Task Effects on EFL Learners' Production of Suggestions: A Focus on Elicited Phone Messages and Emails
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200610088Keywords:
task effects, phone messages, emails, suggestions, FL settingAbstract
Scholars in the field of interlanguage pragmatics have examined second language learners’ development of pragmatics by means of employing different data collection instruments. Findings from this research have showed the existence of task effects, although the need to further investigate this area has been claimed by widening the types of instruments being employed as well as the context in which they are used. Accordingly, the present study aims at examining the task effects of two production instruments (phone messages and email tasks) on the learners’ use of suggestions in a foreign language setting. The participants included 81 Spanish university learners who were required to make suggestions in the oral and written production tasks. These tasks were elaborated on purpose for this study, and all situations i) varied according to the sociopragmatic factor of status; ii) were set at
the University setting, as a familiar context to the participants; and iii) asked learners to perform suggestions in the role of students. Learners’ performance when making suggestions in the phone messages and email tasks was compared. The results revealed statistically significant differences, which support the fact that the production task in which learners are engaged in influences their use of suggestions. Moreover, the findings also showed that participants employed a higher number of appropriate suggestions in the written task than in the oral task. These findings are discussed and pedagogical implications highlighted.
Downloads
References
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. “Researching Method.” In Bouton, L.F. (ed.) Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 9. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: 237-264.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Empirical Evidence of the Need for Instruction in Pragmatics.” In Rose, K.R. and G. Kasper (eds.) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 13-32.
Beebe, L. M. and M. C. CUMMINGS. 1985. “Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure.” Paper presented at the Sixth Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium. TESOL, New York.
Beebe, L. M. and M. C. CUMMINGS. 1996. “Natural Speech Data Versus Written Questionnaire Data: How Data Collection Method Affects Speech Act Performance.” In Gass, S. and J. Neu (eds.) Speech Acts Across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 65-86.
Belz, J. A. and C. Kinginger. 2002. “The Cross- Linguistic Development of Address Form Use in Telecollaborative Language Learning: Two Case Studies.” The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59/2.
Belz, J. A. and S. L. Thorne. 2006. Internet- Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1: 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M., Z. Dörnyei, and S. Thurrell. 1995. “Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications.” Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6: 5-35.
Golato, A. 2003. “Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk.” Applied Linguistics, 24/1: 90-121.
Hartford, B. S. and K. Bardovi-Harlig. 1992. “Experimental and Observational Data in the Study of Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Bouton, L.F. and Y. Kachru (eds.) Pragmatics and language learning, vol. 3. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: 33-52.
Houck, N. and S. M. Gass. 1996. “Non-Native Refusal: A Methodological Perspective.” In Gass, S.M. and J. Neu (eds.) Speech Acts Across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 45-64.
Hudson, T., E. Detmer, and J. D. Brown. 1995. Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross- Cultural Pragmatics (Technical Report, 7). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Kasper, G. 2000. “Data collection in pragmatics research.” In Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London and New York: Continuum: 316-341.
Kasper, G. and M. Dahl. 1991. “Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13: 215-247.
Kasper, G. and C. Roever. 2005. “Pragmatics in Second Language Learning.” In Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 317-34.
Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 1999. “Pragmatics and SLA.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19: 81-104.
—. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language (Language Learning Monograph Series). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies on Second Language Acquisition 18: 149-169.
Kinginger, C. 2000. “Learning the Pragmatics of Solidarity in the Networked Foreign Language Classroom.” In Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Ed. J. K. Hall and L. S. Verplaetse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 23-46.
Koester, A. J. 2002. “The Performance of Speech Acts in Workplace Conversations and the Teaching of Communicative Functions.” System, 30: 167-184.
Locastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Michigan: Michigan Press.
Margalef-Boada, T. 1993. Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Data Collection Procedures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.
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.
— 2006. “The effectiveness of explicit and implicit treatments on EFL learners’ confidence in recognising appropriate suggestions.” In Bardovi-Harlig, K., C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. S. Omar (eds.) Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 11. University of Hawaii at Manoa: National Foreign Language Resource Center: 199-225.
Rintell, E. 1979. “Getting your Speech Act Together: The Pragmatic Ability of Second Language Learners.” Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17: 97-106.
Rintell, E. and C. J. Mitchell. 1989. “Studying Requests and Apologies: An Enquiry into Method.” In Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ.: Ablex: 221-247.
Rose, K. R. 1994. “On the Validity of DCTs in Non-Western Contexts.” Applied Linguistics, 15: 1-14.
Safont, M. P. 2005. Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sasaki, M. 1998. “Investigating EFL Students’ Production of Speech Acts: A Comparison of Production Questionnaires and Role Plays.” Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 457-484.
Searle, J. R. 1976. “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society, 5: 1-24.
Tateyama, Y. 2001. “Explicit and Implicit Teaching of Pragmatic Routines.” In Rose, K. R. and G. Kasper (eds.) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 200-222.
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yuan, Y. 2001. “An Inquiry into Empirical Pragmatics Data-Gathering Methods: Written DCTs, Oral DCTs, Field Notes, and Natural Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 271-292.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2009 Alicia Martínez-Flor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
