Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and comprehensive

Sykes, Julie M.; Cohen, Andrew D.

doi:10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.9

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has demonstrated the benefits and need for explicit instruction of speech acts, cross-linguistic comparisons, cross-cultural awareness (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001;Martínez-Flor &Usó-Juan, 2006;Martínez-Flor &Usó-Juan, 2010b;Takimoto, 2008), and in general, the explicit strategic approach to development of ILP (Cohen, 2018;Sykes & Cohen, 2018). A variety of materials for pragmatic instruction in general (Sykes, 2018;Taguchi & Sykes, 2012) and teaching greetings and conversation openings in particular have been developed (Wong & Waring, 2010). An important issue here is the representation of speech acts in EFL textbooks which might provide deficient illustrations of speech acts including greetings (Kakiuchi, 2005;Usó-Juan, 2007;Williams, 2001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interlanguage Pragmatics of Greetings

Shleykina¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study centers on interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. It investigates semantic formulas (SF) in the speech act of greeting as performed by Russian EFL learners. In particular, it compares the non-native speakers' (NNS) and native speakers' (NS) production of SF in terms of number, frequency, and content. A Free Discourse Completion Test (FDCT) containing 16 situational prompts elicited greetings by the English NNSs and NSs. The results demonstrate significant differences in NS and NNS production in terms of number, frequency, and content of greetings strategies, namely, greetings proper, phatic questions and phrases, address terms, and situational greetings. The differences result from negative pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer, lack of appropriate linguistic means, attitude towards the FDCT, and induced instruction. Important pedagogical implications for pragmatic instruction are discussed. The results contribute to a better understanding of how EFL learners greet and respond to greetings. They also shed light on the discussion of L2 learners' pragmatic competence and appropriateness.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interlanguage Pragmatics of Greetings

Shleykina¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pawlak, 2018c), pragmatics (e.g. Sykes & Cohen, 2018), translation (e.g. Cohen, 2001) or speaking (not just communication strategies) (Pawlak, 2018c), and it is reasonable to assume that these areas should be researchers’ first priority.…”

Section: Reflections On Future Research Into Language Learning Strate...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges

Pawlak

2019

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major advances have been made in research on language learning strategies (LLS) since it was triggered by good language learner studies (e.g. Rubin, 1975). Numerous accounts of strategy use have been compiled, key classifications have been proposed, some progress has been made towards furthering our understanding of the complex relationship between LLS use and attainment, an array of factors impacting strategy use has been investigated, some evidence has been gathered for the beneficial role of strategies-based instruction, and new data collection tools have been developed (see e.g. Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2018, 2019; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 2017; Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018; Pawlak, 2011; Pawlak & Oxford, 2018). While acute problems related to the definition of LLS, their characteristics, their separation from regular learning activities or their actual utility have surely not disappeared, some promising solutions have been proposed (Griffiths, 2018; Oxford, 2017) and calls to abandon the concept have been countered (Dörnyei, 2005). This said, a question arises as to what can be done to move the field forward. Following a brief overview of existing research, the article tackles this issue with respect to the following areas: (1) foci of future research, (2) methodological choices, and (3) consideration of how research findings can inform pedagogy.

show abstract

“…DeCapua and Findlay-Dunham (2007) suggest that these kinds of pragmatic errors are less tolerated by the native speakers, and people using these expressions are mostly defined as "rude, arrogant or insincere" (p. 320). Moreover, they may experience misinterpretations, communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, and ethnocentric conflicts with the native speakers, and fail to maintain proper communication with native speakers of the target culture (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001;DeCapua & Findlay-Dunham, 2007;Kecskes, 2015;Shemshadsara, 2012;Sykes & Cohen, 2018). Thus, it is important to know these linguistic and socio-pragmatic features in English.…”

Section: Advice Giving Strategies In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Complexity of Pragmatic Competence: A Comparative Analysis of Native English Speakers’ and Turkish ESL Students’ Advice-giving Strategies

Yilmaz

2022

Dil Eğitimi Ve Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies revealed that English as a second language (ESL) speakers and native English speakers (NES) used different strategies to give advice in English due to ESL speakers’ limited pragmatic competence. It is important to identify these differences because they can cause cross-cultural misunderstandings and misattribution of intent. However, only few studies compared Turkish ESL students’ and NES’ advice-giving strategies, and there is a gap in the literature that analyzed Turkish ESL students’ advice-giving strategies in both English and Turkish to understand how they develop pragmatic competence in English. This study aimed to fill this gap by comparing not only the advice-giving strategies that NES students and Turkish ESL students utilized, but also analyzing the differences in Turkish ESL students’ advice-giving strategies in Turkish and English. The findings revealed structural and pragmatic differences between the advice of Turkish ESL students and native English-speaking students. Moreover, Turkish ESL students used more complex and longer sentences and more idioms and demonstrated more politeness in their Turkish advice.

show abstract

Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and comprehensive

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

The Interlanguage Pragmatics of Greetings

The Interlanguage Pragmatics of Greetings

Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges

The Complexity of Pragmatic Competence: A Comparative Analysis of Native English Speakers’ and Turkish ESL Students’ Advice-giving Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About