Accuracy and speed in the interpretation of implied meanings in English: Turkish teacher trainees versus native speakers

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 325 - 342, 15.06.2018

Uğur Recep Çetinavcı

Öz

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Accuracy and speed in the interpretation of implied meanings in English: Turkish teacher trainees versus native speakers
This study aims to investigate how Turkish Teacher Trainees of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) interpret implied meanings, which is an integral but lesser-studied component of pragmatic competence. The conduct of the study began with the development of an online multiple-choice discourse completion test (MDCT) through two piloting phases. Next, the test was given to a group of 144 1st year teacher trainees and a group of 127 native speakers of English, who served as the comparison group to provide interpretation norms as the benchmark. The results revealed a significant difference between the native speakers and teacher trainees in favor of the former in terms of both accuracy and speed at the interpretation of implied meanings in English. In consideration of the fact that teacher training is critical for inevitably influencing how instructional practices are used in the future, the study identified an improvable aspect in the pragmatic skills of prospective EFL teachers, which could pave way for informed instructional solutions for both EFL teacher trainees and learners.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Çetinavcı, Uğur Recep
Affiliated institution (University)	Uludag University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	ELT Department
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Anahtar Kelimeler

pragmatics; pragmatic comprehension; implied meanings (implicature); teacher education

Kaynakça

• Aijmer, K. (Ed.). (2011). Contrastive pragmatics (Vol. 30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Alagözlü, N., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Aural pragmatic comprehension. Novitas-Royal, 3(2), 83-92.
• Alagözlü, N. (2013). Aural Pragma-Linguistic Comprehension: A Longitudinal Study. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(44), 1-14.
• Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. & Reynolds, D. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: closing the conversation. ELT Journal 45(1), 4-15.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Pragmatics as part of teacher education. TESOL Journal, 1, 28- 32.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L.F. Bouton (Ed.) Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 7, pp. 21_39). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• 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.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Shin, S. Y. (2014). Expanding Traditional Testing Measures with Tasks from L2 Pragmatics Research. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1).
• Bektas-Cetinkaya, Y. (2012). Pre-service EFL teachers' pragmatic competence: The Turkish case. International Journal of Language Studies, 6 (2).
• Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 35-62.
• Biesenback-Lucas, S. (2003). Preparing students for the pragmatics of e-mail interaction in academia: A new/forgotten dimension in teacher education. Teacher Education Interest Section Newsletter, 18(2), 3-4.
• Birner, B. J. (2013) Introduction to Pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross‐cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7(2), 183-196.
• Bouton, L. F. (1992). The Interpretation of Implicature in English by NNS: Does It Come Automatically--Without Being Explicitly Taught? Pragmatics and language learning, 3, 53-65.
• Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicatures in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 5, pp. 88–109). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.
• Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 47-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brubæk, S. (2012). Pragmatic competence in English at the VG1 level: To what extent are Norwegian EFL students able to adapt to contextual demands when making requests in English? Acta Didactica Norge, 6(1), Art-20.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical framework for communicative competence. In A. Palmer, P. Groot, & G. Trosper (Eds.), The construct validation of test of communicative competence: Including proceedings of a colloquium at TESOL ’79 (pp. 31-36). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages.
• Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
• Cenoz, J. (2007). The Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence and Multilingualism in Foreign Language Contexts. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 123-140). The Netherlands: Springer.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Colston, Herbert L., & Jennifer O'Brien (2000). "Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better." Journal of Pragmatics 32.11: 1557-1583.
• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, 58(1), 38-49.
• Çetinavcı, U. R., & Öztürk, İ. (2017). The Development of An Online Test to Measure the Interpretation of Implied Meanings as A Major Constituent of Pragmatic Competence [December Special issue]. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 184-222.
• Davis, W. A. (2007). How normative is implicature. Journal of pragmatics, 39(10), 1655-1672.
• Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2015). Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 69(4), 415-424.
• Erkmen, B. (2014). Novice EFL Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching and Learning, and their Classroom Practices. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29(1), 99-113.
• Eslami, Z. R. (2011). In Their Own Voices: Reflections of Native and Nonnative English Speaking TESOL Graduate Students on On-Line Pragmatic Instruction to EFL Learners. TESL-EJ, 15(2), 1-21.
• Eslami, Z. R. & Mirzaei, A. (2012). Assessment of second language pragmatics. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment (pp. 198-208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. New York: Erlbaum.
• Green, G. M. (1996). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Psychology Press.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. 3. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
