English Speech Act - Research Paper Example

English Speech Act English Speech Act Introduction This paper is an overview to investigate the function of speech acts in second orforeign language practice. It initially begins with an evaluation of the term grammatical proficiency and its relation with more inclusive term communicative excellence. It then addresses the elements of the communicative expertise stressing the function of speech acts in the human day-to-day application of language. However, as a foreign English teacher we have always experienced learners who are capable of creating grammatically well-stated utterance that are not suitable for the field in which they are applied. People interact differently and forms of communication vary greatly on what is under discussion. One form of speech act is apologizing. The situation of apologizing is necessary when the speaker’s actions infringes social norms. When an utterance or practice has led to an offense, the accused should apologize. As a result, we handle two groups: an apologizer and on the other hand the recipient of apology. However, the act is based on if the individual who created the transgression admits and apologizes. The practice of apologizing needs an utterance or action that is supposed to put things in the right place. Whether a given discourse conditions calls for an apology and if a given utterance succeeds as such an apology will be based on either social-cultural or linguistic norms. Teaching speech acts allows EFL learners to be mindful of the sociolinguistic pacts of language application and cultural variances that make up the suitable fix in English in contrary to their initial socio-linguistic structures. Literature review Olshtain and Cohen (1991) in respect to language competency stated the way we narrate an incident that also emphasizes the significance of mastering language and presenting the right thing at the right moment is critical in speech act. In some instance, people may use or say something that can cause embarrassment to others. For example, while serving tea one may say “more tea please” to Americans, the utterance of the word “tea please!” is interpreted as a request while not an offer. One may have mastered grammar principles, but just mastering the rules, though crucial, is not adequate for effective communication. The fundamental question for consideration on this is is speech acts haphazardly extracted in the stage of second language acquisition or must they been logically taught? Ellis (1992), Olshtain and Cohen (1991), and King and Silver (1993) have debated that training speech acts to foreign students has caused an impact on the performance. For instance, Olshtain and Cohen (1991) initially pre-examined a team of students on their apologizing behavior. After which they offered them some guidelines on how to create an apology as per the native style. The outcome of examination indicated that the utterance generated by students were largely in accordance to native behavior. From the Chomsky’s culture, a native person’s skills of their mother tongue, precisely referred to as grammatical proficiency, is the inferred skill that allows them to develop and interpret phrases, words, and sentences in their native language (Radford, 1997). Therefore, a native reciter’s grammatical proficiency informs them that the phrase pile is entailed of detached sounds units, hence that the first sound /p/ may be replaced with a somehow different sound /b/ to create varied word bile. This implied skill also enables native reciter of English to understand the word unknown is comprised of two equal units, prefix un (negative) and the adjective known. Furthermore, the grammatical proficiency allows native reciters to organize words in varied manner in order to generate a varied meaning and implications (Ouhalla, 1999) such as the baby like the dog and the dog likes the baby. This is what adds to a native person’s skill of dialectal in Chomskyan model. Depending on this idea, he may generate a lasting number of sentences in mother tongue. In addition, he may tell the dissimilarities between appropriate and inappropriate sentences that he may encounter. Nevertheless, for the past three decades, Hymes (1982) condemned the Chomskyan idea of grammatical proficiency through claiming that it does not sufficiently reflect our skill of interaction. Because of this, Hymes applied the term communicative proficiency to show a more attractive picture of our language capacity. On the other hand, Hymes stated that communicative proficiency is the capacity to just use the grammatical principles of language to develop grammatically accurate sentences but in addition recognizes when and where to apply these sentences. In support for these assumptions, Canale and Swain (1980) gave the initial experimental paradigm of the communicative proficiency. This paradigm later changed and improved by Canale (1983). Where, as per Canale, the communicative proficiency is comprised of the following elements. Grammatical proficiency: This type of expertise handles the competency of the language encryption. It entails characteristics and principles of language like word formation, vocabulary, pronunciation, and sentence development. Sociolinguistic proficiency: This expertise handles the suitability issue, i.e. the way utterance are formed and understood suitably in straight sociolinguistic aspects. Canale (1983) claimed that suitability of utterance refers to both accuracy of meaning and suitability of form. Accuracy of meaning handles the scope to which a given communicative functions (like apologizing, commanding, advice, refusal, etc.) are weighed to be correct in a given condition. For example, we cannot imagine a restaurant waiter to command a client to order a given menu item or applies well-developed sentences. Discourse proficiency: this form of mastery addresses the way sentences are joined to create written or unified spoken texts. This combination is attained by coherence and cohesion. Cohesion functions with the way utterance are fixed