پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 908 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,477 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,081,004 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,547,269 |
تأثیر روش آموزش کاربردشناسی تشریحی وتلویحی بر درک کنشهای گفتاری معذرتخواهی و امتناع در بین دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی سطح متوسط | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 12، شماره 35 - شماره پیاپی 15، شهریور 1399، صفحه 151-175 اصل مقاله (588.42 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2019.23938.1636 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| علی درخشان* 1؛ فرزانه شکی2 | ||
| 1گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه گلستان، گرگان، ایران | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری زبانشناسی کاربردی، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد علی آباد کتول، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، علیآباد کتول، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| کاربردشناسی، یکی از گرایش های نسبتاً نوظهور در رشتة زبانشناسی است که همواره مورد توجه پژوهشگران بوده و به حوزة مستقل از پژوهش های زبانشناختی تبدیل شدهاست. با توجه به اهمیت دانش کاربردشناسی در بهبود توانش ارتباطی زبانآموزان، پژوهش حاضر به بررسی تأثیر آموزش تلویحی و تشریحی با استفاده از برشهای ویدئویی بر درک کاربردشناسی دو کنش گفتاری معذرت خواهی و امتناع پرداختهاست. به این منظور، تعداد 49 دانشجوی نیمسال اول رشته ادبیات و آموزش زبان انگلیسی سطح متوسط از دانشگاه گلستان برمبنای آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد به عنوان جمعیت نمونه انتخاب شدند. محدوده سنی این زبان آموزان، بین 18 الی 33 سال بود. زبان آموزان به صورت تصادفی در سه گروه آموزش تلویحی، آموزش تشریحی و کنترل گروه بندی شدند. در گروه تشریحی، زبان آموزان توضیحات فراکاربردشناسی، بازخوردهای مستقیم وآموزش های مستقیم ارتقاءآگاهی دریافت کردند. هر چند زبان آموزان گروه تلویحی تحت آموزش ضمنی قرارگرفتند. در آموزش گروه تلویحی و تشریحی از 60 فیلم کوتاه استفاده شد که از سریال «فرار از زندان» و مجموعة فیلمکتاب «تاچ استون 2» برگرفته شده بودند. در مقابل، گروه کنترل هیچ گونه آموزشی برای یادگیری چگونگی استفاده از کنش های گفتاری معذرت خواهی و امتناع دریافت نکردند و بخش های گوناگون کتاب «تاچستون 2» آموزش داده شد. پیش و پس از دوره 10 جلسة آموزش، هر سه گروه در آزمون تکمیل کلام چندگزینه ای شرکت کردند. یافتههای بهدستآمده از آزمون تحلیل واریانس یک متغیره نشان داد که درک زبان آموزان از کنش گفتاری معذرت خواهی و امتناع در گروه آموزش تلویحی و تشریحی، پس از اجرای آموزش ارتقاء و پیشرفت داشتهاست. همچنین، یافتههای آزمون شفه نشان داد عملکرد گروه آموزش تشریحی بهتر از گروه تلویحی بوده و همچنین عملکرد گروه آموزش تلویحی بهتر از گروه کنترل بودهاست. بر پایة نتایج این پژوهش به آموزگاران زبان انگلیسی پیشنهاد می شود که با استفاده از برش های ویدئویی راهکارهای آموزش تشریحی را بیش از آموزش تلویحی مورد توجه قرار دهند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| کاربردشناسی؛ آموزش تلویحی؛ آموزش تشریحی؛ معذرتخواهی؛ امتناع | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Effect of Implicit vs. Explicit Metapragmatic Instruction on the Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Comprehension of Apology and Refusal | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ali Derakhshan1؛ Farzaneh Shakki2 | ||
| 1Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran | ||
| 2Ph.D Student, Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language Education, Ali Abad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Within the broad domain of SLA, ‘pragmatic competence’ was brought to the fore following the assertation of communicative competence, but explicitly premiered in Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative competence, accentuating the significance of the relationship between “language users and the context of communication” (p.89). The vitality of L2 pragmatic competence alongside grammatical competence is the main motive behind the multitudinous number of studies carried out since the communicative revolution in language teaching in an effort to improve L2 pragmatics instruction. Ever since, a welter of studies have sought answers to three main questions as constituting the essence of interlanguage pragmatic competence research: whether and how pragmatic competence can be instructed, whether instruction is more effective than no instruction, and whether different instructional approaches addressing interlanguage pragmatics can be differentially effective (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Scholarships have corroborated that pragmatic features are amenable to instruction; however, more research is still needed to find out which interventional approaches and what type of instructional input and materials are more conducive to learning. One potential framework within which pragmatic competence can be investigated from an acquisitional perspective is Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis and Sharwood Smith’s (1981) consciousness raising. Since these postulations, a large number of studies have been conducted to substantiate claims as to the significance of learners’ pragmatic consciousness for interlanguage development. However, the pendulum has swung towards the production of speech acts, and comprehension of speech acts in interlanguage pragmatic competence seems to be an under-explored area of research. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of implicit vs. explicit instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of two speech acts of apology and refusal being taught through video prompts. These two speech acts were opted because of their face-threating features. In doing so, a quasi-experimental pretest posttest research design was used. To this end, of 68 initial participants, 49 (F=33; M=16) intermediate EFL learners majoring English Literature and Teaching English as a Foreign Language from a state university were selected based on Oxford Quick Placement Test (2004). The age of these participants ranged from 18 to 33. These participants were randomly assigned into three groups: explicit, implicit, and control. The explicit and implicit treatment groups received two different types of instruction accompanied by specific tasks on pragmatic awareness using 60 video-driven prompts extracted from Prison Break movie series and Touchstone 2 video book series (Höst, 2006). The explicit group received metalinguistic explanation, feedback, and discussion, whereas the implicit group received implicit feedback through examples. In contrast, the control group did not receive any specific instruction on the use of apology and refusals and they were taught different sections of Touchstone 2. A validated Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Test (MCDCT) which consists of 128 items including 8 conversations for the speech act of refusal and 8 conversations for the speech act of apology was used. The results of running One-way ANOVA indicated that learners’ comprehension of speech act of apology and refusal across the two treatment groups developed after the treatment, and they outperformed the control group. Moreover, the explicit group outperformed the implicit group and the control group. The present paper recapitulates some pedagogical implications for materials developers, teachers, and learners. In the light of the results gained, it was proved that instruction had a positive influence on the pragmatic comprehension of apologies and refusals, substantiating that pragmatics is impervious to teaching drawing on dichotomous (explicit vs. implicit) approaches of language teaching. With respect to learning pragmatics, learners are advised to pay attention to the language forms, sociocultural facets of language and the germane contextual factors that could possibly affect the forms in the given context. The results suggest that sole exposure to contextualized