A Study on the Use of Suggestion Strategies among Turkish EFL Learners

Öz

Pragmatic competence can be regarded as one of the pillars of language competence and it involves the effective use of speech acts, which can be defined as carrying out actions through utterances. In second/foreign language contexts, using speech acts effectively grows highly significant mainly for two reasons: i) speech acts are fundamental to communication, ii) speech acts reflect the basic social norms and cultural values of the target speech community.  Although speech acts such as requests, apologies and refusals have been investigated in a plethora of studies, suggestions have received relatively limited scholarly attention in the English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) contexts, and in particular, in a writing medium. As such, this qualitative study aims to investigate how Turkish EFL adult learners suggest in English in a writing medium. The data were collected by using a scenario-based task which helped elicit how the participants suggested and what kind of linguistic strategies and elements they used while making suggestions. The results of the qualitative content analysis demonstrated that the most commonly used suggestion type was “conventionalized” whereas “direct strategies” remained scarce. Moreover, it was found that the participants mostly used “possibility” and “should” as suggestion strategies. Overall, the findings suggested that the participants tried to render their suggestions as less face-threatening as possible by lessening the degree of imposition placed on the hearer while being as cooperative as possible, a tendency which can be deduced from the frequent use of “we can” structure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Second/foreign language learning,pragmatic competence,speech acts,suggestions,Turkish EFL learners

İngilizce’yi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenen Türk Öğrencilerin Öneri Sözeylem Stratejileri Kullanımı

Öz

Dil yeterliğinin temel bileşenlerinden biri olarak kabul edilen edimbilimsel yeterlik, sözeylemleri etkili kullanabilme becerisini içerir. İkinci/yabancı dil bağlamında, sözeylemlerin etkili bir biçimde kullanılması esas olarak iki nedenden ötürü önemlidir: i) sözeylemler iletişimin temel yapı taşlarından biridir, ii) sözeylemler hedef konuşma topluluğunun temel sosyal normlarını ve kültürel değerlerini yansıtmaktadır. Talep etme, özür dileme ve reddetme gibi sözeylemler pek çok çalışmada incelenmiş olsa da öneride bulunma sözeylemi ikinci/yabancı dil bağlamında ve özellikle yazma ortamında nispeten sınırlı sayıda çalışmada ele alınmıştır. Bu nitel çalışma, yetişkin Türk öğrencilerin öneri sözeylemini İngilizce’de yazılı ortamda nasıl gerçekleştirdiklerini irdelemektedir. Nitel veri, katılımcıların nasıl öneride bulunduklarını ve bu önerilerde ne tür dil stratejileri ve unsurlarını kullandıklarını anlamayı amaçlayan senaryo bazlı bir iletişimsel etkinlik kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Nitel içerik analizinin sonuçlarına göre, en sık kullanılan öneri stratejisi türü “konvensiyonelleştirilmiş” stratejiler iken, “doğrudan” stratejiler ise sınırlı sayıda kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, katılımcıların öneri stratejisi olarak çoğunlukla olasılık ve gereklilik bildiren yapıları kullandıkları saptanmıştır. Buna ek olarak, katılımcıların mümkün olduğunca işbirlikçi bir söylemde bulundukları ve iletişim kurulan kişiye yöneltilen dayatmayı daha az tehdit edici hale getirmeye çalıştıkları katılımcıların sıklıkla kullandığı “yapabiliriz” yapısından da anlaşılmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İkinci/yabancı dil öğrenimi,edimbilimsel yeterlik,sözeylemler,yetişkin İngilizce öğrencileri

Kaynakça

1. Ahmadi, M., Kargar, A. A., & Rostampour, M. (2014). Investigating the role of gender, proficiency level and l1 on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion speech act. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(3), 163–180.
2. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Banerjee, J., & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning, 38(3), 313–364.
4. 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.
5. Barnlund, D. C., & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(2), 193–206.
6. Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 4(1), 82–107.
7. Bikmen, A., & Martı, L. (2013). A study of complaint speech acts in Turkish learners of English. Education and Science, 38(170), 253–265.
8. 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.

9. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10. Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44–58.
11. Brown, P. & Stephen, C. L. (1987): Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Chang, Y. F. (2010). ‘I no say you say is boring’: The development of pragmatic competence in L2 apology. Language Sciences, 32(3), 408–424.
13. Chen, Y. S. (2015). Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email literacy through requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 131–149.
14. Clyne, M., Ball, M., & Neil, D. (1991). Intercultural communication at work in Australia: Complaints and apologies in turns. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 10(3), 251–274.
15. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113–134.
16. Dalmau, M. S., & Gotor, H. C. (2007). Form “sorry very much” to “I’m ever so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287–315.
17. Deveci, T. (2010). The use of complaints in the inter-language of Turkish EFL learners. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 12(2), 25–42.
18. Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30(1), 96–103.
19. Gürsoy, E. (2011). The effect of textbooks on ELT trainees' use of pragmalinguistic features. Novitas-ROYAL, 5(2), 247–264.
20. Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective?. System, 39(2), 240–250.
21. Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech acts, speakers and hearers. Pragmatics and beyond 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46–61.Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
23. Kılıçkaya, F. (2010). The pragmatic knowledge of Turkish EFL students in using certain request strategies. Social Sciences Journal of Gaziantep University, 9(1), 185–201.
24. Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.
25. Kondo, S. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English: Longitudinal study on interlanguage apologies. Sophia linguistica: Working papers in linguistics, (41), 265–284.
26. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
27. Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(1), 58–87.
28. Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167–187.
29. Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480.
30. Mir, M. (1992). Do We All Apologize the Same? An Empirical Study on the Act of Apologizing by Spanish Speakers Learning English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 1–19.
31. 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.
32. Pishghadam, R., & Sharafadini, M. (2011). A Contrastive Study into the Realization of Suggestion Speech Act: Persain vs English. Canadian Social Science, 7(4), 230–239.
33. Rintell, E. (1979). Getting your speech act together: The pragmatic ability of second language leamers. Working Papers on Bilingualism,17, 97–10.
34. Savić, M. (2015). “Can I very please borrow it?”: Request development in young Norwegian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(4), 443–480.
35. Santos, D., & Silva, G. V. (2008). Making suggestions in the workplace: Insights from learner and native speaker discourses. Hispania, 651–664.
36. Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457–484.
37. Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 271–278.
38. Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. C. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 129–157.
39. Schmidt, R., Shimura, A., Wang, Z., Jeong, H. (1995). Suggestions to buy: Television commercials from the US, Japan, China and Korea. In: Gass, S., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 285–316.
40. Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. Soler, E. A. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?. System, 33(3), 417–435.
42. Suh, J. S. (1999). Pragmatic perception of politeness in requests by Korean learners of English as a second language. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 37(3), 195–214.
43. Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–533.
44. Takimoto, M. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 1029–1046.
45. Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 147–167.
46. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.