Volume 3, Issue 1 (3-2018)                   IJREE 2018, 3(1): 35-43 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

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

Akbari J. Enriching Speaking Fluency through Conversational Gambits and Routines among Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. IJREE 2018; 3 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-92-en.html
Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch
Abstract:   (9990 Views)
The activity of speaking is conducted spontaneously and there is not much time devoted to preplanning and arranging the utterances the speaker intends to deliver. Briefly defined, gambits and routines refer to the words and phrases that facilitate the flow of conversations. As such, one way to help learners acquire oral proficiency is to teach gambits that support the social skills emphasized. The present study aimed to investigate the speaking fluency of Iranian intermediate EFL learners through conversational gambits and routines. To this end, the subjects of the present study consisted of an experimental group and a control group each containing 30 students who attended listening and speaking classes. To count the frequency of gambit tokens and identify their functions, the recorded data were analyzed utilizing Keller and Warner’s classification of conversational gambits. The results of the t-test revealed that the experimental group possessed better speaking fluency based on the occurrences of gambit categories. There was a positive correlation between the number of gambits and the scores of fluency test. Evidently, the findings of the present study may have implications for EFL teachers and syllabus designers.

Full-Text [PDF 316 kb]   (3268 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and pre- patterned speech. The Hague: Moutan. [DOI:10.1017/S0047404500000208]
2. Edwards, L. (2007). Oxford solutions placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). New York: Longman.
4. Keller, E. (1979). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(3/4), 219-238. [DOI:10.1016/0378-2166(79)90032-8]
5. Keller, E. (1981). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 93-113). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. [DOI:10.1515/9783110809145.93]
6. Keller, E., & Warner, S. T. (1994). Gambits. England: Canadian Government Publication Centre. Longman dictionary of American English (4th Ed.). England: Laurence Delacroix.
7. Keller, E., & Warner, S. T. (2002). Conversation gambits: Real English conversation practices (3rd Ed.). Boston: Language Teaching Publications.
8. Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145-164. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001]
9. Norton, D. E. (1980). The effective teaching of language arts. Columbus, Ohio: C.E. Merrill Pub. Co., c1980. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/30098707
10. Roever, C. (2011). What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66(1), 10-21. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq090 [DOI:10.1093/elt/ccq090]
11. Sorhus, H. B. (1997). To hear ourselves: Implications for the teaching of English as a second language. English Language Teaching Journal, 31(3), 211–221. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ158998
12. Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180-205. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.2.180 [DOI:10.1093/applin/16.2.180]
13. Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489. [DOI:10.1093/applin/21.4.463]
14. Yorio, C. A. (1980). Conventionalized language forms and the development of communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 433–442. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ236859 [DOI:10.2307/3586232]
15. Yorio, C. A. (1992). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 55-72). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

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

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb