Requesting in an EFL Institutional Context: Comparing and Contrasting WDCT, ODCT, and Role-Play with Natural Method

Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Rasoul Mohammad Hosseinpur ¹ , Reza Bagheri Nevisi ² , Abdolreza Lowni ³

1 - English Department, Faculty of Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
2 - English Department, Faculty of Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
3 - University of Qom

Received: 2019-02-05 Accepted : 2019-05-25 Published : 2019-07-01

Keywords: natural methodology, ODCT, WDCT, role-play, dependent variables,

Abstract :

Pragmatic assessment has recently opened up a new line of inquiry for many interested researchers within the realm of L2 pragmatics. Accordingly, different methods have been proposed to assess pragmatic competence. Drawing on request speech act, this study aimed at comparing and contrasting Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT), Oral Discourse Completion Task (ODCT), and Role-play with the natural method in terms of five dependent variables: length, repetitions, omissions, inversions, and exclamation particles. To this end, 27 intermediate level EFL learners were asked to make two requests with contextual features of low-status, low-imposition, and two requests with contextual features of high-status, low-imposition using each of the three elicitation techniques. Having recorded the natural talk-in interactions of all students and teachers over 15 weeks, the researchers transcribed the gathered data for further in-depth pragmatic analysis. To analyze the data, Chi-Square and binominal tests were run. The findings indicated that role-play yielded the data closest to the natural method in terms of the dependent variables and the differences between role-play and the natural method were less significant than those inherent in WDCT and ODCT. The study implies that more authentic and natural data can be elicited by incorporating features of the natural method into the other pragmatic data collection procedures, namely, WDCT and ODCT.

References:

Alcon-Soler, E., & Safont, P. (2018). Editors' introduction to mixed methods approaches in investigating pragmatic learning, System, 75, 1-3.  doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.013

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018). Matching modality in L2 pragmatics research design, System, 75, 13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Shin, S. (2014). Expanding traditional testing measures with tasks from L2 pragamtics research. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4 (1), 26-49.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. (2005) Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics research. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 7-36). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatics test: Different purposes, different tests. In R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 301-325). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect fromlearners? Language Teaching, 41(02), 213-235.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2013). Strategies, modification, and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 21-38.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2^nded.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eslami, Z. R., & Mirzaei, A. (2014). Speech acts data collection in a non-western context: Oral and written DCTs in the Persian language. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 137-154.

Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2007). Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 4(2), 159-185.

Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90-121.

Hartford, B. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In L. Bouton and Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monography 3 (pp. 33-520). Urbana-Champaign, IL: DEIL.

House, J. (2018). Authentic vs. elicited data and qualitative vs. quantitative research methods in pragmatics: Overcoming two non-fruitful dichotomies, System, 75, 4-12. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014

Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.

Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencery-Oatey (Eds.), Culturallyspeakin: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (pp. 316-41). London and New York: Continuum.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia.

Martinez-Flor, A. (2012). Examining EFL learners’ long-term instructional effects when mitigating requests. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 243-274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Martínez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (2011). Research methodologies in pragmatics: Eliciting refusals to requests. ELIA, 11, 47-87.

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2007). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Niezgoda, K., & Rover, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528.

Portoles, L., & Safont, P. (2018). Examining authentic and elicited data from a multilingual perspective. The real picture of child requestive behavior in the L3 classroom, System, 75, 81-92.  doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.012

Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.

Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London, UK: Continuum.

Taguchi, N. (Eds.). (2009). Pragmatic competence. Berlin/ New York: Mouton  deGruyter.

Taguchi, N. (2018). Data collection and analysis in developmental L2 pragmatics research: Discourse completion test, role play, and naturalistic recording. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition, (pp. 7-32). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Turnbull, W. (2001). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk: The case of request refusals. Pragmatics, 11(1), 31-61.

Uso-Juan, E. & Martinez-Flor, A. (2014). Reorienting the assessment of the conventional expressions of complaining and apologizing: From the single response to interactive DCTs. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 113-136.

Woodfield, H. (2012). I think maybe I want to lend the notes from you: Development of request modification in graduate learners. In M. Economidou- Kogetsidis& H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 9- 49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatic data gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, and natural conversations. Journal of pragmatics, 33, 271-92.