Jalilifar, A., Dinarvand, R. (2013). An Analysis of Iranian EFL Learners’ Dis-preferred Responses in Interactional Discourse. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(1), 19-44. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2013.1492
Alireza Jalilifar; Roqayeh Dinarvand. "An Analysis of Iranian EFL Learners’ Dis-preferred Responses in Interactional Discourse". Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32, 1, 2013, 19-44. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2013.1492
Jalilifar, A., Dinarvand, R. (2013). 'An Analysis of Iranian EFL Learners’ Dis-preferred Responses in Interactional Discourse', Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(1), pp. 19-44. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2013.1492
Jalilifar, A., Dinarvand, R. An Analysis of Iranian EFL Learners’ Dis-preferred Responses in Interactional Discourse. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2013; 32(1): 19-44. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2013.1492
An Analysis of Iranian EFL Learners’ Dis-preferred Responses in Interactional Discourse
The present study, on the one hand, attempted to investigate the strategies applied in dispreferred responses by Iranian university students of English and the extent to which pragmatic transfer could occur. On the other hand, the study aimed to probe into the association between dispreferred organization and turn-shape. To this end, 31 relevant naturally occurring conversations, totaling 120 min drawn from approximately 9 hr of audio-taped conversations from 40 voluntary students, were recorded from which the refusal strategies and complexity of turns were elicited. The findings suggested that a sizable number of the learners delivered responsibility to other sources using accounts and discourse markers. As for preference organization, the results showed that solidarity was the dominant aspect among the learners. Moreover, the study compared 2 measures of L2 competence: oral interaction and a discourse completion test (DCT). The results showed that the 2 methods induced somewhat different production samples from the learners in terms of frequency, type of refusal strategies, and turn shapes. These variations suggest that production through DCTs cannot depict the complexity of natural conversations in which the speakers find themselves free to control the conversation. Finally, it is important to consider cultural differences in language usage by emphasizing the significance of a curriculum that utilizes the act of refusal within its cultural contexts.
تحلیل پاسخهای پسند نشده در گفتمان فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی
Authors [Persian]
علیرضا جلیلی فر, رقیه دیناروند
Abstract [Persian]
در ارتباط کلامی، پاسخهای پسند نشده می‌توانند برای فراگیران غیربومی که دارای ارزشها و هنجارهای فرهنگی متفاوت با زبان مقصد هستند یک چالش باشند. این تحقیق بر آن است تا استفاده از تدابیر امتناع توسط دانشجویان ایرانی رشته‌ی زبان انگلیسی و میزان همانندی این الگوهای امتناع را با الگوهای زبان مقصد بررسی کند و دریابد تا چه میزان انتقال کاربردی می تواند رخ دهد. هدف دیگر تحقیق، ارزیابی رابطه ی میان سازماندهی جوابهای پسند نشده و ساختار نوبت گرفتن در ارتباط کلامی بوده است. در این راستا، ٤٠ شرکت کننده که بطور تصادفی برای این مطالعه انتخاب شدند در مکالمه‌های شفاهی شرکت کردند، که بر اساس آنها تدابیر بکاررفته در ارائه‌ی جوابهای پسند نشده و پیچیدگی نوبت در صحبت استخراج شد. دیگر هدف مهم این تحقیق مقایسه‌ی دو روش ارزیابی زبان دوم بود. علاوه بر زبان‌آموزانی که در مکالمه‌های شفاهی شرکت کردند، ٢٠ زبان آموز دیگر هم به پرسشنامه‌ی تکمیل گفتمان پاسخ دادند. همه‌ی داده‌ها پس از کد‌گذاری براساس مدل لوینسون (1983) تجزیه و تحلیل شد. نتایج نشان داد که دو روش جمع‌آوری داده‌ها از نظر فراوانی، نوع تدابیر امتناع اتخاذ شده و ساختار نوبت، نمونه های متفاوتی را ارائه دادند. این تفاوت ها دال بر این نکته بود که پرسشنامه‌های تکمیل گفتمان فقط برای بررسی یک ویژگی خاص وارد شده در جوابهای پسند نشده عملی هستند. بطور کلی، یافته‌ها نشان داد که شمار قابل توجهی از یادگیرنده‌ها، با استفاده از عذر و نقش نماهای گفتمان که بیشترین فراوانی را در بین تدابیر بکار گرفته شده توسط شرکت‌کنندگان داشت، تحت تاثیر انتقال کاربردی مسئولیت جواب پسند نشده را به منبع دیگری واگذار کردند. در ارتباط با سازماندهی رجحانی نتایج نشان داد که اتفاق نظر، جنبه‌ی غالب در بین ایرانیان به عنوان فراگیران زبان انگلیسی به عنوان یک زبان خارجی است. همچنین، یافته ها نشان داد که پرسشنامه‌های تکمیل گفتمان نمی‌توانند پیچیدگی مکالمات طبیعی را که در آنها فراگیران اختیار کنترل مکالمه‌ی خود را دارند به تصویر بکشند.
Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, 581-601.
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 1-22.
Al-Shalawi, H. (1997). Refusal strategies in Saudi and American cultures. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, United States of America.
Andersen, G. (2000). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.). Developing communication competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Birley, G., & Moreland, N. (1998). A practical guide to academic research. London: Routledge Press.
Blimes, J. (1988) The concept of preference in conversational analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161-182.
Boyle, R. (2000). Whatever happened to preference organization? Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 583-604.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Longman: Pearson Education.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cashman, H. (2000). Constructing a bilingual identity: Conversation analysis of Spanish/English language use in a television interview. Texas Linguistics Forum, 44, 33-47.
Chang, Y. (2009). How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences, 31, 477-493.
Clayman, S. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. Group Cohesion, Trust and Solidarity, 19, 229-253.
Don, Z. M., & Izadi, A. (2011). Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defenses. Journal of Pragmatics,43(15), 3782-3792.
Fe´lix-Brasdefer, C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Pragmatics, 38, 2158-2187.
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics,28, 410-439.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jebahi, K.. (2010). Tunisian university student’s choice of apology strategies in a discourse completion task. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 1-15.
Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Keshavarz, M., Eslami-Rasekh, Z., & Ghahraman, V. (2006). Pragmatic transfer and Iranian EFL refusals: A cross-cultural perspective of Persian and English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 11, 359-402.
Lazarton, A. (1997). Preference organization in oral proficiency interviews: The case of language ability assessments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 53-72.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.57-101).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.). Talk and social organization (pp. 54-69). England: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., E. A., Schegloff, & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for Conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role-plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role-plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Gchs, E. Schegloff, & A. Thompson (Eds.). Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. (2010) Some other Uh(m)s. Discourse Processes, 47, 130-147.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharifian, F. (2007). L1 cultural conceptualization in L2 learning: The case of Persian-speaking learners of English. In F. Sharifian & G. B. Palmer (Eds.). Applied cultural linguistics (pp. 33-52). The Netherlands: John Benjamin.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (1998). Politeness in Persian interaction: The preference format of offers in Persian. Crossroads of Language, Interaction and Culture, 1, 3-11.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002). A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1807–1832.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991) Cross cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Belin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Top