آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 41 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,116 |
| تعداد مقالات | 13,677 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 48,559,348 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 12,310,196 |
The Effect of Collaborative Dialogue on EFL Learners’ Noticing of Pragmatic Forms | ||
| Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 11، شماره 24، اسفند 2019، صفحه 1-28 اصل مقاله (519.38 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
Azadeh Alizadeh Tabaghi  1؛ Baqer Yaqubi2؛ Shirin Abadikhah 3
| ||
| 1MA graduate, University of Mazandaran, Faculty of English | ||
| 2Associate Professor, University of Mazandaran, Faculty of English | ||
| 3Assistant professor, University of Mazandaran, Faculty of English | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Interlanguage pragmatics has attracted considerable attention in recent years. One strand of interlanguage pragmatics research includes studies comparing the effectiveness of implicit versus explicit teaching on the development of pragmatics. Many studies, although inconclusively, have shown the superior effect of explicit teaching of pragmatics, but few have focused on finding ways to improve the implicit teaching of pragmatics. The present study attempted to unfold the effect of collaborative dialogue on the quality of implicit teaching of request (head act and preparator). To this end, 28 participants (19 to 33 years old, intermediate) majoring in English (freshman and junior) were divided into two groups. The experimental group (n=14) had the opportunity to complete the tasks collaboratively and the control group (n=14) were not provided with any specific pragmatic instruction. The instructional procedure included four successive sessions of teaching request in situations where the sociological parameters were systematically varied. For the purpose of data collection, the classes were audio-recorded and a pretest-posttest design for discourse completion task (DCT) was adopted. For the purpose of data analysis, target request head acts and preparators were scored and also the audio recordings of classes were transcribed and the process of learning during treatment was checked in detail. The findings indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group in producing target preparators and head acts. And evidence of noticing the pragmatic forms namely noticing unnoticed forms, noticing the gap, and negotiation of form was observed during the collaborative task. This study suggests that teachers may need to provide learners with the opportunities for collaborative tasks along with input enhancement tasks in order to improve the pragmatic knowledge of the learners. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Interlanguage pragmatics؛ explicit teaching؛ implicit teaching؛ collaborative task؛ input enhancement task | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abadikhah, S., & Harsini, B., (2014) Comparing the Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on the Acquisition of English Articles. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 2(3), 23-34.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279–304.
Blum-Kulka, S., and Olshtain, E. (1984) Requests and apologies: A crosscultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–214.
Bouton, L., (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In: L. Bouton, (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 5, (pp. 88–109). University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, IL.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygostkian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). New Jersey: Ablex.
Donato, R., &Lantolf, J. P. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and language learning, 1, 83-97.
Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and learner-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 281-299.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.
Hudson, T., Brown, J. D., & Detmer, E. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report No. 7). Honolulu, Hl: University of Hawai’I at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Ishihara, N. (2010). Teachers’ pragmatics: Knowledge, beliefs, and practice. In N. Ishihara and A.D Cohen (eds.) Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (PP. 21-36). Harlow, England: Longman and Pearson Education.
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis, in J. Norris and L. Ortega (eds.) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149–169.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507.
LaPierre, D. (1994). Language Output in a Cooperative Learning Setting: Determining Its Effects on Second Language Learning. Toronto: University of Toronto (OISE), M.A. Thesis.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Nassaji, H., &Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of pragmatics, 44(4), 416-434.
Rose, K. R., & Ng Kwai-fun, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schauer, G. A (2007). Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 193-220. Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning. RevistaCanaria de EstudiosIngleses, 34, (115-32).
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Storch, N. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291-300.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2014). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416-437.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge: CUP.
Takimoto, M. (2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1240-1253.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L. P., Tay, H. M., & Thananart, O. O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. Pragmatics and language learning, 8, 163-178.
Thomas, J., (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A.kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 732 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 644 |
||
