Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 297 - 306, 05.01.2017

Gulumser Efeoglu Senturk

https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.270674

Abstract

References

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
  • 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., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415.
  • Bardovi‐Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual.Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 273-294.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-179.
  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of com-municative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
  • Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12), 1903-1928.
  • Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context.
  • Holtgraves, T. (2008). Conversation, speech acts, and memory. Memory & cognition, 36(2), 361-374.
  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual review of applied linguistics, 19, 81-104.
  • Kasper, P. D. D. S., Fuger, J., & Möller, H. J. (1992). Comparative efficacy of antidepressants. Drugs, 43(2), 11-23.
  • Karkkainen, E. (1992). Modality as a Strategy in Interaction: Epistemic Modality in the Language of Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. Pragmatics and language learning, 3, 197-216.
  • Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of communicative competence. Language testing, 2(1), 16-30.
  • Scarcella, R. (1979). Watch Up!. Working Papers in Bilingualism, Vol. 19, 79-88.
  • Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts (pp. 59-82).
  • Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation processes: The comprehension of indirect replies. IRAL, 40(2), 151-176.
  • Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562.
  • Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513.
  • Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(02), 189-223.
  • Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437-461.
  • Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M. A. (1989). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers.
  • Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of pragmatics, 11(2), 147-167.

The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners

Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 297 - 306, 05.01.2017

Gulumser Efeoglu Senturk

https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.270674

Abstract

Since Bachman and Palmer (1996) and Canale
and Swain (1980) introduction of “pragmatic competence” in the field of L2
acquisition, its relation to other factors interacting with it has attracted
attention of a number of researchers. The present study aims to explore the
intertangled relation between two competences (namely pragmatic and structural)
in three distinct areas such as request, advice and apology in L2 context. For
the purposes of the current study, two data collection tools are employed. The
first one is English Language Proficiency Test while the second is a discourse
completion task. The latter consists of three subsections and each subsection
involves four cases each of which targets exchanges between interlocutors with
equal statues. The findings suggest that even though two distinct proficiency
groups differ for some cases like requests, L2 proficiency is not a
comprehensive indicator of L2 pragmatic competence development on its own.

Keywords

pragmatic competence L2 proficiency request apology

References

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
  • 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., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415.
  • Bardovi‐Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual.Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 273-294.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-179.
  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of com-municative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
  • Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12), 1903-1928.
  • Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context.
  • Holtgraves, T. (2008). Conversation, speech acts, and memory. Memory & cognition, 36(2), 361-374.
  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual review of applied linguistics, 19, 81-104.
  • Kasper, P. D. D. S., Fuger, J., & Möller, H. J. (1992). Comparative efficacy of antidepressants. Drugs, 43(2), 11-23.
  • Karkkainen, E. (1992). Modality as a Strategy in Interaction: Epistemic Modality in the Language of Native and Non-Native Speakers of English. Pragmatics and language learning, 3, 197-216.
  • Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of communicative competence. Language testing, 2(1), 16-30.
  • Scarcella, R. (1979). Watch Up!. Working Papers in Bilingualism, Vol. 19, 79-88.
  • Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts (pp. 59-82).
  • Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation processes: The comprehension of indirect replies. IRAL, 40(2), 151-176.
  • Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562.
  • Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513.
  • Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(02), 189-223.
  • Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437-461.
  • Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M. A. (1989). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers.
  • Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of pragmatics, 11(2), 147-167.
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Gulumser Efeoglu Senturk

Publication Date January 5, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 3 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Efeoglu Senturk, G. (2017). The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(1), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.270674
AMA Efeoglu Senturk G. The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research. January 2017;3(1):297-306. doi:10.24289/ijsser.270674
Chicago Efeoglu Senturk, Gulumser. “The Effect of L2 English Proficiency on Request, Advice and Apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English Learners”. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research 3, no. 1 (January 2017): 297-306. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.270674.
EndNote Efeoglu Senturk G (January 1, 2017) The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research 3 1 297–306.
IEEE G. Efeoglu Senturk, “The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 297–306, 2017, doi: 10.24289/ijsser.270674.
ISNAD Efeoglu Senturk, Gulumser. “The Effect of L2 English Proficiency on Request, Advice and Apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English Learners”. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research 3/1 (January 2017), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.270674.
JAMA Efeoglu Senturk G. The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research. 2017;3:297–306.
MLA Efeoglu Senturk, Gulumser. “The Effect of L2 English Proficiency on Request, Advice and Apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English Learners”. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 297-06, doi:10.24289/ijsser.270674.
Vancouver Efeoglu Senturk G. The effect of L2 English proficiency on request, advice and apology of L1 Turkish-L2 English learners. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research. 2017;3(1):297-306.

88x31.png
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.