Pragmatic awareness of Suggestions: From (Im)Polite Mannerism to Attitudinal Appropriateness

Research in English Language Pedagogy

مقاله 2، دوره 5، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 9، بهمن 2017، صفحه 112-132   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

نویسندگان

Hamid Allami^{* 1}؛ Nasim Boustani²

¹English Department, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

²English Department, Dr. Shariati Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

چکیده

The present research seeks to determine: (a) Iranian EFL learners’ application of suggestion semantic formulae ;(b) their attitude of appropriateness in terms of confidence in the employment of appropriate supportive moves; (c), their (im)polite mannerism with respect to the selected strategies; and (d) the relationship between attitude of appropriateness and mannerism of (im)politeness. An Oxford Quick placement Test (OQPT) was administered among 60 Iranian EFL learners to check their language proficiency level and to satisfy the assumption of homogeneity among the learners. These participants along with 10 American native speakers then underwent a suggestion DCT. The questionnaire included questions addressing interlocutors’ with higher, lower or equal power status and intimate or strange social distance. The DCT also involved attitudinal appropriateness scale and (im)politeness mannerism likert scale to examine the learners’ degree of confidence and mannerism. Besides similarities and differences in the application of suggestion semantic formulae between the Iranian learners and American speakers, the results revealed variations in the two groups’ performances for appropriateness and (im)politeness. The results also indicated a positive relationship between the attitude and mannerism scales.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Pragmatic awareness of Suggestions: From (Im)Polite Mannerism to Attitudinal Appropriateness

مراجع

Albl-Mikasa, M. (2006). Reduction and expansion in notation texts. Text and Translation: Theory and Methodology of Translation. Tubingen: Druck und Bindug: Hubert & Co., Gottingen. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/book

Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-)Sense in note taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, Volume 10(2), 197-231.

Andres, D. (2002). Konsekutivdolmetschen und notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. Ch., Razavieh, A. & Sorensen, Ch. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8^th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Arksey, H. & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage.

Chen, S. (2016). Note taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with special focus on Chinese and English literature. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 26, 151-170. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/

Chesterman, A. & Williams, J. (2002). The map: A beginner's guide to doing research in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Cohen, L. Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5^th ed.). London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/

Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gonzalez, M.A. (2012). The language of consecutive interpreters’ notes: Differences across levels of expertise. Interpreting, 14(1), 55-72

Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2008). Towards developing a framework for the evaluation of Iranian undergraduate students’ academic translation (Doctoral thesis, Shiraz University, Iran).

Hermann, A. (1956/2002). Interpreting in antiquity (R. Morris, Trans). In F. Pochhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 15-22

Ilg, G. & Lambert, S.  (1996). Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 1(1), 69-99.

Jones, R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome

Kirchhoff, H. (1979). Die notationssprache als hilfsmittel des konferenzdolmetschers im konsekutivvorgang. Sprachtheorie und Sprachpraxis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Kohn, K. & Albl-Mikasa, M. (2002). Note taking in consecutive interpreting: On the reconstruction of an individualized language. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 1, 257-272.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lung, R. (2003).  Taking notes seriously in the interpretation classroom. Granada: Comares.

Rozan, J. (2002). Note taking in consecutive interpreting. Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.

Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes

Szabo, C. (2006). Language choice in note taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 8(2), 129-147.

Thiery, Ch. (1981). L’enseignement de la prise de notes en interprétation consecutive: un faux probleme?. L’enseignement de l’interpretation et de la traduction: de la théorie a la pedagogie. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Torres D. M. G. (1997, September). Why consecutive note taking is not tantamount to shorthand writing. Proceedings of the second international conference on current trends in studies of translation and interpreting, Budapest, Hungary.

Vermeer, H. J. (1992). Skizzen zu einer Geschicte der translation. Frankfurt: Verlag fur interkulterelle Kommunication.