İngilizce Öğretmenliği Bölümündeki Türk Öğrencilerin Rica Söz Eylemlerini Gerçekleştirme Biçimleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Bu çalışmanın amacı dördüncü sınıf İngilizce Öğretmenliği Bölümü öğrencilerinin rica etme stratejilerini belirlemek ve bu öğrencilerin rica eylemlerindeki edimbilim yetisi hakkında anlayış kazanmaktır. Çalışma Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesindeki 120 öğrenci (93 kadın, 27 erkek) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu araştırmada karma araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş olup nitel ve nicel yöntem birlikte kullanılmıştır. Nitel veri, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen Söylem Tamamlama Testi ile toplanmıştır. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin rica söz eylemlerinin uygunluğunu puanlamak için değerlendirme ölçeği hazırlanmıştır. Çalışmadaki nicel veri SPSS 20 programı ile analiz edilmiştir. Nitel verinin içerik analizi ise BlumKulka ve diğerlerinin CCSARP ( Kültürlerarası söz eylem projesi) kapsamında kullandıkları kodlama kılavuzuna (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989) göre yapılmıştır. Bu çalışma İngilizce Öğretmenliği Bölümü öğrencilerinin kendileriyle eşit statüdeki muhataplarıyla kalıplaşmış dolaylı rica stratejilerini tercih etme eğilimi gösterdiklerini ancak kendilerinden daha yüksek statüdeki muhataplarından uygun ve kibar bir biçimde rica etme konusunda zorlandıkları sonucuna varmıştır.

An Investigation into the Request Realization Patterns of Turkish ELT Students

This study aimed to identify the request strategies of senior ELT studentsand gain insight on their pragmatic competence in speech acts of requests. The studywas conducted at a state university in Turkey, and 120 students (93 female and 27male) participated. Mixed model research was adopted, so the present study benefitsfrom both qualitative and quantitative methods. Firstly, the qualitative data werecollected through a discourse completion test, prepared by the researchers. Inaddition, a rating scale was designed to rate the appropriateness of the students’requests. Later, the quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, andthe qualitative data were analyzed based on the coding manual used within the Crosscultural Speech Act Realization Project (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). Theresults of the study indicated that ELT students tended to prefer conventional indirectrequest strategies except in one situation where they requested of a higher-statusinterlocutor rather than of an equal status one. That is, they appeared to have moredifficulty requesting of a higher-status interlocutor appropriately or politely.

PDF

___

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Balcı, B. (2009). A comparative study on the performance of requests and apologies by Turkish and American teenagers: a pragmatic competence point of view. Master’s Thesis. Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the emprical evidence: Grounds for insruction in pragmatics. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). New York: Cambridge University.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262. doi: 10.2307/3587583
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act erformance. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communiciation in a second language (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131-146. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5
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. doi:10.1093/applin/5.3.196
Blum-Kulka, S., House,. J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Coates, J. (2013). Women, men and language: A Sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. In D. Boxer, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 302-327). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 33-56. doi: 10.2307/3586950
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in second language. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp.74-94). UK: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour: Perceptions of social situations and strategic usage of request patterns. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2262-2281. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001
Francis, C. (1997). Talk to me! The development of request strategies in non-native speakers of English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics,13(2), 23-40. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol13/iss2/2
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph 3, (pp. 33-52). Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management Organization, 13(1 -2), 46-74. doi: 10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL searners and Australian native speakers. English language teaching, 2(1), 46-61. doi:10.5539/elt.v2n1p46
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson Education.
Kılıçkaya, F. (2010). The pragmatic knowledge of Turkish EFL students in using certain request strategies. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 185-201. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/223537
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279-289. doi: 10.2307/327002
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. Macaulay, M. (2001). Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 293-316.doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00129-0
Mir, M. (1995). The perception of social context in request performance. In L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series, (Vol. 6, pp. 105-120). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Otçu, B., & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development of requests: A study on Turkish learners of English. In M. Pütz, & J. N. Aertselaer, (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 265-299). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Taguchi, N. (2006), Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English, Pragmatics, 16 (4), 513-533. doi: 10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Taylor & Francis, Routledge.
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271-292. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X