تأثیر آموزش تکلیف-محور و بازخورد تصحیحی بر ارتقاء توانش منظورشناختی: مطالعه فارسی آموزان سطح میانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، گروه‌های «زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی» و «زبان‌شناسی»، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان، گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

با توجه به نبود پژوهشی جامع در راستای پیشرفت توانش منظورشناختی فارسی‌آموزان غیرایرانی، پژوهش حاضر به آموزش سه کنش­ گفتاری زبان فارسی (درخواست، رد و عذرخواهی) در چارچوب رویکرد تکلیف-محور همراه با ارائه بازخوردهای فرازبانی و بازگویی به فارسی‌آموزان سطح میانی پرداخت. به‌این‌منظور، 80 فارسی‌آموز سطح میانی به‌شکل نمونه­ گیری دردسترس انتخاب و به‌صورت تصادفی به چهار گروه دسته‌بندی شدند: گروه آموزشِ تکلیف-محورِ کنش­های گفتاری به‌همراه ارائه بازخورد فرازبانی؛ گروه آموزشِ تکلیف-محورِ کنش­های گفتاری به‌همراه ارائه بازخورد بازگویی؛ گروه آموزش سنتی کنش­های گفتاری به‌همراه ارائه بازخورد فرازبانی و گروه آموزش سنتی کنش­های گفتاری به‌همراه ارائه بازخورد بازگویی. داده‌های پژوهش با بهره‌گیری از آزمون تکمیل گفتمان تشریحی (Tajeddin et al., 2012) - که روایی و پایایی آن تأیید شده بود- در آغاز و پایان بررسی (پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون) گرد‌آوری و برمبنای مقیاس تاگوچی (Taguchi, 2006) نمره‌‌دهی شد. یافته‌ها نشان داد که آموزش سبب پیشرفت تولید کنش‌های گفتاری می‌شود و همچنین گروهی که سه کنش­ گفتاری را در قالب رویکرد تکلیف-محور و بازخورد فرازبانی دریافت کرده بودند، عملکرد بهتری نسبت به دیگر گروه­ها داشتند. می­توان نتیجه گرفت که (1) تولید کنش­های گفتاری در فارسی‌آموزان از طریق آموزش پیشرفت می‌کند، (2) آموزش تکلیف-محور نسبت به روش سنتی در پیشرفت توانش منظورشناختی فارسی‌آموزان مؤثرتر است و (3) ارائه بازخورد فرازبانی نسبت به بازخورد بازگویی در پیشرفت توانش منظورشناختی غیرفارسی‌زبانان تأثیرگذارتر است. یافته‌های این پژوهش می­تواند در راستای پیشرفت توانش ارتباطی و توانش منظورشناختی فارسی­ آموزان به یاری مدرسان زبان فارسی و طراحان مواد آموزشی بیاید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Task-based Instruction and Corrective Feedback on Pragmatic Competence Development: The Study of Intermediate Learners of Persian

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Zand-Moghadam 1
  • Zahra Tahavvori 2
1 Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Departments of English Language and Literature and Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University. Tehran. Iran
2 PhD Candidate of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran. Iran
چکیده [English]

Developing pragmatic competence as a component of communicative competence has been emphasized by many L2 scholars. This competence enables L2 learners to use their linguistic resources to produce contextually appropriate utterances. Learning a second language is not limited to developing the linguistic competence; understanding L2 functions, speech acts, pragmatic routines, politeness system, etc. is a necessary aspect of second language learning.
Research has shown that even advanced L2 learners may have difficulty with the pragmatic aspects of the second language they are learning. Given its importance, many scholars believe that knowledge of L2 pragmatic system can be developed through instruction. Consequently, teaching L2 pragmatics has become a focus in many studies. Since the pragmatic system forms part of the learners’ interlanguage, this area is referred to as Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP). ILP is rooted in both second language acquisition and pragmatics. A key issue in ILP is to determine the most effective method or mode of instruction for teaching L2 pragmatics.
Throughout the literature, some researchers have compared explicit with implicit methods. Others have focused on inductive and deductive modes of instruction. Recently, however, a few studies have examined the effect of task-based instruction (TBI) on L2 learners’ pragmatic competence, observing that TBI can be helpful in developing many aspects of L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. Additionally, studies on corrective feedback (CF) have focused on developing pragmatic competence by providing different types of CF. However, there is still no definite answer to the question “what is the best method to teach ILP?”. Furthermore, most studies on the development of pragmatic competence and ILP have focused on English as the target language. This means that the effectiveness of instruction and different ways of teaching on the development of pragmatic competence has not been widely investigated in other languages.
Given the lack of comprehensive studies on the effect of TBI and CF on Persian language learners’ pragmatic competence, this study aimed to examine the potential impact of TBI and CF on intermediate Persian learners’ production of the speech acts of request, refusal, and apology.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • interlanguage pragmatics
  • speech act
  • task-based instruction
  • recast
  • metalinguistic feedback

