A Qualitative Investigation of Pragmatic Development in Foreign and Target Context

  • Ayşegül Takkaç-Tulgar Atatürk University, Turkey
Keywords: pragmatic competence, foreign language context, second language context

Abstract

The effects of learning environment on language development in general and pragmatic competence have received increasing attention in the last few decades. The existing studies examined the effects of ESL and EFL settings on pragmatic development from a variety of standpoints. Taking these studies as the basis, this comparative case study aimed to investigate the effects of target context and foreign context on the pragmatic development of two groups of learners, one learning a foreign language (English) and the other learning a second language (Turkish). What differentiates this study from the previous ones is that it compares the cases of learning foreign and second languages (by two different student groups) in the same country (Turkey) The participants, selected on purposeful sampling, were one group of Turkish learners of English in an EFL department in Turkey and the other group was learners from different nationalities learning Turkish in Turkey. The data were collected through participants’ self-reports, interviews and in-class observations by the researcher. The content analysis mainly revealed that the foreign context did not offer learners adequate chances for exposure to and practice in the target language, which negatively influenced their pragmatic development. However, the target context provided ample chances of natural and authentic communication in which learners of Turkish could develop their pragmatic knowledge and production. Based on these results, some pedagogical and practical suggestions are provided.        

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ayşegül Takkaç-Tulgar, Atatürk University, Turkey

holds a PhD. in English Language Teaching from Atatürk University. She is currently an assistant professor in English Language Teaching Department, Atatürk University, Turkey. Her research interests are cross-cultural pragmatic competence, peace education, glocalization and language education. 

References

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Pragmatics as part of teacher education. TESOL Journal, 1, 28-32.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Introduction to teaching pragmatics. English Teaching Forum, 41(3), 37-39.

Bogdan, Robert C., & Biklen, Sari K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Boxer, D. & Pickering L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 47-61.

Bölükbaş, F. & Keskin, F. (2014). The function of texts in transferring of culture in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Turkish Studies, 5(4), 221-235.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical base of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.l.l.

Charkova, K. & Halliday, L. (2011). Second- and foreign-language variation in tense backshifting in indirect reported speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 1-32. doi:10.1017/S0272263110000513.

Chmielowska, D. & Dikici, İ. (2013). The difficulties in the teaching of Turkish as a foreign Language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1609-1613. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.229.

Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Backwell.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7-year study. Language Learning, 63(2), 163-185.

DuFon, M., & Churchill, E. (2006). Language learners in study abroad contexts. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: the case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research 4(1), 111-138.

Han, S. (2005). The interlanguage pragmatic development of the speech act of requests by Korean non-native speakers of English in an ESL setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1-17.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.003.

Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J.G. (2005). A time and place for qualitative and mixed methods in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 52(2), 123-125.

Huebner, T. (1995). The effects of overseas language programs. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, (p.171-193). Plihadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Price, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Ishiara, N. (2010). Instructional pragmatics: Bridging teaching, research and teacher education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 938-953. Doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00242.x.

Iwasaki, N. (2008). Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan: Becoming active social agents in Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 45-71. doi:10.1093/applin/amn047.

Lee, E. (2016). Advanced ESL students’ prior EFL education and their perceptions of oral corrective feedback. Journal of International Students, 6(3), 798-816.

Limberg, H. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700-718. doi: 10.1177/1362168815590695.

Longcope, P. (2009). Differences between the EFL and the ESL Language Learning Contexts. Studies in Language and Culture, 30(2), 303-320.

Karababa, C. & Çalışkan, G. (2013).Teacher competencies in teaching Turkish as a foreign Language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1545-1551. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.222.

Kasper, G., & Röver, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317- 334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kaya, M. & Oran, G. (2015). The transmission of socio-cultural codes in Teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 1208-1213. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.007.

Kinginger, C. & Blatter, G. (2008). Development of sociolingustic awareness in study abroad. In L. Ortega & H. Brynes (Eds.), Longitudinal studies and advanced L2 capacities (pp.223-246). London: Routledge.

Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: a quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635-679.

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationship among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24, 465-91.

Meihami, H. & Khanlarzadeh, M. (2015). Pragmatic Content in Global and Local ELT Textbooks: A Micro Analysis Study. SAGE Open, 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2158244015615168.

Murray, N. (2010). Pragmatics, awareness raising, and the Cooperative Principle. ELT Journal, 64(3), 293-301.doi:10.1093/elt/ccp056.

Neddar, B. (2012). Short notes on discourse, interlanguage pragmatics and EFL teaching: where do we stand? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 5687-5692. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.498.

Niezgoda, K., & Röver, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In G. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 303e325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ortega, L. (2009). The linguistic environment. In L. Ortega (Ed.), Understanding second language acquisition (pp. 55-81). London: Hodder Arnold.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ren, W. (2013). A longitudinal investigation into L2 learners’ cognitive processes during study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 34, 1-21. doi:10.1093/applin/amt019.

Reynolds-Case, A. (2013). The value of short-term study abroad: An increase in students’ cultural and pragmatic competency. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), p. 311-322. doi: 10.1111/flan.12034.

Roever, C. (2012). What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66(1), 10-21. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq090.

Samaranayake, S. (2016). Oral competency of ESL/EFL learners in Sri Lankan rural school context. SAGE Open, 1(10). DOI: 10.1177/2158244016654202.

Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Saville-Troike, M. (1996). The ethnography of communication. In S. L. McKay and N. H. Hornberger, eds. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56, 269-318.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, (p. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, Language Contact, and the Development of Pragmatic Comprehension in a Study-Abroad Context. Language Learning, 58(1), p. 33-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x.

Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000018.

Taguchi, N. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptability and development of speech act production in study abroad. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1-23. doi: 10.1111/ijal.12073.

Taguchi, N. (2015). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48, 3-20.

Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.

Tosun, C. (2005). Teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 22-28.

Yaylı, D. (2015). Comments of prospective Turkish Teachers on learning Turkish as a foreign language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 459-463. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.365.

Yıldız, Ü. (2013). The need for a department of teaching Turkish as a foreign language: A proposal. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1839-1846. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.261.

Yılmaz, F. (2016). Turkish language and teaching Turkish as a foreign language. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 5(12), 77-81.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zhu, W. (2012). Polite requestive strategies in emails: an investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43(2), 217-238. doi: 10.1177/0033688212449936
Published
2018-12-17
How to Cite
Takkaç-Tulgar, A. (2018). A Qualitative Investigation of Pragmatic Development in Foreign and Target Context. GiST Education and Learning Research Journal, (17), 158-192. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.457