SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2018 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

A Comparative Study on Speech Acts: Formal Complaints by Native Speakers and Turkish Learners of English

Okan ÖNALAN
Abdulvahit ÇAKIR
Pages
239–259
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to investigate the pragmatic language behavior of Turkish learners of English informal complaint situations through the comparison of their speech act performances to those of nativespeakers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data was collected from a total of 276 participants, 132 Native Speakers (NSs) and 144Turkish Learners (TLs) of English.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the pragmatic language behavior of Turkish learners of English informal complaint situations through the comparison of their speech act performances to those of nativespeakers. The data was collected from a total of 276 participants, 132 Native Speakers (NSs) and 144Turkish Learners (TLs) of English. Three different data collection methods were used: a) DiscourseEvaluation Task (DET); b) video-recorded role plays; and c) open-ended oral interviews. The resultsindicate that native English speakers’ and Turkish learners’ production of complaints reflects asignificant difference with respect to the linguistic components and the pragmatic choices made incomplaining. A significant contribution of the current study to the literature is the Discourse EvaluationTask (DET), which is both a data collection tool and a term used for the first time in this paper.© 2018 EJAL & the Authors. Published by Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics (EJAL). This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖNALAN, O., ÇAKIR, A. (2022). A Comparative Study on Speech Acts: Formal Complaints by Native Speakers and Turkish Learners of English. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 239–259. https://ajindex.com/articles/507031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Achiba, M.(2003). Learning to request in a second language: Child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Arent, R. (1996). Sociopragmatic decisions regarding complaints by Chinese learners and NSs of American English. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 125-147.
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Bouton, L. (Ed.) Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 21-39).
  3. Urbana, II. Bardovi-Harlig, K & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-415.
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J. & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4-15.
  5. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
  6. Barron, A. (2005). Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System 33 (3), 519-536.
  7. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barron, A. (2008). Contrasting request in inner circle Englishes: a study in variational pragmatics. In Martin Putz, M. & Neff-van Aertselaer, J. (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.46-49).
  8. Walter de Gruyter. Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of data collection procedure. Paper presented at the TESOL '85, New York. Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 64-86). Berlin: Mouton. Benson, C. (2002). Transfer/cross-linguistic influence. English-Language Teaching Journal, 56(1), 68-70.
  9. Bergman, M. & Kasper, G., (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.82-107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.82-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
  11. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners