I read an article of Julie M. Sykes about how pragmatic and development on Synchronous communication affects the pragmatics of a language. I think that it is very interesting to look the effects of oral and written chat environments on pragmatic acquisition. Sykes (2005) investigates this phenomenon using Spanish as a target language, although her quantitative findings did not accompany her as she would wish. However, in my opinion, she made an attractive qualitative study in this new field. There are not many studies that account for pragmatic acquisition in SCMC (Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication).
Sykes study looks at the connections between pragmatic instruction and SCMC by measuring the effects of written chat, oral chat, and face to face interaction in the target language –Spanish. Previous research indicates that there is a positive connection between the use of written chat and oral production (Payne and Whitney, 2002). Sykes goes beyond that and she looks at if students can perceive the pragmatic connotations within a language investigating the connections between synchronous CMC and pragmatic instruction. Her quantitative and qualitative results suggest that synchronous discussion have an effect on pragmatic development. Therefore, we can infer that the use of this technological tool and how the effectiveness of this instructional tool can be use in any classroom setting.
Sykes posts a nice literature review of previous SCMC research, specifically written chat discussions. She describes how current research supports the idea those similarities between SCMC and face to face discussions.
It is well-known that pragmatic discourse is not included very often in the foreign language curriculum, giving priority to linguistic features of the language. Sykes points out some factors to account for this lack of pragmatic in the classroom setting such as limited time, and inappropriate textbooks, among others. However, according to Sykes students must have available the pragmaticlinguistic abilities and sociopragmatic skills. For the development of her study, she borrows the definition of interlanguage pragmatic ‘the study of development and use of the strategies for linguistic action by nonnative speaker” defined by Kasper and Schmidt (1996).
The author concludes that SCMC is a great tool for pragmatic instruction and she recommend it for foreign language setting, giving more importance to written chat over the other means of communication.
Maybe, Sykes’s methodology was not very appropriate; the study design and the procedure was not very well described, therefore replications are difficult to reproduce, and sample size was small, consequently the statistical procedures fail, hindering the generalization of her results to the target population. Nevertheless, it is a good piece to start with and we have to consider that there are not many research studies that account for this type of pragmatic research. I believe that Sykes is in the right path, and her study might be seen as a pilot study in pragmatic acquisition through SCMC. Moreover, the author asks to researchers, instructors and publishers not to ignore the “possible uses of chat rooms for the inclusion of pragmatic information in the classroom” (Sykes, 2005:422).
References
Sykes study looks at the connections between pragmatic instruction and SCMC by measuring the effects of written chat, oral chat, and face to face interaction in the target language –Spanish. Previous research indicates that there is a positive connection between the use of written chat and oral production (Payne and Whitney, 2002). Sykes goes beyond that and she looks at if students can perceive the pragmatic connotations within a language investigating the connections between synchronous CMC and pragmatic instruction. Her quantitative and qualitative results suggest that synchronous discussion have an effect on pragmatic development. Therefore, we can infer that the use of this technological tool and how the effectiveness of this instructional tool can be use in any classroom setting.
Sykes posts a nice literature review of previous SCMC research, specifically written chat discussions. She describes how current research supports the idea those similarities between SCMC and face to face discussions.
It is well-known that pragmatic discourse is not included very often in the foreign language curriculum, giving priority to linguistic features of the language. Sykes points out some factors to account for this lack of pragmatic in the classroom setting such as limited time, and inappropriate textbooks, among others. However, according to Sykes students must have available the pragmaticlinguistic abilities and sociopragmatic skills. For the development of her study, she borrows the definition of interlanguage pragmatic ‘the study of development and use of the strategies for linguistic action by nonnative speaker” defined by Kasper and Schmidt (1996).
The author concludes that SCMC is a great tool for pragmatic instruction and she recommend it for foreign language setting, giving more importance to written chat over the other means of communication.
Maybe, Sykes’s methodology was not very appropriate; the study design and the procedure was not very well described, therefore replications are difficult to reproduce, and sample size was small, consequently the statistical procedures fail, hindering the generalization of her results to the target population. Nevertheless, it is a good piece to start with and we have to consider that there are not many research studies that account for this type of pragmatic research. I believe that Sykes is in the right path, and her study might be seen as a pilot study in pragmatic acquisition through SCMC. Moreover, the author asks to researchers, instructors and publishers not to ignore the “possible uses of chat rooms for the inclusion of pragmatic information in the classroom” (Sykes, 2005:422).
References
- Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 399-431.
- Payne, J. S. and P. J. Whitney (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal 20.1: 7-32.
- Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario