Date of Award

2-13-2013

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

English

First Advisor

Gloria Park, Ph.D.

Second Advisor

Michael M. Williamson, Ph.D.

Third Advisor

John E. Branscum, Ph.D.

Abstract

This study was designed to explore five Korean NNESTs' L2 pragmatic competence and its relationship with their teaching experiences using DCT questionnaires of English request. This study in particular examined (1) five Korean NNESTs pragmatic competencies in English requests, (2) the relationship between their English teaching and learning experience and L2 pragmatic competence, and (3) their perceptions and attitudinal changes toward English education in terms of cross-linguistic/cross-cultural understanding of pragmatic differences between L1 (Korean) and L2 (English). Three pragmatic theories served as theoretical background of this study: Indirect speech acts, Politeness, and Implicature, all of which are about implicit meaning of what is said in communication. Three trends of data collection methods were employed; background questionnaire, discourse completion tests (DCTs), and interviews. The findings are, first, there is no big difference in Head Acts of requests in terms of the degree of directness. The Conventionally Indirect Head Act forms are most frequently used over all. Second, Supportive Moves show the salient differences in the use of strategies of requests. Along with Head Acts, Supportive Moves reveal the directness of the participants' request strategies and their L2 pragmatic competence, which is imbalanced between pragmalinguistic knowledge and sociopragmatic application. Third, this imbalanced L2 pragmatic competence result from their imbalanced teaching experience. Reading-centered, score-oriented English teaching practice in Korea is attributed to the discrepancy of the L2 pragmatic competence. Fourth, four out of five participants have attitudinal change toward teaching and learning English since they became aware of their imbalanced L2 pragmatic competence through the experience of DCTs and review of their responses. However, all of them have a sympathy for Korean students and a strong antipathy to the current educational system in Korea, which originates the imbalanced English teaching in Korea. Fifth, there is no significant co-relationship of DCT responses between oral and written modes. Two participants gave longer responses in written mode and the others in oral mode, because in each mode they felt more comfortable to answer the questionnaires. Rather, they showed the consistency of the lack of L2 pragmatic competence in both oral and written modes.

Share

COinS