Üniversite Düzeyinde Akademisyen ve Öğrencilerin Bakış Açısıyla Edimbilimsel Yetenek ve Öğretiminin Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 38, 589 - 604, 01.12.2017

Ayşegül Takkaç Tulgar Oktay Yağız , Turgay Han

https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.645125

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de altı devlet üniversitesinde İngiliz Dili Eğitimi bölümündeki akademisyenlerin ve öğrencilerin yabancı dil öğretiminde edimbilimsel yeteneğin öğretilmesine ilişkin algı ve tutumlarını incelemek üzere tasarlanmıştır. Veriler, katılımcıların yazılı olarak cevapladıkları altı açık uçlu soru ile toplanmıştır. Veri analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, katılımcıların edimbilimsel yeteneğin önemli olduğunu düşündüklerini ve bu yeteneğin dil öğretimine dahil edilmesini istediklerini göstermiştir. Katılımcılar, etkili ve başarılı iletişimi sağladığı için edimbilimsel yeteneğin katkısını vurgulamışlardır. Katılımcılar ayrıca, mevcut eğitim sistemi başta olmak üzere edimbilimsel yeteneğin gelişmesini engelleyen bazı temel sorunlardan bahsetmişlerdir. Bu sonuçlara dayanarak, edimbilimsel yeteneğin gelişmesinin iyileştirilmesi için bazı pedagojik önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

İngilizce Öğrencisi, Akademisyen, Edimbilimsel Yetenek, Edimbilimsel Öğretim, Yükseköğrenim

AN EVALUATION OF PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE AND ITS TEACHING FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF FACULTY MEMBERS AND STUDENTS AT TERTIARY LEVEL

Öz

This study was designed with an aim to understand the perceptions and attitudes of faculty members and students in six EFL departments in Turkey regarding the value of pragmatic competence and its teaching in foreign language education. The data were collected through six open-ended questions for which both faculty members and student participants were required to provide written answers. For the analysis of the data, content analysis was adopted to reach detailed results and conclusions. The results revealed that the participants considered pragmatic competence as essential and they favoured its integration in foreign language education. They underlined the contributory nature of pragmatic instruction as it helps learners communicate effectively and successfully. Besides their positive ideas about pragmatic competence and its teaching, the participants counted some basic problems that hinder pragmatic development like the existing education system and other factors that it negatively influences. Based on the results, some pedagogical implications are suggested for the betterment of pragmatic development

Anahtar Kelimeler

EFL Learner, Faculty Member, Pragmatic Competence, Pragmatic Instruction

Kaynakça

• Allami, H. and Naeimi. A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385-406. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010.
• Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.
• Benson, Ph. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. England: Pearson Education Limited.
• Brown, P. and Levionson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals inlanguage use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical base of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.l.l.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Cohen, A. D. (1997). Developing pragmatic ability: Insight from accelerated study of Japanese. In H. M. Cook, K. Hijirida, and M. Tahara (Eds.), News trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and culture (Technical Report No. 15, pp. 133-159). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
• Farshi, S. and Baghbani, S. (2015). The effects of implicit and explicit focus on form on oral accuracy of EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 292-297.http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0502.08.
• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Holmes, J. and Riddiford, N. (2011). From classroom to workplace: tracking socio-pragmatic development. ELT Journal, 65(4), 376-386.doi:10.1093/ elt/ccq071.
• Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Price, and J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Ishihara, N. and Cohen, A. D., (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics. Where language and culture meet. Pearson Education, Harlow.
• Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014868.
• Koike, D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (Vol. 11, pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• McConachy, T. and Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal,, 67(3), 294-301. doi:10.1093/elt/ cct017.
• Padilla Cruz, M. (2013). Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic vigilance of L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 117-135. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005.
• Padilla Cruz, M. (2015). Fostering EF/SL learners’ meta-pragmatic awareness of complaints and their interactive effects, Language Awareness, 24:2, 123-137. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2014.996159.
• Park, S. (2012). A study of the relationship between Korean non-native English speaking teachers’ prior teaching experience and their L2 pragmatic competence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
• Rajabi, S. and Farahian, M. (2013). The effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ awareness of suggestions. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 3(3), 28-38.
• Rastegar, S. and Yasami, F. (2014). Iranian EFL learners’ proficiency levels and their use of apology strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1535-1540. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.575
• Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27- 67. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/ t?type=1andfid=36270andjid=SLAandvolumeId=22andissueId=01anda id=36269.
• Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56, 269-318. doi: 10.1111/j.0023- 8333.2006.00348.x
• Silva, A. (2003). The effects of instruction on pragmatic development: teaching polite refusals in English. Second Language Studies, 22(1), p. 55-106. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/ uploads/2014/09/Silva.pdf
• Taguchi, N. (2014). Pragmatic competence in foreign language education: cultivating learner autonomy and strategic learning of pragmatics. Proceedings of CLaSIC, 472-486.
• Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 369-386. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x.
• van Compernolle, R. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3267-3283. doi:10.1016/j. pragma.2011.06.009.