APTIS GENERAL WRITING TASK 4: AN EXPLORATION OF PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES EMPLOYED TO GAIN COMMUNICATIVE GOALS IN TRANSACTIONAL E-MAILS BY QUY NHON UNIVERSITY’S ENGLISH-MAJORED SENIORS / CÂU 4 ĐỀ THI VIẾT APTIS: TÌM HIỂU VỀ CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC NGỮ DỤNG HỌC NHẰM ĐẠT ĐƯỢC MỤC ĐÍCH GIAO TIẾP TRONG E-MAIL GIAO DỊCH ĐƯỢC SỬ DỤNG BỞI SINH VIÊN NĂM CUỐI CHUYÊN NGÀNH NGÔN NGỮ ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.2583Keywords:
AGWT Task 4, English-majored seniors, pragmatic strategies, communicative goals / câu 4 đề thi Aptis, sinh viên năm cuối chuyên ngành Ngôn ngữ Anh, chiến lược ngữ dụng học, mục đích giao tiếpAbstract
This study’s purpose is to explore the pragmatic strategies used by the English-majored seniors at Quy Nhon University (QNU) when they took Aptis General Writing Test (AGWT) Task 4. To fulfil this task, students are required to write two transactional e-mails in two different styles which are informal and formal in turn to convey a specific social function. Successful completion of this task requires from students not only an accurate construction of framing moves but also a flexible and precise usage of pragmatic strategies (e.g. ability to express intended thoughts appropriately in different social interaction contexts). The participants in this study were 30 fourth-year students whose major was English at QNU. The data were collected from their 30 trial-Aptis-writing-test papers. The findings revealed the pragmatic strategies they had utilized to attain the two e-mails’ communicative goals and simultaneously depicted how their usage of these strategies had influenced the epistolary writing. Hopefully, this study’s results will be useful for both test developers in the process of test validation and localisation and teachers in the process of preparing students for the AGWT Task 4.
Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là nhằm tìm hiểu các chiến lược ngữ dụng học được sử dụng bởi các sinh viên năm cuối chuyên ngành Ngôn ngữ Anh tại trường Đại học Quy Nhơn khi họ hoàn thành câu 4 đề thi Viết Aptis. Để hoàn thành câu này, các sinh viên phải viết hai thư điện tử với hai phong cách viết khác nhau trong đó một ở hình thức thông thường và một ở hình thức trang trọng. Việc hoàn thành thành câu hỏi này đòi hỏi các sinh viên không chỉ áp dụng chính xác hình thức đặc trưng của một thư điện tử mà còn phải biết sử dụng tốt các chiến lược ngữ dụng học cần thiết (ví dụ: là khả năng có thể diễn đạt suy nghĩ trong các ngữ cảnh giao tế xã hội khác nhau). Đối tượng nghiên cứu là 30 sinh viên năm cuối chuyên ngành Ngôn ngữ Anh tại trường Đại học Quy Nhơn. Dữ liệu được thu thập từ 30 bài thi Viết Aptis thử nghiệm. Kết quả cho thấy các sinh viên đã biết tận dụng một số chiến lược ngữ dụng học để đạt được mục đích giao tế trong hai thư điện tử giao dịch và đồng thời mô tả việc sử dụng các chiến lược này có ảnh hưởng như thế nào đến chất lượng các bức thư. Các kết quả thu được hi vọng sẽ hữu ích với những người làm thiết kế đề trong việc đánh giá hiệu quả kì thi cũng như các giáo viên làm công việc hướng dẫn thí sinh thi.
Article visualizations:
References
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42-45.
Balconi, M., & Amenta, S. (2010). From Pragmatics to neuropragmatics. Neuropsychology of Communication. Springer.
Barron, A. (2008). Contrasting requests in inner circle Englishes. A study in variational pragmatics. In M. Puetz and j. Neff van Aertselaer (Eds.). Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-culture Perspectives (pp. 355-402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baxter, J. (2000). Gender Inequality in Australian Society. In J. Najman & J. Western (Eds.), A Sociology of Australian Society (pp. 89-113). Melbourne: Macmillan.
Bjørge, A. K. (2007). Power distance in English Lingua Franca e-mail communication. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 60-80.
Bou-Franch, P. (2011). Openings and closings in Spanish email conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1772-1785.
Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 103-125.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D. (eds.). (1989). Women in their Speech Communities. London.
Chang, Y. Y., & Hsu, Y. P. (1998). Request on email: Across-culture comparison. RELC Journal, 29, 121-151.
Chen, C. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning and Technology, 10(2), 35-55.
Chen, Y. S. (2015). Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email literary through requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 131-149.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ email requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3193-3215.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests/. Intercultural Pragmatics/, 4:2: 253-286.
Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39: 59-283.
Hendrik, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In M. Putz and J. N. Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing Contrastive Pragmatics. Interlanguage and Cross-Culture Perspectives (pp, 335-354). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Harlow: Longman.
Ishihara, N. (2009). Teacher-based assessment for foreign language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 445-470.
Kalcik, S. (1975). “… like Ann’s gynaeecologist or the time I was almost raped-personal narratives in women’s rap groups.” Journal of American Folklore, 88, 3-11.
Kankaanranta, A. (2006). “Hej Seppo, could you pls comment in this!” – Internal email communication in Lingua Franca English in a multinational company. Business communication Quarterly, 69(2). 216-225.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NFLRC Net Work 19. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawai.edu/Networks/NW19
Kozlova, I. (2004). Can you complain? Cross-cultural comparison of indirect complaints in Russian and American English. Prospect 19(1), 84-105.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mikako, N. (2005). Similarities and differences between Japanese and Americans on their use and perception of polite speech. Ph.D thesis, Depaul University. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?vinst=PROD&attempt=1&fmt=6&startpage=1&ver=1&vname-PQD&RQT=309&did=103788519&exp=11-152016&scaling=FULL&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&cfc=1&TS=1321508233&clientId=46431.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Modifying L2 criticisms: How learners do it? Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 768-791.
Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, T. A., & Pham, T. T. T. (2015). Teaching email requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169-195.
Nguyen, T. T. M., & Marwan, A. (2018). Aptis General Writing Test Task 4: An analysis of test-takers’ pragmatic performance and cognitive processing. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/nguyen_and_marwan_report.pdf
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Sullivan, B., & Dunlea, J. (2015). Aptis General Technical Manual Version 1.0. London: British Council.
Otcu, B., & Zeyrek, D. (2006). Requesting in L2: Pragmatic development of Turkish learners of English. In Series A: General & Theoretical Papers, LAUD 2006, paper 680. Essen: Universitat Duisburg Essen.
Otcu, B., & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development of requests: A study on Turkish learners of English. In M. Puetz and J. Neff van Aertselaer (eds.), Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 265-300). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Robnett, D., & Leaper, C. (2011). Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 142-192.
Roever, C. (2015). Researching pragmatics. In B. Paltridge and A. Phakiti (Ed.), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource (pp. 387-420). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Shively, R. L. (2001). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818-1835.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk Across Cultures, (pp. 11-45). London: New York: Continuum.
Warga, M. (2004). Pragmatische Entwicklung in der Fremdsprache. Der Sprechakt “Aufforderung’im Franzosischen. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Zuriah, Nurul. (2006). Metodologi Penelitian Sosial dan Pendidikan. Jakata: Bumi Aksara.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
