The Pragmatic Knowledge of Turkish EFL Students in Using Certain Request Strategies

Öz

This study investigates the pragmatic knowledge of Turkish EFL students in using certain request strategies. Data were collected through a type of DCT, open itemverbal response only production questionnaire, as categorized by Kasper (2000) from 40 undergraduate students, studying at the Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, whose ages range from 18 to 20. The data collected from the questionnaires were statistically analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results showed that the EFL students in this study had the linguistic means in order to operate pragmatically in various contexts while requesting. However, their success in the use of the request strategies in situations requiring certain level of politeness was relatively not satisfactory. In the conclusion part, it is argued that the results can be closely related with learning contexts and textbook contents and some suggestions are put forward regarding the issue

İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak (EFL) Öğrenen Türk Öğrencilerinin Belli İstek İzlemlerini Kullanmada Sahip Oldukları Edimsel Bilgi

Öz

Bu çalışma, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak (EFL) öğrenen Türk öğrencilerinin belli istek izlemlerini kullanmada sahip oldukları edimsel bilgiyi incelemektedir. Veriler, Kasper (2000) tarafından açık uçlu-sözsel yanıt üretim anketi olarak sınıflandırılan metin tamamlama görevi (DCT) yöntemiyle, yaşları 18-20 arasında değişen, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi İngilizce Öğretmenliği Ana Bilim Dalında öğrenim görmekte olan 40 öğrenciden toplanmıştır. Toplanan veriler, tanımlayıcı istatistik kullanılarak çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, katılımcıların çeşitli durumlarda ricada bulunurken edimsel açıdan gerekli dil araçlarına sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, belli bir seviyede incelik gerektiren bazı durumlarda, rica izlemlerini kullanmadaki başarılarının yeterli olmadığı gözlenmiştir. Tartışma bölümünde, elde edilen sonuçların, öğrenme ortamı ve ders kitabıyla ilişkili olabileceği görüşü ileri sürülmüştür ve bu konuda çeşitli öneriler dile getirilmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman.
2. Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1993). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 29-59.
5. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, NY: Ablex.
6. 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. 123-154). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
7. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Butler, C. S. (1988). Politeness and the semantics of modalised directives in English. In D. Benson, M. J. Cummings, & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Linguistics in a systematic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10. Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673-1704.
11. Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 35-56.
12. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. and Kamışlı, S. (1997) Yabancı Dil öğreniminde Edimbilimsel Aktarım: Yüksek Düzeyde İngilizce Kullanan Türk öğrenciler Üzerinde Bir Araştırma [Pragmatic ransfer in language learning: A study on Turkish learners of English at advanced level] In D. Zeyrek, & Ş. Ruhi (Eds.), XI. Dilbilim kurultayı bildiriler (pp. 247-259), 22-23 Mayıs 1997. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
13. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976) Is sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25-66.
14. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Penguin Books.
15. Grice, H. (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
16. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
17. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher, R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250-1258). Tübingen: Narr.
18. Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61,
19. Karatepe, Ç. (1998). Teaching pragmalinguistics in teacher training programmes. PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool. Liverpool, UK.
20. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.
21. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
22. Levenston, E. A., & Blum, S. (1978). Discourse-completion as a technique for studying lexical features of interlanguage. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 15, 13-21.
23. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45-65.
24. Otçu, B., & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development of requests: A study on Turkish learners of English. In M. Pütz, & J. N. Aertselaer, (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 265-298). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
25. Otçu, B. (2000). Production of requests by Turkish EFL learners. M.A. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
26. Robinson, M. (1992). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language. Technical Report #3 (pp. 27-82). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, U. of Hawaii.
27. Rue, Y. J., Zhang, G., & Shin, K. (2007). Request strategies in Korean. 5th Biennial Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference, 12-13 July 2007, pp. 112-119. Perth, Australia.
28. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
29. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 91- 112.
30. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton.
31. Yalçınkaya, L., Keser, S., Boztepe, N., Akın, N., Atabay, S., & Akyıldız, L. (1996). Let's Speak English 1. Istanbul: M.E.B.