Volume 5, Issue 1 (3-2020)                   IJREE 2020, 5(1): 85-103 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Maibodi A, Dehghani H. The Impact of Cognitive Styles on the Speech Act of Apology among Iranian EFL Learners. IJREE. 2020; 5 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-268-en.html
Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Maybod Branch, Yazd, Iran
Abstract:   (213 Views)
This study explored the effect of cognitive styles of field dependence (FD) and field-independence (FI) on Iranian EFL learners’ performance in the speech act of apology. Additionally, the investigation also focused on the effect of these cognitive styles on individual differences (IDs) like proficiency, age, and gender of the participants. To this end, 80 EFL learners, studying at two English language institutes in Maybod, were selected through convenient sampling. This study was conducted in three phases by using a variety of instruments, like Oxford Quick Placement Test (OPT), Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), and Multiple Choice Discourse Completion Tasks (MCDCTs). With respect to the GEFT, students were divided into two groups, FD/FI. The MCDCTs were administered to measure students’ pragmatic comprehension and restructuring ability of the apology situations. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 21 statistical software. The results revealed that FI participants outperformed the FD ones in apology contexts. Individual differences like gender and age had a significant effect on the performance of the participants in both cognitive groups. Although the proficiency level demonstrated some variations, but it did not have any statistically significant impact on the performance of the participants in these two groups. The major pedagogical implication of the present study is that when assessing the interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) of EFL learners, teachers and other teaching administrations should take not only cognitive styles but also individual differences into consideration so that they could adopt and apply teaching methods in line with the learners’ various cognitive styles.
 
Full-Text [PDF 663 kb]   (27 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. Afghari, A. (2007). A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech Communication, 49(3), 177-185. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003]
2. Ahmadi, A. (2002). On the relationship between field dependence independence and the use of listening comprehension strategies by Iranian EFL students (case study: female English majors in Shiraz). Unpublished Master's Thesis. Shiraz University, Iran.
3. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347-384. doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.017 [DOI:10.1515/iprg.2011.017]
5. Bayat, N. (2013). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213-221. Retrieved from: www.sciencedirect.com [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.057]
6. Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 82-107). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7. Biook, B., & Fathi, M. (2009). The relationship between reading performance and field dependence/independence cognitive styles. Journal of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature, 1(1), 49-62. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=201535
8. Birjandi, P., & Rezaei, S. (2010). Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners. ILI Language Teaching Journal (Special Issue: Proceedings of the First Conference on ELT in the Islamic World), 6(1, 2), 43-58.
9. Bosacki, S., Innerd, W., & Towson, S. (1997). Field independence-dependence and self-esteem in preadolescents: Does gender make a difference? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(60), 691-704. [DOI:10.1023/A:1022396625462]
10. Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language teaching and learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
11. Carroll, F., & Sapon, E. (1988). Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning strategies among Vietnamese adults aged 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles, 19, 747-758. [DOI:10.1007/BF00288990]
12. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press: 251p.
13. Davies, K. A., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2004). Looking back, taking stock, moving forward: Investigating gender in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 381-404. doi.org/10.2307/3588346 [DOI:10.2307/3588346]
14. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Fajen, A. (1999). Language learning strategies used by Japanese university students. RELC Journal, 30(2), 101-113. doi.org/10.1177/003368829903000206 [DOI:10.1177/003368829903000206]
16. Fatemi, A. H., Vahedi, V. S., & Seyyedrezaie, S. Z. (2014). The effects of top-down/bottom-up processing and field-dependent/field-independent cognitive style on Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 686-693. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.4.686-693 [DOI:10.4304/tpls.4.4.686-693]
17. Griffin, T., & Franklins, D. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 331-342. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01246.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01246.x]
18. Haji Maibodi. A. (2016). Investigating the effects of individual differences on the speech act of apology in institutional discourse. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 3(2), 71-94. http://jmrels.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_955.html
19. Haji Maibodi, A., Fazilatfar, A. M., & Allami, H. (2016). Exploring subjectivity in verbal reports of Iranian EFL learners in institutional discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(5), 252-263. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.252 [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.252]
20. Hansen, J. R., & Stansfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent/independent cognitive styles to foreign language. Language Learning, 31(2), 349-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01389.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01389.x]
21. Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in) dependent L2 learners' writing ability. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161. doi:10.22055/rals.2018.13797
22. Hashemian, M., Jafarpour, A., & Adibpour, M. (2015). Exploring relationships between field (In) dependence, multiple intelligences, and L2 reading performance among Iranian L2 learners. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 40-63. doi: 10.22055/rals.2015.11259
23. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men, and politeness. London: Longman Group.
24. Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (3rd Ed.), (pp.164-168). England, UK: Pearson, Longman Group.
25. Ishihara, N., & Cohen. A. D. (2010). Learners' pragmatics: potential causes of divergence. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 75-96). Harlow: Longman.
26. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). The role of instruction in learning second language pragmatics. Language Learning, 52(1), 237-273. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.2002.tb00028.x]
27. Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100014868]
28. Khalili Sabet, M., & Mohamadi, S. H. (2013). The relationship between field independence/dependence styles and reading comprehension abilities of EFL readers. Unpublished Master dissertation. Iran. [DOI:10.4304/tpls.3.11.2141-2150]
29. Khodadady, E., Bagheri, N., & Charbgoo, Z. (2016). Primary school students' cognitive styles and their achievement in English as a foreign language. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(5), 851-858. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0705.04 [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0705.04]
30. Khodadady, E., & Zeynali, S. (2012). Field-dependence/independence cognitive style and performance on the IELTS listening comprehension. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 622-635. doi:10.5296/ijl.v4i3.2389 [DOI:10.5296/ijl.v4i3.2389]
31. Kuriscak, L. (2010). The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance. In A. Martíneze-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 23-39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.26.02kur]
32. Luk, S. C. (2002). The relationship between cognitive styles and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 137-147. [DOI:10.1111/1467-8535.00055]
33. Marinova-Todd, S. H., Bradford, M. D., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34. doi: 10.2307/3588095 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-8322%28200021%2934%3A1%3C9%3ATMAAAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M [DOI:10.2307/3588095]
34. Nilforooshan, N., & Afghari, A. (2007). The effect of field dependence-independence as a source of variation in EFL learners' writing performance. Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 1(2), 58-70. http://journaldatabase.info/articles/effect_field_dependence-independence.html
35. Reid, J. M. (2002). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. U.S.A., Brooks Cole Thomson Learning.
36. Rickards, J. P., Fajen, B. R., Sullivan, J. F., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, note taking, and field independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 508-517. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.508]
37. Rostampour, M., & Niroomand, S. M. (2014). Field dependence/independence cognitive styles: Are they significant at different levels of vocabulary knowledge? International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 2(1), 52-57. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.2n.1p.52 [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.2n.1p.52]
38. Sabaté i Dalmau, M., & Curelli Gotor, H. (2007). From "sorry very much" to "I'm ever so sorry": Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287-315. doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.014 [DOI:10.1515/IP.2007.014]
39. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). Does field independence relate to performance on communicative language tests? Manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 79-85. doi: 10.26634/jet.3.3.716 [DOI:10.26634/jet.3.3.716]
40. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A (2007). Is field dependence or Independence a predicator of EFL reading performance? TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 82-108. [DOI:10.18806/tesl.v24i2.140]
41. Shalbafan, K. (1996). On the role field dependence/field independence in Iranian EFL learners' writing ability. Unpublished master's thesis. Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran.
42. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449. [DOI:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2]
43. Taguchi, N. (2013). Individual differences and development of speech act production. Applied Research on English Language, 2(2), 1-16. https://www.sid.ir/En/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=329224
44. Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amh040]
45. Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1998). Field dependence-independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 227-251. [DOI:10.1007/BF03173091]
46. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110885286]
47. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field- dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi: 10.2307/1169967 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1169967 [DOI:10.2307/1169967]
48. Yaghoubi, R. (1994). The relationship between field-independent/field-dependent cognitive style Persian students and their English language proficiency. Unpublished master's thesis, Allameh Tabatabaii University, Iran.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2020 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb