Teaching English Pragmatics in an EFL Context: Effects of Obtrusive and Unobtrusive Focus on Form Instructions
محورهای موضوعی : language teachingElaheh Zaferanieh 1 , عباس اسلامی راسخ 2
1 - English Department of the University of Isfahan
2 - English Department of the University of Isfahan
کلید واژه: Focus on Form, English pragmatics, Obtrusive instruction, Unobtrusive instruction,
چکیده مقاله :
With the aim of more emphasis on pragmatics and its inclusion in EFL classrooms, this study attempted to investigate the effectiveness of obtrusive and unobtrusive focus on form instructions on learners’ pragmatic performance of criticizing in English. 54 Iranian learners, all at intermediate level, participated in this study, and they were divided into three groups: 19 participants receiving obtrusive instruction, 21 learners receiving unobtrusive instruction and 14 participants had no pragmatic instruction (control group). Techniques related to each method were operationalized in details and applied in the classrooms. The most basic techniques in obtrusive methods were consciousness raising activities, metalinguistic explanation, and explicit correction. In unobtrusive method, input enhancement activities, and recast were used. Discourse completion test and oral feedback were used as pretests and posttests in this study. After applying statistical analyses using ANOVA, it was found that learners’ pragmatic knowledge of criticizing improved significantly in both kinds of instructions. Also, results of post hoc analyses indicated that learners in obtrusive focus on form instruction outperformed those in unobtrusive focus on form instruction significantly. These results were justified through noticing hypotheses, importance of metalinguistic explanations, effects of explicit correction, and output hypothesis. These findings may have great implications for language teachers, syllabus designers, and future researchers.
به منظور تاکید بیشتر بر منظورشناسی زبان دوم و گنجاندن ان در کلاسهای اموزش زبان انگلیسی، در این مطالعه محققان تلاش کردند تاثیر روشهای اموزشی فرم محور مداخله ای و غیر مداخله ای را بر دانش منظورشناسی فراگیران انگلیسی مورد ارزیابی قرار دهند. در این تحقیق تاکید بر کنش رفتاری "انتقاد کردن" بود. 54 فراگیر ایرانی در سطح زبانی متوسط در این تحقیق شرکت کردند و به سه گروه تقسیم شدند: 19 نفر مربوط به روش مداخله ای، 21 نفر مربوط به روش غیر مداخله ای و 14 نفر هم در گروه کنترل بودند. تستهای اولیه گرفته شد و سپس تکنیکهای مربوط به هر روش خیلی دقیق در کلاسها اجرا شدند. اصلی ترین تکنیکهای روش مداخله ای عبارت بودند از فعالیت های اگاهی انگیزی، توضیحات کاملا عینی و شفاف و اصلاحات مستقیم توسط معلم. در روش غیر مداخله ای، فعالیت های تقویت داده و اصلاحات غیر مستقیم استفاده شد. بعد از اتمام و اجرای روشهای اموزش، تست ثانویه از فراگیران گرفته شد و با استفاده ازروشهای اماری انوا داده ها تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. نتایج تحلیل داده نشان داد که دانش منظورشناسی انگلیسی افراد در گروههایی که اموزش دیدید پیشرفت چشم گیری داشت. همچنین یافته ها حاکی از ان بود که فراگیران روش مداخله ای به طور معناداری بهتر از گروه دیگر عمل کردند. این نتایج میتواند کاربرد زیادی برای معلمان زبان، برنامه ریزان درسی و محققان داشته باشد.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993).Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
Cohen, A., 1996. Developing the ability to perform speech acts.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 253–267.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukuya, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2002).The effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request.Second Language Studies, 21 (1), 1–47.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies.Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2), 225–252
Jeon, E., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In John, Norris, Ortega, Loudres (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp.165-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell: Oxford.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 149–169.
Kubota, M. (1995).Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners.IRLT Bulletin 9, 35–67.
Liddicoat, A., & Crozet, C. (2001).Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 125–144). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input.Applied Linguistics 4, 126–141.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, Kees, Ginsberg, Ralph, Kramsch, Claire (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, Catherine, Williams, Jessica (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287.
Lyster, Roy, 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
Martinez-Flor, A., &Fukuya, Y. (2005).The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions.System 33, 463–480
Nguyen, T.T.M. (2005). Criticizing and responding to criticisms in a foreign language: a study of Vietnamese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of Auckland, Auckland.
Nguyen, T.T.M., Pham, T.H., & Pham, M.T. (2012).The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44,(4), 416-434..
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33, 385–399.
Rose, K., &Kwai-fun, N. (2001).Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.145-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saeidi, M. (2007) Multiple intelligence-based focus on form approach: From theory to practice. Tabriz: Islamic Azad University of Tabriz.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In Gabriele, Kasper, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.21-42). Oxford University Press, New York.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, Madden, Carolyn (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-256). Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.
Takahashi, S. (2001).The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171−199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2010).Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics.In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, handbooks of pragmatics, Vol. 7 (pp. 391−421). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System,34, 601−614.
Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1−25.
