İngilizce Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Konuşma Sezdirimlerini Anlama Becerileri

Öz

Bu çalışma, Grice’in işbirlikçi kuramına göre (1989) Türk İngiliz dili öğretmen adaylarının İngilizcedeki konuşma sezdirimlerinin kavramalarını incelemektedir. İletişimde söz edimi eylemleri ya doğrudan ya da dolaylı olabilir. Dolaylı söz edimi durumlarında muhatap konuşmacının ne ima ettiğini anlamalıdır, bu da konuşma sezdirimlerini kavrama anlamına gelir. Konuşma sezdirimleri konuşmacının söylediklerinin bir parçası olmayan bir koşuşma ifadesidir. Bir koşuşmada katlımcıların anlamların çıkarımı büyük ölçüde bağlamsal ipuçlarına bağlıdır. Dinleyici edebi (anlamsal) anlamı ile edebi olmayan (edimbilimsel) anlamı birbirinden ayırması gerekir. İngiliz dili öğretmen adaylarının İngilizcedeki konuşma sezdirimlerinin başarılı iletişim için çok önemlidir. KKTC’de İngiliz dili öğretmen adaylarının İngilizcedeki konuşma sezdirimlerinin kavramalarını incelemeye yönelik çok sayıda araştırma olmasına rağmen bu alanda daha fazla araşırmaya gerek duyulmaktadır. Bu çalışma, İngiliz dili öğretmen adaylarının İngilizcedeki konuşma sezdirimlerinin kavramalarını araştırmak için tasarlanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre Türk İngiliz dili öğretmen adaylarının İngilizcedeki konuşma sezdirimlerinin kavramaları ortalama olarak düşük düzeydedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Edimbilim Yetkinlik,Sezdirimlerin kavranması,Türk İngliz Dili Öğretmen Adayları

Comprehension of Conversational Implicatures by Students of the ELT Department

Öz

This study investigates the extent to which Turkish ELT student teachers comprehend conversational implicatures concerning Grice’s theory of co-operative principle (1989). The act of communication speech acts can be either direct or indirect. In the case of indirect speech acts, an addressee has to comprehend the addresser’s meaning, which means comprehending the implicature. Implicature is the meaning of the speaker’s utterance that is not part of what the speaker says. The inference of the meaning in an utterance by participants mostly depends on the contextual clues in a particular situation. The listener has to differentiate between the literal (semantic) meaning and non-literal (pragmatic) meaning. Developing ELT students’ pragmatic competence is significant for successful communication in the target language. Although there is much research into EFL pragmatic competence focusing on conversational implicatures, in the Northern Cypriot ELT context there is still a need to examine the issue. This study was designed to investigate the extent to which prospective teachers of English comprehend conversational implications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pragmatic Competence,Comprehension of implicatures,Turkish ELT students

Kaynakça

1. Alagözlü, N., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Aural pragmatic comprehension. Novitas Royal Youth Journal, 3(2), 83-92.
2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 21-39). Urbana- Champaign: the University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.
3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System 33 (3), 401-415.
4. Bialystok, E. (2003). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. BlumKulk (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bouton, L.F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of the ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 17(2), 183-96.
7. Bouton, L.F. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-67.
8. Ergüven, T. (2001). Interpreting implicatures: A study on upper-intermediate level EFL students. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.

9. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English. Multilingua, 22(3), 225- 255.
10. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158-2187.
11. Fraenkel, J, Norman E.W., and Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. 111.
12. Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low-level language learners. TESL – EJ, 8 (2). 382
13. Grice, P. (1975). Logic And Conversation. In S. Davis (Ed.). Pragmatics: A Reader. (1991). (305- 315). New York: Oxford.
14. Kasper, G. (1989). Interactive procedures in interlanguage discourse. In W. Olesky (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 189-229). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
15. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-9). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Koike, D. A. (1992). Brazilian Portuguese directives and a hierarchy of strategies for politeness. In D. A. Koike & D. Macedo (Eds.), Romance Linguistics: The Portuguese Context (pp. 121-140). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
17. Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In Gass, Susan & Neu, Joyce (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 257-281). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
18. Lee, J. S. (2002). Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English. Korea TESOL Journal. Vol. 5 Fall/Winter, 1-25.
19. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
20. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-93), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
21. Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. New York: Routledge.
22. Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners' realization of L2 compliment response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2025-2050.
23. Rafieyan, V. (2016).The relationship between language learners' Attitudes toward cultural Instruction a pragmatic Comprehension and Production. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, V.7/4, 68-75.
24. Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 11-34.
25. Rızaoğlu, F. & Yavuz, M.A. (2007). English Language Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Implicatures. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(4): 817-837.
26. Scarcella, R., & Brunak, R. (1981). On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27.
27. Saito, H., & Beecken, M. (1997). An Approach to the instruction of pragmatic aspects: implications of pragmatic transfer by American learners of Japanese. The Modern language journal 81(3), 363-377.
28. Taghizadeh, R. (2017). Pragmatic Competence in the Target Language: A Study of Iranian Learners of English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University Of Salford, Manchester, UK Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 313-338.
29. Thomas. J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.