English language teaching
Mehran Memari; Fateme Hafez
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of corrective feedback on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) development in the context of invitation acceptance and declination. Three intact experimental groups were selected via convenience sampling from an English ...
Read More
This study investigates the effect of corrective feedback on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) development in the context of invitation acceptance and declination. Three intact experimental groups were selected via convenience sampling from an English institute in Tehran: a recast group (N = 13), a metalinguistic group (N = 17), and a clarification request group (N = 12). Prior to the treatment, the groups participated in a dialogic extended discourse pretest. The dialogues for invitation acceptance and declination were drawn from Top Notch, American English File, English Result, and Four Corners. Learners’ performance was assessed using two checklists—one for pragmalinguistic and the other for sociopragmatic knowledge—based on a five-item Likert scale ranging from inappropriate to most appropriate. Treatment sessions were conducted three times per week, each lasting 60 minutes, over a period of one month. The findings reveal that corrective feedback significantly enhanced ILP development. Notably, the metalinguistic group outperformed the recast and clarification request groups. Consequently, metalinguistic corrective feedback proved more effective than recast and clarification feedback in fostering Iranian EFL learners’ ILP development concerning invitation acceptance and declination.
Azadeh Alizadeh Tabaghi; Baqer Yaqubi; Shirin Abadikhah
Volume 11, Issue 24 , December 2019, , Pages 1-28
Abstract
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 ...
Read More
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.
Mohammad Khatib; Khadijeh Lotfi
Volume 7, Issue 15 , May 2015, , Pages 43-67
Abstract
Although studies on pragmatics in general and politeness in particular abound in the literature, impoliteness has been largely ignored. In the present study, participants filled out either the Persian or English version of a discourse completion test (DCT). The researchers analyzed collected answers ...
Read More
Although studies on pragmatics in general and politeness in particular abound in the literature, impoliteness has been largely ignored. In the present study, participants filled out either the Persian or English version of a discourse completion test (DCT). The researchers analyzed collected answers to discover the relationship between impoliteness and power. Furthermore, the researchers compared responses to the Persian version with responses to the English version to see if they diverge regarding the relationship between impoliteness and power. According to the number of impoliteness strategies used, the results show that though there is a positive relationship between impoliteness and power in Persian, there is no relationship in English responses. In comparing the mentioned relationship in two languages, there is a significant difference between them. This led to the conclusion that the learners did not realize the relationship between impoliteness and power in English, whereas in answering the Persian DCT their answers showed the recognition of that relationship.