مراجع

  1. خانلرزاده، مبین و مجید نعمتی (1393). بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری در مهارت نگارش زبان دوم: آیا شبه­ بازخورد کافیست؟. پژوهش‌های زبانشناختی در زبان‌های خارجی. دورة 4. شمارة 1. صص 147-166. https://doi.org/10.22059/jflr.2014.61651
  2. درخشان، علی و فرزانه شکّی (1399). «تأثیر روش آموزش کاربردشناسی تشریحی و تلویحی بر درک کنش­های گفتاری معذرت‌خواهی و امتناع در بین دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی سطح متوسط». زبان ­پژوهی. دورة 12. شمارة 35. صص151-175. https://doi.org/10.22051/JLR.2019.23938.1636.
  3. زندمقدم، امیر (1399). بررسی نقش بازخورد تصحیحی در ارتقاء توانش منظورشناختی:  مطالعه فارسی آموزان سطح متوسط. علم زبان. دورة 7. شمارة 11. صص 297-321. https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2020.47314.1278
  4. زندمقدم، امیر و رویا وفائی ­مهر (1396). بررسی مقابله ­ای راهبردهای تولید کنش­های­ گفتاری موافقت کردن و مخالفت کردن در فیسبوک: مقایسه فارسی زبانان با انگلیسی زبانان. مطالعات رسانه­ های نوین. دورة 3. شمارة 11. صص 139- 169. https://doi.org/10.22054/cs.2017.22258.227
  5. زندمقدم، امیر و فرانک اسلامی (1400). تحلیلی بر نگرش مدران زبان فارسی به ارائه بازخورد تصحیحی شفاهی در کلاس درس. پژوهشنامه انتقادی متون و برنامه های علوم انسانی. دورة 21. شمارة 1. صص 119- 137. . https://doi.org/10.30465/crtls.2020.29847.1756
  6. صحرایی، رضامراد و مرضیه السادات اعتمادالاسلامی (1392). بازخوردهای تصحیحی و پاسخ به آن ها در کلاس های فارسی آموزان خارجی. پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان. دورة 2. شمارة 2. صص 31-56. Retrieved from <https://jtpsol.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_448>
  7. غیاثیان، مریم سادات، زهره اسلامی راسخ و امیررضا وکیلی فرد (1392). راهبردهای بیان تقاضا: مقایسه فارسی ­آموزان خارجی با فارسی­ زبانان. پژوهش­نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی­ زبانان. دورة 2. شمارة 2. صص 3-29. Retrieved from https://jtpsol.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_449.html
  8. مدرسی تهرانی، یحیی و محبوبه تاجعلی (1391). کنش گفتاری درخواست: مقایسه فارسی ­زبانان و فارسی ­آموزان. پژوهش­نامه  آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی ­زبانان. دورة 1. شمارة 2. صص 83-107. Retrieved from <https://jtpsol.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_235>
  9. Afrouz, M., Alkawaz, A., Nejad Ansari, D., & Dabaghi, A. (2023). The effect of explicit pragmatic instruction on Iraqi EFL students' production of speech acts: Pragma-linguistic vs. sociopragmatic errors in focus. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 15(31), 1−17. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2023.54597.2521
  10. Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.995763
  11. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2271128/component/file_2271430/content
  12. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K.R., Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. (pp. 13–32). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/
  13. Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
  14. Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (2018). Teaching of pragmatics. In J.I. Liontas (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.1–7). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064933
  15. Barón, J., Luz Celaya, M., & Levkina, M. (2020). Learning pragmatics through tasks when interaction plays a role. Applied Pragmatics, 2(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.18010.bar
  16. Blum-kulka, Sh., & Olshtine, 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
  17. Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0004-6
  18. Derakhshan, A., & Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of apology and request. TESL-EJ, 18(4), 1–24. Available at http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6
  19. Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020). The effect of implicit vs. explicit metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. Journal of Language Research, 12(35), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.22051/JLR.2019.23938.1636 [In Persian]
  20. Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x
  21. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press.
  22. Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3),19–45. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com
  23. Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2),1-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068089.pdf
  24. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587079
  25. Fukuya, Y.J., & Zhang, Y., (2002). The effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 1–47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228821998
  26. Ghiasian, M.S., & Eslami Rasekh, Z., Vakilifard, A. & Sedaghat, E. (2013). Requesting strategies: A comparative study among Persian speakers and foreign Persian learners. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 2(2), 3−29. https://jtpsol.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_449.html [In Persian]
  27. González-Lloret, M. (2018). Pragmatics in technology-mediated contexts. In  Sanchez- Hernández, A. &  Herraiz-Martínez, A. (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp. 17–48). Peter Lang. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330325613
  28. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R.(2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/08587/excerpt/9780521008587
  29. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. )2002(. Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286558594
  30. Kasper, G., & Rover, C. (2002). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. https://moodle.phooe.at/pluginfile.php/144864/mod_resource/content/1/Hinkel.
  31. Khanlarzadeh, M., & Nemati, M. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: Does SEMI-feedback suffice? Journal of Foreign Language Research, 4(1), 147−166. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/jflr.2014.61651
  32. Kim, Y. (2022). The interface between instructed L2 pragmatics and TBLT research: A review of instructional materials. Applied Pragmatics, 4(2), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00007.kim
  33. Koike, D.A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06364.x
  34. 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
  35. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004363
  36. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
  37. Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120805
  38. Martínez-Flor, A. (2004). The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in the English as a foreign language context: A study based on suggestions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitat Jaume I.
  39. Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in the English as a foreign language context. System, 33(3), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.007
  40. Martín-Laguna, S. (2020). Tasks, pragmatics, and multilingualism in the classroom. A Portrait of Adolescent Writing in Multiple Languages, (pp. 20–36). UK: Multilingual Matters. https://www.multilingual-
  41. Martín-Laguna, S., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2013). The effect of proficiency and interlocutor on learners’ performance during refusal focused tasks. In À. Llanes Baró, L. Astrid Ciro, L. Gallego Balsà, & R.M. Mateu Serra (Eds.), La Lingüística aplicada en la era de la globalización, (pp. 80–87). Publicacions de la Universitat de Lleida.
  42. Mey, J.L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Blackwell. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=991892
  43. Modarresi Tehrani, Y., & Tajali, M. (2013). The request speech act: A comparison between Persian speakers and Persian learners. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1(2), 83−107. [In Persian]. https://jtpsol.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_235
  44. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/abs
  45. Olshtain, E., &. Cohen, A.D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45–65. https://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/568/399
  46. Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351164085-19.
  47. Rose, K. R., & Ng. C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145–170). Cambridge University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265288342
  48. Sahraie, R.M., & Etemad Eslami, M. (2013). Corrective feedback and responses from Persian learners. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 2(2), 31−56. https://jtpsol.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_448 [In Persian]
  49. Salemi, A., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). Effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence in suggestion structure. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.188-199
  50. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
  51. Shahsavar, M., Alavi, S. M., & Norouzi, M. H. (2018). Dynamic assessment of pragmatic competence: A case of speech acts of apology and request. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 8(1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.22059/jflr.2018.247058.430
  52. Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Instructed second language English pragmatics in the Iranian context. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39(1), 201–252. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.38481.2886
  53. Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2023). A meta-analysis on the instructed second language pragmatics for the speech acts of apology, request, and refusal in an Iranian EFL context. Language Related Research, 13(6), 461–510. https://doi.org/10.52547/LRR.13.6.15
  54. Shi, X. (2014). On cross-cultural pragmatic failures in C/E interpretation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1033–1037. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.5.1033-1037
  55. Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–535. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
  56. Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00061.x
  57. Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 423– 452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080716
  58. Taguchi, N. (2018). Advanced pragmatic competence. In Malovrh, P. A. & Benati, A. (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 505–526). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch26
  59. Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10
  60. Tajeddin, Z., & Mohammad Hosseinpur, R. (2014). The impact of deductive, inductive, and L1-based consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners' acquisition of the request speech act. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2014.2022
  61. Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). Interface between L2 learners’ pragmatic performance, language proficiency, and individual/group ZPD. Applied Research on English Language, 4(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2015.15495
  62. Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M.H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 15(2), 139–166. http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-1585-en.html
  63. Tan, Z. (2016). Benefits and implementation challenges of task-based language teaching in the Chinese EFL context. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 4(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol4.iss3.522
  64. Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The impact of instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learner’s production of requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 782–790. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.6.782-790
  65. Yang, L., & Ke, C. (2021). Proficiency and pragmatic production in L2 Chinese study abroad. System, 98, 102475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102475
  66. Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277–308. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19012.you
  67. Zand-Moghadam, A. (2020). The role of corrective feedback in developing pragmatic competence: The study of intermediate Persian language learners. Language Science, 7(11), 297–322. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2020.47314.1278
  68. Zand-Moghadam, A., & Eslami, F. (2021). An investigation into Persian language teachers’ attitude toward oral corrective feedback in classroom. Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences, 21(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.30465/crtls.2020.29847.1756 [In Persian]
  69. Zand-Moghadam, A., & Mohandes Samani, F. (2021). Effect of information-gap, reasoning-gap, and opinion-gap tasks on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and comprehension of implicature. TESEL- EJ, 25(1), 1–23. https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume25/ej97a/ej97a5
  70. Zand-Moghadam, A., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2017). A contrastive study of agreement and disagreement strategies in facebook: Persian vs. English. New Media Studies, 3(13), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.22054/cs.2017.22258.227 [In Persian]
  71. Zavialova, A. (2023) Formulaic language in the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence in a community-based classroom. TESL-EJ, 27(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.27105a2

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار