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

Year 2018, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 239 - 259, 26.09.2018

Okan Önalan , Abdulvahit Çakır

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.464128

Cited By: 6

Abstract

The aim of this study is to
investigate the pragmatic language behavior of Turkish learners of English in
formal complaint situations through the comparison of their speech act
performances to those of native speakers. The data was collected from a total
of 276 participants, 132 Native Speakers (NSs) and 144 Turkish Learners (TLs)
of English. Three different data collection methods were used: a) Discourse
Evaluation Task (DET); b) video-recorded role plays; and c) open-ended oral
interviews. The results indicate that native English speakers’ and Turkish
learners’ production of complaints reflects a significant difference with
respect to the linguistic components and the pragmatic choices made in
complaining. A significant contribution of the current study to the literature
is the Discourse Evaluation Task (DET), which is both a data collection tool
and a term used for the first time in this paper.

Keywords

Speech acts, formal complaints, directness-indirectness, pragmatic competence, discourse evaluation task (DET)

References

• 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.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Bouton, L. (Ed.) Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 21-39). Urbana, II.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-415.
• 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.
• 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.
• Barron, A. (2005). Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System 33 (3), 519-536.
• 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). 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
• Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.36-55). New York: Newbury House.
• Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 255-272). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-179.
• Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.D. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds), Language and communication (pp.2-29). London: Longman.
• Cohen, A. (1996a). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267.
• Cohen, A. (1996b). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech act across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp.21-43). Berlin: Mouton.
• Cohen, A. (1996c). Speech Acts. In S. L. McKay, and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
• Du, J. S. (1995). Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language (pp. 165-206). Manoa, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press.
• Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.
• Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 253-286.
• Flores Salgado, E. (2011). The pragmatics of requests and apologies: Developmental patterns of Mexican students. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
• Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
• Garcia, C. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and normative speakers. Multilingua, 8, 3-20.
• Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Göy, E., Zeyrek, D. & Otcu, B. (2012). Developmental patterns in internal modification of requests: a quantitative study on Turkish learners of English. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis, & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification. (pp. 51-6). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Harada, Y. (1996). Judgments of politeness in L2 acquisition. Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 39-56.
• Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 33-52.
• Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1903-1928.
• Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviours. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 51-70.
• House, J. & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher and R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance, 2 (pp.1250-1288). Tübingen: Narr.
• Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34, 36-54.
• Johnston, B., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (1994). Effects of Rejoinders in Production Questionnaires, University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 13(1), 121-143.
• Kachru, Y. (1991). Speech acts in world Englishes: Toward a framework for research. World Englishes 10(3), 299-306.
• Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics’. In K. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds) Pragmatics in language teaching. (pp. 33–62). Cambridge University Press.
• Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kim, J. (1995). Could you calm down more?: Requests and Korean ESL learners. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11(2), 67-82.
• Márquez Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive analysis of requests and apologies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Meier, A. J. (1998). Apologies: What do we know? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 215-231.
• Mizuno, K. (1996). Interlanguage pragmatics of requests: The case of Chinese learners of Japanese. Gengo Bunka Ronsyuu, 17(2), 91-106.
• Murphy, B. & Neu, J. (1996). My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. In S.M.Gass & J. New (Eds). Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (191-216). New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
• Novick, R. (2000). Politeness and rationality. Amsterdam: J. Benjamin Publishing Company.
• Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). New York: Newbury House.
• Otcu, B. & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development of requests: a study of Turkish learners of English. In M. Puetz & J. Neff Van Aertselaer (Eds.), Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-Cultural perspectives (pp. 265—300). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York,
• Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead. Toronto and NY: Paikeday Publishing Co.
• Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
• Schauer, G. (2004). May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. In S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood-Smith, A. Sorace & M. Ota (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 4, (pp. 253—273). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Seliger, H., and Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics. Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.
• Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matter.
• Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.
• Takahashi, T., and Beebe, L. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.
• Tanck, S. (2002). Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A comparison of Native and Non-Native English Speakers' Production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 65-81.
• Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
• Widdowson, H. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 128-137.
• Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 689-699.
• Woodfield, H. (2010). What lies beneath?: Verbal report in interlanguage requests in English. Multilingua, 29, 1-27.
• Woodfield, H. (2012). ‘‘I think maybe I want to lend the notes from you’’: Development of request modification in graduate learners. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis & H. Woodfield (Eds), Interlanguage request modification (pp.9-49). J.Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia