external modification items. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jorda (Eds.). Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 167-190). Dordrecht: Springer.

Joyner, B. & Young, L. (2006). Teaching medical students using role play: Twelve tips for successful role plays. Medical Teacher, 28(3), 225-229.

Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.) Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 316-341). New York: Continuum.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247.

Lauper, J. A. (1997). Refusal Strategies of Native Spanish Speakers in Spanish and in English and of Native English Speakers in English. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Orlando, FL.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why Triangulate?. Educational Researcher, 17, 13-17.

Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Batal, M. A., & Bakary, W. E. (2002). Cross‐cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied linguistics, 23(2), 163-189.

Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463-481.

Rose, M. C. (2013). Pragmatic development of L2 Spanish proposals in planning talk. Unpublished doctorate thesis, Indiana University, Indiana.

Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2345-2364.

Sadler, R. W., & Eröz, B. (2002). "I refuse you!" An examination of English refusals by native speakers of English, lao, and Turkish. The Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 9, 53-80.

Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. MartinezFlor & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.) Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, (pp. 127-144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.

Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. Regional Language Center Journal, 39, 318-337.