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.200610088Palabras clave:
efectos de la tarea, mensajes telefónicos, correos electrónicos, sugerencias, contexto de lenguas extranjerasResumen
Investigadores en el campo de la pragmática del interlenguaje han examinado el desarrollo de la competencia pragmática de los estudiantes en contextos de segundas lenguas por medio del uso de diferentes instrumentos de recogida de datos. Los resultados han mostrado la existencia de efectos producidos por el tipo de tarea a realizar y se ha apuntado la necesidad de realizar más estudios que amplíen el tipo de instrumento utilizado, así como el contexto en el que se realiza la investigación. En este sentido, el propósito de este análisis es el de examinar el efecto de las tareas que los estudiantes, en un contexto de lenguas extranjeras, deben realizar al utilizar sugerencias en dos tipos de instrumentos: mensajes telefónicos y correos electrónicos. Un total de 81 estudiantes españoles universitarios participaron en el estudio y realizaron sugerencias en tareas de producción oral y escrita. Dichas tareas fueron específicamente creadas para este estudio considerando que: i) todas variaban según el factor sociopragmático de estatus social; ii) se situaban en contextos universitarios, familiares a los participantes; y iii) creaban situaciones en las que los participantes debían realizar el rol de estudiantes. Tras comparar la producción de sugerencias en ambas tareas, los resultados mostraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas, lo que demuestra que el tipo de tarea a realizar influye en el uso de sugerencias empleado. Además, también se demostró que los estudiantes emplearon un mayor número de sugerencias apropiadas en la tarea de producción escrita que en la oral. Tras el análisis de dichos resultados, se presentan implicaciones pedagógicas.
Descargas
Citas
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.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2009 Alicia Martínez-Flor
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
