Bridging the pragmatic gap between native and non-native English instructors: A comparative analysis of apology patterns

Dilşah Kalay

doi:10.14687/jhs.v20i4.6428

Authors

Dilşah Kalay Kütahya Dumlupınar University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0681-3179

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v20i4.6428

Keywords:

apologies, pragmalinguistic knowledge, pragmatic gap, native & non-native comparison, speech acts

Abstract

The communicative movement, which emerged in the early 1970s, has been pivotal in shifting the focus of language study towards the contextual use of language. Within this movement, the field of pragmatics has come to the forefront, illuminating the intricate relationship between language and context. Pragmatics presents a unique challenge in language acquisition. It encompasses two critical dimensions: pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge. Pragmalinguistic knowledge involves the ability to employ specific linguistic forms to convey intended meanings within a given context. In contrast, sociopragmatic knowledge delves deeper, demanding an understanding of the temporal and societal norms that govern when and where linguistic forms should be employed. The successful execution of speech acts serves as a vivid illustration of this duality, requiring proficiency in both pragmalinguistic forms and adherence to sociocultural norms within a language community. The present study seeks to address this gap (with the research aim) by investigating the pragmatic competence of non-native English teachers in comparison to their native counterparts. We specifically focus on their speech act productions, aiming to shed light on any discernible differences. Our research findings carry broader conclusions and some implications for language pedagogy as they contribute to our understanding of the complex interplay between language acquisition, contextual factors, and pragmatic competence. This study investigates the pragmatic competence of non-native English teachers, comparing it to that of native English teachers, with a specific focus on their speech act productions. By shedding light on these differences, this research contributes to our understanding of the intricate interplay between language acquisition, context, and pragmatic competence. Ultimately, it underscores the importance of incorporating explicit pragmatics training in teacher development programs, equipping educators with the tools needed to foster comprehensive language proficiency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Dilşah Kalay, Kütahya Dumlupınar University

Asst. Prof. Dr., Kütahya Dumlupınar University, the School of Foreign Languages

References

Afghari, A. (2007). A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech Communication, 49(3), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003.

Bachman, L. F. (1991). Fundamental considerations in language testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/329499.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Berns, M. (1992). Sociolinguistics and the teaching of English in Europe beyond the 1990s. World Englishes, 11(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.1992.tb00043.x.

Belz J. A. (2003). Teachers as lntercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaborations along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71-89.

Blum‐Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)1. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, I(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/i.1.1.

Canale, M. (2014). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language & Communication, 14–40. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836027-6.

Cesur K. (2010). Apology strategies of Turkish university students: Effect of multiple-choice discourse completion test, The Sixth International ELT Research Conference, Çanakkale, Türkiye, 14-16 May 2010, 448–453.

Chapelle, C. (2004). Learning through online communication: Findings and implications from second language research. Seminar Series on Researching Dialogue and Communities of Enquiry in e-Learning in Higher Education. Heslington, UK: University of York.

Crystal, D. (2016). English as a Global Language. In Multilingual Matters eBooks (pp. 34-62). https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095681-004.

Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.275.

Erling, E. J. (2005). The many names of English. English Today, 21(1), 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078405001094.

Exline, J. J., DeShea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(4), 479-504. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.4.479.

Flor, A. M., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.007.

Harris, S., Grainger, K., & Mullany, L. (2006). The pragmatics of political apologies. Discourse & Society, 17(6), 715-737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506068429,

Holmes, J. (1997). Women, men and politeness. Language, 73(2), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/416031.

Hymes, D. H., Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (1979). On communicative competence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Intachakra, S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: Apologies and thanks in English and Thai *T. RELC Journal, 35(1), 37-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500105.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00111.x.

Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes, 28(2), 200-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.2009.01582.x.

Jorda, M. P. S. (2005). Third language learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Multilingual Matters.

Kanık, M. (2010). The use of pragmatic strategies by nonnative english-speaking teachers of English as a foreign language in Turkey and native English-speaking teachers of English as a second language in the USA. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Istanbul University.

Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 502–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.502.

Kayman, M. A. (2004). The state of English as a global language: communicating culture. Textual Practice, 18(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950236032000140131.

Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008.

Kuo, I. (2006). Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 60(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl001.

Lazaraton, A. (2004). Conversation analysis and the non-native English-speaking ESL teacher: A Case study. In Diana Boxer and Andrew D. Cohen (Eds.) Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards. Language Teaching, 34(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444800016062.

McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00035.

McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: the social dimension. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 242-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00117.x.

Mollin, S. (2006). English as a lingua franca: a new variety in the new expanding circle? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.11.

Nasiri, S. R. & Forutan, A. (2015). On the Iranian EFL teachers apology production. Journal of Language, Linguistics and Literature, (1)3, 65-74.

Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd (eds). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley Mass: Newbury House, 18-36.

Peeters, B., Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1998). Developing prototypic measures of Cross-Cultural pragmatics. Language, 74(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.2307/417610.

Salehi, R. (2014). A comparative analysis of apology Strategy: Iranian EFL learners and Native English speakers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1658-1665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.590.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching : contexts and concerns in teacher education. In Yale University Press eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA56762289.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00011.

Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339-341.

Shahrokhi, M., & Jan, J. B. M. (2012). The realization of apology strategies among Persian males. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 692-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.183.

Soler, E. A. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00010-7.

Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.006.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91.

Walker, R. (2006). Native or non-native? Or the best of both worlds? Forum: native or non-native - Can we still wonder who is better? TESOL-EJ, 10(1).