Apples and oranges: The case of written and email DCTS
-
Mehmet Kanik
Abstract
This study aims to investigate whether administering DCT in the form of elicited emails would give different results than written DCT. In particular, the study aims to compare two types of simulations, written-for-written as in elicited email and written-for-oral as in written DCT. To investigate, the DCTs were given to 53 college students, divided into two groups. While a group filled in a written DCT including two request situations, another group made the same requests via emails they sent directly to their professor’s email address. The data was analyzed in terms of whether they included opening and closing, choice of moves and density of requests. The findings show that requests in email data included significantly more closing sequences, were longer and included more moves. Moreover, the choices of moves were significantly different in opening and support sequences. Findings suggest elicited emails may be an alternative approach to simulate reality. As a significant amount of daily and professional conversations take place via electronic mediums today, any attempt in training and assessment in language use should avoid a mismatch between natural reality and its simulation.
References
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and S. Shin. 2014. “Expanding traditional testing measures with tasks from L2 pragmatics research”. Iranian Journal of Language Testing 4(1). 26– 49.Suche in Google Scholar
Beltrán-Palanques, V. 2014. “Testing and piloting research methodologies in interlanguage pragmatics: Voices from test-takers”. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities 2(2). 397–412.Suche in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. “Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language”. Applied Linguistics 3. 29–59.10.1093/applin/3.1.29Suche in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Suche in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olhstain. 1984. “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics 5. 196–213.10.1093/applin/5.3.196Suche in Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and N. Lorenzo-Dus. 2008. “Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural speech act realization: The case of requests in Peninsular Spanish and British English”. Spanish in Context 5(2). 246–277.10.1075/sic.5.2.06lorSuche in Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. 2011. “Openings and closings in Spanish email conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1772–1785.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.002Suche in Google Scholar
Byon, A.S. 2006. “Developing KFL students’ pragmatic awareness of Korean speech acts: The use of discourse completion tasks”. Language Awareness 15(4). 244–263.10.2167/la410.0Suche in Google Scholar
Chen, X., L. Yand, Q. Chang and Z. Eslami. 2015. “Pragmatic usage and academic email requests: A comparative and contrastive study of written DCT and email data”. Lingue e Linguaggi 15. 75–85.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. 2004. “Assessing speech acts in a second language”. In: Boxer, D. and A. D. Cohen (eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 302–327.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1981. “Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology”. Language Learning 31(1). 113–134.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01375.xSuche in Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2004. Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Eslami, Z.R. and A. Mirzaei. 2014. “Speech act data collection in a non-western context: Oral and written DCTs in the Persian language”. Iranian Journal of Language Testing 4(1). 137–154.Suche in Google Scholar
Golato, A. 2003. “Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk”. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 90–121.10.1093/applin/24.1.90Suche in Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In: Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 3). New York: Academic Press. 41–58.Suche in Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. 1997. “Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data”. Applied Linguistics 18(1). 1–26.10.1093/applin/18.1.1Suche in Google Scholar
Hudson, T., E. Detmer and J.D. Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Johnston, B., G. Kasper and S. Ross. 1998. “Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires”. Applied Linguistics 19(2). 157–182.10.1093/applin/19.2.157Suche in Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. 2009. “Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments”. Journal of Pragmatics 41(8). 1611–1635.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004Suche in Google Scholar
Lorenzu-Dus, N. and P. Bou-Franch. 2003. “Gender and politeness: Spanish and British undergraduates’ perception of appropriate requests”. In: Santaemilia, J. (ed.), Género, lenguaje y traducción. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia/Dirección General de la Mujer. 187–199.Suche in Google Scholar
Montero-Fleta, B., A. Montesinos-López, C. Pérez-Sabater and E. Turney. 2009. “Computer mediated communication and informalization of discourse: The influence of culture and subject matter”. Journal of Pragmatics 41(4). 770–779.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.039Suche in Google Scholar
Rose, K.R. 1994. “On the validity of discourse completion tests on non-western contexts”. Applied Linguistics 15(1). 1–14.10.1093/applin/15.1.1Suche in Google Scholar
Rose, K.R. 1992. “Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response”. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1). 49–62.10.1016/0378-2166(92)90028-ASuche in Google Scholar
Rose, K.R. and R. Ono. 1995. “Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type”. Language Learning 45(2). 191–223.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00438.xSuche in Google Scholar
Sasaki, M. 1998. “Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays”. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4). 457–484.10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00013-7Suche in Google Scholar
Schauer, G.A. and S. Adolphs. 2006. “Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy”. System 34(1). 119–134.10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003Suche in Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Suche in Google Scholar
Usó-Juan, E. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2014. “Reorienting the assessment of the conventional expressions of complaining and apologising: From single-response to interactive DCTs”. Iranian Journal of Language Testing 4(1). 113–136.Suche in Google Scholar
Varghese, M. and K. Billmyer. 1996. “Investigating the structure of discourse completion tests.” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12(1). 39–58.Suche in Google Scholar
Woodfield, H. 2008. “Problematising discourse completion tasks: Voices from verbal report”. Evaluation and Research in Education 21(1). 43–69.10.2167/eri413.0Suche in Google Scholar
Yoon, Y.B. and D. Kellogg. 2002. “‘Ducks’ and ‘parrots’: Elaboration, duplication and duplicity in a cartoon discourse completion test”. Evaluation and Research in Education 16(4). 218–239.10.1080/09500790208667020Suche in Google Scholar
Yuan, Y. 2001. “An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2). 271–292.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-XSuche in Google Scholar
Zuskin, R.D. 1993. “Assessing L2 sociolinguistic competence: In search of support from pragmatic theories”. Pragmatics and Language Learning 4. 166–182.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2017 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- A feature-based analysis of the syntax of the clause-initial particle ʁedɪ in North Hail Arabic
- Extraction facts and the internal structure of nominal constructions in Polish – (A report on) an empirical study
- Vowel shortening in Persian: A phonological analysis
- Apples and oranges: The case of written and email DCTS
- Pragmatic force modifiers in ELF academic discussions
- On the role of language contact in the reorganization of grammar: A case study on two Modern Greek contact-induced varieties
- The perception and interpretation of contrastive focus by Polish children and adults
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- A feature-based analysis of the syntax of the clause-initial particle ʁedɪ in North Hail Arabic
- Extraction facts and the internal structure of nominal constructions in Polish – (A report on) an empirical study
- Vowel shortening in Persian: A phonological analysis
- Apples and oranges: The case of written and email DCTS
- Pragmatic force modifiers in ELF academic discussions
- On the role of language contact in the reorganization of grammar: A case study on two Modern Greek contact-induced varieties
- The perception and interpretation of contrastive focus by Polish children and adults
