چکیده:
This study investigated the effects of English as foreign language (EFL) proficiency on what the authors of this study called pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic recognition of EFL learners. To elicit the data, the study used two types of pragmatic measures: a pragmalinguistic recognition (PLR) test and a sociopragmatic recognition (SPR) test. Both tests were developed by the researchers of this study based on the distinction made by Leech (1983) between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Subsequent to the development of the tests, 80 Iranian EFL students were divided into two groups based on their EFL proficiency level: the low level group (n = 41) and the high level group (n = 39). Each participant group was tested on the two pragmatic measures. Pearson correlation results indicated construct differences between PLR and SPR of speech acts. Moreover, independent samples t-test results revealed that there were developmental differences in pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic recognition of speech acts by EFL learners. The findings offer insights to EFL teachers and testers regarding pragmatic instruction and assessment.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Moreover, independent samples t-test results revealed that there were developmental differences in pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic recognition of speech acts by EFL learners.
Roever (2006) developed and validated a web-based test that assessed ESL/EFL learners’ pragmalinguistic knowledge, including knowledge of implicatures, routines, and speech acts (apology, request, and refusal).
Theoretically, use of non-English items in the PLR test was based on the concept of pragmalinguistic failure as presented by Thomas (1983): Pragmalinguistic failure is said to occur: … when the pragmatic force mapped by S onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2.
99) The researchers administered the constructed PLR test (see Appendix A for sample items) to 18 native speakers of British English to identify the key for each item based on frequencies.
This multiple-choice test presented the test-takers with 21 speech act scenarios, which were either constructed by the researchers or taken from the literature (Bardovi- Harlig, 2009; Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006; Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Cheng, 2005; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986), with minor modifications made by the authors.
To construct the SPR test, the researchers administered the scenarios as a written DCT to 15 native speakers of British English and 15 EFL learners.
The superiority of high level learners over low level learners in PLR test and SPR test in this study suggests that learners’ pragmatic competence can develop with their general EFL proficiency.