The importance of the request strategies in the Iraqi EFL classroom

Intan Safinas Mohd Ariff Albakri

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	L Education
Main Author :	Intan Safinas Mohd Ariff Albakri
Additional Authors :	Nadhim Obaid Hussein
Title :	The importance of the request strategies in the Iraqi EFL classroom

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Bahasa dan Komunikasi
Year of Publication :	2019
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

This paper explained English students’ pragmatics development, students’ pragmatics competence in chosen speech acts, request strategies that they used in gaining pragmatic ability. The paper was presented by a public syllabus lead that prioritizes the need for English learners to improve their ability to utilize request strategies successfully in academic and social communications. The study aimed to explain the significance of request strategies on developing EFL learners’ usage of the request in the classroom. Additionally, Many English learners fail to present pragmatic ability on how to understand request strategies by relating utterances to their meanings, knowing the intention of language users, and how request strategies are utilized in specific settings. There is growing material of researches on awareness-raising of the value of pragmatic competence and request strategies for EFL schoolroom teaching. However, researchers have pointed to concentrate on the traditional approaches rather than how English learners require or understand request strategies to develop the learners’ production of the request in the EFL schoolroom. Therefore, depending on the successful findings of previous studies, the study focused on the importance of strategies on developing students’ usage of the request. The request strategies and approaches of teaching English to these Iraqi students have been discussed in details of the current paper.

References

1. Alcón-Soler, E. (2005) ‘Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?’ System, 33(3), pp. 417–435. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005.

2. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.

3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Pragmatic awareness and instructed L2 learning: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the AAAL 1997 Conference, Orlando.

4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1997). Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

5. Bataineh, A. & Hussein, N. (2015). The effect of using webcam chat on the undergraduate EFL students’ pragmatic competence. International Journal of education. ISSIN 1948-4576. VO.7.NO.2

6. Bremner, S. (1998). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Asian Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 1(2), 490-514.

7. Byram, M. (Ed.). (2000). Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London and New York: Routledge. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5147-5151.

8. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London:Longman.

9. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267.

10. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199-208.

11. Ersözlü, Z. N. (2010). Determining of the student teachers’ learning and studying strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199-208.

13. Ellis, R. (1992). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14. Green, J., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.

15. Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-383.

16. Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3905.

17. Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34(3), 399-415.

18. Hussein, N and Elttayef, A (2018). The effect of authentic materials on developing undergraduate EFL students’ communicative competence. Journal of literature, Languages and linguistic. ISSI 2422-8535.

19. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistic (pp.269-285). Harmon sworth: Penguin.

20. Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2,461.

21. Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realization. In S. Gases, C. Madden,

22. Krasner, I. (1999). The role of culture in language teaching. Dialog on Language Instruction, 13(1-2), 79-88

23. Koike, D.A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279-289.

24. Kurdghelashvili, T (2015) Speech Acts and Politeness Strategies in an EFL Classroom in Georgia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences.Vol: 9, No: 1

25. Leung, C (2005).Convivial communication: decontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vo.15, no.2, 119-144.

26. Liu, A. (2010). On pragmatic “borrowing transfer” evidence from Chinese EFL learners’ compliment response behavior. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 26-44.

27. Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187.

28. Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-419.

29. Purdie, N., & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27(3), 375-388.

30. Rueda, Y. (2006) ‘Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language’, Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, pp. 169–182.

31. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper.

32. Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System, 27(2), 173-190.

33. Shridhar, K., & Shridhar, S. (1986). Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes, 5, 3-14.

34. Tuncer, U. (2009). How do monolingual and bilingual language learners differ in use of learning strategies while learning a foreign language? Evidences from Mersin University. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 852-856.

35. Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-Electronic Journal, 8(2), 1-18.

36. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney: Arnold.

37. Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27(4), 515-535.

38. Y?lmaz, C. (2010). The relationship between language learning strategies, gender, proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of ELT learners in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 682-687.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page