together by ellipsis, pronouns, conjunctions, etc. on the other hand; coherence is the systematic associations among various sections of a text. Therefore, it is likely to have a text that adores coherence in absence cohesive links as in Widdowson (1998). Strategic reliance: This element deals with the competency of applying communication plans to reimburse for breakdowns while interacting, and to improve the efficiency of interaction. For instance, if an individual does not figure out a certain grammatical form, a suitable reimbursement plan, which may be applied, is paraphrase. An English speech act is normally referred to as an operational unit in interaction. Austin (2002) claimed that utterance comprises of three types of implications. The first type is locutionary implication, i.e. the propositional or exact implication of utterance. When a person states, “It is hot here,” and just imply this nothing else, then his interest is only the hot temperature within the room. The other type is illocutionary that has more of social roles of utterance. The last for of implication is the perlocutionary force that addresses the outcome or impact generated by an utterance. On the same note, another scholar named Searle worked studied more on speech acts and located functions to each. Afterwards, he categorized them as per five classifications that in respect to Yule (1996) are: i. Representative, that refers of forms of speech acts that define what the reciter trusts to be the situation or not. Statements of assertions, ideas, and conclusions are part of this category. ii. Declaration, that refers to those types of speech acts, which change the globe by their utterance. For instance, I now declare you married couples. iii. Expressive those are the forms of speech acts, which define what the orator feels. They express different psychological definitions such as joy, likes, dislikes, sorrow, etc. iv. Directives that are forms of speech acts, which the reciter gets an individual to carry out something. Request, commands, orders, and proposals belong here. v. Commissives that are forms of speech acts, which the reciter apply to dedicate themselves to given plans like promises. Methodology A pre-training questionnaire comprising of 15 items, in addition to 10 discourse completion items and 5 accuracy items, was utilized for this analysis from questionnaires created by Olshtain and Cohen (1986). The pre-training questionnaire contained situational items enclosing three speech acts and six apologies. The questionnaire also had seven questions asking learners to evaluate and relate the speech act from different regions as well as how members perceive them. This was taken during their lesson and items adopted for the teaching of apologies in their course. Students’ response on the lesson and debate of the different activities was expected at the end of the study. Analysis The first question reflected the number and form of semantic indicators adopted in the apology identification. The most fundamental variance between native speakers and the radical students contributing in the activity, as illustrated by answers on the questionnaire was the notion that usually non-native speakers apply just a single strategy instead of the plain apology, whereas native speakers inclined to include other strategies on the plain apology. When relating the real number of plans adopted in pre as well as post questionnaire the variance is not common but a qualitative evaluation produce fascinating changes in learners’ selection of apology identifications. For instance, from the following situation Student 1- in a situation where he/she had forgotten to buy medicine for the neighbor’s patient Pre: unluckily not yet, nevertheless I will be pleased to do it now. Post: I am extremely sorry. I can do it just now. For this situation, the number of approaches applied to apologize has not differed but the real selection is varied. Whereas for pre-situation, the learner adopted a weak expression of liability (unluckily not yet purchased it) with an offer to correct. For post-situation the same learner gives a weighty expression of apology as well as an offer to correct. For such cases, the post version was greatly allowed by native speakers. In some cases, individual usually reject the desire for apology especially in pre-training circumstance and even move to blame it on something. On the other questionnaire, the learner can present two approaches – a plain and strengthened expression of an apology in addition to expression of liability. Therefore, though quantitatively the dissimilarity between pre and post-data were not crucial, the qualitative variance showed a distinct inclination towards the native-speaker action. On the other hand, when comparing native and non-native behaviors of realization, the evaluation illustrated that learners showed lengthy utterance with their pre-data in relation to native speakers. This is a classical of a progressed-intermediate level of language learning where students are not sure on their capacity to interact their actual feelings and thus they incline apply several words. This proofs the results of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1985) where the scholars propose that statement length may work as a prospective and unplanned violation of a local norm that can result to pragmatic failure. However, during the apology-teaching unit, students are motivated to adopt intensifiers within their expressions of apologies since this was among the essential variances between local and non-native speech. Furthermore, teaching was most effective in this field, and at more so, two apology circumstances there was a remarkable rise in the adoption of intensifiers. After each apology session, students were required to analyze the teaching materials while circling the one they think was most useful within the lesson (teacher’s data sheet on apologies, explanation, role-play exercise, pair work, classroom debate, and listening to apology dialogues). This summed analysis of training units led to the