Belirgin Eğitimin İngilizcede Reddetme Üzerine Etkisi: İngilizce Öğretmen Adaylarının Durumu

Öz

Söz eylemlerinin uygun gerçekleştirilmesi edimsel yetiyi ve bununla bağlantılı olarak iletişim yetisini geliştirir. Bu yarı-deneysel çalışma, muhatapların daha yüksek, eşit ve daha düşük statüye sahip olmalarına göre reddetme söz eyleminin gerçekleştirilmesi üzerine verilen altı saatlik belirgin öğretime dayalı eğitimin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının reddetme söz eylemini uygun bir şekilde gerçekleştirme becerisine etkisini araştırmıştır. Deney grubuna verilen belirgin öğretimin etkisini ortaya çıkarmak için, hem deney grubunda hem de kontrol grubunda ön söylem tamamlama testi ve son söylem tamamlama testi uygulanmıştır. Son söylem tamamlama testinden elde edilen verilerin analizinden ulaşılan bulgular, hiçbir eğitime tabi tutulmayıp sadece ders kitabındaki reddetme söz eylemi ile alakalı bilgileri okuyan kontrol grubunun reddetme söz eylemini ön söylem tamamlama testindeki performanslarına kıyasla daha uygun bir şeklide gerçekleştirdiklerini göstermiştir. Ancak, bulgular, deney grubunun aldıkları belirgin öğretim sayesinde muhatapların statüsünü göz önünde bulundurarak reddetme söz eylemini kontrol grubuna kıyasla uygun bir şekilde gerçekleştirmede daha başarılı olduğu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Belirgin öğretim
• edimsel yeti
• reddetme
• söylem tamamlama testi
• yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretmen adayı

The Impact of Explicit Instruction on the Production of Refusals in English: The Case of Student Teachers of English

Abstract

Appropriate speech act realisation promotes foreign language (FL) learners’ pragmatic competence, and linked with that, their communicative competence. This quasi-experimental study explored the influence of a treatment based on a six-hour explicit instruction on how to appropriately refuse the requests of the interlocutors having higher, equal and lower status on sophomore PEFLTs’ ability to properly perform the speech act of refusals. To scrutinize the effect of the treatment provided to the experimental group, pre- and post-discourse completion tests (DCTs) administered in the experimental and control group were used. The findings obtained through the analysis of the data from the post-DCT indicated that the control group participants receiving no treatment yet covering the information in the textbook concerning the speech act of refusals performed it better as against their performance on the pre-DCT. However, the findings demonstrated that the treatment led the experimental group to produce their refusals more appropriately seeing the status of interlocutors than the control group.

Keywords

• DCT
• explicit instruction
• PSEFLTs
• pragmatic competence

References

1. Allami, H., & 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.
2. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.
3. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communication competence in a second language (pp.55-73). New York: Newbury House.
5. Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 35-62.
6. Blanche, P. (1987). The case for a pedagogy of pragmatics in foreign or second language teaching. RELC Journal, 18(1), 46-71.
7. Brasdefer, J. C. F. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2158-2187.
8. Brasdefer, J. C. F. (2008). Perceptions of refusals to invitations: Exploring the minds of foreign language learners. Language Awareness, 17(3), 195-211.

9. Cheng, T. P. (2016). Authentic L2 interactions as material for a pragmatic awareness-raising activity. Language Awareness, 25(3), 159-178.
10. Crystal, D. (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
11. Fuentes, C. G., & McDonough, K. (2018). The effect of explicit instruction and task repetition on Colombian EFL students’ use of politeness strategies during disagreements. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 470-482.
12. Ghavamnia, M., Rasekh, A. E., & Dastjerdi, V. (2018). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 114-131.
13. Haghighi, H., Jafarigohar, M., Khoshsima, H., & Vahdany, F. (2019). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners' appropriate use of refusal: achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261-293.
14. Hosseini, M. B., Pourghasemian, H., & Lu, X. (2019). Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit teaching using literary and nonliterary materials on learner’s pragmatic comprehension and production. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-17.
15. Huth, T., & Nikazm, C. T. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53-79.
16. Intachakra, S. (2004). Contrastive Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Apologies and Thanks in English and Thai *T. RELC Journal, 35(1), 37-62.
17. Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness, 16(1), 21-40.
18. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231.
19. Kasper, G., (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking (pp. 279-304). New York: Continuum.
20. Kecskes, I. (2015). How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals? International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(4), 419-434.
21. Lee, H. (2013). The influence of social situations on fluency difficulty in Korean EFL learners’ oral refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 168-186.
22. Limberg, H. (2015). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700-718.
23. LoCastro, V. (1997). Politeness and pragmatic competence in foreign language education. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 239-267.
24. McConachy, T. (2013). Exploring the meta-pragmatic realm in English language teaching. Language Awareness, 22(2), 100-110.
25. Moghadam, A. Z., & Adeh, A. (2020). Investigating pragmatic competence, metapragmatic awareness and speech act strategies among Turkmen-Persian bilingual and Persian monolingual EFL learners: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 49(1), 22-40.
26. Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 86-107.
27. Morkus, N. (2018). Negative pragmatic transfer and language proficiency: American learners of Arabic. The Language Learning Journal. doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1474247.
28. Nguyen, T. T. M. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: to what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC Journal, 42(1), 17-30.
29. Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, A. T., & Pham, T. T. (2015). Teaching email requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169-195.
30. Nguyen, M. T. T., Pham, H. T., & Pham, T. M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45-67.
31. Papafragou, A. (2018). Pragmatic development. Language Learning and Development, 14(3), 167-169.
32. Perkins, M. R. (2004). Pragmatic ability and disability as emergent phenomena. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19(5), 367-377.
33. Qi, X., & Lai, C. (2017). The effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on learners’ development of pragmatic competence in the teaching of Chinese as a second language. System, 70, 26-37.
34. Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative‐speaking teachers: A consciousness‐raising approach. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 125-138.
35. Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34–36.
36. Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Shirinbakhsh, S., Rasekh, A. E., & Tavakoli, M. (2018). Metapragmatic instruction (6Rs) versus inputbased practice: A comparison of their effects on pragmatic accuracy and speed in the recognition and oral production of English refusals. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 514-537.
38. Shishavan, H. B., & Sharifian, F. (2016). The refusal speech act in a cross-cultural perspective: A study of Iranian English-language learners and Anglo-Australian speakers. Language and Communication, 47, 75-88.
39. Siebold, K., & Busch, H. (2014). (No) need for clarity - Facework in Spanish and German refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 53-68.
40. Stavans, A., & Shafran, R. W. (2018). The pragmatics of requests and refusals in multilingual settings. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(2), 149-168.
41. Trebits, A. (2019). Degree of multilingualism, code-switching and intensity of target language contact predict pragma-linguistic awareness in an English as a foreign language context. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2019.1678626.
42. Živković, E. (2020). Variation in refusal strategies produced by English and Serbian speakers. Studia Neophilologica. doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2020.1780939.