•  
  •  
 

Mental Enlightenment Scientific-Methodological Journal

Abstract

This article discusses Role Play and Discourse Completion Test Methods in Pragmatics. Many of the role-plays used in interlingual and intercultural pragmatics are artistic, and the participant must express himself or herself as a different person. This process allows the researcher to control various variable combinations such as social distance, power use, confidence criteria, and gender. The test method that completes the discourse is the most common research tool for researching the linguistic implementation of communicative acts and a type of effective questionnaire. Discourse completion test is used effectively to assess participants’ pragmatic competence and reduce test constraints.

First Page

157

Last Page

167

References

[1]. Djumabaeva J.Sh. Lexical and stylistic graduonymy in Uzbek and English. Central Asia International journal of Humanitar Sciences. Volume-1. Issue-1. 2019. September.

[2]. Mamatov A.E. Bibliographic index of works on the culture of speech and language norms. Part I. - Tashkent, 1990.

[3]. Muminov S.M. Socio-linguistic features of Uzbek communication behavior: Abstract of Candidate’s dissertation of philological sciences. – Tashkent, 2000.

[4]. Rakhimov G.Kh. Sociolinguistic principles of the use of English in the language activity of the population of Uzbekistan. Ўзбекистонда хорижий тиллар илмий-методик электрон журнал. Journal. fledu.uz. 2019 №5.

[6]. Safarov Sh. Pragmalinguistics. – Tashkent: UzNE, 2008.

[7]. Xolmatova B. On the interpretation of the concept of “pragmatics”. Foreign philology. №4.

[9]. Ahn R-C. Five measures of interlanguage pragmatics in KFL (Korean as foreign language) learners. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2005).

[10]. Aston G. Say “thank you”: some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics, 16.1. 1995. Pp. 57-86.

[11]. Bachman L.F. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1990.

[12]. Bachman L.F, Palmer A.S. Language testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1996.

[13]. Beebe L. and Cummings M. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance, in S. Gass and N. Joyce (eds). Speech Act Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1996. Pp. 65-86.

[14]. Billmyer K. and Varghese M. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21.4. 2000. Pp. 517-52.

[15]. Blum-Kulka S. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3. 1982. Pp. 29-59.

[16]. Bodman J. and Eisenstein M. May God increase your bounty: the expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers, Cross Currents, 15.1, 1988. 1-21.

[17]. Cohen L, Manion L. and Morrison K. (eds). Research Methods in Education. 5th ed. London: Routledge/Falmer. 2000 p. 370.

[18]. Decapua A, Dunham J.F. The pragmatics of advice giving: Cross cultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics.2007. 4(3). Pp.319-342.

[19]. Felix-Brasdefer J. C. Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research, in P. Kempchinsky and C. Pijieros (eds). Theory, Practice, and Acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 2003a. Pp .239-5 7.

[20]. Frank D. The Seven Sins of Pragmatics: Theses on the Theory of Speech Acts. Analysis of Speech Communication, Linguistics and Rhetoric // New in Foreign Linguistics. Vol. XVII. Theory of speech acts. M.: Progress. 1989.

[21]. Golato A. Studying Compliment Responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24.1. 200. Pp. 390-121.

[22]. Hinkel E. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics, 18.1. 1997. Pp. 127.

[23]. Holmes J Review of cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Language in Society, 20. 1991. Pp. 119-126.

[24]. Jie C. A comparative study of Chinese EFL learner’s performances of different pragmatic tests. Master thesis, Nanjing University.2005.

[25]. Johnston K., Kasper G. and Ross S. Effect of rejoinders in production questionnnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19.2 1998. Pp. 157-82.

[26]. Kasper G. Data collection in pragmatics research, in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum. 2000. Pp. 316-41.

[27]. Kasper G. Interlanguage Pragmatics/G.Kasper, R. Blum-Kulka.-Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1993.

[28]. Labov W. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1972.

[29]. Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1983.

[30]. Levinson S.C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.