Discourse Completion Task: Its Validity and Reliability in Research Projects on Speech Acts

• Authors: Cyluk Agnieszka
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article examines the issue of the reliability and validity of the discourse completion task (DCT) in research projects on speech acts. It starts with a review of the main data collection methods in pragmatics. In the paper, the advantages and disadvantages of using a questionnaire for gathering data are discussed. Next, the studies comparing questionnaire data with natural spoken data are presented. The paper argues that relying on one data collection instrument, namely a DCT, does not yield reliable results; therefore the integration of authentic and controlled data is desirable. It is concluded that the study of a particular speech act cannot be carried out without some reliance on naturally occurring data.

Keywords

EN

discourse completion; pragmatics; questionnaire; data collection instrument; speech acts; natural data

• Publisher: Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw
• Journal: Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies
• Year: 2013
• Issue: 22/2
• Pages: 100-111

Contributors

author

Cyluk Agnieszka

• Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna, Warszawa

References

• Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. “Researching method”. In: Lawrence F. Bouton (ed.), 237–264.
• Barron, Anne. 2003 Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Beebe, Leslie M., and Martha C. Cummings. 1996. “Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance”. In: Susan M. Gass, and Joyce Neu (eds.), 65–86.
• Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain. 1984. “Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics 5(3): 196–213.
• Bouton, Lawrence F. (ed.). 1999. Pragmatics and language learning 9. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• Brown, James D. 2001. “Pragmatics tests: different purposes, different tests”. In: Kenneth R. Rose, and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 301–325.
• Clark, Herbert H., and Adrian Bangerter. 2004. “Changing ideas about reference”. In: Ira A. Noveck, and Dan Sperber (eds.), 25–49.
• Eisenstein, Miriam, and Jean Bodman. 1993. “Expressing gratitude in American English”. In: Gabriele Kasper, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), 64–81.
• Gass, Susan M., and Joyce Neu (eds.). 1996. Speech act across cultures: challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Geluykens, Ronald, and Bettina Kraft. 2008. “The use(fullness) of corpus research in cross-cultural pragmatics”. In: Jesus Romero-Trillo (ed.), 93–117.
• Golato, Andrea. 2003. “Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk”. Applied Linguistics 24(1): 90–121.
• Hartford, Beverly S., and Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig. 1992. “Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics”. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series 3: 33–52.
• Hinkel, Eli. 1997. “Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data”. Applied Linguistics 18: 1–26.
• Houck, Noel, and Susan M. Gass. 1996. “Non-native refusals: a methodological perspective”. In: Susan M. Gass, and Joyce Neu (eds.), 45–64.
• Jucker, Andreas. H. 2009. “Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory. The case of compliments”. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1611–1635.
• Kasper, Gabriele. 2000. “Data collection in pragmatics research”. In: Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 316–341.
• Kasper, Gabriele. 2008. “Data collection in pragmatics research”. In: Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 279–303.
• Kasper, Gabriele, and Merete Dahl. 1991. “Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 215–247.
• Kasper, Gabriele, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.). 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Keeves, John P. (ed.). 1988. Educational research, methodology, and measurement. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Nelson, Gayle L., Joan Carson, Mahmoud Al Batal, Waguida El Bakary. 2002. “Cross-cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals”. Applied Linguistics 23(2): 163–189.
• Noveck, Ira A., and Dan Sperber (eds.). 2004. Experimental pragmatics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nurani, Lusia M. 2009. “Methodological issue in pragmatic research: is Discourse Completion Test a reliable data collection instrument?”. Jurnal Sosioteknologi Edisi 17 Tahun 8: 667–678.
• Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Romero-Trillo, Jesus (ed.). 2008. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Rose, Kenneth R., and Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schauer, Gila A., and Svenja Adolphs. 2006. “Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy”. System 34: 119–134.
• Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed.). 2000. Culturally speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London, New York: Continuum.
• Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed.). 2008 Culturally speaking: culture, communication and politeness theory. 2nd ed. London, New York: Continuum.
• Wolf, R. M. 1988. “Questionnaires”. In: John P. Keeves (ed.), 478–482.
• Yuan, Yi. 2001. “An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 271–292.