• Gruba, P. (2000). The role of digital video media in response to task demands. In 22nd Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• Hadi, A. (2013). A Critical Appraisal of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3, 69-72.
• Hu, Z. (2014). Study on Developing Chinese College EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Competence in Relation to Language Proficiency and Overseas Experience. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 391-398.
• Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
• Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Baltimore: Penguin Books.
• Ishihara, N. (2010). Adapting textbooks for teaching pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet (pp. 145-166). Malaysia: Pearson Education.
• Jianda, L. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Reflections on English language teaching, 5(1), 1-22.
• Karatepe, Ç. (2001). Pragmalinguistic awareness in EFL teacher training. Language Awareness, 10(2&3), 178-188.
• Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork, 6, 105-119.
• Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied linguistics, 22(4), 502-530.
• Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
• Lakoff, R. T. (2009). Conversational logic. In J. Verschueren & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Key Notions for Pragmatics, (1), 102-114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Lee, J. S. (2002). Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English. The Korea TESOL Journal, 5(1), 1-26.
• Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Li, W. (2015). Effective Teaching in the Use of Pragmatic Markers for Chinese EFL Learners. Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(11), 822-829.
• Martinez-Flor, A. & Alcón Soler, E. (2007). Developing Pragmatic Awareness of Suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects, RCLA, CJAL 10 (1), 47-76.
• Matsuda, M. (1999). Interlanguage pragmatics: What can it offer to language teachers ? The CATESOL Journal, 11(1), 39-59.
• Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51(4), 635-679.
• Matsumura, S. (2007). Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4 (2), 167-192.
• McNeill, A. (1994). Some characteristics of native and non-native speaker teachers of English. In. N. Bird, P. Falvey, A.B.M. Tsui, D. Allison & A. McNeill (Eds.), Language and Learning. Hong Kong: ILE/Govt. Printer.
• McTear, M. (2004). Spoken dialogue technology: Towards the conversational user interface. The Netherlands: Springer.
• Milambiling, J. (1999). Native and non-native speakers: The view from teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Midwest modern language association, St. Louis, MO.
• Myers-Scotton, C. & Bernstein, J. (1988). Natural conversation as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 9, 372-84.
• Özmen, K. S. (2012). Exploring student teachers’ beliefs about language learning and teaching: A longitudinal study. Current Issues in Education, 15(1), 1-15.
• Pasternak, M. & Bailey, K. M. (2004) Preparing non-native and native English speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency. In L.D. Kamhi- Stein (Ed.), Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on non-native English-speaking Professionals (pp. 155-176). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
• Pichastor, M. S. (1998). Politeness and textbooks: how to approach the teaching of communicative competence in a second language. In I. V. Orta & I. G. Galve (Eds.), Perspectivas Pragmáticas en Lingüística Aplicada (pp. 299-306). Anubar.
• Rızaoğlu, F. & Yavuz, M. A. (2017). English Language Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Implicatures. İngilizce Öğrenenlerin Sezdirileri Anlama ve Üretme Becerileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education). doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2017027932.
• Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (9), 1173-1201.
• Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics. Germany: Peter Lang.
• Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23(2), 229-256.
• Roever, C. (2013). Assessment of pragmatics. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-8). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
• Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82) New York: Academic Press.
• Segueni, L. (2014). Developing Pragmatic Competence in the EFL Context: Opportunities and Challenges. Sciences Humaines, 35, 7-23.
• Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern language journal, 89(4), 543-562.
• Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 313–338.
• Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423-452.
• Taguchi, N. (2011). The Effect of L2 Proficiency and Study‐Abroad Experience on Pragmatic Comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904-939.
• Taguchi, N. (2013). Teaching Pragmatics. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
• Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2), 91-112.
• Uztosun, M. S. (2013). An interpretive study into elementary School English Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(1), 20-33.
• Vasquez, C. & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the Master’s TESOL curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5–28.
• Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-18.
• Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.
• Verschueren, J. (2009). Introduction: The Pragmatic Perspective. In J. Verschueren & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Key notions for pragmatics (pp. 1-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Weizman, E. (1993). Interlanguage requestive hints. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 123-137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wyner, L. & Cohen, A. D. (2015). Second language pragmatic ability: Individual differences according to environment. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 519-556.
• Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Wong, J. (2002). ‘Applying’ conversation analysis in applied linguistics: evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 40(1), 37-60.
• Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL learners. Second Language Studies, 22(1), 107-175.
• Yoshida, M. (2014). Conversational Implicatures in Japanese EFL Textbooks. Sophia Linguistica, 61, 259-275.
• Yu, M. C. (2006). On the teaching and learning of L2 sociolinguistic competence in classroom settings. Asian EFL Journal, 8(2), 111-131.