input, video vignettes, may not necessarily result in students’ gain in pragmatics. Consequently, learning is augmented if the linguistic, analytic, and cultural features along with sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic features are brought to learners’ attention. Moreover, when instructing various speech acts, sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic features in the movies should be taught directly and explicitly which per se contributes to more pragmatic awareness and comprehension. Our findings are suggestive of the fact that scenes from movies serve as a contextualized source of pragmatic input inasmuch as they encompass a myriads of conversational exchanges in which the speaker’s reply does not provide a straightforward answer to the question. To obviate such a downside, audiovisual materials can be capitalized upon to enrich our language classes if students are provided with explicit feedback and practice. In a nutshell, it can be argued that sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic features, through video-driven materials to simulate real life situations, should be juxtaposed in the textbooks by textbook developers and materials designers. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Pragmatic Competence, Implicit Instruction, Explicit Instruction, Apology, Refusal, Noticing Hypothesis, Consciousness Raising | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alavi, S. M., & Dini, S. (2008). The effect of teaching on improving the pragmatics awareness of EFL learners. Foreign Language Research, 45, 99-113. Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for pragmatic learning in EFL contexts? System, 33(3), 417-435. Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: an analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385-406. Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 1: Test pack. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016). Pragmatics instruction in EFL context: a focus on requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(1), 29-42. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 21-39). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for inquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). Designing instructional effect studies for L2 pragmatics: a guide for teachers and researchers. In S. Gesuato, F. Bianchi, & W. Cheng (eds.), Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: principles, methods and practices (pp. 135-164). Cambridge: Scholars Publishing. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 279-304. Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology, request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1),67-85. Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157-167. Canning-Wilson, C., & Wallace, J. (2000). Practical aspects of using video in the foreign language classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(11), 1-36. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134. Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, 58(1), 38-49. Derakhshan, A. (2014). The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts on the comprehension of implicatures and speech acts (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran. Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75-94. Derakhshan, A., & Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the comprehension of apology & request. TESL-EJ, 18(4), 1-24. Retrieved from <http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/> Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59 (2), 199-208. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253-286. Gholami, J. (2015). Is there room for pragmatic knowledge in English books in Iranian high schools? English Language Teaching, 8(4), 39-51. Hosseini, S.M., & Amerian, M. (2015). Agreement strategies among male and female university students. Journal of Language Research, 6(13), 65-89. Host, A.K, (2006). Touchstone series. United States: Simon & Schuster Building New York City. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and meta pragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 225-252. House, J. (2008). Using translation to improve pragmatic competence. In E. Alcón & A. Martı´nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 135-152). Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp. 157-85). The Hague: Mouton. Ishihara, N. (2010). Theories of language acquisition and the teaching of pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet (pp. 99-122). United States: Pearson Education. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 165-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 33-60). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, G., & Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501. Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. Alcón & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 153-176). Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd. Kubota, M., 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35-67. Locastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: social action for language teachers. Michigan: Michigan Press. Martínez-Flor, A. (2004). The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in the English as a foreign language context: a study based on suggestions. Retrieved from <http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/29576/martinez2.pdf?sequence=> Mirzaei, A., Roohani, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2012). Exploring pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic variability in speech act production of L2 learners and native speakers. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 31(3), 79-102. Morrow, C. K. (1995). The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners' production of complaint and refusal speech acts (Unpublished PhD dissertation). State University of New York, Buffalo, USA. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45-65. Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 52-63). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative‐speaking teachers: a consciousness‐raising approach. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 125-138. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, K. R., & Kwai-fun, N. C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. Pragmatics in Language Teaching, 3(2) 145-170. Safont, M.P. (2005). Third language learners: pragmatic production and awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-33). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 159-168. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed second language acquisition: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(1), 165-180. Sherman, J. (2003). Using authentic video in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 153-167). Oxford/New York: Routledge. Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2014). Pragmatic rater training: does it affect non-native L2 teachers’ rating accuracy and bias. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 66-83 Tajeddin, Z., & Zand Moghadam, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic motivation: its construct and impact on speech act production. RELC Journal, 43(3), 353-372. Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 189-223. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8(2), 131-155. Tayebi, T., & Parvaresh, V. (2014). Conversational disclaimers in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 62(1), 77-93. Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using situation comedies for pragmatics language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21-26. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,016 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 621 |
||
