A Contrastive Analysis of English and Persian Native Speakers' Use of Gambits

Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Azizeh Chalak ¹ , Zahra Norouzi ²

1 - Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Accepted : 2017-10-17 Published : 2014-09-01

Keywords: Gambit Tokens, Gambit Categories, Routine Formulas, Gambits,

Abstract :

Conversations contain spontaneous use of routine formulas which lets speaker sinteract with each other to express opinions. Gambits, as one of these formulas, act as an opening remark and help speakers to maintain the smooth flow of an everyday conversation. The lack of mastery of using gambits in maintaining the conversation leads to breakdowns in speaking. This paper aimedat comparingthe use of different categories of gambitsby native speakers of English and Persian. Toachieve this end, a corpus of 40 hours from Persian Native Speakers (PNSs) and English Native Speakers (ENSs) with an equal number of participants was selected through recordings of conversations from different TV Channels. Following the literature, the frequency of gambit tokens was counted and their functions were classified. Chi-square test revealed significant differences between PNSs and ENSs regarding the occurrences of gambit categories. The findings of this study can have implications for language learners and practitioners in the field. The present research demonstrates to language learners the need for learning gambit expressions as elements to improve the quality of their speaking and also to use the language in meaningful interaction with others.

References:

Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and pre-patterned speech. The Hague: Moutan.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1981).Let’s talk and talk about it: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. München u.a: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Ghonsooly, B., Khaghaninezhad, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2010). Formulaic writing: A novel approach to writing instruction. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 56, 127-148.
Keller, E. (1981). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine  (pp. 93-113). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Keller, E. & Warner, S. T. (1976).Gambits. England: Canadian Government Publication Centre.Longman dictionary of American English (4thEd.). England: Laurence Delacroix.
Keller, E. & Warner, S. T. (2002). Conversation gambits: Real English conversation practices (3rdEd.).  Boston: Language Teaching Publications.

Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation analysis. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2, 153-163.
Peters, A. M. (1983). The unitsoflanguage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roever, C. (2011). What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. Oxford University Press, 66, 10-21.
Sert, O. (2013). Integrating digital video analysis software into language teacher education: Insights from conversation analysis.  Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 231-238.
Sorhus, H. B. (1977). To hear ourselves: Implications for the teaching of English as a second language. English Language Teaching Journal, 31, 211–21.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180-205.
Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘Polite’ noises for cultural appropriateness. IRAL, 22, 3–17.
Wray, A. (2000) .Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice.Applied linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Yorio, C. A. (1980). Conventionalized language forms and the development of communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 433–42.
Yorio, C. A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency.  In K. Hyltenstam  & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 55-72).  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.