Email this article A SOCIOPRAGMATIC STUDY OF CAREGIVERS’ REQUEST SPEECH ACT REALISATION PATTERNS IN ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF FOSTER CHILDREN
Abstract
Previous studies indicate that foster caregivers often disregard foster children’s academic progress as they have difficulty in understanding the education system (Zetlin, Weinberg, and Shea, 2006; Watson & Kabler, 1997). This phenomenon may affect the academic performance of the foster children as studies have shown that they lack knowledgeable and reliable academic support in the foster home (Watson & Kabler, 1997). As such, the motivation for this study is to examine the caregivers’ realisation patterns of speech act of requests in addressing the academic needs of foster children so that they would be able to provide educational inspiration to these children. The narratives elicited from the semi-structured interview data are analysed based on Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP) and Takahashi’s (1996) Preparatory Expression Model. The caregivers are found to employ indirect expression, direct and overlapping linguistic expressions when making requests. The frequent use of indirect expression serves to provide strong hints, suggestions, and mitigate the caregivers’ requests, which is clearly seen by the use of contrastive markers, conjunctions, and hedges. Further, direct expression entails wants statements, imperatives, and obligation statements to reinforce the caregivers’ request, which is evident when they employ intensifiers, idioms, and modal verbs. In voicing their concern about the academic needs of the foster children, caregivers make requests for the need of tutors, consistent and continuous financial support, and frequent motivational programmes.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdolrezapour, P. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2012). The effect of using mitigation devices on request compliance in Persian and American English. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 145-163.
Afghari, A. (2007). A Sociopragmatics study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech communication, 49(3), 177-185.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Boicu, R. (2007). Modal verbs and politeness strategies in political discourse. 15-28. Retrieved 19 October 2015, from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45913/1/MPRA_paper_45913.pdf
Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Modifiers as indicating devices: the case of requests. Theoretical Linguistics, 12(s1), 213-230.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain. E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Choice, P., D’Andrade, A., Gunther, K., Downes, D., Schaldach, J., Csiszar, C., & Austin, M. (2001). Education for foster children: Removing barriers to academic success. Berkeley: University of California.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research (4th Edition). Boston: Pearson
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Nasri, N. (2013). A cross-cultural study of speech acts: Situational aspects of congratulations in English, Persian and Arabic. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 15-22.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The Impact of instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL Learners ‘production of requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 782-790.
Dykstra, A. H., & Kucita, P. (1997). School-based management through cluster schools: A case study from Cambodia. Cambodia: UNICEF.
Fukuya, Y., & Clark, K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 10 (pp. 111–130). Urbana, Ill, Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Fukuya, Y., Reeve, M., Gisi, J., & Christianson, M. (1998). Does focus on form work for sociopragmatics? Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning. Urbana, IL.
Ghanbaran, S., Rahimi, M., & Rasekh, A. (2014). Intensifiers in Persian discourse: Apology and compliment speech acts in focus. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 98, 542-551.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social interaction (pp.346-369). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Languages and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Ministry of Education. (2006). The Malaysian cluster school concept. Putrajaya: Author.
Moghaddam, M. (2012). Discourse structures of condolence speech act. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 4(10), 105-125.
Olsson, L. (2000). A study of gender-related differences in introductory letters. Retrieved 3 November 2015, from http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1773/2000/62/LTU-CUPP-0062-SE.pdf
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suraiya Mohd. Ali. (2002). Linguistic politeness in intercultural communication in Japanese. Journal of Modern Languages, 14, 85-111.
Takahashi, S. (1996) Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.
Tongue, R. K. (1979). The English of Singapore and English language 2nd edition. Hong Kong: Eastern Universities.
Watson, C., & Kabler, B. (2012). Improving educational outcomes for children in foster care. Communique, 40(5), 27-29.
Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., & Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education outcomes for children in foster care: Intervention by an education liaison. Journal of Education for Students placed at Risk, 9(4), 421-429.
Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L. & Shea, N. (2006). Seeing the whole picture: Views from diverse participants on barriers to educating foster youth. Children and Schools, 28(3), 165-174.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24200/mjll.vol5iss2pp98-113
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This journal and its content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.