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