|نتایج ارزیابی نشریات علمی دانشگاه در سال 1400 اعلام شد 13 نشریه دانشگاه موفق به دریافت رتبه الف شدند|
|سرپرست مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه خبر داد: نشریه انگلیسی زبان Digital Content Management (مدیریت محتوای دیجیتال) موفق به کسب اعتبار علمی مصوب از وزارت علوم تحقیقات و فناوری شد.|
|نشریه فرانسوی زبان Recherches en langue française (زبان پژوهی فرانسه) موفق به کسب اعتبار علمی مصوب از وزارت علوم تحقیقات و فناوری شد.|
|12 نشریه علمی-پژوهشی دانشگاه در میان نشریات برتر (Q1) کشور قرار گرفت|
|دریافت مجوز نشریه مطالعات مدیریت خدمات عمومی|
|پژوهشنامه مددکاری اجتماعی|
|اخذ امتیاز جدید|
|انتشار مجلات جدید دانشگاه|
|تعداد مشاهده مقاله||29,808,838|
|تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله||18,750,504|
The Impact of Individual Differences on the Interlanguage Pragmatics of Iranian EFL learners in Institutional Discourse
|Issues in Language Teaching|
|مقاله 5، دوره 4، شماره 1، شهریور 2015، صفحه 129-99 اصل مقاله (578.61 K)|
|نوع مقاله: Research Paper|
|شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22054/ilt.2015.3190|
|Ashraf Haji Maibodi1؛ Ali Mohammad Fazilatfar 2|
|1Ph.D. candidate (TEFL), Department of Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran|
|2Associate Professor, Yazd University, Iran|
|This study investigated the impact of individual differences like language proficiency, gender and age on the Iranian EFL learners interlanguage pragmatics in institutional discourse especially, their capacity to recognize and to rate pragmatic and grammatical infelicities in speech act situations of request and apology. To this end, one hundred and eighty-seven EFL university students at three academic levels—undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD—participated in the study. Cross-sectional data collection was undertaken to analyze the relationship between the variables and the speech acts recognized and rated by learners at different proficiency levels. A three way between subject analyses (ANOVA) showed quantitative differences among the three groups according to individual differences. Further, in-depth analyses of test items indicated that EFL learners’ at the three proficiency levels identified and rated grammatical errors as more serious than pragmatic errors. Results revealed qualitative, developmental information about the cognitive and individual traits followed in pragmatic awareness. One significant implication is that any account of the development of ILP should take into consideration the individual differences that will intervene between the stages of noticing and target like production. Moreover, being linguistically competent is not only essential for the EFL learner but acquiring pragmatic competence is also important.|
|interlanguage pragmatics؛ institutional discourse؛ individual differences؛ speech acts|
Abdolrezapour, P. (2012). The effect of expectation of compliance on the preferred request strategy: Cross-cultural and situational variation in Iranian and American speech communities. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 32 (3), 383-404. doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2012.705580
Abdolrezapour, P., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2012). The effect of using mitigation devices on request compliance in Persian and American English. Discourse Studies, 14 (2), 145-16. doi:10.1177/1461445611433789
Afghari, A. (2007). A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech Communication, 49 (3), 177-185.doi:10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795.
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: 10.1515/IPRG.2011.017
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40(4), 467-501.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk. A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1996). Input in institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171-188.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (2005). Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 7-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Boxer, D. (2002). Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 150-167.
Cohen, A. D. (2004). The interface between interlanguage pragmatics and assessment. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual JALT Pan-Sig Conference. Retrieved from, http://www.jalt.org/pansig/2004/HTML/Cohen.htm.
Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, 58(1), 38-49.
Davis, K., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2004). Looking back, taking stock, moving forward: Investigating gender in TESL. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 381-404.
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.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54 (4), 587-653.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4 (2), 159-185.
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8 (2), 1-15.
Geyer, N. (2007). Self-qualification in L2 Japanese: An interface of pragmatics, grammatical, and discourse competences. Language Learning, 57, 337-367.
Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (3rd Ed.). England, UK: Pearson, Longman Group.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen. A. D. (2010). Learners’ pragmatics: potential causes of divergence. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 75-96). Harlow, England, UK: Longman, Pearson Education.
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. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22 (4), 502-530.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). The role of instruction in learning second language pragmatics. Language Learning, 52, 237–73.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014868
Kendall, S., & Tannen, D. (2001). Discourse and gender. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 548–67). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Kuriscak, L. (2010). The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor, & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 23-39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 590-619. doi:10.1093/applin/aml029
LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29 (1), 69-89. doi: 10.1016/SO346-251X(00)00046-4
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp.155–187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McKay, S. (2005). Sociolinguistics and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 281-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatics and grammatical awareness. A function of the learning environment. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.
Sabaté i Dalmau, M., & Curell i Gotor, H. (2007). From “sorry very much” to “I'm ever so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287-315.
Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics.In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shariati, M., & Chamani, F. (2010). Apology strategies in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1689-1699.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Gender differences and equal opportunities in the ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 53, 256–61.
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.
Tagashira, K., Yamato, K., & Isoda, T. (2011). Japanese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness through the looking glass of motivational profiles.JALT Journal, 33(1), 5-26.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 313-338.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 265-293
Taguchi, N. (2013). Individual differences and development of speech act production. Applied Research on English language, 2 (2), 1-16.
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2014). Pragmatic rater training: Does it affect non-native L2teachers’ rating accuracy and bias. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4 (1), 66-83.
Tajeddin, Z. & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies: investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6 (4), 153-180.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26 (1), 90–120. doi:10.1093/applin/amh040
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Uso-Juan, E. (2010). Requests: A sociopragmatic approach. In A. Martinez-Flor, & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical andmethodological issues (pp. 237-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Xu, W., Case, R.E., & Wang, Y. (2009). Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205-216.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Situation 3: It is Anna’s day to give her talk in class, but she is not ready.
Teacher: Thank you Steven, that was very interesting. Anna, it’s your turn to give your talk.
Anna: No! Not now. I cannot do it today I will do it next week.
Situation 4: Peter goes to see his professor at his office. When he arrives, his professor is busy.
Peter: (knocks on the door)
Professor: Yes, come in.
Peter: Hello, Mr. Gordon. Are you busy?
Professor: Uhm . . . I am afraid so. Could you come back later?
Peter: OK, I will be here tomorrow morning at 8.
Situation 7: Anna goes to ask a lecturer to fill in a questionnaire. She knocks on the office door.
Anna: (knocks on the door)
Lecturer: Yes, come in. (Student sees: The lecturer is seated at her computer in her office typing)
Anna: Hello. My name is Anna Kovacs. If you do not mind, fill this in for me.
Situation 12: Mark has come to see his lecturer about his grades.
Lecturer (female): Good morning! Yes, what can I do for you?
Mark: Um, I have come about my grades for last term. I think it is too low. Are you sure, you corrected my paper?
Situation 13: Bob has gone to see his lecturer about his research project.
Lecturer: Come in. Please take a seat.
Bob: Okay, look I have written the review of literature for my project, and I just want to check I’m on the right track.
Situation 15: The students of the English class are going on a trip. The teacher asks Peter to help with the plans for the class trip.
Teacher: OK, so we will go by bus. Who lives near the bus station? Peter, could you check the bus times for us on the way home tonight?
Peter: No, I cannot do it tonight. I will live at my friend’s apartment this week.
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,277
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,730