Hacia una perspectiva multimodal para evaluar pragmáticaun estudio basado en quejas y respuestas a quejas

  1. Vicent Beltrán-Palanques 1
  1. 1 Universitat Jaume I
    info

    Universitat Jaume I

    Castelló de la Plana, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02ws1xc11

Journal:
Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

ISSN: 1576-5059

Year of publication: 2019

Issue: 19

Pages: 205-234

Type: Article

More publications in: Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide insights into pragmatic assessment in terms of appropriateness from a multimodal perspective at a conversational level. The study involved the design of a rubric for assessing pragmatic appropriateness from a holistic perspective, that is, it addresses linguistic and non-linguistic resources. The study was conducted in a Spanish higher education context and involved 64 participants, who were divided into two different proficiency levels (B1 and B2). Data were gathered by means of a role-play task that elicits complaints and responses to complaints, and a multimodal corpus consisting of 32 videos was compiled. Two raters examined participants’ performance according to the rubric devised for the purposes of the study. Results reveal that general proficiency level appears to influence pragmatic appropriateness in terms of the expressions used and the management of turns during the conversation. This study suggests that analysing pragmatic appropriateness from a holistic perspective deserves further investigation and its findings set the ground for future research in this area.

Bibliographic References

  • Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bachman, L. F., & Damböck, B. (2018). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition in L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224-245). London: Routledge.
  • Beltrán-Palanques, V. (2016). Complaint sequences across proficiency levels: the contribution of pragmatics and multimodality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló.
  • Beltrán-Palanques, V. (2019). Multimodal pragmatics in FL interactions: The case of complaints and responses to complaints. In Härmä, J., Lenk, H. E. H. & Sanromán, B. (Eds.), Studies in comparative pragmatics (pp. 179-198). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
  • Beltrán-Palanques, V., & Querol-Julián, M. (2018). English language learners’ spoken interaction: What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System, 77, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.008
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
  • Carter, R., & Adolphs, S. (2007). Linking the verbal and visual: New directions for corpus linguistics. In O. Mason & A. Gerbig (Eds.), Language in context: Papers in honour of Michael Stubbs (pp. 131-147). Tübingen: University of Tübingen Press.
  • Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón & M. P. Safont (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A Pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2): 5-35.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cohen, A. D. (2010). Approaches to assessing pragmatic ability. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 264-285). London: Longman.
  • Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1bf
  • Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
  • Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. (6th edition) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Cunningham, J. (2017). Second language pragmatic appropriateness in telecollaboration: The influence of discourse management and grammaticality. System, 64, 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.006
  • Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2014). Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Drew, P., & Walker, T. (2009). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2400-2414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046
  • Ekman, P. (1976). Movements with precise meaning. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01898.x
  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49
  • Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017
  • García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Gass, S. M. & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Geluykens, R., & Kraft, B. (2008). The use(fulness) of corpus research in crosscultural pragmatics: Complaining in intercultural service encounters. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 93-118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Goodwin. C. (1994). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 225-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2014). Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In P. Drew & E. CouperKuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 185-214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Huang, L. (2017). Issues on multimodal corpus of Chinese speech acts: A case in multimodal pragmatics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33(2), 316-326. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx040
  • Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & Janet Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person’s telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese: Development of interactional competence during one-year study abroad. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 45-85). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Centre.
  • Ishihara, N. (2010). Assessment of pragmatics in the classroom. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 286-317). London: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Jewitt, C. (2014). An introduction to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 15-43). 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
  • Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. London: Routledge.
  • Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Laforest, M. (2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1595-1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00077-2
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.
  • Li, X. (2014). Multimodality, interaction and turn-taking in Mandarin conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In W. Bublitz& N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 77-106). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
  • McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago.
  • Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Mondada, L. (2014). Requesting immediate action in the surgical operating room. Time, embodied resources and praxeological embeddedness. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 269-302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • O’Halloran, K., Tan, S., & M. K. L., E. (2014). Multimodal pragmatics. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 239-268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Querol-Julián, M. (2011). Evaluation in discussion sessions of conference paper presentations. A multimodal approach. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co.KG.
  • Querol-Julián, M., & Arteaga-Martínez, B. (2019). Silence and engagement in the multimodal genre of synchronous videoconferencing lectures. The case of Didactics in Mathematics. In C. Sancho (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure (pp. 298-319). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.). (2012). Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Rossi, G. (2014). When do people not use language to make requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 303-334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Sivenkova, M. (2010). Appropriateness in interpersonal communication. In S. K. Tanskanen, M. L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in interaction (pp. 239-262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Sorjonen, M. L., & Raevaara, L. (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store. Requesting as embodied action. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 243-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Stam, G. (2018). Gesture and speaking a second language. In R. Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 49-67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.
  • Taguchi, N. (2009). Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language: An introduction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 1-18). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Taguchi, N. (2012) Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Taguchi, N. (2013). Refusals in L2 English: Proficiency effects on appropriateness and fluency. In P. Salazar & O. Martí (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 101-119). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
  • Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  • van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Young, R. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in language learning and teaching (pp. 426-443). New York: Routledge