METAPRAGMATIC AWARENESS OF THAI EFL LEARNERS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigated Thai EFL learners’ levels of metapragmatic awareness with an aim to assess the metapragmatic awareness of Thai EFL learners who had different levels of English language proficiency and experience. The participants in this study were four groups of Thai EFL learners whose levels of English language proficiency and experience differed. The research tool used was a pragmatic judgment task, consisting of twelve situations where apologies were provided for the participants to judge their appropriateness. It was found that different levels of metapragmatic awareness could be observed among the four groups of Thai EFL learners. The Thai EFL learners with high English proficiency and experience demonstrated the highest level of metapragmatic awareness. Moreover, those with high English proficiency and low experience exhibited the higher level of metapragmatic awareness than those with low English proficiency and high experience. The findings suggest that (1) the high level of English proficiency or the high level of English experience alone is not sufficient for enhancing metapragmatic awareness; and (2) English proficiency and experience are important factors in developing metapragmatic awareness among the English language learners.
Article Details
"The opinions and contents including the words in papers are responsibility by the authors."
"ข้อคิดเห็น เนื้อหา รวมทั้งการใช้ภาษาในบทความถือเป็นความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียน"
References
[2] Bardovi-Harlig K. and Z. Dornyei (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 earning. TESOL Quarterly 32: 233-262.
[3] Niezgoda, K. and C. Rover. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Nipaspong, P. (2011). Pragmatic awareness levels and patterns reported by Thai learners of English and the native speakers of American English. Veridian E- Journal SU, 4: 704-728.
[5] Kasper, G. and S. Blum-kulka. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford International Press.
[6] Boxer, D. (2002). Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual review of applied linguistics 22: 150-167.
[7] Isarankura, S. (2008). Acquisition of the English Article System by Thai Learners: An Analysis of Metalinguistic Knowledge in English Article Use. Bangkok, Thailand, Chulalongkorn University. Ph.D.
[8] Kasper, G. and M. Dahl (1991). Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. USA: University of Hawaii.
[9] Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationship among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24: 465–491.
[10] Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental Differences in Speech Act Recognition: A Pragmatic Awareness Study. Language Awareness 13(2): 96-115.
[11] Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and Development. Language Learning56: 269-318.
[12] Modehiran, P. (2005). Correction making among Thais and Americans: a study of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics. Ph.d. dissertation. Chulalongkorn University.
[13] Safont Jorda, M. P. (2003). Metapragmatic awareness and pragmatic production of third language learners of English: A focus on request acts realizations. International Journal of Bilingualism 7(1): 43-68.