KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

The Complexity of Pragmatic Competence: A Comparative Analysis of Native English Speakers’ and Turkish ESL Students’ Advice-giving Strategies

Tuba YİLMAZ
Sayfa
305–324
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

These results indicated that Turkish ESL speakers employed their pragmatic competence in Turkish to construct their discourses in English.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Studies revealed that English as a second language (ESL) speakers and native English speakers (NES) often used different strategies to offer advice in English.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For this purpose, this study analyzed the structural and pragmatic differences between the advice-giving strategies of NES and Turkish ESL speakers. 18 NES and 20 Turkish ESL students were recruited and asked to offer written advice to the given cases in a WCDT questionnaire.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:These results indicated that Turkish ESL speakers employed their pragmatic competence in Turkish to construct their discourses in English.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Advice-giving · pragmatic competence · native English speakers

Abstract

Studies revealed that English as a second language (ESL) speakers and native English speakers (NES) often used different strategies to offer advice in English. Since these differences can cause cross-cultural misunderstandings and misattribution of intent between ESL speakers and NES, it is important to identify them. For this purpose, this study analyzed the structural and pragmatic differences between the advice-giving strategies of NES and Turkish ESL speakers. 18 NES and 20 Turkish ESL students were recruited and asked to offer written advice to the given cases in a WCDT questionnaire. The analysis revealed that while the NES students tended to use the modal ‘would’, the pronoun ‘I’, and some other politeness features in their advice, Turkish ESL speakers tended to use the modal ‘should’ and the pronoun ‘you’ more. These results indicated that Turkish ESL speakers employed their pragmatic competence in Turkish to construct their discourses in English.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YİLMAZ, T. (2022). The Complexity of Pragmatic Competence: A Comparative Analysis of Native English Speakers’ and Turkish ESL Students’ Advice-giving Strategies. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 305–324. https://ajindex.com/articles/657233

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Al-Shboul, Y., Maros, M. & Mohd Yasin, M. S. (2012). An Intercultural Study of Refusal Strategies in English between Jordanian EFL and Malay ESL Postgraduate Students. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(3), 29-39.
  2. Baca, E. (2011). Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Advice in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Abroad. Unpublished MA. dissertation, Arizona State University Bakhtin,M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Texas Press.
  3. 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.
  4. Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. Eds. Red Robert Phillipson et al., Foreign/Second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 255–272. Bordería-García, A. M. (2006). The acquisition of pragmatics in Spanish as a foreign language: Interpreting and giving advice. The University of Iowa. PhD dissertation. Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). 7, 1-20
  5. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
  6. DeCapua, A. (1998). Pragmatic transfer and cultural stereotyping. IAL (Issues in Applied Linguistics), 9(1), 21–36.
  7. DeCapua, A. & Findlay-Dunham, J. (1993). Strategies in the discourse of advice. Journal of Pragmatics 20(4), 519–530.
  8. DeCapua, A & Findlay-Dunham, J. (2007). The pragmatics of advice giving: Cross-cultural perspectives. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(3), 319-42. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.016
  9. Fang, J. (2010). A study on Pragmatic Failure on Cross-cultural Communication. US English Teaching, 7(12), 42–46.
  10. Farashaiyan, A. & Muthusamy, P. (2016). Pragmatic Variations in Giving Advice in L2 by Malaysian. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 179-191. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage Refusals: Linguistic Politeness and Length of Residence in the Target Community. Language learning, 54(4), 587–653.
  11. Finch, G. (1999). Linguistic terms and concepts. United States of America: St. Martin's Press.
  12. Galloway, V. B. (1984). Communicating in a cultural context. ACTFL Master Lecture Series. Monterey, CA: Defense Language Institute. Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatic awareness study. Langua