Volume 12, Issue 3 (2021)
LRR 2021, 12(3): 215-253 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Malmir A, Taji N. The Interplay of Action, Context, and Linguistic vs. Non-linguistic Resources in L2 Pragmatic Performance: The Case of Requests and Refusals. LRR 2021; 12 (3) :215-253
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48272-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48272-en.html
1- Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Department, Faculty of Persian Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin , malmir@hum.ikiu.ac.ir
2- MA. In Applied Linguistics, English Department, Faculty of Persian Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin
2- MA. In Applied Linguistics, English Department, Faculty of Persian Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin
Abstract: (1968 Views)
Despite the critical relationships among pragmatic action, context, and linguistic vs. non-linguistic resources for producing various adjacency pairs in foreign or second language (L2) exchanges, their interplay has not been adequately investigated. Therefore, the present study examined these relations in the production of request-refusal adjacency pairs. The needed data were collected from 108 upper-intermediate to advanced EFL learners. Three hundred conversations were audio-recorded from learners’ role-plays that involved making request-refusal adjacency pairs. MAXQDA software was used for data transcription, codification, and analysis. Data analysis revealed that request-refusal adjacency pairs were co-constructed in discursive contexts through multiple turns using both linguistic and nonlinguistic turn construction units (TCUs). Learners significantly used more linguistic rather than nonlinguistic TCUs and more sentential and clausal TCUs than phrasal and lexical TCUs. Moreover, the use of pauses and continuers was significantly more than laughter, facial expression, and body language. These findings have some pedagogical implications for teachers to raise learners’ awareness of context, action, and linguistic and nonlinguistic TCUs in the production of speech act adjacency pairs.
Keywords: linguistic/forms, non-linguistic/non-verbal forms, pragmatic action, pragmatic context, request-refusal adjacency pairs, turn construction units (TCUs)
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |