Assessing the Impact of Individual Differences in the Production of Speech Act of Requests in Institutional Discourse
الموضوعات : Research in English Language Pedagogy
1 - Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Maybod Branch, Yazd, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Individual difference, Institutional discourse, speech acts, Interlanguage pragmatics, Requests,
ملخص المقالة :
This paper, anchored in interlanguage pragmatics, studied the effects of individual differences such as language proficiency, gender, and age on the production of speech act of requests in institutional discourse. To this end, 187 Persian EFL university students at three academic levels (undergraduates, postgraduates and PhD students) participated in this study. Triangulation was undertaken to collect and analyze the data in three phases. In phase one, through convenience sampling, the Oxford Placement Test was employed to identify the proficiency level of the students. In phase two, a three way ANOVA between subject analyses showed quantitative differences among the three groups. In the third phase, in-depth qualitative analyses of test items and retrospective verbal reports (RVRs) revealed developmental information about the cognitive and individual traits followed in pragmatic awareness. Results showed that sociocultural, socio-psychological, and socio-affective aspects of the discourse situations influenced not only students’ pragmalinguistic and sociolinguistic choices but also their negotiation of lexical and grammatical forms in planning the requests. One significant implication is that not only linguistic competence is essential for the EFL learner, acquiring pragmatic competence is also important.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347-384. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.017
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165-179.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., &. Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 111-138. doi:10.1515/PR.2008.005
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine? Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 481-514. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as an FL classroom: a cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253-286.doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.013
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90-121.
Haji Maibodi, A., Fazilatfar, A.M., & Allami, H. (2016). Exploring subjectivity in verbal reports of Iranian EFL learners in institutional discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(5), 252-263.
doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.252
Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 39, 259-283.
Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (3rd Ed.). England, UK: Pearson, Longman Group.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the work place. London: Longman.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 149-169.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Individual differences in pragmatic development. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatic development in a second language, (pp. 275-303). Michigan: Blackwell.
Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1),27-67.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, (pp. 21-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shively, R. L., & Cohen, A.D. (2008). Development of Spanish requests and apologies during study abroad. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 13(20), 57-118.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-33.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453-471.
Taguchi, N. (2013). Individual differences and development of speech act production. Applied Research on English language, 2(2), 1-16.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, M. R. (2014). The role of consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of request pragmatic knowledge. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17(1), 147-187.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, (pp. 171-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Woodfield, H. & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). ‘I just need more time’: A study of native and non-native requests to faculty for an extension. Multilingua- Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 29(1), 77-118.
