DEVELOPING EFL LEARNERS’ PRAGMATIC INSIGHT INTO APOLOGY STRATEGIES THROUGH META-PRAGMATIC INSTRUCTION

Öz

This study aimed to evaluate students' current pragmatic competence regarding apology strategies from a speech-act theory perspective and to examine whether their pragmatic competence can be improved through meta-pragmatic instruction. Additionally, the study aimed to identify the effective factors influencing students’ apology strategy preferences. A mixed methods design was employed as the research method, and data were collected through the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and semi-structured interviews. The participants consisted of 134 EFL students from the Political Science and Public Administration, International Trade and Logistics, Business, Banking and Finance, and Economics and Finance departments. Furthermore, 24 students from the same sample group participated in semi-structured interviews. When the quantitative data were examined, it was found that the most frequently used strategy by students was direct apology, followed by explanation and responsibility strategies, and then modified strategies. It was also revealed that students' DCT responses improved through meta-pragmatic instruction, with an increase in the number of core strategies they employed and the number of modified strategies, which is an indicator of authentic language use. The study also investigated the effective factors influencing students' strategy preferences and indicated that the students were mostly influenced by social status, age, and the nature of offense when applying apology strategies. In conclusion, this study aimed to investigate the current pragmatic competence of EFL students and to investigate whether pragmatic competence can be improved through meta-pragmatic instruction. Additionally, the study examined the effective factors influencing students' strategy preferences.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pragmatics
• Pragmatic competence
• Meta-pragmatic instruction
• Speech act theory
• Apology strategies

META-PRAGMATİK ÖĞRETİM YOLUYLA YABANCI DİL OLARAK İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRENEN ÖĞRENCİLERDE ÖZÜR STRATEJİLERİNE YÖNELİK PRAGMATİK FARKINDALIĞIN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, öğrencilerin özür dileme stratejilerine ilişkin mevcut pragmatik yeterliliklerini konuşma eylemi teorisi perspektifinden değerlendirmeyi ve pragmatik yeterliliklerinin meta-pragmatik öğretim yoluyla geliştirilip geliştirilemeyeceğini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Ek olarak, çalışma öğrencilerin özür dileme stratejisi tercihlerini etkileyen faktörleri belirlemeyi hedeflemiştir. Araştırma yöntemi olarak karma yöntem tasarımı kullanılmış ve veriler Söylem Tamamlama Testi (DCT) ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Katılımcılar, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi, Uluslararası Ticaret ve Lojistik, İşletme, Bankacılık ve Finans ile Ekonomi ve Finans bölümlerinden 134 İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciden oluşmuştur. Ayrıca, aynı örneklem grubundan 24 öğrenci yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelere katılmıştır. Nicel bulgular, öğrenciler tarafından en sık kullanılan stratejinin doğrudan özür dileme olduğunu, bunu açıklama ve sorumluluk stratejilerinin ve ardından değiştirilmiş stratejilerin izlediğini göstermiştir. Nicel veriler incelendiğinde, öğrencilerin DCT yanıtlarının meta-pragmatik öğretim yoluyla gelişme gösterdiği, kullandıkları temel strateji sayısında ve otantik dil kullanımının bir göstergesi olan değiştirilmiş strateji sayısında artış olduğu bulunmuştur. Çalışma ayrıca öğrencilerin strateji seçimlerini etkileyen faktörleri de araştırmıştır ve öğrencilerin özür stratejilerini uygularken çoğunlukla sosyal statü, yaş ve hatanın niteliğinden etkilendiklerini ortaya koydu. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin mevcut pragmatik yeterliliklerini araştırmayı ve pragmatik yeterliliğin meta-pragmatik öğretim yoluyla geliştirilip geliştirilemeyeceğini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Ek olarak, çalışma öğrencilerin strateji tercihlerini etkileyen faktörleri de incelemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Edim bilim
• Pragmatik yeterlilik
• Meta-pragmatik öğretim
• Konuşma Eylem Teorisi
• Özür Dileme Stratejileri

Kaynakça

1. Alfghe, A., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2021). Realisation of the speech act of request, suggestion, and apology by Libyan EFL learners. SAGE Open, 11(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050378
2. Alindra, D. A., Fithriani, R., & Pardi, P. (2025). Speech acts across cultures: A comparative study of request, refusal, and apology in English and Mandarin. International Journal of English and Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.47709/ijeal.v5i3.7380
3. Asmalı, M. (2012). The apology and refusal strategies of Turkish, Polish, and Latvian prospective English teachers [Doktora tezi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
4. Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
5. Aydin, M. (2013). Cross cultural pragmatics: A study of apology speech acts by Turkish speakers, American English speakers and advance nonnative speakers of English in Turkey [Yüksek lisans tezi, Minnesota State University].
6. Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in facethreatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199–218). Plenum.
7. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165–179.
8. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 134–149). Ablex.

9. Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Springer.
10. Cheng, S. W. (2005). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development of expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English [Doktora tezi, University of Iowa].
11. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113–134.
12. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Newbury House.
13. Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62(6), 51–74.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
15. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2. basım). Cambridge University Press.
16. Demirezen, M. (1991). Pragmatics and language teaching. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6, 281–287.
17. Durrheim, K. (2006). Research design. In M. J. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (pp. 33–59). University of Cape Town Press.
18. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
19. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0562
20. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203–231.
21. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2003). Pragmatic development in a second language (Language Learning Monograph Series, C. 3). Wiley-Blackwell.
22. Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2024). Convergent mixed methods designs. In J. Katz-Buonincontro (Ed.), How to mix methods: A guide to sequential, convergent, and experimental research designs (pp. 73–82). American Psychological Association.
23. Kivilu, M. (2003). Understanding the structure of data when planning for analysis: application of hierarchical linear models. South African Journal of Education, 23(4), 249–253.
24. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
25. Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics. Blackwell.
26. Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (1996). My grade is too low: The speech act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 191–216). Mouton de Gruyter.
27. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53–67). Ablex.
28. Özdemir, Ç., & Rezvani, S. A. (2010). Interlanguage pragmatics in action: Use of expressions of gratitude. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 194–202.
29. Özmen, P. (2016). Apology strategies of Turkish EFL university students [Yüksek lisans tezi, Bahçeşehir University].
30. Rajabi, S., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015). Investigating the effect of explicit instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53–61.
31. Refualu, N. S., Luardini, M. A., & Norahmi, M. (2021). An analysis of speech act used in the written conversations from English textbook for junior high school grade IX published by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2018. Academic Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 22–26.
32. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
33. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.
34. Tunçel, R. (1999). Speech act realizations of Turkish EFL learners: A study on apologizing and thanking [Doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi].
35. Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? *TESL-EJ, 8*(2), 1–17.
36. Zıngır Gülten, A. (2008). Requesting in English: Interlanguage pragmatics of Turkish children [Doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi].