A real interlocutor in elicitation techniques: does it matter?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0022Keywords:
Elicitation techniques, DCT, interlocutor, emailAbstract
This study investigates whether adding a real interlocutor to elicitation techniques would result in requests that are different from those gathered through versions with a hypothetical interlocutor. For this purpose, a written method is chosen. One group of 40 students receive a written discourse completion task (DCT) with two situations that ask respondents to write emails on paper to an imaginary professor. This data is compared to earlier data collected from 27 students, where a group of students composed emails for the same situations and sent them electronically to their professor. Thus, while one group write emails to a hypothetical professor, the other group is provided with a real interlocutor. The data is analyzed for the inclusion of opening and closing moves, density, the level of directness and the choices of moves in the opening and closing sequences, as well as the choices of supportive moves. Results indicate significant differences in (the) level of directness, and the choices of moves in the opening and closing sequences. The other analyses do not show significant differences. The findings reveal that the addition of a real interlocutor does make a difference, albeit not a drastic one. The results have implications for the design of elicitation techniques that aim to simulate real life.
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and S. Shin. 2014. Expanding Traditional Testing Measures with Tasks from L2 Pragmatics Research. Iranian Journal of Language Testing 4(1). 26-49.
Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and G. Kasper. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and N. Lorenzo-Dus. 2008. Natural versus Elicited Data in Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization: The Case of Requests in Peninsular Spanish And British English. Spanish in Context 5(2). 246-277.
Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. 2011. Openings and Closings in Spanish Email Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1772-1785.
Google Scholar
Campbell, N. 2007. Differences in the Speaking Styles of a Japanese Male According To Interlocutor: Showing the Effects of Affect in Conversational Speech. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 12(1). 1-16.
Google Scholar
Casasanto, L. S., Jasmin, K. and D. Casasanto. 2010. Virtually accommodating: Speech rate accommodation to a virtual interlocutor. In S. Ohlsson and R. Catrambone (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society: 127-132.
Google Scholar
Collyer, V. M. 2010. Influence of Interlocutor/Reader on Utterance in Reflective Writing and Interview. Cultural Studies of Science Education 5(1). 169–179.
Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. 2013. Strategies, Modification and Perspective in Native Speakers’ Requests: A Comparison of WDCT and Naturally Occurring Requests. Journal of Pragmatics 53. 21-38.
Google Scholar
Franks, J. J. et al. 2000. Transfer-appropriate Processing (TAP) and Repetition Priming. Memory and Cognition 28(7). 1140-1151.
Google Scholar
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2007. Natural Speech vs. Elicited Data: A Comparison of Natural and Role Play Requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context 4(2). 159-185.
Google Scholar
Golato, A. 2003. Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 90-121.
Google Scholar
Hartford, D. S. and K. Bardovi-Harlig. 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning 3. 33-52.
Google Scholar
Hudson, T., Detmer, E. and J. D. Brown. 1995. Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Google Scholar
Lee, C. et al. 2009. Modeling Mutual Influence of Interlocutor Emotion States in Dyadic Spoken Interactions. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH, Brighton, United Kingdom: 1983-1986.
Google Scholar
McKay, M., Davis, M. and P. Faning. 2009. Messages: The Communication Skills Book. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Google Scholar
Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D. and E. Setoguchi. 2013. Stakeholder Input and Test Design: A Case Study on Changing the Interlocutor Familiarity Facet of the Group Oral Discussion Test. Language Assessment Quarterly 10(3). 292-308.
Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. 1999. Politeness Phenomenon in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Ying, B. 2009. The Impact of Familiarity on Group Oral Proficiency Testing. CELEA Journal 32(2). 114-125.
Google Scholar
Yuan, Y. 2001. An Inquiry Into Empirical Pragmatics Data-gathering Methods: Written DCTs, Oral DCTs, Field Notes, and Natural Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2). 271-292.
Google Scholar