following average selections by exercise type: Data sheet 60% Teacher’s explanation, 70% Role-play exercise 40% Pair work, 30% Classroom debate 20% Listening to apology dialogues 30% It is fascinating to note that several learners matched the greatest value to the teacher’s explanation on how to adopt apology. Such great selection for formal demonstration of the lesson as indicated by learners working in this study may likely be linked to the idea that these mature students who felt more at ease with plain presentation of new lesson in relation to experimental forms of exercises. Further to the drafted positioning of exercises, learners also offered oral results. A remarkable feature, which surfaced from this result, was the idea that a number of learners in this study had just been lightly conscious of English speech acts generally and apologies in specific prior to instruction. Conclusion This study was a trial to examine the impact of utilizing plain training of apology speech act with key concentration on intensifiers. The analysis of the project showed that plain training of apology speech act was essential. On the other hand, a second outcome was that learners had insufficient socio-pragmatics competency in English, and because of that make wide application of intensifiers. A timid list of apology approaches, situations, and semantic procedures, keywords of apologetic illustrations with the influence will allow syllabus developers to satisfy the immediate requirements of students for apologizing. Our analysis can propose that such consciousness in and of itself may have a fundamental part in enhancing non-native speech act characteristics. On the other hand, we should always regenerate given account of implication in such a manner as to ensure it open that individual’s implication when uttering something is just more accurate to avoid embarrassments. Lastly, it is through such implications that we may further work of further studies to understand the concepts even deeper. References: Austin, J. (2002). How to do tings with words? Cambrdge, MA: Harvard univeristy press. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.C. Richards, and R. Schmidt (eds), language and communication. Harlow: Longman. Hymes, D. (2002). On communicatuve competence. In J.B. Pride, and J. Holmes (eds), sociolinguiatics. Harmondswiorth: Penguin. Lee, J., and McChesney, B. (2000). Discourse rating tasks: a teaching tool for developing sociocultural competence. ELT journal, 54(2), 161-168. Lenz, F. (2007). Speaking of Speech Acts. Retreived on November 3, 2011, from < http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic97/lenz/5_97.html> Mack, D. (2005). Metaphoring as speech act: some happiness condition for implicit similes and simple metaphors. North-Holland Publishing Company. Olshtain, E., and Cohen, A. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speekers. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), teaching English as an. Iranian Journal of language syudies (IJLS), 1(2), 34-97. Perrault, R. (1989). An application of default logic to speech act theory. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford University press. Widdowson, H. (1998). Teaching language as acommunciation. Oxford: oxford univeristy press. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmantics. Oxford: oxford university press. Appendices Questionnnaires a). Given the context of expressing disapproval to a teacher (i.e. a person of higher status), will american native speeakers of English have a complain speech act set? b). within the same context, will an Asian non-native speakers of English have a complaint speech act set? c). Do the speech act sets of complaint created by American native speeakers of English and Asian non-native speeakers of english vary? If so so? d). Are two speech acts tickled by the comprehender, initially the direct one followed by the indirect one? e). Can the essential points of speech act trait be taught plainly in second or foreign language view? What approaches are largely appropriate for such teaching? f). What stage of speech act competency may be achieved? Is a given stage of residual mindfulness adequate? g). What do we know concerning the speech act of apologizing? h). LANGUAGE USE QUESTIONNAIRE (POST-QUESTIONNAIRE) Background Information Name _ Age Sex M/F Mother Tongue If non-native English speaker, rate your speaking ability: Excellent……………..Good…………. Fair…………..Poor………………. Time spent in English-speaking community, if any: ____ years, ……………months Post high-school education in English, if any: ____ years,………….. months Current use of English with native speakers: Frequent………………… Occasional……………….. Rare………………. Participated in the following section as well Section Situational INSTRUCTIONS: Please put yourself in the following situations and assume that in each instance the speaker will, in fact, say something. Write down what you think would be said (in English), in the space provided. Make sure that you read the whole situation carefully before you respond. 1) You are running to catch a bus. You unintentionally bump into an older woman causing her to drop some packages.You: …………………………………………………… 2) You forgot to call a close friend on her birthday. The next day you go to visit her. You: ……………………………………………………… 3) A friend arranged to meet you in order to get some notes from you to study for an exam. S/he waited for an hour but you didnt show up. S/he calls you up Friend: You know, I waited for you for an hour yesterday. You: ……………………………………………….. 4) You promised youd buy your neighbor medicine for her sick child while in town, but you forgot. Neighbour: Were you able to get the medicine? You: …………………………………………… 5) You promised to take a friend to a bicycle store to help him choose a new bicycle, but you forgot. Friend: I waited for you at the bike shop yesterday, but you never came. You:…………………………………………………………… 6) You have to get off the bus at the next stop. Youre sitting in the window seat and there is a person sitting next to you. You want to get off, and say: ~ Read More